A 'coup' in Honduras? Nonsense.

A comment from Jonathan on my last piece on Honduras pointed to this piece in the Christian Science Monitor in which writer Octavio Sánchez essentially corroborates the position I took regarding this week's developments in that country:

A 'coup' in Honduras? Nonsense.
Don't believe the myth. The arrest of President Zelaya represents the triumph of the rule of law.
By Octavio Sánchez
from the July 2, 2009 edition

Tegucigalpa, Honduras - Sometimes, the whole world prefers a lie to the truth. The White House, the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and much of the media have condemned the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya this past weekend as a coup d'état.

That is nonsense.

In fact, what happened here is nothing short of the triumph of the rule of law.

The piece goes on to give a very brief and clear assessment of what happened in Honduras this past Sunday and quotes the Honduran Constitution and its provisions that were violated by then President Zelaya, triggering his removal by the Honduran Supreme Court and the Congress.

The perspective presented by Sanchez is so compelling that I was tempted to quote his entire column here. But out of respect for copyright, I strongly encourage you to follow this link to the article in its original location on the Christian Science Monitor website.
 

Obama on Honduras: Getting it wrong--again

The Obama administration said Wednesday it has suspended joint military operations with Honduras to protest a coup that forced President Manuel Zelaya into exile. The U.S. withheld stronger action in hopes of negotiating a peaceful return of the country's elected leader.

The administration appeared to be counting on the threat of Honduras having its OAS membership suspended as leverage in getting Zelaya back in power. While the administration joined the OAS in calling for Zelaya's unconditional return, with no limits on his presidential powers, it also seemed open to some form of compromise.

I have been absolutely aghast (though not terribly surprised) at the position the Obama administration has taken on the recent deposition of the president of Honduras--a position that puts Obama squarely in line with dictators Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. News accounts of how this episode in Honduras began are now falling off the radar of the mainstream media. But Reuters provides this bit of background:

World leaders from President Barack Obama to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez have told the new rulers of the Central American country to restore Zelaya, a leftist who was toppled by the army on Sunday and sent into exile after a dispute over presidential term limits.

Translation: "a dispute over presidential term limits" means Zelaya was trying to make himself into a dictator, and he was deposed for his attempt to subvert the Honduran Constitution by the military with the support of the Honduran people, the Congress, and the courts. As the Reuters account also states:

Public support for Zelaya, a wealthy businessman, had dropped as low as 30 percent in recent months, with many Hondurans uncomfortable over his tilt to the left in a country with a longtime conservative, pro-Washington position.

Yes, Zelaya had been tilting toward the left--in the direction of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro--and why shouldn't he? Leftist leaders from Latin America are now on the White House "A" List. They're best buds with Obama!

The poor Honduran people who have been faithful allies of the United States for decades haven't gotten the message that there is a new Socialist Sheriff in Washington. "Communism good; capitalism bad."

Now, of course, with Obama signaling that he wants to see Zelaya returned to power, the Organization of American States (OAS) can clearly tell which way the wind is blowing and is making threats against Honduras. Worse still, Chavez may take Obama's signal as an okay to use military intervention to restore Zelaya to power.

So, thanks to the President of the United States, we may witness a war in Central America to insert a Socialist dictator into power and to transfer a nation that was once the US' staunchest ally in the region into the camp of Chavez and Castro. Is anybody paying attention?

Pray for the people of Honduras!
 

Spare me the gurus, please.

Reading the news on Sunday can be a trying experience. The media usually think we have had enough of finance and politics during the working days of the week; and so, except for a couple of political talk shows on the television networks, the print and internet media usually think it is time for feature stories--the sort we can read while enjoying a leisurely Sunday brunch and come away feeling that, more than mere facts, we have perspective!

So, in contrast to Monday's stories that will usually give me a preview of what is to come during the week, whether on Wall Street or Capitol Hill, midweek stories that tell me about unfolding events, or Friday's stories that give me a wrap of the week's developments, Sunday's news is aimed at giving me culture.

This is, at least for me, often a trying experience. As one who generally tends to regard contemporary culture with a mixture of suspicion and detatched amusement, and who feels there is wisdom in the old adage that Christians are to be in the world but not of the world, as a youth I memorized 1 John 2:15-17,

"Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever."

Surveying the news headlines on a typical Sunday only tends to reinforce the wisdom of my conviction.

Today's stories are all aimed at giving us perspective on the death of Michael Jackson. I got on a plane on Thursday just as the news of Farah Fawcett's death was blaring over the airport television screens and got off that same plane greeted by the news that Michael Jackson had died. "How sad!" I thought. "A brave and compassionate woman's heroic fight against cancer (from which we all could learn something) has ended. But that news is going to be quickly eclipsed by the death of a self-destructive freak and child molester."

And sure enough, we are in full eclipse. Fawcett and Jackson died on the same day, yet by today Farah is nowhere to be seen, but the headlines are awash with stories on Jackson, especially dealing with the role that prescription drugs may have played in his death. It all looks eerily familiar. My wife and I lived two blocks from Graceland when Elvis Presley died. We've seen this before.

Article # 1 tells me that the Rev. Jesse Jackson (no relation to Michael) revealed that Michael Jackson's family wanted a second, private autopsy of the pop superstar because of unanswered questions about how he died.

"It's abnormal," Jesse Jackson said from Chicago a day after visiting the Jackson family. "We don't know what happened. Was he injected and with what? All reasonable doubt should be addressed."

Well I am certainly glad that the Rev. Mr. Jackson is there to hog the spotlight provide pastoral care. All the police, doctors, lawyers, agents, and real clergy surrounding the Jackson family were obviously incapable of dealing with this situation until Jesse arrived.

Article #2 takes me to a video of "medical doctor and spiritual advisor" Deepak Chopra giving his take on Michael Jackson's death, complete with photos taken of the two men together, in one photo even posing together wearing matching hats. How cute!

But the main feature on MSNBC, on this Sunday when the media wants to give me "perspective," is this story:

On marriage: Let’s call the whole thing off
Author Sandra Tsing Loh is ending her marriage. Is it time you did, too?

The story features a short video of Sandra Tsing Loh and psychiatrist Gail Saltz talking with TODAY’s Meredith Vieira about "the case against marriage" suggesting that "marriage made sense prior to 1900 when we were an agrarian society" but in today's more sophisticated, gender neutral society, marriage is outmoded--all because this particular woman who happens to be an author has decided that her marriage is over. And she is being held out as a guru for the rest of us. But not to fear: the story ends on an upbeat, hopeful note about marriage (the media know better than to depress their readers too much) and is followed by (surprise!) a series of stories on how couples can save their marriages and enhance their sex lives (with commentary from more media gurus), ending with a story on "shopping for a perfect husband" that concludes that a woman is better off with "an average looking guy who does the dishes." Okay, that's it. Guru overload. Closing my web browser NOW!

But since it is Sunday, the day of Christ's Resurrection, could there be a better perspective? Let's look first and foremost at the perspective of the One who created us:

"To God belong wisdom and power;
counsel and understanding are his.

What he tears down cannot be rebuilt;
the man he imprisons cannot be released.

If he holds back the waters, there is drought;
if he lets them loose, they devastate the land.

To him belong strength and victory;
both deceived and deceiver are his.

He leads counselors away stripped
and makes fools of judges. (Job 12:13-17)

How do we have God's perspective on our lives?

Remember your word to your servant,
for you have given me hope.
My comfort in my suffering is this:
Your promise preserves my life.

The arrogant mock me without restraint,
but I do not turn from your law.

I remember your ancient laws, O LORD,
and I find comfort in them.

Indignation grips me because of the wicked,
who have forsaken your law.

Your decrees are the theme of my song
wherever I lodge.

In the night I remember your name, O LORD,
and I will keep your law.

This has been my practice:
I obey your precepts.

You are my portion, O LORD;
I have promised to obey your words.
I have sought your face with all my heart;
be gracious to me according to your promise.

I have considered my ways
and have turned my steps to your statutes.

I will hasten and not delay
to obey your commands.

Though the wicked bind me with ropes,
I will not forget your law.

At midnight I rise to give you thanks
for your righteous laws.

I am a friend to all who fear you,
to all who follow your precepts.

The earth is filled with your love, O LORD;
teach me your decrees. (Psalm 119:49-64)

So, spare me the gurus, please. And in the words of the gospel song, "Give me Jesus!"

(I hope you enjoy the beautiful video.)


 

Rebuild My Church!

Traveling through Italy the past couple of weeks on Nashotah House's Archbishop Michael Ramsey Society pilgrimage, we spent a couple of days in Assisi, home to St. Francis. I found myself drawn to return more than once to the church of St. Clare, where, in a side chapel, hangs the large crucifix that once hung in the church in San Damiano. It was before this crucifix, in the summer of the year 1206, that Francis had the experience that sealed his conversion.

Francis had always possessed a heart that was concerned for God and for others, but he began to be increasingly convicted that his father's obsession with money, his mother's concerns for his health, and his own desires for sumptuous foods, lavish clothes, and extravagant parties were something he needed to renounce in response to the call of God for his life.

Francis frequently took walks in the countryside around Assisi, and one of his favorite paths took him past the church of San Damiano, a tumbling down, deserted chapel halfway down a steep hill outside the walls of the city. In this decrepit place hung a large, almost life size painted icon of Jesus on the Cross.

One summer day, in 1206, Francis was walking in the vicinity of San Damiano when he felt an interior tug of the Spirit to go inside to pray. Obeying the inner voice, Francis entered and fell on his knees before the familiar icon, his own spirit alert to what the Lord might wish to convey.

In eager anticipation, Francis looked up into the serene face of the crucified Lord, and prayed this prayer: "Most High, glorious God," he prayed, "cast your light into the darkness of my heart. Give me, Lord, right faith, firm hope, perfect charity, and profound humility, with wisdom and perception, so that I may carry out what is truly Your holy will. Amen." Ever more quietly he repeated the prayer, lost in devotion and wonder before the image of his crucified Lord.

Then, in the quietness, Francis heard Jesus speaking to him from the Cross: "Go, Francis, and repair my house, which as you can see, is falling into ruin." Another translation gives these words as, "Francis, don't you see that my house is being destroyed? Go, then, and rebuild it for me." In short, "Rebuild My Church!"

So Francis looked around at the crumbling church of San Damiano, gathered some of his friends together and rebuilt it. Then they went out and began restoring other church buildings in the vicinity of Assisi that were in need of repair. Only gradually did Francis realize that "rebuild my church" meant to reform the institution, to rebuild it by witnessing to the truth of the faith and calling people to renewed faithfulness to Christ and commitment to His mission.

As I spent time in Assisi last week, I had the opportunity to reflect on Jesus' call to Francis and what those words might mean for me today. Certainly as we look around we see a Church that is in need of repair and rebuilding--whether it is the institutional churches of "mainline Christianity" in America, or the Church as it exists in areas of the world that are deemed "post-Christian," or churches of all types in every place that are wracked by materialism, hedonism, apathy, and lack of commitment.

I believe that, in the midst of these circumstances, God is calling faithful Christians to rebuild the Church, (1) by renewing their own witness to the truth of the Christian faith, (2) by reflecting God's holiness and love to each other and especially to those who need to know Jesus as their Savior and Lord, (3) by giving visible expression to the unity of all faithful Christians whenever and wherever possible, and (4) by being the Church even when the institutional churches of which they are a part may fail at that same calling.

Almighty Father, whose blessed Son before his passion prayed
for his disciples that they might be one, as you and he are one:
Grant that your Church, being bound together in love and
obedience to you, may be united in one body by the one Spirit,
that the world may believe in him whom you have sent, your
Son Jesus Christ our Lord; who lives and reigns with you, in
the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

 

No Other Religion

Recently, I have been following the story of how the Christian Children's Fund is changing its name to ChildFund International--announced by their board as "a new strategy and globally unified name and brand to help us reach more children, more effectively."

Now never mind the jargon in that quotation (what the heck does "globally unified name and brand" actually mean?), or the new name which consists of two words--both capitalized--jammed together without a space (a currently popular branding technique that will look as dated as a Formica dinette 30 years from now). For that matter never mind the fact that this organization is dropping the word "Christian" from its name, as though it were some last vestige of 19th century colonialism (which is precisely what the politically correct crowd would have us believe). The point I want to make has to do with the mere fact that organizations such as the Christian Children's Fund even exist in our world.

A few days later, I happened to read about another organization, known as Children International, which has been in existence for about as long as the newly-branded ChildFund International (about 70 years). (Does anyone besides me see a lot of confusion down the road for these two, similarly-named organizations?) Regardless of the naming disaster, both these organizations apparently do a lot of good.

Then there are two organizations I personally support, Compassion International and World Vision. Then there is a whole host of organizations I have only heard of and cannot recommend: Just try Googling the words, "child" or "children" and "support," and you'll see what I mean. The list is almost endless.

But notice one thing: All of these organizations can date their founding to the work of Christians in generations gone by. Can anyone point to a Buddhist, Muslim, or Hindu organization that does this kind of work?

NO OTHER RELIGION--not Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Shinto, etc. (nor any secular organization)--is as responsible for founding ministries to children, orphanages, hospitals, or schools--or contemporary efforts to rehabilitate drug addicts, liberate women and children from the sex trade, or guarantee basic human rights as are Christian churches.

Perhaps there is something different in the religion whose Founder taught us to "love one another" and who gave His own life out of love to free everyone who calls on His name from sin and darkness.

Think about that the next time someone tells you there is no difference between Christianity and other religions, or a secularist acts as if there is no value in Christianity.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16

"Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." John 15:13

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another." John 13:34

 

Nashotah House confers three honorary degrees; J.I. Packer addresses graduates

Good and accurate reporting from Episcopal Life Online regarding the Nashotah House Commencement:

Nashotah House confers three honorary degrees
May 21, 2009
[Nashotah House] Nashotah House Theological Seminary in Wisconsin awarded three Doctor of Divinity degrees, honoris causa, during its May 14 commencement ceremony.

The degree recipients were Bishop Suffragan Paul E. Lambert of the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas; the Rev. Jonathan Baker, principal of Pusey House at Oxford University; and the Rev. J. I. Packer, Anglican theologian, author and executive editor of Christianity Today.

A prolific writer and lecturer, Packer is perhaps best known for his 1973 book Knowing God, now considered a modern classic. He has also served as general editor for the English Standard Version of the Bible and was a contributor to the watershed Evangelicals and Catholics Together: Toward a Common Mission, the ecumenical project launched by Charles Colson and the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus. Packer has also collaborated on books with Thomas Howard and Thomas Oden, and remains a seminal thinker in contemporary Anglicanism.
[...]

Read it all.
 

A Deposit of Hope

We have just had an extraordinary Commencement at Nashotah House--actually an entire week filled with a golf tournament on the world-renowned championship courses at Kohler, Wisconsin, our annual Alumni Mass and Reunion, an Alumni/student football game, our Commencement and Trustees meeting, followed by the Ordination of five of our graduates to the priesthood on Saturday, and the Baptism of one the daughter of one of our graduates on Sunday morning--not to mention dinners, receptions, and a lot of fun and fellowship in between.

Highlights of the week: Conferring honorary doctoral degrees on Dr. J.I. Packer, who served as our Commencement speaker, Bp. Paul Lambert, an alumnus and Suffragan Bishop of Dallas, and Fr. Jonathan Baker, the Principal of Pusey House, Oxford. Now think about that for a minute--simultaneously conferring degrees on one of the Anglican Communion's most noted Evangelicals and the Principal of one of the Communion's leading Anglo-Catholic institutions--yet both these men can find their essential unity in the Gospel. If there is a hopeful model for an Anglican future, this is it!

I have been too busy to blog--and will be for the next few days, as we have our year-end faculty conference. But Father Dan Martins has recounted his impressions of his return to his seminary alma mater over at his blog in a post entitled: A Deposit of Hope. Fr. Martins has captured exactly what we hope Nashotah House is and will continue to be. Thanks be to God! And keep us in your prayers.

PERFIDY!

A letter to the The Most Rev. and Rt. Hon. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury:

Your Grace,

A statement released today by Professors Christopher Seitz, Philip Turner, and Ephraim Radner, and Attorney Mark McCall states: "Friday’s session of the Anglican Consultative Council is an embarrassment to Anglicans everywhere, and a sad display of procedural confusion."

I would go further than saying "procedural confusion." It is, as reports from Professor Stephen Noll and others are calling it: PERFIDY. It is a betrayal of every Anglican who has looked to the Covenant process to bring desperately needed order to our life as a Communion.

I urge you to take note of the two recommendations made by Prof. Seitz, et al in their statement:

(1) This issue must be re-visited immediately by the ACC and voted upon in a lawful and proper manner during this meeting. The alternative is moving forward with lasting questions as to the legitimacy of the entire process.

(2)An explanation must be offered by those in charge of these proceedings, including the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Chairman of the ACC, as to how such manifestly improper procedures were permitted to unfold from the outset of Friday’s session and, indeed, of ACC-14 itself.

If lawful and proper action on the Covenant is not forthcoming from this meeting of the Council, the only appropriate response is for the Churches of the Communion to begin themselves the process of adopting the Ridley Cambridge Text."

It is painfully obvious to observers in many quarters that the continuation of the Communion depends on your actions in this matter.

Respectfully yours in Christ,

The Very Rev. Robert S. Munday, Ph.D.
Dean and President
Professor of Systematic Theology
Nashotah House Theological Seminary


NOTE: Let the Archbishop of Canterbury know your opinion! You can do it here: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1531?navid=102&formid=10.

Kevin Thew Forrester and the question of "open communion"

Stand Firm is running a thread in which they are asking:

(1) Do you accept or oppose The Episcopal Church offering communion to all who wish it, including the unbaptized?

(2) If no, because such communion is in violation of the canons of the Church, do you then accept or oppose the revision of the canons such that parishes may offer communion to all who wish it, including the unbaptized, legally and canonically?

It will probably come as no surprise to anyone that I am opposed on both counts. But what I want to point out is the connection between this question of "open communion" (which in current Episcopal Church usage means the giving of Communion to the unbaptized) and the theology of Kevin Thew Forrester which has been discussed in numerous blogs and articles.

The connection has to do with the concern noted by Bishop Breidenthal when he explained his "no" vote to his diocese:

According to Thew Forrester, Jesus revealed in his own person the way that any of us can be at one with God, if only we can overcome the blindness that prevents us from recognizing our essential unity with God. The problem here is that the death of Jesus as an atonement for our sins is completely absent, and purposely so. As I read Thew Forrester, nothing stands between us and God but our own ignorance of our closeness to God. When our eyes are opened, atonement (not for our sins, but understood as a realization of our essential unity with God) is achieved.

Or, to quote Thew Forrester directly:

Zen offers a method, you might say, to see what Jesus saw in his own baptism: that we are indeed beloved by God. There is no need to cling to anything in the desperate hope that it is what will make us acceptable before God. All of creation is always already accepted by God as it is.

This notion also underlies the idea of "open communion:" All people are already accepted by God. There is no being "outside" or "inside" of the people of God. There are only the barriers of exclusion that we put there--either through our exclusion of others or through our own self-exclusion by not realizing our essential unity with God. Therefore the purpose of open communion is to be radically inclusive and, by inviting all people to God's table, to help them realize their acceptance and unity with God.

It is, of course, true that we are beloved by God (John 3:16). But Scripture also reminds us that, "God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8).

Our condition before and after we came to Christ is described this way:

For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. (Colossians 1:13-14)

Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation—-if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. (Colossians 1:21-23)

What is absent from Thew Forrester's theology is an understanding of the lostness and sinfulness of humanity as a result of the Fall, and the necessity of the Atonement and conversion. When reception of the Holy Eucharist is offered to those who have not repented of their sins and put on Christ in Baptism, the very supper that represents what God has done for us in Christ to bring us to Himself is instead presented in a way that denies our separation from God apart from Christ. In such a way, the Communion is made to deny the necessity of the very Atonement it is supposed to represent.

I know that there are some who offer the Holy Eucharist to everyone in attendance because they have been taught that inclusion is always good, or because they simply feel it is bad manners not to invite guests to the table. But they need to realize that there are far more serious issues at stake. The universalism that is all too common in the Episcopal Church and that is explicit in the theology of Kevin Thew Forrester is implicit in the practice of open communion.
 

"To the Shores of Tripoli"

The world continues to watch the unfolding story of Captain Phillips from the Maersk Alabama, held hostage by pirates in a lifeboat off the coast of Somalia. Pirates operating from Somalia now hold about a dozen ships with more than 200 crew members, according to the International Maritime Bureau, a piracy watchdog group based in Malaysia. The bureau lists 66 attacks since January, not including this most recent attack on the Alabama.

For those who are so inclined, the Wikipedia articles on the First and Second Barbary Wars and this piece by Christopher Hitchens from Time make for interesting reading. Actions by US Marines in the Barbary Wars are memorialized in the familiar line from the Marine Anthem, "to the shores of Tripoli."

Of note in both of the above articles is this quote:

"...it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners."

It seems that as with the Barbary Pirates of two hundred years ago, or countries such as Somalia and Sudan today, Islam, piracy, and slavery go hand in hand. It is also noteworthy that two hundred years ago, the nascent United States of America had to use its newly established Navy and Marines to subdue the Barbary Pirates, while the nations of Europe were content to pay them tribute. Nothing much has changed in that regard either.

But, also in that regard, the Somali coastline is no longer than the one from which the Barbary Pirates operated. I wonder how long it would take today's American air and sea power to destroy every ocean-capable vessel on the Somali coast. The real question is whether we have a European-style wimp as President, or one like Thomas Jefferson who was determined that this injustice should not prevail.

Semper Fi!

Meacham: The End of Christian America

Jon Meacham, writing in Newsweek notes that the percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen 10 points in the past two decades and tells how that statistic explains who Americans are now—and what, as a nation, we are about to become.

Read it all.

Larry King: "But Somebody's Gotta Think for the Masses.

Penn Jillette, of the comedy duo Penn & Teller, was on Larry King Live last night, along with MSNBC's Stephanie Miller, when Larry King asked Penn Jillette, "Penn, do you want Obama to succeed?" (You have to know that this was an allusion to the much-quoted line from Rush Limbaugh who said he hopes Obama fails.)

Jillette answers: "...If what succeeding means is taking away -- giving too much of a safety net so that we can't live like Vegas, there's no reason to gamble if you can't lose, and I think it's really important that people have a chance to win and to fail, and I think too much of a safety net, it's just less fun to live."

So Larry King asks Stephanie Miller, "Stephanie, do you want him to succeed no matter what the success brings?"

Miller, alluding to Rush Limbaugh's remark, says: "Rush Limbaugh said if Obama fails, America wins. How does that make sense to any rational person? You know--"

Jillette interjects: "Depends on what you want."

Whereupon Larry King continues: "If his programs brought about health insurance that pleased all, taxes that pleased most, a better way of life for a lot of people, then that's the kind of success you would think you'd like."

And Jillette replies: "If you please everybody on anything you're do something wrong. But luckily there's no chance of that. I just think that individuals are more important than a whole kind of groupthink and that individuals can do more than a top down kind of thinking. I don't think the government can solve all our problems or should try."

King answers: "We do have 300 million people. You can be individuals as much as you like..."

Miller adds: "We do."

And then Larry King gives the whole game away: "but somebody's gotta think for the masses."

SOMEBODY'S GOTTA THINK FOR THE MASSES!!! (Yup, that's what Larry said! He seems really glad we now have a "Messiah" who can do just that.)

"ATTENTION: George Orwell--please call your office."

Reflections on a Buddhist Bishop-elect

The thing that has struck me ever since the matter of the Buddhist Bishop-elect became news is that the blame (if I may use that word) for where he is does not ultimately lie with him. The ultimate responsibility for a Buddhist Bishop-elect and a Muslim Episcopal priest (and countless other permutations of syncretism and unbelief among clergy that simply haven’t come to light) belongs to an Episcopal Church where probably NO ONE along the path of their journies ever said to them, “This is wrong. Here are the claims of authentic Christianity, and you can’t reconcile them with Buddhism or Islam.” In fact, Kevin Thew Forrester’s late Bishop even commended him publicly for walking the path of Zen Buddhism and Christianity together.

The most tragic dimension is that Kevin Thew Forrester and Ann Holmes Redding learned Buddhism and Islam from people who were true believers and enthusiastic practioners of those religions, while they learned a deconstructed, demythologized, desupernaturalized version of Christianity from teachers who had long since surrendered their belief in authentic Christianity (if indeed they ever believed it) in the face of challenges from Christianity’s “cultured despisers” (to use Schleiermacher’s term). (The lesson here is that liberal Christianity is no match for the challenge of other religions.)

So, presented with an eviscerated version of Christianity on the one hand, and a sincere expression of Buddhism and Islam on the other hand--in the midst of a pluralistically, multiculturally-oriented church where merely being a “spiritual person” is enough to become a priest, and you have what we are seeing in Kevin Thew Forrester and Ann Holmes Redding.

But the ultimate responsibility for these two examples (and, to repeat myself, countless others like them that aren’t in the spotlight) lies with the parishes that raised them up, the clergy who mentored them, the discernment process that sent them toward ordination, the seminaries that trained them, and the Bishops who ordained them. You cannot raise up true leaders in a faith that you yourselves do not possess. And that is the real tragedy of this whole affair.

Dialogue or Syncretism? -- "Tri-Faith Initiative" has big plans for Omaha

Here's some potentially major news from Omaha. Is it syncretism or merely interfaith dialogue?   You be the judge.

A remarkable project is taking place in Omaha, Nebraska.  The Episcopal Diocese of Nebraska, Temple Israel and the American Institute of Islamic Studies and Culture have come together, planning to build a joint campus which will house a mosque, a temple and a church plus a shared facility on a large campus.  [Emphasis and links added.]

This is the only undertaking of its kind we know of in the world. On this site we will keep you in touch with the progress on the plans for the Tri-Faith campus and other news of successful interfaith projects around the nation and around the world.

The first major public program will be the March 27 event featuring Rabbi Peter Knobel of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, Dr. Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America and Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori of The Episcopal Church.  The evening at The Qwest Center will feature a worship service starting at 5:30 p.m., followed by a dinner and a conversation among the faith leaders on the theme of “Shalom, Salaam, Peace.”  [Emphasis and links added.]

The theme of peace is central to all three of the Abrahamic faiths and is included in daily and weekly worship.  In all three faith groups, in the midst of our prayer time, we turn to our neighbors and offer them words and signs of peace.  Whether we say “Shalom”, “Salaam” or “Peace be with you,” the message is the same — the need to be reconciled with our neighbors as we seek to be reconciled with our God.

UPDATE: According to this item, the "conversation" part of the March 27 event will be webcast:

Breaking News: We have been able to make arrangements to webcast the “Conversation on Peace” live from the Qwest that night. Just before 8 p.m. Central Time Friday night, log onto this website and you will be able to click through to the webcast at mms://209.200.118.182/tfilive.   (If you try to go there now it will just come up as a Windows Media screen.)

[Off-topic] Presidential Double-Talk

Barack Obama has been in office fewer than 100 days. Wall Street is running scared from his tax-and-spend economic policies, and consumer confidence is at an all-time low.

Now from Newsweek comes this stinging indictment of the "Yes-we-can!" president who, it seems, is out to insure that the US becomes "the-Nation-that-can-no-longer-afford-to."

The amazing thing is that this article wasn't written by Rush Limbaugh, it comes from Newsweek--one of the mainstream media cheerleaders that helped get Obama elected.

Here's a two paragraph sample:

A prudent president would have made a "tough choice"— concentrated on the economy, deferred his more contentious agenda. Similarly, Obama claims to seek bipartisanship but, in reality, doesn't. His bipartisanship consists of sprinkling his cabinet with token Republicans and inviting some Republican members of Congress to the White House to watch the Super Bowl. It does not consist of fashioning proposals that would attract bipartisan support on their merits. Instead, he clings to dubious, partisan policies (mortgage cramdown, union checkoff) that arouse fierce opposition.

It is Obama's conceit—perhaps his cockiness—that he can ignore these blatant inconsistencies. Like many smart people, he believes he can talk his way around any problem. Perhaps he can. In this, he has an ally in much of the mainstream media, which seem so enthralled with him that they can't recognize glaring contradictions. During the campaign, Obama claimed he would change Washington's petty partisanship; he also advocated a highly partisan agenda. Both claims could not be true. The media barely noticed; the same obliviousness persists. But Obama still runs a risk: that his overworked rhetoric loses its power and boomerangs on him.

Kudos to columnist Robert J. Samuelson for telling it like it is.

Read it all here.
 

More from Athanasius

Before I digressed with my last post, I was citing Athanasius' On the Incarnation. As C. S. Lewis noted in the Introduction, it is a marvelous book, profound in its simplicity, and powerful in its testimony to the Truth.

Consider the following:

In regard to the making of the universe and the creation of all things there have been various opinions, and each person has propounded the theory that suited his own taste. For instance, some say that all things are self-originated and, so to speak, haphazard. The Epicureans are among these; they deny that there is any Mind behind the universe at all. This view is contrary to all the facts of experience, their own existence included. For if all things had come into being in this automatic fashion, instead of being the outcome of Mind, though they existed, they would all be uniform and without distinction. In the universe everything would be sun or moon or whatever it was, and in the human body the whole would be hand or eye or foot. But in point of fact the sun and the moon and the earth are all different things, and even within the human body there are different members, such as foot and hand and head. This distinctness of things argues not a spontaneous generation but a prevenient Cause; and from that Cause we can apprehend God, the Designer and Maker of all.

Evolutionists should take note of the preceding paragraph, just as Mormons and others should take note of the following:

Others take the view expressed by Plato, that giant among the Greeks. He said that God had made all things out of pre-existent and uncreated matter, just as the carpenter makes things only out of wood that already exists. But those who hold this view do not realize that to deny that God is Himself the Cause of matter is to impute limitation to Him, just as it is undoubtedly a limitation on the part of the carpenter that he can make nothing unless he has the wood. How could God be called Maker and Artificer if His ability to make depended on some other cause, namely on matter itself? If He only worked up existing matter and did not Himself bring matter into being, He would be not the Creator but only a craftsman.

New Agers, Wiccans, and neo-Pagans of all sorts might note this:

Then, again, there is the theory of the Gnostics, who have invented for themselves an Artificer of all things other than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. These simply shut their eyes to the obvious meaning of Scripture. For instance, the Lord, having reminded the Jews of the statement in Genesis, "He Who created them in the beginning made them male and female. . . ," and having shown that for that reason a man should leave his parents and cleave to his wife, goes on to say with reference to the Creator, "What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder."[Matt. 19:4-6.] How can they get a creation independent of the Father out of that? And, again, St. John, speaking all inclusively, says, "All things became by Him and without Him came nothing into being.[John 1:3] How then could the Artificer be someone different, other than the Father of Christ?

Such are the notions which men put forward. But the impiety of their foolish talk is plainly declared by the divine teaching of the Christian faith. From it we know that, because there is Mind behind the universe, it did not originate itself; because God is infinite, not finite, it was not made from pre-existent matter, but out of nothing and out of non-existence absolute and utter God brought it into being through the Word.

Read it all here.

Silencing the Watchmen

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

Markell had this to say in a recent column:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the whole article.

"Faith... whole and undefiled"

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

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

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

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

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

Why I am a "mere Christian"

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

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

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

An Unworkable Theology

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

Read it here.

Divine Impulses: Katharine Jefferts Schori

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



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

What is Jesus Doing?

WWJD?

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

WWJB?

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

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

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

WIJD?

What Is Jesus Doing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Falling numbers

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

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

Specifically, he said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Surging shoppers kill New York Wal-Mart worker

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What can we learn from Mars Hill?

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

History

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article XXIII. Of Ministering in the Congregation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presiding Bishop Issues Statement On Diocese Of Quincy Departure

Proposition 8 and anti-religious bigotry

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

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

Reflections on the morning after

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

Sometimes we get the leadership we deserve

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

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

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

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

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