WASHINGTON - The Obama administration expects the federal deficit over the next decade to be $2 trillion bigger than previously estimated, White House officials said Friday, a setback for a president already facing a Congress and public wary over spending.
At first, it puzzled me that the Obama administration would issue a report so potentially damaging to their own spending plans. Then I read the final paragraph:
Such deficits have always prompted Congress and the White House to take politically painful steps to curb them, such as former President Bill Clinton's tax-heavy 1993 deficit reduction plan. A companion effort by Obama could force him to break his promise to not raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 a year.
Then I understood: It is an excuse to go back on a promise not to raise taxes on the middle middle class, without which Obama might not have been elected. So Obama's answer to increased deficits isn't to curb outrageous government spending like a phony stimulus plan, "billions for clunkers," and socialized medicine. Instead, his solution is to loot the middle class.
Human Events, with the help of the Heritage Foundation, lists the top ten reasons Obamacare is wrong for America:
1. Millions Will Lose Their Current Insurance: President Obama wants Americans to believe they can keep their insurance if they like. Proposed economic incentives, plus a government-run health plan would cause 88.1 million people to see their current employer-sponsored health plan disappear.
KHARTOUM (Reuters) - Sudan has barred Lubna Hussein, a woman who faces 40 lashes for wearing trousers in violation of decency laws, from traveling abroad, she said Tuesday.
Hussein said she tried to leave for Lebanon Tuesday after a television channel asked her to appear in a program there.
"It emerged when I tried to get an exit visa that my name was on a blacklist," she told Reuters. "There is no way to get out of Sudan."
Hussein was arrested at a party in July and, with 12 other women, charged with being indecently dressed. A former reporter, Hussein has publicized her case, posing in loose trousers for photos and calling journalists to support her.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue.
Federal funds for abortions are now restricted to cases involving rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. Abortion opponents say those restrictions should carry over to any health insurance sold through a new marketplace envisioned under the legislation, an exchange where people would choose private coverage or the public plan.
Abortion rights supporters say that would have the effect of denying coverage for abortion to millions of women who now have it through workplace insurance and are expected to join the exchange.
Apart from the article's emphasis on the abortion issue, notice the incidental fact that is revealed in that last sentence: "millions of women who now have it [abortion coverage] through workplace insurance and are expected to join the exchange." This is a direct admission that government insurance will replace private insurance for millions of people, leading to the demise of private healthcare insurance and the establishment of a single-payer, government-controlled healthcare system.
Write or call your senators and representatives today and urge their opposition to this legislation.
A number of literary sayings crossed my mind when I saw that the Archbishop of Canterbury has (finally, today) issued a statement in response to the actions of the Episcopal Church's General Convention, which ended ten days ago. The first thought that came to me was a paraphrase of T.S. Eliot's line, "This is the way the Communion dies, not with a bang but a whimper." Because, although I pray that I am wrong, there isn't nearly enough in Rowan Williams' statement to reassure me that this isn't the Anglican Communion's fate. Indeed, the very weakness (and studied ambiguity) of Dr. Williams' statement may be a factor in pushing the Communion toward that end.
Regarding the Archbishop's delay in issuing his response, I have no doubt that he has spent most of the past ten days laboring and consulting with trusted advisers on this statement. It might well be the defining statement of his career. But when it comes to the actual effect this statement might have on the Communion he is supposed to lead, the saying that comes to mind is, "The mountain labored and brought forth a mouse." The statement is thoroughly considered, carefully crafted, finely nuanced--and, in the end, says very little and accomplishes even less.
When a sizable majority in both houses of the Episcopal Church's General Convention passed resolutions ending restraint in the matter of consecrating non-celibate homosexuals to the episcopate and agreeing to provide a "generous pastoral response" (i.e., blessing marriages) for gay and lesbian couples, it was not a matter of making merely hypothetical statements. There are bishops and deputies who are coming away from the General Convention intending to act on those resolutions.
There is nothing in Rowan Williams' statement that would deter those in the liberal camp from acting on those resolutions; and his words are cold comfort to conservatives who have been deeply wounded by their passage, and who will be further wounded and alienated when their intent is carried out.
To be sure, the statement from Canterbury could say something. When Rowan starts down the path of "there is at least the possibility of a twofold ecclesial reality in view in the middle distance" it could mean that his relationship to the Episcopal church has suffered damage, just as the fabric of the Communion has been torn by the Episcopal church's unilateral actions. It could even mean that he is going to turn around next week and recognize the Anglican Church in North America and/or the Communion Partner dioceses as a separate ecclesial reality. It could mean all that--but I would be astounded if it did.
Of course, the Covenant to which Rowan alludes could be in place and could be already defining the "Anglican Future" with which Rowan seems concerned. Except that--oh, my--Rowan himself saw to it that the Covenant didn't make it out of the Jamaica conference, but was given to the Joint Standing Committee, from which it will almost certainly emerge as a gelding and not a stallion.
On second thought, I am going to go back to my first thought: This is the way the Communion dies, not with a bang but a whimper.
The thing that has troubled me most as I have reflected on the Episcopal Church's General Convention is the number of bishops who voted against D025 (electing gay bishops), but who were deluded enough to vote for C056 (same-sex blessings).
Consider the two operative clauses that these bishops would have had to overlook or misconstrue to vote for C056:
Resolved, That the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consulation with the House of Bishops, collect and develop theological, and liturgical resources and design liturgies and report to the 77th General Convention; for further action…
Bishops should not have been fooled by the fact that the words “ and design liturgies” were struck from the final form of this resolution.
Even if only the word “collect” had been used, it would have been sufficient to allow for the development of liturgies for same sex unions, because you can’t collect something that does not exist. But as it is, it says “collect and develop theological and liturgical resources”. How much of their own money would these gullible bishops be willing to bet that these “liturgical resources” won’t actually include some rites that can be (or have been!!!) used to bless same sex unions?
The other problematic clause is:
Resolved, That bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church…
Note the resolution does not say only those in civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage is legal, but particularly those in such jurisdictions “may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church”.
Again, how much of their own money would these gullible bishops be willing to bet that other bishops will not interpret these words as support for allowing the blessing of same sex unions in their dioceses, given that such "generous pastoral responses" have already occurred even without such a resolution. The GLBT organization, Integrity, and some of the more realistic bishops have already said that this is exactly how they interpret C056.
That indaba stuff the bishops indulged in before this vote is apparently a powerful hallucinogen.
Having some worship and fellowship this evening with some non-Episcopal brothers and sisters in Christ—connecting to God in a way that doesn’t remind me of my job or the Episcopal Church (a practice I recommend other clergy try occasionally);
Re-reading The Lord of the Rings, which I read for the first time 39 years ago this month and have re-read at least once every five years since. It has a lot to say about courage in the face of unexpected dangers and unsought conflict;
Leaving in a few days for a beautiful place with green fields, wooded hills and sweeping vistas of the Mississippi River valley—back to the good earth and far from civilization and the ways we have screwed things up.
It is later Saturday evening, and the first of the things I mentioned is behind me. Here's how it worked out:
I showed up and found they were having a ten-week series called 10 Words for LIFE—a study of the Ten Commandments. This was Week 7, so the topic was "Do Not Commit Adultery."
We sang a few songs from Australia's Hillsong fellowship, including: Mighty to Save:
and From the Inside Out,
and Chris Tomlin's version of Amazing Grace/My Chains Are Gone (Embedding for this video was disabled, so you'll have to follow the link.) If you are inclined toward contemporary Christian music, you may enjoy these videos. If not, skip them.
Then we heard a message about:
God's gift of sex
God's purpose for sex in marriage
Avoiding the temptations that are so prevalent in our culture
The importance of purity and holiness in our relationship with Christ.
Well, needless to say, this message was so much in contrast with the sexual ethic I had encountered over the past 10 days at General Convention, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at the irony. But I gave thanks to God for the articulate, undiluted, biblical teaching.
I am reminded of the tag line for the television series The X Files: "The Truth is Out There." There are Christians out there who know the truth—about the Incarnation, the Cross, the Resurrection, the uniqueness of Jesus, the way of salvation, the purpose of the sexes, the sanctity of marriage, the sanctity of life, and the whole range of Christian doctrines. They may be Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, or Evangelical Christians. Along with faithful Anglicans around the globe, these Christians dwarf the dwindling "mainline" denominations of the West. Those of us who are a minority in the Episcopal Church can draw comfort from that fact.
It is also true that Anglicans and Episcopalians aren't necessarily called to run from our problems to join these other traditions. (They all have their problems too--they're just different problems.) We can be nourished by sound teaching and strengthened by fellowship with other Christians in a way that helps us to proclaim the truth in the places where God has planted us.
Where God has planted us—that is the key. Some people may question why I am still in the Episcopal Church, especially after the decisions of this General Convention. Yes, it would be preferable in a number of respects to be in a Christian body where there were fewer theological tensions. But God has planted me where I am. He has given me a calling that I must obey and a community for which I am responsible, and I cannot abandon my post unless and until God gives me leave to do so.
(To be clear: I am not saying that all those who have left the Episcopal Church have abandoned their posts. God may have called them to leave in the same way that he has called others to stay. And I believe we need to head off any acrimony between the "leavers" and the "stayers," recognize that God may have different callings for each of us, and learn how to support each other in the different, but related, callings God has given us.)
God may lead many to move to a purer fellowship or a "safer" place. But there is also the example of Joseph, who was sold into slavery in Egypt. When he was freed, he could have gone home to be with his family and those who worshiped the true and living God anytime he wanted. But God had planted him in Egypt, and he remained until he died, in order that good might come of it and that God's people would be blessed.
Then there is Hosea, to whom God said, "Go, take to yourself an adulterous wife and children of unfaithfulness, because the land is guilty of the vilest adultery in departing from the LORD" (Hosea 1:2). Hosea was called to be a prophet and a witness (at great pain and cost to himself). The history of the prophets is full of those who were called to preach among a rebellious people and who suffered as a result.
Discerning where God has planted us is not the same thing as discerning where the pasture is greener. God may plant us in a desert if that is what is needed to accomplish his purposes. "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight" (Matt. 3:3). But if we are planted in the desert, we must put down deep roots to secure the nourishment we need to live.
If you are in this situation, let me encourage you to do the following:
(1) Renew the habit of daily Bible reading. Read the Bible not merely for information but for inspiration. Read it slowly, deeply, reflectively—asking God to speak to you about your life, your relationship with him, your priorities, your relationships with others, and anything else about which God needs to speak to you.
(2) In addition to daily Bible reading, find a regular source of biblical teaching or preaching that speaks to your spiritual needs. This may involve attending a bible study or listening to or reading sermons. Christian radio and the internet are full of choices. (Some are very good, some are not—so be selective.)
(3) As you read Scripture reflectively, cultivate a life of conversation with God. Learn to pray in a way that goes beyond formality and attains intimacy. (See Brother Lawrence, Practicing the Presence of God for a classic example of what I mean.)
WOW! coincidence: As I am typing these words, I have a service from Saddleback Church playing in a different window. The preacher (not Rick Warren, it's one of the associate pastors today) just said: "The object of a life of prayer is obtaining a character that is fit for eternity." Amen.
When I speak to clergy retreats, which I do fairly often, I sometimes tell them:
1. If the only time you read the Bible is when you are preparing your sermons (and saying the Daily Office), you are in trouble.
2. If the only sermons you ever hear are your own, you are in trouble.
3. If the only time you pray is in church (or in the Daily Offices or the Eucharist, i.e., liturgical prayer), you are in trouble.
If our spiritual roots don't go any deeper than this, we will not do well even in the green pastures, much less survive in the desert.
Decompressing after General Convention or any spiritual trial requires that we touch base with the bedrock of our spiritual foundation. This is step one. God willing, I will have more to say in a future post.
Several months ago, I stumbled upon an excellent television series on the History Channel entitled, Hitler's Bodyguard, which chronicled the rise and fall of Adolph Hitler, as seen through the eyes of those who were entrusted with protecting him from the numerous attempts to overthrow or kill him. The episode in this series entitled, "Before the War" makes the point that British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain may have been the man most responsible for World War II.
The argument runs like this: If Neville Chamberlain had been clear from the outset that the consequences of Hitler's aggression would be war, the German people would not have supported him to the degree that they did; and politicians and military leaders would have stood a chance of removing him from power while there was still time to preserve the peace. However, by continued appeasement in the face of Hitler's aggression, capped by the misguided trip to Munich from which Chamberlain returned home to England proclaiming that there would be "peace for our time!" the forces in Germany that could have deterred or unseated Hitler were undermined and the resulting war became inevitable.
In the course of Rowan Williams' scholarly pursuits, he would do well to take a closer look at Neville Chamberlain. The history of Chamberlain's engagement with the greatest challenge of his career is remarkably similar to the Archbishop's thorny problem with the American Episcopal Church.
Those with better memories or more resources at their fingertips will probably come up with more examples than I can, but five critical points that have led to the Anglican Communion's present predicament come to mind:
#1. There was the September 2007 meeting of the US House of Bishops in New Orleans at which Rowan Williams was an invited guest. Hopes and speculations were strong in the weeks leading up to that meeting that the Archbishop would make clear, in no uncertain terms, the consequences of the American church's failure to respond to an ultimatum from the other primates of the Anglican Communion to conform to the norms of the rest of the Communion in matters of sexuality. In fact, this visit by Rowan was considered by many to be the Episcopal Church's last chance. Instead, Dr. Williams let the US church completely off the hook.
Take our fearless leader Rowan Williams, who, this week, faced with an opportunity to save the Anglican Communion decides to "go all wobbly" and start saying that the Dar Es Salaam Communique, issued by the Primates at their meeting in February 2007, didn't really constitute an ultimatum to the American church to get its act together or else. Before leaving New Orleans, last Friday, he described September 30th as simply a date of convenience. The only reason a specific date was chosen, he suggested, was that the primates recognized the September House of Bishops’ meeting as the last official meeting of bishops before the next Lambeth conference and they wanted to have the position of the American church clarified.
Well, let's see what the Communique actually said:
“The Primates request that the answer of the House of Bishops is conveyed to the Primates by the Presiding Bishop by 30th September 2007. If the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion.”
#2. Mention of the Dar Es Salaam Communique calls to mind the earlier example of the Archbishop's actions at the Dar Es Salaam meeting itself. This meeting of the Primates of the 38 member churches of the Anglican Communion was the first meeting to be attended by American Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori following her election at the 2006 General Convention of the Episcopal Church--a meeting which only by the barest of technicalities (and some high-handed parliamentary maneuvers) had managed to pass a resolution responding to the moratorium on the consecration of gay bishops requested by the Primates. Instead of taking the opportunity to warn the American and Canadian churches about the consequences of violating Communion norms, the Archbishop used his opening remarks to commend the American church on how well they had done. The other Primates were less impressed and issued the strongly worded Communique I mentioned above; but from that moment on, it looked (and has continued to look) as if the misbehaving American church had a front man in Rowan Williams.
#3. There was the 2008 Lambeth Conference of Bishops of the Anglican Communion, which was structured in indaba groups in order to avoid any possibility that the rest of the Communion might address or challenge the American church's path toward the ordination of gay bishops and the blessing of same-sex marriages.
#4. More recently, there was the May 2009 meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council in Jamaica, in which it looked to all the world as though the ACC would finalize and release the long awaited and much discussed Anglican Communion Covenant--a document which member churches (and even dioceses) could sign, attesting to their commitment to follow the norms of the Communion in the interpretation of scriptural teaching regarding marriage and sexuality.
Previous efforts by the Archbishop of Canterbury to front for the American church pale in comparison to the show in Jamaica. There Rowan Williams single-handedly derailed the release of the Covenant and its provision of consequences for member churches that did not subscribe to the Covenant or follow the understanding contained in it. As I wrote in a post entitled, "PERFIDY!" the Archbishop's actions were a betrayal of everyone who had trusted in the Covenant process to bring order to our fractured Communion.
#5. Finally, we come to this present moment: the Episcopal Church's General Convention in Anaheim, California, at which Rowan Williams spoke. As the Telegraph reports,
[T]he Archbishop of Canterbury flew to this year's gathering in Anaheim, California, and said in a sermon: "Along with many in the Communion, I hope and pray that there won't be decisions in the coming days that will push us further apart."
But, as subsequent news bears out, he couldn't have been more wrong. On Sunday, the Episcopal Church's House of Deputies, made up of clergy and lay members, effectively voted in favor of overturning the moratorium on homosexual bishops (Resolution D025) by a 2-1 margin. The following day, the House of Bishops concurred with an amendment, and the House of Deputies quickly responded with their own concurrence to the final version.
But the news doesn't end there. On Wednesday evening, the bishops approved Resolution C056, which moves the Episcopal Church toward the development of rites for same-sex marriages and provides:
"[t]hat bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church..."
In other words, bishops in states where same-sex marriages are legal may allow their clergy to perform those marriages. This resolution will go to the House of Deputies tomorrow, where (barring an earthquake that causes California to sink into the ocean) passage is certain. Media outlets worldwide are predicting that this will permanently shatter the Communion.
So what should Rowan Williams do? There are some who, throughout the series of events I have mentioned above, have said he should resign. That would be a nihilistic and (dare I say?) typically European response. It is the path Chamberlain took. The Archbishop could take that path, or he can find the leadership necessary to take strong and definitive action by perhaps recalling the Prime Minister who took Chamberlain's disaster and (at great cost) confronted evil and brought his people through. Rowan Williams, meet Winston Churchill.
As an update to my previous post regarding yesterday's passage by the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops of an amended version of Resolution D025, dealing with the ordination of non-celibate gays and lesbians: The amended resolution came back to the House of Deputies for approval and passed easily this afternoon on a vote by orders (clergy and laity voting separately). Although several conservative deputies once again urged defeat of this resolution, arguing that it would be a rejection of the restraint urged by the rest of the Anglican Communion, the resolution passed by the exact same percentage—72%—in both orders.
As with yesterday's vote in the House of Bishops, this vote in Anaheim came in what is the middle of the night in England, though the Archbishop of Canterbury is undoubtedly watching this development carefully. Conservatives once again find themselves hoping that the Archbishop will receive this news with something more than mere words of disapproval and provide more substantial support for those Anglicans in North America who are endeavoring to remain faithful to Scripture and Anglican Communion norms on this matter.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, is a gracious man--one who is unlikely to shoot the messenger who brings him bad news. Nevertheless, I would hate to be the correspondence secretary who has to bring him dispatches from around the Anglican Communion tomorrow morning.
It is 3:00 a.m. in London, and moments ago the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops passed Resolution D025, a resolution that effectively removes the moratorium against the consecration of non-celibate gay and lesbian bishops in the Episcopal Church. During the discussion one bishop voiced the opinion that this resolution did not end the moratorium, it would take the actual election and consecration of a gay or lesbian bishop to end the moratorium, and the Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, said that that was her understanding as well. But, effectively, this resolution makes it clear that there is no longer any desire on the part of the Episcopal Church to refrain from doing so.
This decision by the Bishops (99 in favor, 45 opposed, with two abstentions) came despite the fact that Bishop William Love of Albany read a quotation from the Archbishop of Canterbury urging the American Church not to take this step. Another bishop, John Howe of Central Florida, read a letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury to the church in Sweden urging them not to take similar steps to ordain non-celibate homosexual bishops. Many orthodox bishops spoke courageously and well in opposition to this resolution; however the final tally indicates just how far the General Convention has moved since it last met in 2006.
Since the House of Bishops made a slight amendment to Resolution D025, the amended version will now have to go back to the House of Deputies for their approval. But, barring a miracle, final passage looks all but certain. Resolutions dealing with rites for same-sex marriages will come up for a vote later this week.
Silly me. This being the first time in six General Conventions of the Episcopal Church that I have not been a deputy, I thought it started tomorrow. I will fly out there (Anaheim, CA) later this week; but tonight I was at home, having a wonderful time.
Wisconsin this time of year is the kind of place God had in mind when he created the Garden of Eden. My wife and some friends (one of them a visiting professor in our DMin program at Nashotah House) and I had a leisurely dinner (2 1/2 hours) at a restaurant on one of our local lakes. Sipping red wine and sparkling water, enjoying the lake view and and a beautiful sunset in perfect (not near-perfect--absolutely perfect!) weather, engaging in stimulating conversation over delectable food--one of the finest evenings I have had in a long time.
Then I came home, switched on the computer and saw that the General Convention had begun this evening, and that the Episcopal Church (or at least its leadership) had done something that they hadn't been able to do in all the General Conventions I attended as a deputy. They finally defined heresy.
Or at least the Presiding Bishop did. The defining moment came in an opening address, which the Rev. Philip Ashey, reports as follows:
Then the Presiding Bishop of TEC took the stand. She spoke about the crisis facing The Episcopal Church. “Crisis is always a remarkable opportunity,” she said. Speaking from her own experience as a pilot, she said it is a time to “aviate, navigate, and then communicate,” in that order. Always keep the plane flying through the crisis—even when you are not sure where you are.
She described the essential crisis within the Gospels as Jesus’ decision to set his face toward Jerusalem, and likened the decisions of this 76th General Convention to that decision to set one’s face toward Jerusalem.
And then in a cold, calm, defiant and defining voice she said, "The overarching connection in all of these crises has to do with the great Western heresy - that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God. It's caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus. That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of all being. That heresy is one reason for the theme of this Convention."
Now, to give the Presiding Bishop the benefit of the doubt (See, I really am feeling good this evening!), what she may have meant is: "It is wrong for us to concentrate solely on the individual aspects of salvation. As a Church we are called to life in community, and at this General Convention we are going to concentrate on what we do as a Church together. That is why we have chosen 'Ubuntu' as our theme."
For those who haven't kept up with the choice of this year's theme for General Convention, one way of defining "Ubuntu" is this quotation from Archbishop Desmond Tutu:
One of the sayings in our country is Ubuntu - the essence of being human. Ubuntu speaks particularly about the fact that you can't exist as a human being in isolation. It speaks about our interconnectedness. You can't be human all by yourself, and when you have this quality - Ubuntu - you are known for your generosity.
We think of ourselves far too frequently as just individuals, separated from one another, whereas you are connected and what you do affects the whole world. When you do well, it spreads out; it is for the whole of humanity.
Okay, perhaps the Presiding Bishop is talking about "the Social Gospel" updated for the 21st century.
But that is not what the Presiding Bishop said. She used the "H" word--a rarity for a contemporary Episcopalian--and she appeared to aim the word squarely at those who believe in the necessity of an individual confession of Jesus Christ as Lord for salvation.
This, of course, would seem to run contrary to the following passage of Scripture as well as several others:
But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame." For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. (Romans 10:8-17)
(This passage, incidentally, sets out not only the means by which individuals are saved, but also the Church's message as it does mission.)
So either the Presiding Bishop is being provocative (Google the words "mother Jesus" to see a long list of entries about a previous example of the same), or else the biblical illiteracy that has long been the bane of Episcopalians has now become a requirement for continued membership.
Economists point to rising debt as next crisis Higher taxes and reduced federal benefits, services may be result
WASHINGTON - The Founding Fathers left one legacy not celebrated on Independence Day but which affects us all. It's the national debt.
The country first got into debt to help pay for the Revolutionary War. Growing ever since, the debt stands today at a staggering $11.4 trillion — equivalent to about $37,000 for each and every American. And it's expanding by over $1 trillion a year.
The mountain of debt easily could become the next full-fledged economic crisis without firm action from Washington, economists of all stripes warn.
"Without firm action from Washington..." the article says. Folks, it is WASHINGTON that is getting us into this mess! -- The problem our government is presenting us with right now is: Reckless spending we cannot afford for change we do not need!
How could "Washington" prevent the debt crisis? Stop the omnibus energy spending bill known as "Cap and Trade" or "Cap and Tax" already passed by the House of Representatives and being debated in the Senate right now. If there are any energy measures in that bill worth considering, they should be considered one at a time and not in a multi-trillion dollar spending bill that no member of Congress has actually read but that would put heavy new taxes on energy at every level and spend money on hairbrained schemes that will result in no new energy.
At the same time, we must stop the nationalization of our health care. The often quoted figure of 40 million Americans who lack health insurance is a myth. There are millions of people who should be excluded from that tally, including: those who aren’t American citizens, people who can afford their own insurance, and people who already qualify for existing government coverage but haven’t signed up.
Government statistics also show 45 percent of those without insurance will have insurance again within four months after job transitions.
Accounting for all those factors, one prominent study places the total for the long-term uninsured as low as 8.2 million – a very different reality than the media and national health care advocates claim.
Furthermore, being without health care insurance does not mean that individuals lack access to health care. Most hospitals and health care providers make provisions for treating the uninsured.
We must stop the government take over of our health care system that would diminish the quality of health care available to everyone and put several thousand dollars of additional taxes on every American and drastically increase our national debt.
Right now the overall debt is now slightly over 80% of the annual output of the entire U.S. economy, as measured by the gross domestic product--and this is BEFORE the impact of the schemes the Obama administration wants to implement.
Let me say it again--the problem is:
Reckless spending we cannot afford for change we do not need!
Even if you have never written your elected representatives and senators before, do it today.
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
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.
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?
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:
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!"
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.
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
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. [...]
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.
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
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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."
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
