A further word on Lay Presidency

Background

In 2008, after I made the comment on Stand Firm that I reprinted in my previous post, "What should We Think of Lay Presidency?" Prof. Stephen Noll (a long time friend and former colleague) called my attention to the book, The Lord’s Supper in Human Hands: Who Should Administer?, authored by Peter G. Bolt and Mark D. Thompson (who teach at Moore College, Sydney) and Robert Tong (an attorney and Chancellor for the Diocese of Sydney), together with contributions from Sydney Regional Bishop Glenn Davies and the Rev. Dr. John W. Woodhouse (the Principal of Moore College).

Regarding this book, Prof. Noll made this comment:

I am working on a review of this book, but I do want here to note that it seems to put forth different and possibly contradictory arguments for the new practice. The first argument, forwarded primarily by Dr. Woodhouse, is that it is an evangelical mandate. He writes: “We cannot be content with practices which obscure or distort the gospel” (p. 7), and he then lists 5 distortions:

1. That exclusive clergy presidency suggests a “power” which a lay person cannot have;
2. That higher qualifications are required for presiding than preaching (the comparison with lay preaching is a recurrent theme);
3. That the validity of the sacrament depends on the person presiding;
4. That ordination has more to do with the Sacrament than preaching (see #2);
5. That a priest is essential to the Lord’s Supper and no other practice.

This then leads him to identify the traditional practice with the BCP’s warning against “things that at first were of godly intent and purpose devised, and yet at length turned to vanity and superstition.”

So the argument would seem to go like this:
• Evangelical Christians must uphold the gospel.
• There is no basis in Scripture for priest-only administration of Communion
• There are historical developments in the idea of priestly power that raise the Sacrament over the Word.
• Therefore it is a gospel mandate to change the practice.

The itemization of the points led me to offer this response:

1. That exclusive clergy presidency suggests a “power” which a lay person cannot have;

No, clergy presidency suggests a function to which a lay person is not called.

2. That higher qualifications are required for presiding than preaching (the comparison with lay preaching is a recurrent theme);

In Acts, Stephen and Phillip (both deacons) were obviously preachers; and Phillip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch—whether it was a case of necessity, or whether deacons routinely baptized, we are not told. However, there is no scriptural evidence for diaconal or lay presidency at the Lord’s Supper. And the early Fathers, who were in the best position to observe how the Scriptures were applied in the matter of eucharistic presidency, always considered it reserved to the presbyterate.

3. That the validity of the sacrament depends on the person presiding;

The validity of the sacrament depends on the authority of the person presiding, which is made clear in the Preface to the 1662 Ordinal:

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.

4. That ordination has more to do with the Sacrament than preaching (see #2);

Our Anglican forebears were almost equally restrictive regarding preaching as they were the sacraments. Only clergy were to preach. It was to be done primarily by presbyters and only secondarily by deacons who had been licensed by the bishop. The fact that laypeople may be articulate teachers and speakers on many occasions and at many types of Christian gatherings does not mean that they should assume the function of the preacher in congregational worship. If someone shows that kind of calling to the task of preaching, the Church should ordain him. But (speaking hypothetically), if ordination did have more to do with the sacrament than with preaching, so what? It would be a matter of a calling to a function rather than elevation to a position of power.

In Article XXXVI. Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers, the writers seem to have anticipated the concern that ordination created a special priestly caste:

The Book of Consecration of Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons… doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering; neither hath it any thing that, of itself, is superstitious and ungodly.

In other words, one need not worry that the making of bishops, priests, and deacons is, in and of itself, a cause of superstition or ungodliness—though it often seems to me that members of the Sydney diocese view it as precisely that.

5. That a priest is essential to the Lord’s Supper and no other practice.

A physician is essential to the practice of medicine, and an electrician is essential to wiring a house. Both are pretty much interchangeable with any other human being, other than when they are exercising their respective callings. It is a matter of function. But what if priests (due to their being set apart for a particular function in the church) were more essential to the sacraments than any other function? So what? This seems to spring more from a superstitious aversion to clergy and sacraments than anything that is grounded in Scripture, Anglican tradition, or even sound reason.

What did Sydney do?

From the Church Times, October 24, 2008:

SYDNEY DIOCESAN SYNOD has affirmed that deacons — including women deacons — may preside at holy communion.

In a motion moved by a Sydney regional bishop, Dr Glenn Davies, the synod accepted arguments that there was no legal impediment to deacons’ presiding, given that, under a 1985 General Synod canon, deacons are authorised to assist the priest in the administration of the sacraments.

With respect to the Bishop, to "assist the priest in the administration of the sacraments" is not the same as administering the sacraments. (The Sydney folks use the term "adminster" to mean what Anglicans elsewhere mean when they say that a person "presides" or "celebrates" the Holy Communion or the Eucharist.) This manipulation of language to move the deacon from assisting the priest in the administration of the sacraments into administering them himself (or herself) borders on the disingenuous.

I trust that, if the Bishop ever has to have an operation, he would not want the nurses who usually assist the surgeon in the performance of the operation to perform the procedure on their own. To this the Sydney apologist will counter that I am saying that the presbyter has some education or superior ability to preside at the Eucharist that a deacon or lay person does not have. Yes, the presbyter has training, a depth of spiritual formation, and an authority given in ordination when he is set apart for the ministry of word and sacrament.

The report from the Church Times continues:

Another Sydney regional bishop, the Rt Revd Peter Tasker, supported an attempt to remove general af­firma­tion of lay and diaconal presid­ency from the motion out of concern for a potential adverse GAFCON re­sponse, but the amendment was lost.

Yes, the concern for orthodox unity and the future of the GAFCON movement is very real.

The motion was seconded by the Archdeacon for Women’s Ministry, the Ven. Narelle Jarrett, who wel­comed the opportunity the motion gave for women deacons to preside at services for women and children, as, for example, in “a girls’ school or a women’s prison”.

The idea of women clergy celebrating exclusively female Eucharists is a familiar one to Anglicans in the UK and North America. Trust me, Sydney, you don't want to go there. There is an iconography to the Lord's Supper, no matter how bare a sign a low churchman wants to make it. Eucharistic presidency is making a statement about the nature of God, whether you want to believe it or not. In this regard, I recommend William Oddie's book, What Will Happen to God?: Feminism and the Reconstruction of Christian Belief.

The Church Times continues:

The Dean of Sydney, the Very Revd Phillip Jensen, argued that allowing deacons to preside would turn the diaconate into “a real diaconate”. “We don’t want to specialise the presbyters in administering the Lord’s Supper . . . but we want them to specialise in their incumbency.”

While I would like to be respectful, honesty compels me to say that that statement (if reported accurately) is vacuous beyond belief. It is sloganeering and not theology. To say that presiding would turn the diaconate into "a real diaconate" presupposes that you know what "a real diaconate" looks like. And the only basis for a Christian knowing what the diaconate looks like is Scripture and Church history, neither of which offers a single example of a deacon ever presiding at the Eucharist.

Nevertheless:

The motion was passed un­amended, and, the Sydney diocesan website reported, “overwhelmingly”. It read:

Synod —

(a) accepts the report concerning legal barriers to lay and diaconal administration of the Lord’s Supper which was submitted to the 3rd session of the 47th Synod, and

(b) affirms again its conviction that lay and diaconal administration of the Lord’s Supper is consistent with the teaching of Scripture, and

(c) affirms that the Lord’s Supper in this diocese may be administered by persons other than presbyters, and requests the Diocesan Secretary to send a copy of The Lord’s Supper in Human Hands to all bishops who attended the GAFCON.

Now take that second point: "that lay and diaconal administration of the Lord’s Supper is consistent with the teaching of Scripture..."

How is it that Sydney can make such a bold declaration that this is the case and that Sydney apologists can claim that lay presidency is a "gospel imperative" when our Anglican forebears were so clear? Go back and read the words from the Ordinal again: "It is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors..."

The matter is due to come before the Diocese of Sydney convention again next month. As I wrote two years ago, I agree that we need to dialogue very earnestly with our brothers and sisters in Sydney about this. And I pray that they do not do something unilaterally that jeopardizes the unity of orthodox Anglicanism, when this unity has never been more important.
 

What should we think of Lay Presidency?

The subject of lay presidency at communion is once again in the news from Australia, as reported in these two posts on the Stand Firm website: 1, and 2.

The issue attracted international attention in October 2008, when the Diocese of Sydney passed a resolution authorizing lay presidency. Now, in August 2010, a tribunal in the Anglican Church in Australia has ruled against Sydney's action. The report from that tribunal will be received at this October's Diocese of Sydney convention, where apparently, it will be considered only as "advisory." In other words, Sydney could choose to implement this innovation despite the opinion of the tribunal.

This discussion brought back a comment I made on this subject on Stand Firm in November 2008, responding to David Ould's piece on this subject, which I have adapted slightly and offer here in light of the importance of this issue for the Anglican Communion.

David,

I thank you for posting this piece on Sydney’s consideration of lay presidency, 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.  But let me, at least, offer a few thoughts, beginning with the Articles of Religion and the 1662 and 1552 Ordinals.

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 circumspect with regard to the potential for misinterpretation) as one might be in writing a confessional statement, church canon, or policy 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 for a 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.

Notice that it is the priest who ministers (administers or presides at) the holy Communion. The deacon merely assists in the distribution of the elements. 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,

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”.  And there is one sense in which I fear Dan Martins' 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 Ordinal is correct, it cannot be shown from the Scriptures or the whole history of the Christian Church that this was ever the case.

 

UGANDA: CAPA Bishops Conference - the future of Anglicanism?

David Virtue reports from Uganda regarding the Conference of Anglican Primates in Africa (CAPA) Bishops Conference which has been going on for the past few days. The conference has been notable for the many African voices asserting a vigorous biblical orthodoxy in the face of western challenges. I agree with David's assessment: If there is any hope for Anglicanism, this is it.

UGANDA: CAPA Bishops Conference: From My Ear to Yours

By David W. Virtue in Entebbe
www.virtueonline.org
August 28, 2010

If I had to choose between the revivalism of African Anglicanism versus the liberalism of Western Anglicanism, the answer is a no brainer. Even assuming for the moment that a lot of African Christianity is superficial (false), that it is an inch deep (also untrue), moralistic (also untrue) - one must make a distinction between moralism and true biblical morality. Then the evidence is clear - Anglican churches in Africa are daily being born and growing at a remarkable rate while Western churches are emptying at a rate that will guarantee their extinction possibly within my life time.

The charismatic assistant bishop of Kampala, the Rt. Rev. Zac Niringiye of the Province of Uganda, conducts daily Bible Studies here for the 400 bishops. He is a superb teacher. If he is the future of Anglican Christianity on this continent, and he might well be, then Africa has little to worry about. Problems abound, and the amazing thing is that despite the enormous political corruption, stupidity and laziness of government officials, peoples' lives are being changed by the gospel.

Read it all.
 

Resurrection Sunday Dance, Budapest, Hungary

I have been concerned about the countries of Eastern Europe in the post-Soviet era, because many of them, having lived for a couple of generations under official atheism have now turned to secularism and materialism and are in as much of a social and spiritual predicament as they were under Communism. To put it another, less flattering way: if you are an Eastern European and the only model you have for what to do with your freedom is what you see in Western Europe and the so-called "culture" exported by American mass media, you are in real trouble.

Perhaps nowhere have the ill effects of trying to fill post-Soviet emptiness with Western materialism and decadence been more obvious than in the cities of Prague (Czech Republic) and Budapest (Hungary).

So it was a delight to run across this video from of an Easter Sunday celebration that took place on one of the largest squares in Budapest. These young people are from Faith Church, which has grown beyond one congregation to become something of a revival movement in Hungary. I am still checking these folks out, so this isn't necessarily an endorsement. But, in a country with great spiritual need, I consider it a hopeful sign.



You can learn more about Faith Church from this video:



From the description that appears on YouTube along with the video:

Faith Church considers itself as representing a modern Reform movement in Hungary. It accepts the results and spiritual, moral values of both early Christianity and the Reformation, as well as other revival movements serving the progress of the Christian faith. Nowadays the process of renewal gains new momentum from all around the world, affecting both the traditional Christian communities and the Pentecostal-Charismatic churches formed during the 20th century.

The Church also started the website: Up to Faith.
 

The Obama Family Still Hasn't Found a Church

A friend called my attention to this little piece in Ebony magazine. It seems that President Obama and his family still haven't found a church to attend in Washington. The author of this article has a suggestion: The Episcopal Church. His reasons aren't very flattering, but then satire isn't meant to be.

Read it here.
 

Obama hosting Ramadan dinner - UPDATED

When I ran this story a few hours ago, the link led to a story which began:

Obama to preach tolerance at Ramadan dinner
White House won't say if president will address N.Y. mosque controversy

NEW YORK — President Barack Obama on Friday will speak up for religious freedom at a dinner celebrating the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, emphasizing that point just as New York City is immersed in a deeply sensitive debate about whether a mosque should be built near the site of the World Trade Center's twin towers.

Read it all.

When I first read this, words failed me. I'm over that now.

First of all, Obama can show up for this event, but he would rather do fundraisers and appear on The View than celebrate the Boy Scouts' 100th Anniversary. You know The View would have been glad to have the President anytime they could get him, but the 100th Anniversary of the Boy Scouts only comes once. By air, he can get from Washington to New York in about an hour. He could have appeared at the Boy Scout Jamboree in Washington and made it to New York for the fundraisers if he wanted to. But that would be showing respect for a great American institution. Nope, we can't do that!

Now he speaks at a New York dinner (early headlines said "hosts" dinner) kicking off the season of Ramadan, while the city and country are outraged over the effort to build a mosque at the site of the worst foreign attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor—an attack waged in the name of Islam.

It makes you wonder what the President believes—about Islam—about this country and its institutions. Americans have a right to know.

UPDATE:

Now, if you now click on the link: (Read it all), it takes you to an updated story with a new title and some important changes:

Obama defends ground zero mosque plans
Ramadan dinner speech: 'Muslims have the right to practice their religion as anyone else'

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Friday endorsed plans for a Muslim mosque two blocks from ground zero in New York City, declaring that "Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country."

Yes, Muslims have a right to practice their religion, too. But building a mosque on the site of a victory has been a historic Muslim practice, and building one at "ground zero" shows that they don't have much respect for the feelings of millions of Americans. And neither does the President.
 

Cows Swept Away by Current

What is it we find so funny about cows? I saw this headline on the WTMJ, Milwaukee website; and, before I even read the article, I knew it was a serious matter for the cows and the farmer who owned them. But I couldn't help it; I just broke out laughing.

Here's the story. Now tell me if you can read this whole thing without at least a smile.

Dozens of cows float away in Western Wisconsin flooding

MARTELL, Wisc. -- The Rush River at Martell is known for its trout fishing. But Wednesday's catch of the day was cows.

"We should have put floaties on them or something," said Pierce County farmer Tim Wiff.

Wiff's herd of pregnant heifers survived Wednesday's early morning six-inch deluge just fine in their pasture. The trouble came after sunrise when some 80 head of cattle tried to cross the swollen Rush River to get back to their barn for feeding - and floated away.

"You could see 20 to 25 cows all in a blob just flying with the current down the river and it was just shocking," said Doreen Smith, who watched, stunned, as cattle floated by.

With help from friends and neighbors, Wiff was able to round up most of the heifers that floated away. Some were found as far as three miles downstream.

"Most of them when they came on the trailer they looked fine. They looked tired. You could tell they've been working to get out of the river."

Wiff says 10 to 15 heifers are still missing. He's hopeful more will be found alive, though he expects some will be found dead once the water recedes.

Still, Wiff considers himself lucky so many of his heifers came home. "We'll bed them good tonight and feed them and tell them to stay home," he laughed.

And while I am on the subject, here's a good one about cows and capitalism:

Capitalism Nowadays

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM

You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income.

ENRON VENTURE CAPITALISM
You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. The public buys your bull.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when the cow drops dead.

A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create clever cow cartoon images called Cowkimon and market them World-Wide.

A GERMAN CORPORATION
You have two cows. You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.

A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows. Both are mad.

ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows, but you don’t know where they are. You break for lunch.

RUSSIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 12 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5000 cows, none of which belong to you. You charge others for storing them.

A HINDU CORPORATION
You have two cows. You worship them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim full employment, high bovine productivity, and arrest the newsman who reported the numbers.

AN ARKANSAS CORPORATION
You have two cows. That one on the left is kinda cute…

 

Right on target!!!

The J.A. Kubik law firm, which publishes The Pennsylvania Litigation Blog has hit the nail on the head with a piece entitled, "Episcopal Church Pokes Itself In The Eye Again."

The opening sentence definitely gets your attention: "Like Lord Voldemort, the embodiment of pure evil from the Harry Potter stories, Charles Bennison, the once defrocked Episcopal Bishop of Pennsylvania, is back."

But the payoff is in the last paragraph:

The Bennison case tells us much of what we, I suppose, already knew about the Episcopal “Church”. That Bishop Bennison can repeatedly and publicly question foundational principles of the faith without fear of reprisal is bad enough. That the church hierarchy cares more about technical legal niceties than it does about whether its own bishops are in fact believers confirms that the Episcopalians have forfeited their right to claim to be any kind of church.

"[T]he church hierarchy cares more about technical legal niceties than it does about whether its own bishops are in fact believers..." Ouch!!!

I'll resist the temptation to quote any lawyer jokes at this point and simply ask: If a secular trial lawyer can recognize the true nature of the Episcopal Church's problem, why in heaven's name can't we?
 

Another iPhone selling point???

I can just imagine Apple's next ad campaign...

Report: iPhone Users Have Most Sexual Partners

Does the smartphone you carry help your chances with the opposite sex? According to research from dating site OKCupid.com, people who own iPhones are having more sex than those who use BlackBerrys or Android phones.

Of the 9,785 people with smartphones polled by OKCupid, men with iPhones had an average of 10 sexual partners by age 30, compared to 8.1 partners for those with BlackBerrys, and 6 partners for those with Android-based

Among the women, iPhone owners had 12.3 partners, BlackBerry users had 8.8 partners, and Android users had 6.1 partners, on average, by age 30.

Of course, this is from a dating Web site – an area of the Internet not usually synonymous with honesty, so take those stats with a grain of salt.

Read it all.

Okay, I think I'll be heading out to buy an iPhone now. ;-). (Just kidding.)

Blogged from my iPad--does that count?
 

What is happening to the Lutherans (ELCA)???

From here:

Many of you know the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America recently added seven pastors who are gay, bisexual or transgender, to its clergy roster. This occurred at a Rite of Reception service.

Here are a few things you may not have heard concerning this.

1) During the "festival Eucharist celebrating the reception and reinstatement of pastors," (p 4) the congregation recited the “Our Mother who is within us” prayer taken from the Goddess Rosary. (Read more about the Goddess Rosary here). The prayer goes like this -

"Our Mother who is within us
we celebrate your many names.
Your wisdom come,
your will be done,
unfolding from the depths
within us.
Each day you give us all that we need.
You remind us of our limits
and we let go.
You support us in our power
and we act in courage.
For you are the dwelling place within us,
the empowerment around us,
and the celebration among us,
now and forever. Amen"

Read it all... and weep!
 

Faith and smart phones commune in religion apps

Cedarburg, Wisconsin - Father Tom Eichenberger began a recent sermon by playing an iPhone ring tone of church bells into the microphone and talking about how praying is like using the popular mobile device.

"The same rules apply," he told the Sunday mass congregation at St. Francis Borgia Catholic Church in this small town north of Milwaukee.

"You don't just use your iPhone for phone calls, you have to use the apps," he said, referring to small programs that make the popular smart phones perform specific tasks.

"And you don't just use prayer to beg for things and treat God like Santa Claus," said Eichenberger, 60, reminding parishioners that prayers are also for giving praise or listening to the Spirit.

With smart phones boasting apps to do everything from finding convenient restaurants to identifying stars in the night sky, developers were bound to make programs that bring age-old religious practices into the digital world.

Read it all.

[Blogged (with some difficulty) from my iPad.]

 

A Celebration!

Why?

Because I just can't help it.







These three videos are from Hillsong United--a Sydney, Australia-based group that composed all three songs [and many more]. The first two videos are Hillsong by themselves; the third is with another contemporary Christian music group called Selah. I wish there were a better video of Hillsong doing this third song, "The Stand," by themselves; but there isn't. It can be an amazing song when it is done well, and I hope you can get a sense of that in this good but less-than-ideal quality video.
 

Pray for Uganda

The Rev. Canon Alison Barfoot, who serves in Uganda, writes the following:

It’s September 11th all over again. That’s the feeling in Uganda these days since the terrorist attacks hit Kampala on Sunday, July 11th. Three bombs exploded in two locations of crowds innocently watching and reveling in the final game of the World Cup. Another unexploded bomb was discovered at a third location in another part of Kampala. Seventy-four people are confirmed dead and many more were seriously injured.

Al-Shabab, the al-Qaeda affiliate in Somalia, has taken credit for the terrorist attacks. Their objection is that Uganda has supplied troops to the African Union peace-keeping mission in Somalia.

Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi issued a statement following the bombings in which he said:

This act of malice and hatred towards mankind is completely ungodly, especially towards innocent and unsuspecting persons. I condemn this act in the strongest terms possible and hope to see the perpetrators of this hideous crime brought to justice.

In the mean time, I call upon each one of us to desist from anger and revenge; this will only perpetuate the pain we already feel. Revenge is not a solution and neither is a sectarian approach to this problem helpful.

Let us instead now focus our energies on being a part of the fight against terrorism in our country. Each one of you can use your eyes as a great weapon to fight this evil. Even as we do so, let us not breed unnecessary suspicion against one another but instead seek for the common goal of a peaceful and just society. Remember a peaceful society is the right of every one regardless of their age, race, gender or religious inclination.

It may cost this nation a lot to try and be a good neighbour to the Somalis who are struggling to have a governable nation.

To the bereaved, I extend my sincere condolences. We share in your pain and wish you God’s comfort during this difficult time.

And to the entire nation, I ask you to fix your eyes on the cross of Jesus. The cross is a reminder of human cruelty to an innocent person; the agony of pain He went through enables Him to share in our pain as well. He had to pay a price for us to receive our freedom. The blood of the Ugandans spilled on Sunday will bring to Ugandans peace.

Read the entire statement.

The Archbishop concluded:

Perpetrators may not know what they are doing but Jesus prayed a powerful prayer, “Father forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.” Yet with this blood on their hands, the Righteous God will be the one to avenge our cause while human justice will also take its course.

For indeed our help comes from the Lord as Psalm 46:1 says, “God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble.”

I pray for the President, his Cabinet, the Members of Parliament, the Police and all Security Agencies as they address this challenge. May God’s wisdom direct you and give you victory over the enemies of our people. And may Ugandans remain united during such a trying time.

Canon Barfoot, who serves on Archbishop Orombi's staff added:

Please also pray--
1. For the families of those innocent victims who are suffering from brutal deaths or injuries.
2. For those, especially church leaders, who are ministering to the injured, shocked, and frightened.
3. For the government to respond appropriately and work to keep Uganda and Ugandans safe.
4. For any other plots to be foiled and the plans of the enemy to be confused.

Those who are interested in directing financial support to the Church in Uganda via Canon Barfoot may send tax-deductible contributions to:

Global Mobilization Ministries, Inc.
1048 Irvine Ave, #556
Newport Beach, CA 92660-4602

For more information, visit www.globalmm.org
 

Loch Lomond - Ralph Vaughan Williams

Two very similar renditions of the beautiful Scottish folk song, Loch Lomond, arranged by Ralph Vaughan Williams--

Number One:


Number Two:


The two versions are meant to sound alike because the singer in the first one is copying the second one. Now here's the kicker: The second version is a professional recording by the group Chanticleer. In the first one, all ten parts are sung by one man, overdubbing each voice on a computer using using Acoustica Mixcraft software and a $20 headset microphone. Whichever version you prefer, I think you'll agree that both versions are very moving.
 

Sunday Morning Worship at Nashotah House -- an Update

I have received many responses (and many assurances of prayers) from my earlier post regarding the Sunday morning Eucharist at Nashotah House and would like to give you an update. I am pleased to say that this service is going well and is an immeasurable blessing to those who are attending. Attendance has ranged from 39 to 65, with an average attendance of 47 for the past eight Sundays. We expect attendance to grow once the fall semester begins and families return from summer vacations.

We are excited by the number of families with young children who attend. We have begun a nursery, staffed by volunteers, during the Sunday morning service. And we look forward to beginning educational opportunities for all ages in the fall.

Beginning on Sunday, July 11, we will offer an adult class featuring a six-week video series by Dallas Willard, renowned teacher, writer of the acclaimed The Spirit of the Disciplines, and one of today's most brilliant Christian thinkers. The series we will be using is entitled The Divine Conspiracy and is a study of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. Child care will be provided during this class.

In previous years, Nashotah House has offered a Vacation Bible School, when we have had enough children on campus and parents who are interested. This year, we will again be offering a Vacation Bible School during the week of Orientation, August 23-27. Some of our Sunday morning worshipers have volunteered to help with the VBS. This will allow student spouses to attend Orientations sessions, while offering a fun opportunity for all the children of our community.

I want to apologize to the Nashotah community for poor communication regarding our Sunday morning plans this past spring. From discussions with the trustees and faculty, it has become clear to me that I often have a tendency to work on plans by myself or with a close group of advisers and not to unveil these plans until I believe there is something substantial to present. In this instance, the lack of public communication on my part allowed a lot of false rumors to begin and spread concerning what we intended to do on Sundays; and this, in turn, caused anxieties and distrust on the part of members of our community. I am deeply sorry for that. And, if you are one of those affected by this situation, I ask your forgiveness. I hope you all know that I would never do anything that I did not earnestly believe was in the long term best interest of the House, but I certainly could have handled the planning and communication regarding our Sunday morning activities better than I did.

One of the questions some people have asked concerns the impact of our Sunday morning worship on Zion Episcopal Church in Oconomowoc. Some of the individuals attending Sunday morning worship at Nashotah House formerly worshiped at Zion. But most of these people are not long term members of Zion. They began attending Zion following disruptions in other congregations in the Milwaukee area because they saw Zion as a faithful church and a refuge.

When Zion's rector, Fr. Thad Butcher announced his intention to retire, some members said they simply could not go through another search process. Some have gone to the Roman Catholic Church. Others have decided to join various non-denominational churches in our area. But some, including individuals who are long time friends, Trustees, and Foundation members at the House indicated they would like to worship here if we could accommodate them. Our worship services at Nashotah House always have been and always will be open to anyone who wishes to attend. However, I have also made it clear that we are not a congregation in the canonical sense. We do not receive or issue letters of membership, and we have no desire to compete with any local congregation. We simply want to make a pastoral response to those who look to us for help.

Fr. Steve Schlossberg has been serving at Zion during Fr. Butcher's sabbatical with my blessing. It is my prayer that he can continue and that Zion will prosper. As we have done in the past, with initiatives such as the Lake Country Youth Ministry and our Field Education program throughout the Diocese of Milwaukee, we want to work cooperatively with the congregations in our area and not compete with them.

At the same time, we recognize that Nashotah House offers a unique array of spiritual resources. We have worked hard to offer the ministry of Nashotah House to new constituencies such as those who enroll in our distance learning programs, the members of the Archbishop Ramsey Society, and our Lay Associates who come here from all over the country to make retreats. Similarly, we want to be a spiritual resource for people in our area who can benefit from our what we have to offer and, in turn, enrich our community by their presence.

Despite the mistakes in communication and other road bumps we have experienced in getting to this point, I am thankful to God for the opportunity to be of service in this way. And I look forward to what God will do in our midst.

Seen and Heard in Milwaukee

Milwaukee has been in the news a couple of times in the past week, thanks largely to a couple of politicians--one local and one national--who now probably wish they had thought twice before speaking.

First, Peggy West, 12th District Supervisor, 2nd Vice-Chair on the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors (who represents a district of about 60,000 constituents) wants to organize a boycott of Arizona (because of their new law dealing with illegal immigrants). The problem is: SHE DOESN'T SEEM TO KNOW WHERE ARIZONA IS!!! See for yourself:


Remember, this is an elected official making these remarks. I'll bet she hasn't read the seventeen page Arizona law either.

Then Vice-President Joe Biden comes to town and goes to my favorite frozen custard place (Kopp's).



First, the Vice-President went into Kopp's Frozen Custard and asked in a loud voice, "Where's the ice cream?" This is like going into a bar on Chicago's NORTH side and asking, "How 'bout 'dem White Sox?" I'm told that everyone in the place shouted, "It's Frozen Custard!"

After getting his frozen custard, the Vice President asks, "How much do we owe you?" The Manager, Scott Borkin, says, "It's on us." The VP presses him further, and the manager quips, "Lower our taxes and we'll call it even." Whereupon the VP, suggests the Manager is "a Smart A**"

The Vice President was in Wisconsin to campaign for Democratic Senator Russ Feingold, who is running for re-election. Given the play this story is getting locally, I think the VP may have just handed Feingold's seat to the Republicans.

Hmmmm, it's almost dinner time. I think I'll go to Kopp's tonight.
 

Vladimir Horowitz plays Two Not-So-Easy Pieces

Fireworks on a Piano:
Bizet - Fantasie on a theme from Carmen

 
Wonderful interpretation throughout; dazzling technique around 3:30 and 7:30 to the end.
Chopin - Ballade #1

 

Tearing Down the Rumor Mill - Sunday morning worship at Nashotah House

"There’s an element of gossip present in every social enterprise. And while light office gossip and a few comments here and there probably won’t hurt anyone, a pervasive culture of rumor-mongering and trash-talking is detrimental to everyone." So begins an article by Margot Carmichael Lester, on the Monster.com job website.

The article continues:

“Gossip destroys morale, creates negative energy and stops coworkers from becoming a united team...” says Judith Orloff, MD, the author of Emotional Freedom: Liberate Yourself from Negative Emotions....

But in the world of office politics, gossip is prevalent, particularly in times of uncertainty, because people are scared and insecure. The folks feeling the greatest anxiety often tend to be the most fervent gossips.

I have had experiences with the rumor mill at various times in my life; but perhaps none more vexing than the episode in which I am enmeshed at present.

Nashotah House has had a daily celebration of the Eucharist (including Sundays) since time immemorial. It is one of the very fine aspects of being an Anglo-Catholic institution. Sometimes in the long history of the House the Sunday Eucharist has been in the morning; sometimes it has been in the evening.

In the 1970's and 1980's, when Fr. Louis Weil was Liturgics professor, there was a congregation named St. Silvanus, because it met in the historic Red Chapel also named for that saint. A few years ago, we moved the Sunday Eucharist to the morning and held it in St. Mary's Chapel, but the service never developed a sizeable congregation; so, after several months, we moved it back to the evening.

This semester we tried another experiment with having a Eucharist on Sunday morning. Some friends, trustees, and supporters of the House said they would be interested in worshiping with us if we had a Sunday morning service. We talked about it over a period of a few months, assessed the strength of the interest, and began to make plans. We saw some real advantages for Nashotah House as well as those who might wish to attend worship here.

Going all the way back to its founding in 1842, Nashotah House has always been as much a spiritual community as an educational institution. But one of the difficulties of being a seminary is that the student body turns over by 1/3 to 1/2 each year. This means that our devotional societies (Society of Mary, Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, Guild of All Souls) as well as our chapters of the Brotherhood of St. Andrew (evangelism among men and boys), the Order of St. Luke (healing ministry), and Daughters of the King (prayer and devotional society for women) all wax and wane as the student body turns over. In addition, Nashotah House has had a youth ministry which has served not only the youth of our community, but the youth from surrounding parishes that did not have enough youth to have their own youth group. Sometimes these ministries would die and have to be reborn because of the turn over in the student body. Opening the ministries of the House to a worshiping community of the seminary's friends and supporters could mean that these ministries might be maintained with continuity. The integration of the practical dimensions of a worshiping community with the academic side of our life would also move the House away from the "ivory tower" image of which seminaries are all too often accused. As we looked at the benefits both for Nashotah House and for those who might attend worship here, it looked like a "win-win" situation.

There is one other piece to the story you have to understand. While the Diocese of Milwaukee has been a moderate to conservative diocese and not a part of the divisive actions that have occurred in other parts of the Episcopal Church, the Diocese does not exist in a vacuum. The tensions in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion have not gone unfelt in the Milwaukee area. Some people, unsettled by these tensions, look to Nashotah House as both a lighthouse and an oasis.

A few of the people who said they would be interested in attending worship at Nashotah House might well have preferred to leave the Episcopal Church. As we talked over a period of many weeks, those of us who represented Nashotah House made it clear that the seminary could not be a part of establishing a congregation of another entity. This is true because: (1) While the seminary may receive students from a variety of traditions, including other Anglican bodies, the Trustees, administration, and faculty of Nashotah House have no interest in changing the historic relationship of Nashotah House to the Episcopal Church. (2) Those of us on the faculty who are clergy of the Episcopal Church could not celebrate the Eucharist or function canonically at a worship service of another denomination. (3) The Sunday morning service, like any other worship service of Nashotah House, occurs under the authority of the Dean, who is designated by the Statutes of Nashotah House as the Ordinary, who himself functions under the authority of the Statutes and the Board of Trustees. (4) The Sunday morning worship service and those who attend it (even if they take a name, like St. Silvanus, St. Mary, St. Michael, Christ Church, etc.) do not constitute a congregation in the canonical sense, since Nashotah House, while it has always performed baptisms, weddings, funerals, and invited bishops to hold confirmations, does not receive or issue letters of membership, or function in any other way as a congregation, as defined by the Canons of the Episcopal Church.

So, on April 18, for the fifth or sixth time in Nashotah House's history (according to research done by some of our Trustees), we began Sunday morning services.

And the rumor mill began its work. Before the day was over, one attendee (who was unaware of the painstaking lengths to which we had gone to discuss what this service could and could not be) had e-mailed some old friends that Nashotah House was starting an ACNA congregation. The Southeast Wisconsin chapter of the American Anglican Council (SEWAAC) mischaracterized what we were doing in their newsletter. And the rector of a nearby Episcopal congregation (a graduate of Nashotah House) sent an e-mail to fellow alumni stating that we had started an ACNA congregation and provided the e-mail addresses of the bishops on our Board of Trustees and encouraged alumni to contact them with their concerns. This e-mail "went viral" and has spread all over the Episcopal Church, reaching students in our distance education and graduate programs and distressing them about the future of the House.

The rumors came full circle and upset current students at the House. To paraphrase the article I mentioned at the beginning of this piece: "particularly in times of uncertainty... people are scared and insecure. The folks feeling the greatest anxiety often tend to be the most fervent gossips." No one ever started rumors about the other times Nashotah House had held Sunday morning worship, including the previous attempt during my deanship to hold a Sunday morning Eucharist. But the current political tensions in the Episcopal Church mean that none of us, even in an oasis like Nashotah House, can count on doing "business as usual."

Today, I received an e-mail newsletter from an organization I had never heard of called "Wisconsin Anglican." (This link is to their website, which unfortunately does not contain the newsletter to which I am referring.) The newsletter heading says this issue is "Volume I, Issue 4." (I never saw issues #1, 2, or 3.) The newsletter claims to be "The Voice of Orthodox Anglicanism in the Badger State." I called the leaders of SEWAAC, who are certainly orthodox Anglicans living in the Badger State, and they never heard of this organization either, but they had received the same newsletter I did. We don't know who is behind this.

This newsletter has a large article about my being nominated for bishop in the Diocese of Springfield, obviously picked up from other news sources. It mentions Nashotah House's Commencement last week, in a story obviously taken from Nashotah House's own website. But, in a sidebar about "Impact in Wisconsin" it states: "In addition, the Rev. William Beasley, a priest of AMiA serves the new outreach meeting at Nashotah House Episcopal Seminary, St. Michael’s at the Mission."

Did these people bother to call to check their information? Of course not. The rumor mill is running, who has time to stop and check the facts? The Rev. William Beasley is a very fine priest from the Chicago area who loves Nashotah House and has spoken at SEWAAC meetings several times. But he has absolutely nothing to do with Sunday morning worship or any other "outreach" at Nashotah House.

The rumor mill is running—and it's out of control! To quote Lester's article again: "Gossip destroys morale, creates negative energy at work and stops coworkers from becoming a united team..." says Judith Orloff, MD, the author of Emotional Freedom: Liberate Yourself from Negative Emotions. "It impacts productivity by taking a worker's mind off the task at hand." Yeah, tell me about it!

So what am I going to do? Well, first of all, I am not going to give up the things I am doing that are "right and a good and joyful thing" for many people. And I am going to continue telling the truth about what we are doing at Nashotah House until we tear down the rumor mill.

We will celebrate the Eucharist at Nashotah House on Sunday, just as we do every other day. The service is at 10:00 a.m. Everyone is welcome!
 

Sunday afternoon Palate Cleanser: Bach, Sinfonia from Cantata #29

A great tribute to a great organist (and fellow Illinois native) Virgil Fox:

Why I never liked Bono (U2)

It could be that wailing, over-the-top vocal style. It could be that rock-star-aspiring-for-sainthood image. Or it could be:

"For love of money, money, money, 
money, money, money, money, money, money, money, money, 
And the fever getting higher
Desire

As Minyanville columnist Jeff Macke writes: "Goldman Sachs shouldn't be the only thing we're angry at."

According to Macke, Bono...

The pious rocker, African Debt Reliever, One-plugging hipster/poet (“don’t believe in riches but you should see where I live”) used some of the downtime he had from saving the world to co-found Elevation Partners with a long-time Silicon Valley stallion, Roger MacNamee. According to BusinessWeek and Bloomberg, Elevation raised $1.9 billion then sunk about 25% of that into Palm (PALM). But only suckers and Germans buy controlling interest in a failing phone company via common shares, not rock gods and one-time stock gods like Bono and MacNamee.

The result of this investment into Palm preferred shares, while suckers were putting their money into ordinary shares, is that the ordinary investors lost 65% of their investment, while Elevation partners and Bono "paid themselves hugely, and made $25 million."

Macke continues:

"Does that make Bono Satan? Yes. It’s also a ridiculously sleazy, poorly executed, self-serving financial deal that victimized pension funds and shareholders (some of whom may have lost their house! as a result) to the benefit of a self-righteous pop star and his super rich buddy. But it took place thousands and thousands of miles from Wall Street. That means one thing -- the hatred directed toward Wall Street must be redirected toward the real enemy: everyone with more than $50, but especially pompous rock stars whose next album is rumored to be a spoken-word acceptance speech for his long-expected Nobel Peace Prize.

She's the dollars, she's my protection
Yeah, she's a promise in the year of election
Oh sister, I can't let you go
Like a preacher stealing hearts at a traveling show
For love of money, money, money, 
money, money, money, money, money, money, money, money, 
And the fever getting higher

Desire (Yeah!)
Desire
Desire
Desire
Alright

Money
Desire
Desire
Alright

And you thought it was a woman he was singing about?
 

Are you ready for a $50 light bulb?

I am amazed at the number of Americans I know who remain totally unaware that the inexpensive, incandescent light bulbs that we have known for generations are about to disappear. The only currently available alternatives are compact florescent light bulbs (which can't even be manufactured in the United States because of their mercury content). Now comes news of this little LED jobber which currently runs $50 for a 40-watt equivalent. The critical sentence in the article is this one:

GE's product launch actually arrives in the shadow of U.S. Federal lighting efficiency standards, due to come into effect in 2012, which mandate a gradual phasing out of incandescent bulbs over a two-year span. Kiss 100-watt incandescent bulbs goodbye first, with 75-watt bulbs scheduled for a 2013 phase-out. The 60- and 40-watt bulbs leave last in 2014.

Read it all.

Enjoy that warm, flicker-free light from a 100-watt incandescent bulb while you are working or reading? Stock up while you still can! Or better yet, write your Representatives and Senators and tell them to stop this nonsense until we develop a safe (mercury free), inexpensive, functional (easy on the eyes) replacement. Is that too much to ask?
 

Lent and Lawsuits, Part 3 - Homeless in Binghamton

In my previous installment of "Lent and Lawsuits" (Part 2, March 7, 2010), I made reference to:

The Diocese of Central New York, where the church building of St. Andrew's Church, in Vestal, was taken over by the Episcopal diocese shortly before Christmas of 2007 and is now vacant and for sale, while St. Andrew's congregation is worshiping elsewhere and thriving. The Church of the Good Shepherd, in Binghamton, also had its building taken in a lawsuit by the diocese. That building also sits vacant while the Anglican Church of the Good Shepherd continues to worship and grow in a new location.

There has been a further development with regard to the former church building of the Church of the Good Shepherd in Binghamton: FrontPage Magazine today published the news that the building the Episcopal Diocese refused to sell to the departing Anglican congregation, and instead sued them for, has now been sold to a Dawah—an Islamic Awareness Center.

Faith J. H. McDonnell, of the Institute for Religion and Democracy, writes in the article:

It was not as if the people of Good Shepherd had been expecting to keep their church building at no cost. Before the legal proceedings began, Good Shepherd offered to purchase the church building and rectory from the diocese. The diocese refused to sell, and during litigation told the court that the parish was no longer using the property for the purposes for which it had been intended by the Episcopalians who built it in 1879 and who had spent money to maintain it over the years. The Episcopal Church has at various times declared that it will sue every congregation that departs from the denomination in order to preserve the “devotion and witness of Episcopalians of the past for Episcopalians of the future.” That has not quite turned out to be the case in Binghamton, though, unless the “Episcopalians of the future” are part of the Ummah, the Muslim world. Which, come to think of it, does not seem all that far-fetched.

Although the Diocese of Central New York refused to sell the Church of the Good Shepherd to the Anglicans for whom it had been home, they were happy to sell it to a Muslim group for $50,000, a third of the amount that Good Shepherd had offered. According to the Rev. Tony Seel, the Diocese even added a legal caveat to the sale stating that the new owners of the property could never re-sell the building to the original congregation (emphasis added).

The property had been standing vacant and padlocked for many months, when on March 17, 2010, Kennedy passed by his former church building. He saw a crane removing the cross from the bell tower. The former Good Shepherd Church had red doors, symbolizing the blood of Christ as well as the blood of the martyrs. Now the doors had been painted green, and the new owners had covered over the glass that had formed the horizontal arms of a cross-shaped window on the church door. Over the back door was a new sign that said “Islamic Awareness Center.”

That's right, folks. The Episcopal Church would rather have a church building become a night club, an antique store, or a mosque than to allow it to be used by a group of Christians with whom they disagree.

Am I the only one who is thoroughly, righteously indignant that the so-called leadership of the Episcopal Church is spending the tithes and offerings of God's people to wage a jihad of litigation against fellow Christians? I don't think so.

 

Can our sexual mores make us sick?

Can our sexual mores make us sick? Anyone who sat through the "VD" (venereal disease) films that we saw in my junior-high health classes might well answer, "DUH!" to a question like that. This was in the era before HIV-AIDS came on the scene, and Syphilis and Gonorrhea were the the two main diseases those films warned us against. Since then, we've become used to hearing about more common diseases, such as genital herpes, more deadly ones such as HIV-AIDS and various forms of viral Hepatitis, and less well-known diseases such as Chlamydia.

But these two recent news articles from England suggest that sexual promiscuity (for which I will use Wikipedia's definition: "sex with relatively many partners") may be the cause of another newly discovered and potentially deadly complication:

Sex virus blamed for rise in head and neck cancers

The number of head and neck cancers linked to a virus spread by oral sex is rising rapidly and suggests boys as well as girls should be offered protection through vaccination, doctors said Friday.

Despite an overall slight decline in head and neck cancers in recent years, cases of a particular form called oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) have increased sharply, particularly in the developed world.

This growth seems to be linked to cancers caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV), scientists said in a report in the British Medical Journal.

[...]

A recent study found the risk of developing oropharyngeal carcinoma was linked to a history of six or more lifetime sexual partners, four or more lifetime oral sex partners, and, for men, an earlier age at first sexual intercourse.

[Read it all.]

Swinging 60s had nothing on the Noughties: sex study

Young women today are nearly three times more sexually active than those of their grandmothers' generation in the liberal heyday of the "Swinging 60s," according to a survey on Tuesday.

The study found that women in the so-called Noughties between 2000 and 2009 had an average of 5.65 different sexual partners by the time they were 24.

Almost one in 10 of those asked claimed to have slept with more than 10 different partners.

By contrast, women who were in their early twenties in the 1960s had an average of 1.67 partners, and women of their mothers' generation, aged 24 in the 1970s, had 3.72 sexual partners by the same age.

[...]

[The study] also found that although women's sex life has increased [sic], sexual health is not improving.

Cancer Research UK statistics show that incidence rates of cervical cancer in women under the age of 25 have not fallen, despite better screening.

Its figures also reveal that although the number of cervical cancer cases in older women has fallen significantly in the last 10 years, diagnoses of the infection in women under the age of 25 have not followed the same trend.

The increase in the number of sexual partners could be one reason, says Lloyds Pharmacy.

"Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) infections are very common, especially in younger people," said Clare Kerr, Lloyds Pharmacy's head of sexual health, who warned that HPV is one of the major causes of cervical cancer.

[Read it all.]

The case for "abstinence before marriage, fidelity afterward" continues to stand.
 

Healthcare hurts

From here.

AT&T Inc. announced today that it will take a $1 billion non-cash accounting charge in the first quarter because of the health care overhaul and may cut benefits it offers to current and retired workers.

The charge is the largest disclosed so far. Earlier this week, AK Steel Corp., Caterpillar Inc., Deere & Co. and Valero Energy announced similar accounting charges, saying the health care law that President Barack Obama signed Tuesday will raise their expenses.

[...]

AT&T also said Friday that it is looking into changing the health care benefits it offers because of the new law. Analysts say retirees could lose the prescription drug coverage provided by their former employers as a result of the overhaul.

Read it all.

And this is only the beginning. Are we loving that change yet?

 

Shock: Stupak Shot Down Last-Ditch Attempt to Include Own Abortion Funding Ban

Of all the disappointments in Congress' debate and vote on the health care bill, none has been worse than the distressing flip-flop of Representative Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) who has sold the pro-life cause he once championed for thirty pieces of silver.

Shock: Stupak Shot Down Last-Ditch Attempt to Include Own Abortion Funding Ban

Pro-life leaders unanimous: abortion executive order meaningless

By Kathleen Gilbert
Updated 3:32 pm EST

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 22, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a baffling about-face, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) on Sunday fought against a last-ditch effort to insert his own abortion-funding ban in the reconciliation "fix" package for the Senate health care bill, which passed Sunday night.

The House subsequently struck down Rep. Dave Camp's (R-Mich.) attempt to pass Stupak’s language 232-199.

While Camp referred to his proposal as the "Stupak-Pitts amendment," Stupak himself spoke against his Republican colleague's effort, saying it was an attempt to "politicize life" that merely "purports to be a right -to-life amendment." "This is nothing more than an opportunity to continue to deny 32 million Americans health insurance," he said.

"This motion does not promote life," declared Stupak. "It is the Democrats who have stood up for the principle of no public funding for abortions. ... The executive order ensures that the sanctity of life will be protected."

Angry shouts, including one of "baby killer," were heard on the House floor as Stupak argued against the amendment. Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, has identified himself as the heckler who shouted "baby killer," though he claims his remark was not directed at Stupak personally.

Stupak had already reached an 11th-hour agreement with the White House earlier in the day to vote for the Senate health care bill - which pro-life leaders have called the largest abortion expansion since Roe v. Wade - in exchange for an executive order from President Obama upholding the Hyde amendment.

It had been widely acknowledged that, without at least two votes from Stupak's group of Democrats holding out for an abortion funding ban, the bill could not have passed. The House voted 219-212 to pass the measure.

Planned Parenthood called the passage of the bill a "huge victory" that would "significantly increase insurance coverage of reproductive health care, including family planning." "Thanks to supporters like you, we were able to keep the Stupak abortion ban out of the final legislation and President Obama did not include the Stupak language in his Executive Order," stated the organization.

Pro-life leaders expressed shock at Stupak's about-face hours before the final vote, after months of holding out for a true Hyde-amendment ban on abortion funding under extreme pressure from party leaders. The Susan B. Anthony list immediately rescinded a "Defender of Life" award slated to go to the Democrat lawmaker.

"The President's disregard for the unborn is no surprise. It is the betrayal from those who have fought for life within his party that is the biggest shock," stated Family Research Council president Tony Perkins on Sunday. "Especially Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) who had fought so valiantly in this debate, but folded when it really mattered."

"Some Democratic Members who have had good pro-life records in the past turned away from those principles today, instead putting their trust in the most pro-abortion President in history and his equally pro-abortion Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius," said Perkins.

Several top pro-life legal analysts immediately concluded that the executive order would do little to actually fix the glaring pro-life concerns in the Democrats' health care overhaul.

Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said in a March 21 memo to congressional aides that it was the "unanimous view of our legal advisers" that the executive order was meaningless, thanks to decades of federal court precedent that apply the principles of Roe v. Wade to federal health legislation.

"According to these rulings, such health legislation creates a statutory requirement for abortion funding, unless Congress clearly forbids such funding," wrote Doerflinger. "That is why the Hyde amendment was needed in 1976, to stop Medicaid from funding 300,000 abortions a year. The statutory mandate construed by the courts would override any executive order or regulation."

In addition, William Saunders, senior vice president of Americans United for Life Action, pointed out Supreme Court precedent demonstrating that "a statute cannot be undone by an executive order or regulation."

"For example, an Executive Order cannot prevent insurance plans that pay for abortions and participate in the newly-created exchanges from receiving federal subsidies, because this allowance is explicitly written in the bill," wrote Saunders in a Washington Examiner column Sunday.

The National Right to Life Committee confirmed that the executive order "does not truly correct any of the seven objectionable pro-abortion provisions" in the bill.

"The executive order promised by President Obama was issued for political effect. It changes nothing," stated NRLC. "The president cannot amend a bill by issuing an order, and the federal courts will enforce what the law says."

Read the article and other pro-life updates here.

 

WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?

Anglican Mainstream comments on the deafening silence from church leaders and the media following the massacre of 500 Christians in Nigeria:

The evil, despicable massacre in Nigeria of some 500 Christian men, women and children has excited remarkably little international comment. This despite the fact that three villages were attacked near Jos by Muslim gangs who trapped women, children and the elderly — those who couldn’t run fast enough to escape — then cut them to pieces.

Archbishop Ben Kwashi described the scenes: “I could see kids from age zero to teenagers, all butchered from the back, macheted in their necks, their heads. Deep cuts in the mouths of babies. The stench. People wailing and crying.” Times (‘500 butchered in Nigeria killing fields’, Tuesday March 9, 2010) entire families were killed to the chants of ‘Allahu Akbar’. Muslim inhabitants of the villages were evacuated before the attackers came in an area which is under a military curfew. Archbishop Kwashi believed a powerful, well-connected grouping must have been responsible. Where are the statements from the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Pope in condemning this violence that has been meted out to Christian communities in Nigeria time and time again? [Emphasis added.] Similarly mealy-mouthed has been the media describing such events as ‘inter- community' is equally responsible for the aggression. Yet there is no equivalence, the vast number of lives claimed over the years have been Christian. Churches have been attacked repeatedly and the triumphant killing slogan ‘God is Greatest’ (‘Allahu Akbar’) has brought shame upon Islam repeatedly.

Lent and Lawsuits, Part 2

As I said in my last post, according to budget figures analyzed by Attorney A.S. Haley (a must read), the Episcopal Church has spent $2.2 million more than was budgeted in 2009 on "Legal Assistance to Dioceses" (i.e., lawsuits against departing parishes) resulting in a projected operating loss for the year of $ 1,708,283.

Keep in mind that this is not the only amount being spent on lawsuits. The Diocese of Virginia has been involved in a multi-year, multi-million dollar suit against departing parishes that has now gone to the Virginia Supreme Court. A similar suit in South Carolina was won by the local parish, but is being appealed to the US Supreme Court.

It is important to remember that the Diocese of Virginia had negotiated and drawn up settlements with departing parishes in northern Virginia prior to the election and enthronement of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori. But the PB, upon taking office, made (who knows how?) the Diocese of Virginia renege on those negotiations.

A Tale of Two Churches

What does the Episcopal Church stand to gain from these suits? Let's at look at the statistics for two churches.

St. John's Church Huntingdon Valley, PA (Diocese of Pennsylvania) walked away from their property in 2003. The parish, which had an average Sunday attendance of around 250 and offerings of around $350,000 before the departure of the majority of the congregation, now has an average Sunday attendance of less than 50 and offering receipts of around $50,000! It doesn't take a genius to realize that you can't keep a congregation in that situation open without generous subsidies. The property alone needs more than $50,000 per year for utilities and maintenance, not to mention compensation for a priest. Meanwhile, the 85-90% majority of the congregation that departed is flourishing in another Philadelphia suburb.

The Falls Church, Falls Church, VA (Diocese of Virginia) is one of the congregations with which the Diocese of Virginia would have settled had not the Presiding Bishop ordered a U-turn on that deal. The overwhelming majority has become part of the Anglican District of Virginia, affiliated with CANA and the Anglican Church in Nigeria and currently retains possession of their building, based on a lower court ruling that is being appealed. A remnant who wanted to remain in TEC meets almost across the street from their former church. How are they doing?

In 2005, the Falls Church had a membership of 2800, with average Sunday attendance running around 1900, and annual offerings totaling $4.5 million. In the past two years, statistics for the remnant TEC congregation show a membership of under 100. The average Sunday attendance is around 50, and income is somewhere less than $100,000. (In fact, it is hard to tell the current "plate and pledge" amount, because the graph that is calibrated to deal with previous year's incomes in the millions doesn't afford the level of detail to peg the current amount very precisely.) The Anglican Falls Church has continued to grow and now has an average attendance of well over 2000.

The sizable attendance the Falls Church has experienced is a direct reflection of the nature and quality of the ministry that has gone on there in recent decades. Just as the example of St. John's, Huntingdon Valley, PA demonstrates (above), the Episcopal Church would have to be seriously deluded to think that any ministry they would conduct there would draw enough people to pay the utility bills.

So, in essence, the Presiding Bishop has forced (again, how?) the Diocese of Virginia to spend several million dollars to fight for property they can't use if they win it. The same is true for Truro Church, in Fairfax, VA, and several other northern Virginia congregations where there is no remaining Episcopal congregation that even wants the property.

The reality is that dioceses of the Episcopal Church where property is at issue could have reaped millions of dollars in settlements through negotiations over the property instead of spending millions of dollars in legal fees by suing departing congregations. If we accept that national church and diocesan leaders have a "fiduciary responsibility" to maintain the assets of the Episcopal Church, then could they not have met that responsibility more effectively by seeking settlements, wherever possible, with departing congregations instead of suing them? It could well be argued that national and diocesan leaders have violated their fiduciary responsibility by recklessly engaging in lawsuits where out-of court settlements might have been possible.

Two cases in point: 1. The Diocese of Colorado where "unrestricted reserves fell from nearly $5 million in 2006, to $750,000 today, due mainly to litigation over Grace Church in Colorado Springs. This represents not only a deep decline in money available to the diocese, but in investment income generated by those reserves."

2. The Diocese of Central New York, where the church building of St. Andrew's Church, in Vestal, was taken over by the Episcopal diocese shortly before Christmas of 2007 and is now vacant and for sale, while St. Andrew's congregation is worshiping elsewhere and thriving. The Church of the Good Shepherd, in Binghamton, also had its building taken in a lawsuit by the diocese. That building also sits vacant while the Anglican Church of the Good Shepherd continues to worship and grow in a new location.

From a January 2010 article in Christianity Today, entitled "Land and Building Wars":

Valerie J. Munson, who runs a religion and law center at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, has counseled a dozen U.S. Anglican parishes and finds all the litigation unfortunate.

"A lot of money is being spent by the Episcopal Church to litigate cases that could very easily be settled," says Munson, a PC(USA) elder. "In a justice system where over 90 percent of cases are settled, it's a bit of a mystery as to why a Christian denomination would choose to spend its resources on every dispute that comes up."

"...a mystery as to why a Christian denomination would choose to spend its resources on every dispute that comes up." Indeed.

So why is the Episcopal Church engaging in costly lawsuits with such abandon? The following quotations from an article that originally appeared in The Washington Times (fortunately preserved by Stand Firm) give a clue:

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

"I told Bishop Lee I could not support negotiations for sale if the congregations intended to set up as other parts of the Anglican Communion," Bishop Jefferts Schori said."

[...]

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

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

So it appears that the Episcopal Church's pursuit of litigation has more to do with denying property to departing congregations that wish to remain Anglican than with exercising a fiduciary responsibility for church assets.

Indeed rather than preserving Episcopal Church assets, the chief motivation seems to be to deny (seemingly at any cost) resources to anyone who would dare call himself or herself an Anglican apart from the Episcopal Church. In the process Episcopalians are being encouraged to view departing brothers and sisters as enemies, with the litigation resulting in acrimony and spiritual damage of the sort that the Church is supposed to exist to heal.

There is only one word for such an endeavor that is conducted without regard for cost or consequences: obsession. But I would submit that, whether one is speaking of the material or spiritual cost, it is an obsession that the Episcopal Church cannot afford.

Loyal Episcopalians who are concerned about the spiritual and financial well-being of their Church need to hold the leadership responsible for these overexpenditures and demand a halt to the litigation now.


Postscript

(1) There will undoubtedly be those who object to what I have said here. But it needs to be noted that I am not taking sides in the matter of who owns church properties, I am simply arguing against the path the Episcopal Church is taking in resolving property disputes.

(2) It will be alleged by some on "the other side" that legal victories by the Episcopal Church justify these lawsuits. (a.) Any thinking person knows that there is always a danger in "the end justifies the means" kind of rationalization. (b.) One only has to look at Plessy v. Ferguson, the Dred Scott decision, or Roe v. Wade to see that a legal right and a moral right are not always the same thing.

(3) I remain a priest of the Episcopal Church. There are those (chiefly among those who claim to want an "inclusive" Church) who would say I am being disloyal and that there isn't any room in the Episcopal Church for anyone who opposes its litigious stance. These same individuals need to ask themselves if someone can still be a loyal American while opposing the war in Iraq (or the administration's policies on a whole range of subjects). Obviously, loyalty and dissent are not mutually exclusive.
 

Lent and Lawsuits

I was struck and powerfully convicted regarding the current state of the Episcopal Church by this reading from today's Daily Office Lectionary:

When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers! (1 Corinthians 6:1-8)

Coincidentally, The Living Church recently ran an editorial dealing with this same subject: http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2010/2/25/editorial-lent-and-lawsuits. I do not agree with all of The Living Church's editorial, but they are right to question the recklessness with which supposed followers of Christ are engaging a type of conduct expressly condemned in the New Testament.

The editorial begins by mentioning the intervention of the Presiding Bishop in affairs of the Diocese of South Carolina by retaining legal counsel without consulting with (and possibly with the intention of legal action against) the Bishop of South Carolina because of concerns that a handful of parishes in South Carolina might be taking action to distance themselves from the Episcopal Church.

As the Presiding Bishop described Bishop Lawrence’s actions, her tone departed from the proposed discipline of Lent. “He’s telling the world that he is offended that I think it’s important that people who want to stay Episcopalians there have some representation on behalf of the larger church,” she said in remarks to the Episcopal Church’s Executive Council on Feb. 19.

No, Presiding Bishop, it could be that the Bishop of South Carolina is offended that your first response to the thought that a congregation might be distancing itself from the Episcopal Church is to hire lawyers. Or it could be that, as the Living Church editorial opines, "neither do we believe that filing lawsuits against fellow Christians is a matter of good stewardship."

As I read 1 Corinthians 6, it is more serious than a matter of good stewardship. But, if we look at the issue of stewardship as it pertains to the Episcopal Church's litigation, it might pay to ask how that is working out?

Attorney A.S. Haley, who blogs under the name "The Anglican Curmudgeon" has been following the Episcopal Church's budget problems and expenditures on litigation in a series of posts, entitled ECUSA's Finances, the latest installment of which was posted yesterday: http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2010/03/ecusas-finances-updated.html. Mr. Haley notes that the line item labelled Legal Assistance to Dioceses (paying for the cost of dozens of major lawsuits), the amount budgeted for 2009 is $100,000. The amount spent during 2009 was $2,346,347—an overexpenditure of $2,246,347. Consequently, even in the face of excess receipts from the Federal Government for Episcopal Migration Ministries of $1,118,023, the Episcopal Church still ran a deficit for 2009 in excess of $2.2 million. You must read A.S. Haley's article in it's entirely to get the complete picture.

So how is the Episcopal Church making up for these deficits? As Haley puts it, "by slashing to the bone its entire raison d'être at the national level," in other words, by underspending virtually every aspect of the Church's budget for programs and ministries. As a fiscal conservative, I am not normally opposed to economizing or underspending budgets. But when we are talking about the ministry of the Church, the ministry for which church members give their tithes and offerings as unto the Lord, the diversion of those funds into unbudgeted expenditures not approved by church members is inexcusable.

(To be continued.)
 

Daily Telegraph (UK): The Church of England does lack testosterone

The February 9, Daily Telegraph, had an interesting bit of social commentary by columnist Ed West. You should read the whole thing to get the context, but the critical paragraphs are these:

But it’s only in recent years that the mainstream churches – and the Catholics have this problem to a lesser extent – have become virtual male-free zones. And the fact is that Christianity has been feminised. All the things that used to inspire young men – the sense of honour, camaraderie, sacrifice and patriotism, the rugged Victorian Christianity – have been sucked out of the Anglican Church. What man in his rightful mind wants to get up on a Sunday morning to be lectured to about climate change and social justice by Harriet Harman’s sister? My father, a lifelong Anglican, went to his last service a couple of years ago when the lady vicar started her sermon with: “I read an interesting piece in the Guardian yesterday…”

Where’s the leadership and inspiration that young men crave? Can you imagine many of the C of E’s leaders today as Gene Hackman’s character from The Poseidon Adventure, leading his flock to safety at the cost of his own life, and looking damned cool at the same time, rather than mouthing platitudes about inter-faith dialogue while the ship goes down?

Read it all.

The comments that follow are rich, too. Such as this one from "DominicJ" who is obviously disillusioned with what he sees in current Church of England clergy:

"Can't argue, I haven't been to church ages.
I’m allowed to have a decade long crisis of faith, my bloody priest isnt!"

That's a good one, Dominic!

Is is possible to say, "Ouch!" and "Amen!" at the same time?