Taliban gunmen shoot 14-year-old girl activist

From here:  

Fourteen-year-old Malala Yousufzai was admired across a battle-scarred region of Pakistan for exposing the Taliban's atrocities and advocating for girls' education in the face of religious extremists. On Tuesday, the Taliban nearly killed her to quiet her message.

A gunman walked up to a bus taking children home from school in the volatile northern Swat Valley and shot Malala in the head and neck. Another girl on the bus was also wounded.

The young activist was airlifted by helicopter to a military hospital in the frontier city of Peshawar. A doctor in the city of Mingora, Tariq Mohammad, said her wounds weren't life-threatening, but a provincial information minister said after a medical board examined the girl that the next few days would be crucial.

[Please pray for Malala.]

Malala began writing a blog when she was just 11 under the pseudonym Gul Makai for the BBC about life under the Taliban, and began speaking out publicly in 2009 about the need for girls' education — which the Taliban strongly opposes. The extremist movement was quick to claim responsibility for shooting her.

"This was a new chapter of obscenity, and we have to finish this chapter," Taliban spokesman Ahsanullah Ahsan by telephone.  [Emphasis added.]

[So, according to the "religion of peace," young girls getting an education and speaking out against injustice is obscene, but murder isn't.]

The shooting provoked outrage across the country, angering Pakistanis who have seen a succession of stories about violence against women by the Taliban.

"This attack cannot scare us nor the courageous Malala. This cowardly act cannot deter Malala to give up her efforts," said Azizul Hasan, one of the girl's cousins.

Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf condemned the attack and called her a daughter of Pakistan. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland called the shooting "barbaric" and "cowardly."

Read the whole story.

What Should We Think of the New International Version 2011? (Part 2)

A frequent problem with some new translations of the Bible is that, in their effort to use language that is more "gender neutral," the translation becomes less accurate; and, in the translation of some passages, loses theological integrity.  This is particularly true in the translation of the theologically significant phrase "Son of Man."

Consider Psalm 8:4-6 from the 1984 NIV:

4 what is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?
5 You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honor.
6 You made him ruler over the works of your hands;
you put everything under his feet

In the 2011 NIV Psalm 8:4-6 becomes:

4 what is mankind that you are mindful of them,
human beings that you care for them?
5 You have made them a little lower than the angels
and crowned them with glory and honor.
6 You made them rulers over the works of your hands;
you put everything under their feet

What can be seen in verse 4 is a rich parallelism between man (or mankind) in the first half of the verse with the Son of Man, the Messiah, in the second half of the verse.  This passage, which is widely considered a Messianic reference, now has that reference obscured by being translated as only referring to human beings (plural) throughout.

Students of the Bible will recognize that Jesus may have had such passages in mind when he referred to himself as the Son of Man.  Not only that, but the (inspired) writer of the Letter to the Hebrews obviously considered this passage from Psalm 8 to be a Messianic reference when he quotes it in Hebrews 2:5-9,

5 It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking. 6 But there is a place where someone has testified:

“What is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?
7 You made him a little lower than the angels;
you crowned him with glory and honor
8 and put everything under his feet.”

In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him.  Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him.  9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

In the 2011 NIV this passage from Hebrews becomes:

5 It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking. 6 But there is a place where someone has testified:

“What is mankind that you are mindful of them,
a son of man that you care for him?
7 You made them a little lower than the angels;
you crowned them with glory and honor
8 and put everything under their feet.”

In putting everything under them, God left nothing that is not subject to them.  Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them.  9 But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

The distinction is that, in other translations and for most biblical scholars, everything from the latter half of verse 6 and following is arguably a Messianic reference.  In the 2011 NIV, only in verse 9 does the passage begin clearly to refer to the Messiah.  The whole thrust of verses 7 and 8 has been switched from the Son of Man (the Messiah) to human beings; and "the son of man" (a reference to the Messiah) in verse 6 becomes "a son of man" (a reference to a human individual) in the 2011 NIV.

I have to confess that the first time I read verses 7 and 8 in the 2011 NIV I was impressed at what a nice, clever, and insightful translation it was.  (Actually the word that came to mind was that it was a very "slick" way to handle the translation of this passage.)  But then, recognizing the enormous shift in the focus of the verses, I quickly regained my senses and realized that the test of any Bible translation is not whether it is a nice, clever, or insightful (or slick) translation, but is it a truthful and accurate translation?

While I am somewhat sympathetic to the aims of a dynamic equivalence translation, I believe readers can only be assured of the truthfulness and accuracy of theology-laden passages like the one from Psalm 8, quoted in Hebrews 2, if we translate what the writer actually said rather than what we think he might have meant, or what we would prefer to have him say to our contemporary ears.

What should We Think of the New International Version 2011? (Part 1)

Those who know me well have heard me express my concerns about the 2011 edition of the New International Version of the Bible.  Today I ran across this passage, which has changed significantly from the 1984 to the 2011 edition:

Romans 1:4

New International Version 1984 (NIV 1984): ^"4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord."

Romans 1:4

New International Version 2011 (NIV 2011):^"4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord."

Do you see the difference?  We are talking about the translation of ὁρισθέντος (horisthentos).  The phrase is "τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ," which the NIV 2011 translates as "appointed the Son of God," and which every other English translation I can find translates as "declared" (or a word with an equivalent meaning such as shown, proved, marked out, or demonstrated) to be the Son of God"

GREEK: τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ
NASB: who was declared the Son of God
KJV: And declared [to be] the Son of God
INT: having been declared Son of God

Romans 1:4 is the only occurrence of ὁρισθέντος in the New Testament, while ὡρισμένος (hōrismenos) in Acts 10:42 and ὥρισεν (horisen) in Acts 17:31, which are translated as appointed, are related but not the same word.
 
While ὁρισθέντος may be translated as appointed, a better translation is marked out, determined to be, or declared.  It is significant that virtually every English translation translates it this way: 
(KJ21) ⁴ and was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead,

(ASV) ⁴ who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead; even Jesus Christ our Lord,

(CEB) ⁴ He was publicly identified as God’s Son with power through his resurrection from the dead, which was based on the Spirit of holiness. This Son is Jesus Christ our Lord.

(CJB) ⁴ he was powerfully demonstrated to be Son of God spiritually, set apart by his having been resurrected from the dead; he is Yeshua the Messiah, our Lord.

(CEV) ^3-4 This good news is about his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ! As a human, he was from the family of David. But the Holy Spirit proved that Jesus is the powerful Son of God, because he was raised from death.

(DARBY) ⁴ marked out Son of God in power, according to [the] Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of [the] dead) Jesus Christ our Lord;

(ERV) ^3-4 The Good News is about God’s Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. As a human, he was born from the family of David, but through the Holy Spirit he was shown to be God’s powerful Son when he was raised from death.

(ESV) ⁴ and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,

(ESVUK) ⁴ and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,

(GW) ⁴ In his spiritual, holy nature he was declared the Son of God. This was shown in a powerful way when he came back to life.

(GNT) ⁴ as to his divine holiness, he was shown with great power to be the Son of God by being raised from death.

(HCSB) ⁴ and who has been declared to be the powerful Son of God by the resurrection from the dead according to the Spirit of holiness.

(PHILLIPS) ^3-6 The Gospel is centred in God’s Son, a descendant of David by human genealogy and patently marked out as the Son of God by the power of that Spirit of holiness which raised him to life again from the dead. He is our Lord, Jesus Christ, from whom we received grace and our commission in his name to forward obedience to the faith in all nations. And of this great number you at Rome are also called to belong to him.

(KJV) ⁴ And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

(LEB) ⁴ who was declared Son of God in power according to the Holy Spirit by the resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ our Lord,

(MSG) ^2-7 The sacred writings contain preliminary reports by the prophets on God’s Son. His descent from David roots him in history; his unique identity as Son of God was shown by the Spirit when Jesus was raised from the dead, setting him apart as the Messiah, our Master. Through him we received both the generous gift of his life and the urgent task of passing it on to others who receive it by entering into obedient trust in Jesus. You are who you are through this gift and call of Jesus Christ! And I greet you now with all the generosity of God our Father and our Master Jesus, the Messiah.

(NASB) ⁴ who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,

(NCV) ^3-4 The Good News is about God's Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. As a man, he was born from the family of David. But through the Spirit of holiness he was declared to be God's Son with great power by rising from the dead.

(NKJV) ⁴ and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.

(NLV) ⁴ The Holy Spirit proved by a powerful act that Jesus our Lord is the Son of God because He was raised from the dead. 
(NLT) ⁴ and he was shown to be the Son of God when he was raised from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit. He is Jesus Christ our Lord.
(NRSV) 4 and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spiritb of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,
(YLT) ⁴ who is marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of sanctification, by the rising again from the dead,) Jesus Christ our Lord;

The NIV 1984 edition is consistent with all other translations:

(NIV1984)⁴ and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

Then comes the updated family of New International Version Bibles, the NIV 2011, followed by the UK version, the NIV Reader's Version (a version for young people) and the Today's New International Version (TNIV) which was discontinued at the same time as  publication of the NIV 2011 began.
 

(NIV) [2011] ⁴ and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

(NIVUK) ⁴ and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

(NIRV) ⁴ By the power of the Holy Spirit, he was appointed to be the mighty Son of God because he rose from the dead. He is Jesus Christ our Lord.

(TNIV) ⁴ and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

The reason why this matters so much is the Christological heresy known as adoptionism, the view that Jesus was born merely human and that he became divine—adopted as God's son—later in his life.  No theologically knowledgeable translator could be unaware of the error of adoptionism, and to translate Romans 1:4 in a way unlike any other English translation—a way that opens the door to this erroneous view—is inexcusable. 

This is only the beginning of a whole catalog of problems I am finding with the NIV (2011).  I'll return to this subject as time permits.

A Missionary Leader Goes Home: The Rev. Walter Hannum (1925-2012)

I received the following news from Sharon Steinmiller, Director of the New Wineskins Missionary Network, regarding the death of Walter Hannum.  As I told Sharon, "I was profoundly touched by Walter and Louise's ministry.  Walter was truly a great missionary statesman and visionary leader, but so low-key that his tremendous accomplishments seldom received the recognition they deserved."  I am certain that he is, even now, hearing The Master say, "Well done, good and faithful servant!"

Dear Friends of New Wineskins and of Walter and Louise Hannum,

I just got a call from Louise that Walter died yesterday.  He hadn’t been eating well for some time.  Louise told me it was a miracle that he was not in any pain—gall bladder is normally extremely painful.  Last week someone asked him how he was and he said, “I’m a happy man!” and yesterday when Louise read Morning Prayer with him he said “Amen!” in all the right places.  So there are many blessings.

Walter was my mentor and friend and I had the privilege of being his “honorary daughter.”  I cannot over­estimate the impact the Hannums have had on missions among Episcopalians/Anglicans in North America and the Anglican Communion.  They were the voice crying in the wilder­ness for missions—particularly for unreached people groups— for decades before others in our Church picked up the cry.  They gave orientation and training to over 300 missionaries, taught numerous one-week Introductory Courses on World Missions, and presented mission seminars around the USA.  They served as adjunct professors of World Mission and Evangelism at Trinity School for Ministry.

Walter and Louise founded ECMC (now New Wineskins Missionary Network) in 1974 to “enable Episcopalians to be more knowledgeable, active, and effective in fulfilling our Lord’s Great Commission to make disciples of all nations by raising mission vision in parishes and dioceses, promoting and providing training for missionaries and mission committees, equipping Episcopalians to reach unreached people groups around the world, and raising prayer support for Episcopal missionaries.”  Because of their vision, persistence, and faithfulness, that has been happening ever since!

The New Wineskins for Global Mission conferences, first held in 1994 to honor their 20 years of ministry as founders of ECMC, have continued every three or four years and have impacted generations of seminarians and countless churches and missionaries.

Walter served twenty years in Alaska as Archdeacon of Northern Alaska preparing the first ever Indians and Eskimos for priesthood. Born December 30, 1925—long before anyone ever heard of dyslexia—he graduated from the Philadelphia Divinity School of the Episcopal Church in 1953 and received a Th.M. in Missiology in 1975 from the School of World Mission at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA.  He had a key role in the existence of the Good News Bible, Canon 9 Ordinations, SAMS, Yavatmal College for Leadership Training in India, and the Indian Graduate School for Missiology.  He was involved in the founding of AFM, Global Teams, and the U.S. Center for World Mission.

As Walter used to say, “You can count the seeds in an apple, but no one can count the apples in a seed.”  Anglicans in missions around the world thank God for Walter Hannum, and there will be people from tribes, tongues, languages, and nations gathered around the throne who are the fruit of his life and ministry.

If you want to send a note, Louise’s address is Pilgrim Place, 627 Leyden Lane #106, Claremont, CA 91711-4235.

“Happy are those who from now on die in the service of the Lord!… They will enjoy rest from their hard work, because the results of their service go with them.” Rev. 14: 13, Good News Bible)

Sharon Steinmiller
Director
New Wineskins Missionary Network

Protester Dies after Inhaling Fumes from Burning American Flag

Seriously.   I am not making this up.

It's on the Teleprompter!

By now, everyone with a television or computer has seen the video from the Democratic National Convention where they took three votes to reinsert God and Jerusalem into the Democratic Party Platform.  My opinion from the outset was that it was more honest for the Democrats not to mention God or to put phony language about Jerusalem in their platform (as long as Pres. Obama supports creation of a Palestinian State and wants Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders).  Furthermore, putting God's name in a platform that endorses the redefinition of marriage and unrestricted abortion is just window-dressing.  In fact, it is using God's name in vain.

Nevertheless, stung by public opinion regarding the omissions, the platform committee put forward an amendment to add God and support for Jerusalem as the capital of Israel back into the platform.  As numerous commentators have noted, the change did not seem to gather even a simple majority of delegates on a voice vote, much less the two-thirds majority needed to pass the amendment.

Convention Chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, acted as if he didn't think the motion had the necessary two-thirds majority either. In one of the most awkward moments ever seen in a televised political convention, he had the delegates cast their voice vote three times.  Finally, looking nonplussed, Mayor Villaraigosa stated, "In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds have voted in the affirmative, the motion is adopted, and the platform has been amended as shown on the screen."

The good mayor may have been from Los Angeles, but this Convention was being played according to Chicago rules: Keep counting the votes until you get the result you want.  Even the stalwart Democratic delegates on the floor responded to the ruling of the chair with boos.

But tonight, Sean Hannity added this shocking detail: the decision that Mayor Villaraigosa issued, declaring that the amendment passed, was scripted and already on the teleprompter!  This is the reason for Mayor Villaraigosa's awkwardness: in the face of a voice vote that obviously didn't carry, he already had his orders. It had already been decreed that the amendment would pass.

Ben Stein Comments on Todd Akin and the Abortion Debate

From Ben Stein's column in The American Specator:

By the way, I am fascinated by this whole drama about Todd Akin and his strange comments about rape and abortion.  There is no doubt he said something extremely mistaken and offensive.  But there is also no doubt that he's standing tall against abortion when even his own party has turned on him.  Is there a braver candidate out there right now?  What are the merits and demerits of making a stupid comment on a TV show as compared with killing a baby because you don't like her sex or you want to move on with your career?

Somehow, in this brouhaha about Mr. Akin, the fundamentals of the issue have been lost.

Is it a good idea to have unlimited abortion?  Do unborn babies have no rights?  If not, why not?  The pro-abortion people have done a genius job of framing this debate in exactly the wrong way.  They always do that.  It's really about the taking of innocent life and not about miscues on a TV show.  [Emphasis mine.]

I live in Wisconsin, not Missouri, and I am not making a comment on the merits of Todd Akin's candidacy. But Ben Stein is right about losing sight of the fundamental issue.

[Off-topic]: Actress Kyra Sedgwick Says Hollywood Ignores Midwest

As one who proudly lives in what people on the east and west coast consider, "flyover country," I find myself hoping many of those people keep right on flying over.

Actress Kyra Sedgwick appeared on Tavis Smiley's PBS show this week where she discussed her recently concluded series "The Closer" on TNT. She said the series drew healthy audience shares in the Midwest but not in L.A. or New York City. At first, she said she felt insulted at this ratings truth, but it wasn't long before she realized this wasn't a bad thing at all.

Here's the video, but click on this link to read the whole article on Breitbart.com.

The Sin of Tolerance

The Sin of Tolerance
Billy Graham's 1959 radio address.

This article originally appeared in the February 2, 1959 issue of Christianity Today.

Billy Graham's ministry to the big cities, widened in its outreach by radio and television, is one of the outstanding contributions to the resurgence of evangelical Christianity in our generation. His radio message on "The Sin of Tolerance" has been especially blessed. Reprints are available from the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association in Minneapolis.

One of the pet words of this age is "tolerance." It is a good word, but we have tried to stretch it over too great an area of life. We have applied it too often where it does not belong. The word "tolerant" means "liberal," "broad-minded," "willing to put up with beliefs opposed to one's convictions," and "the allowance of something not wholly approved."

Tolerance, in one sense, implies the compromise of one's convictions, a yielding of ground upon important issues. Hence, over-tolerance in moral issues has made us soft, flabby and devoid of conviction.

We have become tolerant about divorce; we have become tolerant about the use of alcohol; we have become tolerant about delinquency; we have become tolerant about wickedness in high places; we have become tolerant about immorality; we have become tolerant about crime and we have become tolerant about godlessness. We have become tolerant of unbelief.

In a book recently published on what prominent people believe, 60 out of 100 did not even mention God, and only 11 out of 100 mentioned Jesus. There was a manifest tolerance toward soft character and a broadmindedness about morals, characteristic of our day. We have been sapped of conviction, drained of our beliefs and bereft of our faith.

The Way Is Narrow

The sciences, however, call for narrow-mindedness. There is no room for broad-mindedness in the laboratory. Water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit at sea level. It is never 100 degrees nor 189 degrees—but always 212. Water freezes at 32 degrees—not at 23 or 31.

Objects heavier than air are always attracted to the center of the earth. They always go down-never up. I know this is very narrow, but the law of gravity decrees it so, and science is narrow.

Take mathematics. The sum of two plus two is four—not three-and-a-half. That seems very narrow, but arithmetic is not broad. Neither is geometry. It says that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points. That seems very dogmatic and narrow, but geometry is intolerant.

A compass will always point to the magnetic north. It seems that is a very narrow view, but a compass is not very "broad-minded." If it were, all the ships at sea, and all the planes in the air would be in danger.

If you should ask a man the direction to New York City and he said, "Oh, just take any road you wish, they all lead there," you would question either his sanity or his truthfulness. Somehow, we have gotten it into our minds that "all roads lead to heaven." You hear people say, "Do your best," "Be honest," and "Be sincere—and you will make it to heaven all right."

But Jesus Christ, who journeyed from heaven to earth and back to heaven again—who knew the way better than any man who ever lived—said, "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it" (Matt. 7:13,14).

Jesus was narrow about the way of salvation.

He plainly pointed out that there are two roads in life. One is broad—lacking in faith, convictions and morals. It is the easy, popular, careless way. It is the way of the crowd, the way of the majority, the way of the world. He said, "Many there be that go in thereat." But he pointed out that this road, easy though it is, popular though it may be, heavily traveled though it is, leads to destruction. And in loving, compassionate intolerance he says, "Enter ye in at the strait gate … because strait is the gate and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life."

Our Lord's Intolerance

His was the intolerance of a pilot who maneuvers his plane through the storm, realizing that a single error, just one flash of broad-mindedness, might bring disaster to all those passengers on the plane.

Once while flying from Korea to Japan, we ran through a rough snowstorm; and when we arrived over the airport in Tokyo, the ceiling and visibility were almost zero. The pilot had to make an instrument landing. I sat up in the cockpit with the pilot and watched him sweat it out as he was brought in by ground control approach. A man in the tower at the airport talked us in. I did not want these men to be broad-minded, but narrow-minded. I knew that our lives depended on it. Just so, when we come in for the landing in the great airport in heaven, I don't want any broad-mindedness. I want to come in on the beam, and even though I may be considered narrow here, I want to be sure of a safe landing there.

Christ was so intolerant of man's lost estate that he left his lofty throne in the heavenlies, took on himself the form of man, suffered at the hands of evil men and died on a cross to purchase our redemption. So serious was man's plight that he could not look upon it lightly. With the love that was his, he could not be broadminded about a world held captive by its lusts, its appetites and its sins.

Having paid such a price, he could not be tolerant about man's indifference toward him and the redemption he had wrought. He said, "He that is not with me is against me" (Matt. 12:30). He also said, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life, and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36).

He spoke of two roads, two kingdoms, two masters, two rewards, and two eternities. And he said, "Ye cannot serve God and mammon" (Matt. 6:24). We have the power to choose whom we will serve, but the alternative to choosing Christ brings certain destruction. Christ said that! The broad, wide, easy, popular way leads to death and destruction. Only the way of the Cross leads home.

Playing Both Sides

The popular, tolerant attitude toward the gospel of Christ is like a man going to watch the Braves and the Dodgers play a baseball game and rooting for both sides. It would be impossible for a man who has no loyalty to a particular team to really get into the game.

Baseball fans are very intolerant in both Milwaukee and Los Angeles. If you would cheer for both sides in Los Angeles or Milwaukee, someone would yell, "Hey, make up your mind who you're for."

Christ said, "Ye cannot serve God and mammon … no man can serve two masters" (Matt. 6:24). One of the sins of this age is the sin of broad-mindedness. We need more people who will step out and say unashamedly, "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (Josh. 24:15).

Jesus was intolerant toward hypocrisy.

He pronounced more "woes" on the Pharisees than on any other sect because they were given to outward piety but inward sham. "Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!" He said, "for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within ye are full of extortion and excess" (Matt. 23:25).

The church is a stage where all the performers are professors, but where too few of the professors are performers. A counterfeit Christian, singlehandedly, can do more to retard the progress of the church than a dozen saints can do to forward it. That is why Jesus was so intolerant with sham!

Sham's only reward is everlasting destruction. It is the only sin which has no reward in this life. Robbers have their loot; murderers their revenge; drunkards their stimulation; but the hypocrite has nothing but the contempt of his neighbors and the judgment of God hereafter. That is why Jesus said, "Be not as the hypocrites" (Matt. 6:16).

Jesus was intolerant toward selfishness.

He said, "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself" (Luke 9:23). Self-centeredness is the basic cause of much of our distress in life. Hypochondria, a mental disorder which is accompanied by melancholy and depression, is often caused by self-pity and self-centeredness.

Most of us suffer from spiritual near-sightedness. Our interests, our loves, and our energies are too often focused upon ourselves.

Jesus was intolerant of selfishness. He underscored the fact that his disciples were to live outflowingly rather than selfishly. To the rich young ruler he said, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven …" (Matt. 19:21). It wasn't the giving of his goods that Jesus demanded, particularly-but his release from selfishness and its devastating effect on his personality and life.

He was intolerant of selfishness when he said, "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it" (Matt. 16:25). The "life" which Jesus urges us to lose is the selfishness that lives within us, the old nature of sin that is in conflict with God. Peter, James and John left their nets, but Jesus did not object to nets as such—it was the selfish living they symbolized that he wanted them to forsake. Matthew left the "custom seat," a political job, to follow Christ. But Jesus did not object to a political career as such—it was the selfish quality of living which it represented that he wanted Matthew to forsake.

So, in your life and mine, "self" must be crucified and Christ enthroned. He was intolerant of any other way, for he knew that selfishness and the Spirit of God cannot exist together.

Jesus was intolerant toward sin.

He was tolerant toward the sinner but intolerant toward the evil which enslaved him. To the adulteress he said, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more" (John 8:11). He forgave her because he loved her; but he condemned sin because he loathed it with a holy hatred.

God has always been intolerant of sin! His Word says: "Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil" (Isa. 1:16).

"Awake to righteousness, and sin not" (1 Cor. 15:34). "Let the wicked forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts …" (Isa. 55:7).

Christ was "so intolerant of sin that he died on the cross to free men from its power.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). Sin lies at the root of society's difficulties today. Whatever separates man from God disunites man from man. The world problem will never be solved until the question of sin is settled.

But the Cross is God's answer to sin. To all who will receive the blessed news of salvation through Christ, it forever crosses out and cancels sin's power. Forest rangers know well the value of the "burn-back" in fighting forest fires. To save an area from being burned, they simply burn away all of the trees and shrubs to a safe distance; and when the fire reaches that burned-out spot, those standing there are safe from the flames. Fire is thus fought by fire.

Calvary was a colossal fighting of fire by fire. Christ, taking on himself all of our sins, allowed the fire of sin's judgment to fall upon him. The area around the Cross has become a place of refuge for all who would escape the judgment of sin. Take your place with him at the Cross; stand by the Cross; yield your life to him who redeemed you on the Cross, and the fire of sin's judgment can never touch you.

God is intolerant of sin. That intolerance sent his Son to die for us. He has said "that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish." The clear implication is that those who refuse to believe in Christ shall be eternally lost. Come to him today, while his Spirit deals with your heart!

Just sayin'...

An FAQ on Christianity for the Unbeliever

Frank Fleming, writing on the PJ Media site, has a wonderful guide for people who just don't get the whole Christianity thing.  I am only posting an excerpt, but you really must read the whole article.

CHRISTIANS FAQ

How long have Christians been around?

While many people see Christians as a brand new and quite scary thing, records show Christians have been around since at least the 1950s, and maybe even much earlier.

What are their beliefs based on?

It’s a book called “The Bible.”  It’s full of thousands-of-years-old religious writing, which Christians believe to have been written by men inspired by God. It’s very long.

I see many Bibles are labeled “Holy Bible.”  What if I got a non-holy version?

Immediately return it for a refund.

The Bible is full of really old values, with lots of outdated views on things like sex.  Do Christians actually follow this thing?

Indeed they try.  Their view is that while society and technology change, the fundamental nature of man doesn’t, and neither do the values God gave us.  Thus, the Bible is something they find relevant and expect people to read and follow many years into the future, like Harry Potter.

Don’t Christians know how weird and old-fashioned following the Bible makes them?  Everyone else is fine with swearing, sex on TV, and abortion.  Why do they have to be so different?

To Christians, following the ways of God is more important than fitting in with societal norms.  Thus they are gladly counter-cultural.

So they’re like hipsters?

Yes, except everything they do is unironic.

As I said, you really must read the whole article.

(Hat tip: Midwest Conservative Journal.)

A Random Thought about Mormonism

Each summer for the past several years I have spent some time witnessing to Mormons.  This necessarily involves some apologetics, which is not a part I particularly relish.  These days I am content being a teacher, not a debater.  But I am still just as passionate for truth.

I was reflecting this evening that while there is abundant external corroboration for the authors of the Biblical books, especially the New Testament, being historical persons, there is absolutely no external evidence for the existence of any of the authors of the various books contained in the Book of Mormon.  Mormons will counter that these "prophets" lived in the ancient Americas, not the Greco-Roman world, but that does not eliminate the problem that, unlike the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, there is no documentation anywhere outside the pages of the Book of Mormon that the figures contained in it (and the purported authors of its various books), as well as the church and civilization in which they supposedly lived, ever existed.

In contrast, the writers of the New Testament were known by and attested to by numerous witnesses.

Ignatius of Antioch (who was born sometimes between AD 35 to 50 and died sometime between AD 98 and 117), Tertullian (AD 160-225) and Irenaeus (AD 130-202), along with the later historian Eusebius of Caesarea (c. AD 263 – 339), all refer to Polycarp (AD 69-155), who was the second Bishop of Smyrna, as being a disciple of the Apostle John.

Irenaeus wrote,

I can tell the very place in which the blessed Polycarp used to sit when he preached his sermons, how he came in and went out, the manner of his life, what he looked like, the sermons he delivered to the people, and how he used to speak of his association with John and the others who had seen the Lord, how he would relate their words, and the things concerning the Lord he had heard from them, about His miracles, and teachings. Polycarp had received all this from eyewitnesses of the Word of life, and related all these things in accordance with the Scriptures.  I listened eagerly to these things at the time, by God’s mercy which was bestowed on me, and I made notes of them not on paper, but in my heart, and constantly by the grace of God I mediate on them faithfully.  (From Irenaeus, Against Heresies.)

Irenaeus was discipled by Polycarp who was discipled by John who was discipled by Jesus himself.

Here's another quotes from Irenaeus, Against Heresies concerning the source of the Gospel:

We have learned the plan of our salvation from none other than those through whom the gospel came down to us.  Indeed, they first preached the gospel, and afterwards, by the will of God, they handed it down to us in the Scriptures . . . Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.  After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.  Luke also, the companion of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by him.  Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord who reclined at His bosom also published a Gospel, while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia. [3.1.1]

Irenaeus is the first writer to witness to all four Gospels being received as authentic and used in the churches.  His list of the books that had been accepted by the various churches was important in helping to establish the canon of the New Testament as we know it today.

Then there is the case of Clement of Rome.  According to Tertullian, Clement was consecrated by St. Peter, and he is known from a number of sources to have been a leading member of the church in Rome in the late 1st century.  Early church lists place him as the second or third bishop of Rome after the Apostle Peter. The Liber Pontificalis presents a list that makes Linus the second in the line of bishops of Rome, with Peter as first; but at the same time it states that Peter ordained two bishops, Linus and Cletus, for the priestly service of the community, devoting himself instead to prayer and preaching, and that it was to Clement that he entrusted the Church as a whole, appointing him as his successor.  Thus both the Liber Pontificalis and Tertullian name Clement as the immediate successor of Peter.  Clement asserts apostolic authority over the church in the tone of his letter to the Church in Corinth, in which he admonishes them regarding some of the same matters about which the Apostle Paul had written them in First and Second Corinthians.

Ignatius, mentioned above, was Bishop of Antioch after St. Peter and St. Evodius (who died around AD 67).  Theodoret (Dial. Immutab., I, iv, 33a) reported that Peter himself appointed Ignatius to the see of Antioch, making his apostolic succession even more immediate.  Ignatius was also a disciple of the Apostle John, thus he knew and was taught by at least two of Jesus' disciples.

Although only one of Polycarp's letters has survived (his letter to the Philippians), it seems that in this small letter he alludes to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1,2, and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation—which is to say, all of the 27 books of the New Testament.

All of this history presents a second problem for Mormons.  Not only is there external corroboration that the authors (and apostles) of the the New Testament books actually existed, while there is none for the supposed authors of the books contained in the Book of Mormon, there is also evidence that these same writers who bear witness to the historicity of the New Testament apostles personally knew them and were discipled by them, and were appointed by the apostles as their successors.  This is in stark contrast to what Mormons teach regarding the Great Apostasy, which they believe began shortly after Jesus' ascension and continued until the Gospel was supposedly restored in the revelations given to Joseph Smith.

Then there is a third problem:  The early church, which Mormons claim fell into apostasy, is the same church responsible for choosing among the many false manuscripts that were in circulation (such as the gnostic writings, for instance) and producing the canon of the New Testament.

So on the one hand we have a church that can demonstrate that its early bishops personally knew, were taught by, and were ordained by the apostles of the New Testament and which is responsible for giving us the New Testament as we have it today.  And on the other hand, we have a book supposedly written by authors for whom there is no external evidence, that is the product of an ancient church in the Americas for which there is also no external evidence, supposedly written on golden plates that no longer exist. 

The Mormons I know are wonderful people, and I love them.  So I beg you who say you know Jesus Christ truly to "come unto Christ" by faith and turn from the false gospel of the Book of Mormon to the Jesus Christ of the New Testament because there is a difference, and the difference is a matter of eternal salvation.

Steubenville Removes Franciscan University Chapel from City Logo

The effort to erase any public sign of Christianity in America took another step forward recently with the announcement that the city of Steubenville, Ohio is removing the image of the Franciscan University of Steubenville’s chapel from the official city logo.

Here’s a pic of the offending city logo which was unveiled just last year: 

The city of Steubenville, faced with the threat of an expensive lawsuit from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., a Madison, Wisconsin-based atheist group, decided to drop the image of the chapel and the cross.  They will be asking an artist to create a new logo in the near future.

Steubenville legal spokesman, S. Gary Repella, told the Herald Star, “We were contacted in May by the Freedom from Religion Foundation Inc. in Madison, Wis., who said one of our citizens had complained about the city logo.  During the past several months the foundation sent me their research and past case law regarding religious symbols.  I researched current case law and found a lot of case laws that do not allow religious symbols in government symbols.”

[Note to Mr. Repella:  This is not the inclusion of a religious symbol, it is the inclusion of an architectural landmark.  There is clearly no intent to advance religion by its inclusion.  It is merely an attempt by the city to depict its its most recognizable features and institutions.]

Franciscan University reacted to the announcement with the following statement from Michael Hernon, vice president of Advancement:

“For more than 65 years, Franciscan University of Steubenville has proudly served as an integral part of this community and we were honored to have our chapel included in the new city of Steubenville logo.  The city initially included our chapel because it represents Franciscan University, a world-renowned center of higher learning and one of the largest employers in the region.  We find it particularly troubling that an out of town and out of touch group targeted the University for removal from the logo solely because of our religious identity.

“Now that the city has decided not to keep the chapel in its logo, the University has declined the city’s offer to be represented by another campus building.  The Christ the King Chapel and its cross, which are the centerpiece of the University logo, are internationally recognized symbols of the campus here in Steubenville and are at the heart of our Catholic educational mission.  No other campus symbol or architectural feature so immediately identifies the University.

“As used in the city logo, the chapel image is not an endorsement of any one religion, or religion at all.  It merely signifies one of the many treasures of Steubenville—along with Historic Fort Steuben, the Veterans Memorial Bridge, and the downtown cityscape—that are well-known community landmarks.

“For these reasons, Franciscan University has decided not to be included at all in the revised logo rather than to be represented in a way that does not honor our mission as a faith-based institution.”

 The courts that have given birth to this nonsense have a very limited view of history.  Many cities in this country have prominent religious institutions that should not be censored from being mentioned in their histories, advertisements. and logos that depict the city.  There are whole cities in the US that owe their founding to people of strong Christian faith, and this is reflected in their very names: Providence, Rhode Island, St. Paul, Minnesota, La Crosse, Wisconsin, St. Louis, Missouri, Santa Fe, New Mexico, Los Angeles, California, as well as every other city in Texas, New Mexico, California and elsewhere that begins in "San" of "Santa."  Are we going to be forced to rename these cities?  If we are going to be consistent, this is a logical next step.

Pray for America, because the threats to freedom of speech and religion are increasing.

Paul Harvey: "If I were the devil..."

Paul Harvey (September 4, 1918 – February 28, 2009) first broadcast this monologue, "If I were the Devil" in 1965.  He updated it over the years, with this version being broadcast in 1996. 

PAUL HARVEY’S ‘IF I WERE THE DEVIL’ TRANSCRIPT

If I were the devil …  If I were the Prince of Darkness, I’d want to engulf the whole world in darkness.

And I’d have a third of it’s real estate, and four-fifths of its population, but I wouldn’t be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree — Thee.

So I’d set about, however necessary, to take over the United States.

I’d subvert the churches first — I’d begin with a campaign of whispers.  With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: ‘Do as you please.’

“To the young, I would whisper that ‘The Bible is a myth.’  I would convince them that man created God instead of the other way around.  I would confide that what’s bad is good, and what’s good is ‘square.’  And the old, I would teach to pray, after me, ‘Our Father, which art in Washington…’

“And then I’d get organized.  I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting, so that anything else would appear dull and uninteresting.  I’d threaten TV with dirtier movies and vice versa.  I’d pedal narcotics to whom I could.  I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction.  I’d tranquilize the rest with pills.

“If I were the devil I’d soon have families that war with themselves, churches at war with themselves, and nations at war with themselves; until each in its turn was consumed.  And with promises of higher ratings I’d have mesmerizing media fanning the flames.

If I were the devil I would encourage schools to refine young intellects, but neglect to discipline emotions — just let those run wild, until before you knew it, you’d have to have drug sniffing dogs and metal detectors at every schoolhouse door.

“Within a decade I’d have prisons overflowing.  I’d have judges promoting pornography.

Soon I could evict God from the courthouse, then from the schoolhouse, and then from the houses of Congress.  And in His own churches I would substitute psychology for religion, and deify science.  I would lure priests and pastors into misusing boys and girls, and church money.

If I were the devil I’d make the symbols of Easter an egg and the symbol of Christmas a bottle.

“If I were the devil I’d take from those, and who have, and give to those wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious.

And what do you bet?  I could get whole states to promote gambling as the way to get rich?

I would caution against extremes and hard work, in Patriotism, in moral conduct.  I would convince the young that marriage is old-fashioned, that swinging is more fun, that what you see on the TV is the way to be.

And thus I could undress you in public, and I could lure you into bed with diseases for which there is no cure.

In other words, if I were the devil I’d just keep right on doing on what he’s doing.

Paul Harvey, good day.”

[This video omits the "good day," but it is present in other recordings.]

Boston mayor vows to keep Chick-fil-A out of city

A business only discriminates against a population when it refuses to serve them, an obvious example being restaurants that refused to serve blacks in the era of segregation. Chick-fil-A hasn't discriminated against anyone, and I am certain they would never refuse to serve anyone. The owner of the chain simply expressed his religious belief about marriage.

I don't suppose we'll hear the mayor of Boston say he wants to keep Muslim-owned businesses out of the city, but if he were logically consistent, he would have to do so.

We have truly entered an era when political leaders are unashamedly persecuting Christians for their beliefs.

From here:

The mayor of Boston is vowing to block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in the city after the company's president spoke out publicly against gay marriage.

Mayor Thomas Menino told the Boston Herald on Thursday that he doesn't want a business in the city "that discriminates against a population."

Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy told the Baptist Press this week that his privately owned company is "guilty as charged" in support of what he called the biblical definition of the family.

The fast-food chicken sandwich chain later said that it strives to "treat every person with honor, dignity and respect -- regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender."

Atlanta-based Chick-fil-A has more than 1,600 stores nationwide but just two in Massachusetts, both located in suburban malls.

Is liberal Christianity signing its own death warrant?

A very important interview with Bishop Mark Lawrence, from NBC News:

The Rt. Rev. Mark Joseph Lawrence, the Episcopal bishop of South Carolina, fears for the future of his church.

One week after the U.S. Episcopal Church overwhelmingly voted to approve a provisional rite for blessing gay unions and the ordination of transgender people, Bishop Lawrence said in an interview with NBC News that his denomination is moving too far out of the mainstream.

"Do I think that these two decisions will cause further decline? I believe they will," Bishop Lawrence said. "I think we've entered into a time of sexual and gender anarchy."
 
Lawrence's comments come amid a growing debate over the future of so-called mainline Christian churches: Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, some Lutherans and more. These denominations, which are generally more liberal than their evangelical counterparts, have been in decline for decades, a trend some observers attribute to their supposed leftward drift.

In a recent New York Times editorial, columnist and author Ross Douthat tackled the "looming extinction" of liberal Christianity, adding that: "Practically every denomination — Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian — that has tried to adapt itself to contemporary liberal values has seen an Episcopal-style plunge in church attendance."

Since 2000, the Episcopal Church has lost more than 16 percent of its membership. This decrease reflects a wider trend across most other Protestant denominations. In 2008, the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life reported that "the proportion of the population that is Protestant has declined markedly in recent decades."

Following the Episcopal Church's decision to adopt gay-union rites last week, most of the Diocese of South Carolina’s delegation left the General Convention to show their concern.

"I had an issue of conscience in which I believed that a line had been crossed in the church’s teachings, that I could no longer pretend that nothing significant had happened," Bishop Lawrence said, adding that the departure of the deputies should not be understood as a departure from the Episcopal Church.

“It’s not merely a matter of adapting the Church’s teachings about Jesus Christ, about salvation, about right and wrong to the culture," he said. "The culture is adrift in sexual confusion and obsession.”

But Jenna Guy, an Episcopalian from Iowa, said when the gay-rites vote was taken that the issue is important to the younger generation of Episcopalians and that the resolution would bring more people into the church.

"It’s always with great pride that I tell [people] of the inclusive nature of this church,” Guy said.

The Episcopal Church's approval of the rites makes it one of the more liberal churches on that issue.

• In May, the United Methodist Church, the largest mainline denomination in the United States with about 7.8 million members, voted against changing its definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.
• Earlier this month, the U.S. Presbyterian Church narrowly rejected a proposal for a constitutional change that would redefine marriage as a union between "two people" rather than between a woman and a man. The church, with around 2 million members, currently allows ministers to bless gay unions but prohibits them from solemnizing gay civil marriages.
• The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America defines marriage as "a lifelong covenant of faithfulness between a man and a woman" and has no official rite for same-gender unions.
• Standing out among the rest, the United Church of Christ, a mainline Protestant denomination with about 1 million members, voted in 2005 to support full civil and religious marriage equality for same-sex couples.

"I see other mainline denominations that are fairly liberal, like the Presbyterians and the Methodists, just really being very careful about jumping over this hurdle," David Hein, Hood College historian and co-author of “The Episcopalians,” a history of the church, told NBC News, "because it really wreaks havoc with the denominations for the national headquarters on down, the institutions, the seminaries, the parishes when you start to lose huge numbers of members.”

"I think churches that are fairly clear in their stance and are not either fundamentalist or way out there on the fringe are doing pretty well," Hein added.

Steady decline in membership, however, is a problem across the board for mainline Protestant churches.

According to the National Council of Churches' 2011 report, membership in the UCC declined 2.8 percent to 1.1 million members over the previous year; the Presbyterian Church was down 2.6 percent to 2.7 million; the Episcopal Church was down 2.5 percent to two million members and the Evangelical Lutheran Church was down 2.0 percent to 4.5 million members.

The United Methodist Church's membership has declined every year since it was formed in 1968, according to a 2010 report commissioned by the denomination.

In the case of the Episcopal Church, Hein believes it "might not have been hemorrhaging so quickly " had it been more accommodating of its traditionalists.

“I think it’s a mistake that the Episcopal Church is not more welcoming of the mainstream attitude,” he said, adding that "these accommodations should really have been made five, seven years ago, because really about all that’s left of the Episcopal Church is the left wing of the Episcopal Church.” [Emphasis added.]

In 2003, the election of the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church caused a deep rift between liberals and conservatives within the global Anglican Communion, with many churches leaving the U.S. and affiliating instead with the global Anglicans. The Episcopal Church is an independent church affiliated with the worldwide Anglican Communion.

"I still believe there is a broad and silent middle [within the Episcopal Church], I just don't know what it would take for them to stand up with moral courage and say, 'We don't believe this,'" Bishop Lawrence said.

Bucking the national trend, the Diocese of South Carolina experienced growth in 2011 in its average Sunday attendance, which rose 10.8 percent, from 11,086 to 12,286, according to the diocese.

“If ever there was a time for the church to be clear, hopeful, and to offer a moral compass to the struggling, and grace, and forgiveness, and healing to the broken, it’s now,” Bishop Lawrence said.

Read the original article.

Amen, Bishop Lawrence—and BRAVO!!!

Episcopal Diocese of New York: Permission Granted for Clergy to Officiate at Same-Sex Marriages

From here:

"Bishop Mark S. Sisk today sent a letter via email to the clergy of the Diocese of New York giving permission for them to officiate at same-sex marriages both in a religious capacity and as agents of New York State, commencing September 1, 2012."

Previously, Bishop Sisk had allowed clergy to undertake the Blessing of a Civil Ceremony for a same-sex couple, but not preside at the marriage.  In other words, clergy could not sign the marriage license, so couples desiring to marry had to undergo a civil ceremony first, and then come to the church.  Now that restriction is lifted, so that same sex marriages can be performed by clergy.  This action is a result of the Episcopal Church authorizing a rite for same sex marriages at its recent General Convention, held earlier this month.

Bishop Sisk explained the rationale for this move:

The 2012 General Convention  adopted Resolution A049 titled “Authorize Liturgical Resources for Blessing Same-Gender Relationships.”  In my view the debate over this Resolution was of crucial importance.  At one point in the House of Bishops’ consideration the question was asked:  "Couldn’t the resolve that read, 'That bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-sex marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church be interpreted to mean that clergy in jurisdictions that allow civil marriage of same-gender couples, were permitted to officiate at those services?'"  The answer from the Special Committee spokesman was, "yes, that is what they had had in mind."  The debate then continued.  No amendment was offered.  The unamended Resolution A049 passed by a nearly 2/3 majority.  I conclude therefore, that it was the mind of this General Convention to extend the meaning of “generous pastoral oversight” to include circumstances such as those in which we in New York find ourselves.

This seems to me to be a typically oblique way for the Episcopal Church to approach a complex but important matter: indirectly.  Let the life of the community play it out.  This is a messy way to change, but there is a certain attractive organic quality to it.

Where then does that leave us? We are left with a situation in which the mind of this recent Convention appears to be to allow such services.  However, The Constitution and The Book of Common Prayer still say something else, and the State of New York sits on the sidelines.

[...]

I believe that the best that we can do, with humility and trust that we have correctly read the movement of the Spirit of God working in our midst, is to embrace the promise of full marriage equality between same and opposite sex couples, while recognizing, candidly, that the Constitution of our Church has yet to formally reach that conclusion.

It is my interpretation that the actions of this 2012 General Convention permit, perhaps even encourage, those of us who live in jurisdictions such as New York, to act on that conviction.  Therefore, in my view, if a cleric of this diocese feels moved by conviction and pastoral need to respond in the affirmative to a request to perform a same-sex marriage, he or she is free to do so on or after September 1, 2012.

Read it all.

Why Orthodox Anglicans are Catholic Christians

 I am very thankful to Fr. Victor Novak for pointing out an excellent essay by Bishop Jack L. Iker of the Diocese of Fort Worth, which I have taken the liberty of excerpting here, since it addresses the important question of whether orthodox Anglicans are just members of a denomination or something much, much more.

I invite us all to look beyond the surface level of our Anglican identity, with its temptation to denominationalism, and go back to our heritage as catholic Christians....  [W]e are a fellowship within, or a branch, of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, maintaining and propagating the faith and order of the historic Church throughout the ages.

This means that we are not members of a sectarian, Protestant denomination, but of the Catholic Church.  Remember, the Church of England, which came to be known as Anglican, existed before the Reformation and traces its roots back to the Patristic age of the early Christian Church.  This same Church, which predated the arrival of Augustine and his missionaries from Rome in the sixth century, is continuous with the Church of England that emerged from the sixteenth century Reformation. Reformed, yes, but not a new denomination; the Church of England still maintained the sacraments, creeds and holy orders of the undivided church of the early centuries, before the Great Schism of West and East in 1054.

Knowing this, Archbishop of Canterbury Geoffrey Fisher famously said, “We have no doctrine of our own.  We only possess the Catholic doctrine of the Catholic Church enshrined in the Catholic Creeds, and these creeds we hold without addition or diminution.  We stand firm on that rock.”  And to that we might add that Anglicanism has no Scriptures of its own, no sacraments of its own, no holy orders of its own – just those of the Catholic Church that we have received. Fisher was right, as Anglicans we have no faith of our own.

Like the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, orthodox Anglicans uphold the historic faith and order of the undivided Church.  We are nothing more nor less than Catholic Christians, seeking to be faithful to the teaching of the early Church Fathers and the great Ecumenical Councils of the first centuries of Christian witness.  With St. Vincent of Lerins, we affirm that the Catholic faith is that which has been believed “everywhere, always, and by all.”  Wherever you find departures from this given faith and received order, you will find sectarianism, heresy and error.

With this in mind, we understand that the divided and fractured nature of Anglicanism today has been caused by heretical innovations and departures from the Church’s historic faith and practice.  Two Provinces are specially to blame – the Anglican Church of Canada and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA.  It is our Christian duty to speak out and stand against the errors advocated by these Provinces because they lead others into falsehood and away from salvation.  All this to say nothing of the fact that deviations from the historic teaching of the Church have led to a serious state of brokenness and impaired Communion throughout Anglicanism.

In the Diocese of Fort Worth we stand against that.  Our commitment as an orthodox Anglican diocese is to the faith and order of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  We seek to do nothing other than maintain and propagate the faith once delivered to the saints, which is rooted in Holy Scriptures and one with the Apostolic Teaching of the ancient church.

Far from having joined a “different denomination,” we have remained faithful to the witness of the Catholic Church of the ages.  With our Lord Jesus Christ, we too pray for an end to our divisions and for a restoration of visible unity of Catholic Christians, both East and West.

You can read the original article here.

"The End of the Mainline."

The Episcopal Church's General Convention, meeting in Indianapolis, has just ended.  As I reflected on this Convention, I was reminded of an article from the American Spectator about the death of Bishop Walter Righter in September 2011.   The article's overview of events surrounding the controversial Bishop Righter provides the background for much that happened in Indianapolis in the past ten days.   It is entitled, appropriately, "The End of the Mainline."

Bishop Walter Righter... set off a firestorm of controversy when he ordained an openly non-celibate homosexual man to the Episcopal diaconate in 1990.  His heresy trial concluded in 1996 with a 7-1 dismissal of charges by a panel of fellow bishops.  The episode further stoked disputes over scriptural authority and sexual ethics within America's once historically most prestigious Mainline denomination.

"I look around the Episcopal Church today where there are no impediments to the ordination of gay or lesbian members.…  None of that would have happened without Bishop Righter's leadership," pronounced a prominent pro-gay rights California priest [Susan Russell] in a Righter obituary.  "When the history of the movement for the full inclusion of the LGBT community in our church is written, there is no doubt that Walter Righter will be one of its great heroes."

[snip]

Like many liberal prelates who fancy their supposed boldness in challenging Christian orthodoxy even as they embrace a far more suffocating secular liberal orthodoxy, Righter was proud of his "heresy" charges.  He reportedly introduced himself at the trial as "Walter Righter, the heretic," while his beaming wife's name tag unabashedly declared "heretic's wife."

The complaint against Righter was brought by 10 conservative Episcopal bishops who, at the time of the verdict, seemed surprised and unprepared for the almost inevitable victory for sexual revolution within the Episcopal Church.  Liberal skepticism of biblical authority, the virgin birth, and bodily resurrection of Christ, and other historic doctrines had swelled within the Episcopal Church's upper reaches for many decades prior to the Righter trial.  Traditionalists had long complained about enthroned revisionism but never fully effectively organized to arrest, much less roll back, its captivity of the denomination's seminaries, agencies, and ruling councils.  Righter's court in 1996 ruled that Episcopalianism had no core doctrine about homosexual behavior.  But it may as well have ruled that the denomination had no essential teaching except for devoted adherence to America's liberal secular fads. 

[snip]

Calling Righter "a faithful and prophetic servant," Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori solemnly told Episcopal News Service that the bishop "will be remembered for his pastoral heart and his steadfast willingness to help the church move beyond old prejudices into new possibilities."  She did not mention how Righter's trial eventually divided her church in the U.S., estranged it from much of overseas Anglicanism, and accelerated an already unsustainable membership drain.  [Bold type added.]

Read it all.

"The End of the Mainline."  And so it is.

Mary Ann Mueller reports on Episcopal Church General Convention vote to approve blessing of same sex unions

This is significant—very significant—in lots of ways, though not in the way that those who supported it might think.

Report from the House of Bishops

INDIANAPOLIS, IN: Same Sex Blessings at GC2012 - "It was horrifying"

COMMENTARY

By Mary Ann Mueller
Special Correspondent
www.virtueonline.org
July 10, 2012

It was horrifying to watch and listen to the House of Bishops vote for same-gendered blessing liturgy.

Bishop after bishop, following the calling of their name, answered "Yes."

Bishop Alexander - yes; Bishop Whitmore - yes; Bishop Gray-Reeves - yes; Bishop Robinson - yes. One hundred and eleven times the answer was "Yes."

Bishop Douglas - yes; Bishop Gulick - yes; Bishop Peter Lee - yes; Bishop Jones - yes; Bishop Glasspool - yes; Bishop Johnston - yes; Bishop Beisner - yes; Bishop Jefferts-Schori - yes ...

With each "yes", my heart dropped a little farther, another tear formed.

Again The Episcopal Church was hurtling down a path of spiritual self-destruction.

It was heartbreaking to witness. It is soul-wrenching to write about.

Before the roll call vote, Bishop Duncan Gray of Mississippi pleaded with his brothers and sisters in the House of Bishops for an air of humility.

"I know this will pass," he prophesied. "Can we walk beyond this vote with a sense of humility and less of a triumphant way?"

The Mississippian was correct. A-049 passed and, for the most part, The Episcopal Church is celebrating.

So much for restraint, Bishop Gene Robinson immediately tweeted: "Episcopal Bishops authorize rite of blessing for same-sex relationships 111 to 41. ‪#LGBT"
_____________________

Report from the House of Deputies

GC2012: HOD Vote came Silently on Same-Sex Blessings

By Mary Ann Mueller
Special Correspondent
www.virtueonline.org
July 10, 2012

[Same Sex Blessings] INDIANAPOLIS - The House of Deputies' afternoon vote on A-049 came in silence, the result of modern technology.

When the House of Bishops voted to approve same-gender blessings each bishop was called by name and with their own voice they were required to vocalize their vote - yea or nay.

Electronic voting was the rule of the day in the House of Deputies. Each Order - lay and clergy, were called to vote using their hand-held electronic voting devise.

The laity was called to vote.

"The vote is open." Silence followed. "The vote is closed."

The clergy were called to vote.

"The vote is open." Silence followed. "The vote is closed."

Silence ... the waiting began.

To pass the time the candidates for the Vice President of the House of Deputies were nominated from the floor.

Silence ... the waiting continues.

Finally, out-going House of Deputies' President Bonnie Anderson announced the results: Lay yes votes - 86; lay no votes - 19; lay divided votes - five. Clergy yes votes - 85; clergy no votes - 22; clergy divided votes - 4.

"A-049 passes with a 78% in the lay order and 76% in the clergy order," a tired House of Deputies' president confirmed.

And with that same-gender blessings received the blessing of General Convention and became a part of the fabric The Episcopal Church.

[President] Bonnie Anderson then dismissed the House of Deputies.

[NOTE: A vote by orders in the House of Deputies means that the totals: 86-19 Lay and 85-22 Clergy represents the numbers of deputations (of 4 clergy and 4 laity in each deputation) voting yes or no. A divided deputation is a deputation that is evenly divided 2-2. Since a majority of yes votes is needed to pass legislation, a divided deputation is, in effect, a no vote.]
__________
Mary Ann Mueller is a journalist living in Texas. She is a regular contributor to VirtueOnline.

Accused bishops protest their loyalty to TEC

George Conger reports that seven of the nine bishops mentioned in my previous post on this subject have written a letter to the Episcopal Church House of Bishops protesting their innocence of charges of misconduct:

Seven bishops have written an open letter to the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops repudiating charges of disloyalty brought against them by the provisional bishops of Fort Worth and Quincy.

On 6 July 2012, seven of the nine bishops accused of misconduct by Bishops C. Wallis Ohl Jr., and James C. Buchanan stated there was no truth in the accusations leveled against them.

The Rt. Rev. John W. Howe, retired Bishop of Central Florida, the Rt. Rev. Paul E. Lambert, suffragan Bishop of Dallas, the Rt. Rev. William H. Love, Bishop of Albany, the Rt. Rev. D. Bruce MacPherson, Bishop of Western Louisiana, the Rt. Rev. Daniel H. Martins, Bishop of Springfield, the Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, retired Bishop of South Carolina and Dean of Nashotah House, and the Rt. Rev. James M. Stanton, Bishop of Dallas stated they had been forced to act in order to protect the Episcopal Church – not to harm it.

“No charge is more serious to us than the one that we have acted against our own Church—in other words, that we have been disloyal. We assure each of you that we have acted out of a profound loyalty to this Church we love,” they wrote.

Read it all.

Idaho woman placed aborted fetus on barbecue

I almost went into shock when I read the above title, reprinted here just as it appeared in the newspaper, since it could be taken to mean that the mother barbecued her unborn child.  But the actual story was only slightly less horrific:

POCATELLO, Idaho - When Pocatello police got a tip that Jennie Linn McCormack had ended her pregnancy by taking an abortion drug obtained over the Internet, they showed up at her apartment one cold January day in 2011 and demanded an explanation.

McCormack eventually took them out to her back porch, where the remains of her fetus were on the barbecue, wrapped up in a plastic bag and a cardboard box.

"My baby is in the box," McCormack said. Officers uncovered the frozen remains of a 5-month-old fetus and erected crime scene tape around the porch before taking her to the police station and charging her with a felony.

But—get this—a lawsuit has now been filed to strike down the law that prohibited the mother from doing what she did.

The civil suit that followed, scheduled to be heard by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on July 9, asks the courts to reject as unconstitutional the law in Idaho - a state with only two abortion clinics - that makes it illegal to obtain abortion pills from out-of-state doctors over the Internet.

The case also marks the most significant constitutional legal challenge so far to so-called "fetal pain" statutes, adopted by Idaho and at least five other states. Such laws significantly shorten the window of time in which a woman can legally abort a fetus - in the case of Idaho, to 19 weeks.

McCormack, living in a conservative, heavily Mormon region of southeast Idaho, now finds herself in the middle of an uncomfortable dilemma for both sides of the abortion debate.

Anti-abortion groups have usually been uneasy about the idea of arresting women who violate abortion laws, preferring to go after the doctors they see as the guiltier parties.

Abortion-rights groups, meanwhile, want to challenge increasingly restrictive abortion laws, but for them, McCormack is far from the ideal plaintiff - she aborted a fetus at home at close to 20 weeks. And her case, if it winds its way upward, would face a U.S. Supreme Court that seems little inclined to shore up Roe v. Wade.

Read the whole story.