Love wins - Lust loses

"Charity...rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth." I Corinthians 13:4,6

June 26, 2015 will live on in infamy. Within minutes of the Supreme Court issuing the most arbitrary ruling since Roe vs. Wade, namely Obergfell vs. Hodges, by which it created a national "Constitutional Right" to same-sex "marriage," President Obama tweeted the words, "Love Wins." During that time the Episcopal Church held its General Convention in Utah. it included a service described as follows:

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Episcopalians marked 40 years of advocacy in the Episcopal Church during a Monday night Eucharist characterized by inclusive language, liturgical innovations and prayers for “disordering our boundaries and releasing our desires."  Hundreds of Episcopalians at the denomination’s triennial General Convention in Salt Lake City, Utah participated in a festive Eucharist hosted by Integrity USA, the church’s unofficial LGBT caucus. The event took place the same day that bishops gave approval to a new gender-neutral marriage rite which appears likely to be enacted by the end of the week. (Juicy Ecumenism, June 30, 2015)

Present was Louie Crew, longtime advocate of homosexual and lesbian activism in the Episcopal Church, receiving praise as a "prophet" and, apparently, worship as a god:

“And now a word from the Prophet Louie,” a prayer leader introduced, beginning a video on the life of Crew. Following the video, the congregation was led in singing “Louie, Louie, Louie Hallelujah.”

The Episcopalians are not alone among mainline denominations in the United States, accepting and advocating not only "Gay" activism, but also what they have been calling "Marriage Equality" for several years, namely same-sex "marriage." It has been given the status of a Civil Rights issue by its supporters, which serves only to make a mockery of genuine Civil Rights, for which several people were jailed, beaten, fire-hosed, and murdered during my childhood years, concerning which we saw just about nothing on television news back then. Those issues were about a real need for justice, engaging the opposition of evil violent men, including the Ku Klux Klan. In the twenty-first century, for homosexuals and lesbians to demand some "right" to same-sex "marriage," as if it were on the same level as the true Civil Rights struggle, insults our intelligence. For mainline denominations, such as the Episcopal Church, to be part of the LGBT scene, requires some kind of religious rationale. 

That is where the religious Left are on board with President Obama and many people on the secular Left; to try and give the whole idea some spiritual meaning, they use the word "Love." It works in English, but would not work in the Koine' Greek of the original New Testament. By love they mean eros, and nothing more, that word from which we get the English word "erotic." "Love" in that limited carnal sense cannot mean the same thing as Phileo and Agape one meaning brotherly love and the other Divine love. Agape was translated into Latin as Caritas, the root word for the English "Charity." 

It is good that the King James Bible, in I Corinthians 13 uses the word "charity," because it means love in a specific, in this case Divine, sense. In English one may say, "I love a big juicy steak." One cannot say, "I have charity for a big juicy steak." Sadly, to people in modern English speaking society, the word "Love" covers any relationship that leads, it would seem, to an orgasm. Indeed, the Episcopalians have stated quite accurately that there has been a "disordering [of] our boundaries, and releasing [of] our desires." 

In their blasphemous "Eucharist" in Salt lake City, the Episcopalians also celebrated an attack on the family as the basic unit in society, and as created and ordained by God through nature.

“We got to this place of redefining marriage by redefining two other words: home and family,” ["Bishop" Suffragan Mary] Glasspool declared in her sermon. 

Clearly, in the "thinking" of such people, a purely emotional appeal either to guilt or ignorance, or both, takes the place of theology. It cancels out God's revelation as known and understood for millennia, as taught by Christ and His Apostles and known to the Church since the beginning. Their use of the word "love" is empty of anything and everything to do with Christ and His cross. Saint Paul wrote:

"For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:6-8)."

The Love of God must be spoken of and understood in the context of Christ crucified. On the cross we see something terribly ugly, so much so that "We hid as it were our faces from Him (Isaiah 53:3)." The sight of the man of sorrows broken, bruised, and bleeding is the very sight of God's judgment on our sin. It is also the historical event in which the love of God has been manifested most clearly for all to see. The sight of God's love is not a smiley face, and would never fit into one of those "Precious Moments" Bibles (with pictures so "sweet" that they might cause diabetes and tooth decay). It is not a new approval of human sin, but judgment on sin. It is not acceptance nor affirmation of sin, but it is the forgiveness of all sins for those who repent and believe. It is where the blood was shed for the remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22).

To use the word "love" in a distorted way is to preach a false gospel of a false Jesus, with the empowering of a false spirit (see II Corinthians chapter 11). Such a false Jesus is now the new "Jesus" of former President Jimmy Carter, as he said on July 7:

"I believe Jesus would. I don't have any verse in scripture. ... I believe Jesus would approve gay marriage, but that's just my own personal belief. I think Jesus would encourage any love affair if it was honest and sincere and was not damaging to anyone else, and I don't see that gay marriage damages anyone else," he said.

Why would any believer speak of what Jesus would approve? The Jesus Christ in whom we believe already told us His standards. 

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (Matthew 5:17,18).

And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man 
(Mark 7:20-23).

A big lie often buzzing around the internet is that "Jesus said nothing about homosexuality." The Jesus we see in the Gospels has nothing good to say about fornication. The English word can be misleading, because it is often understood in a limited way. But the word in the Greek New Testament is porneia (πορνεία), from which we get not only the word "fornication," but also the word "pornography." It does not mean merely heterosexual intercourse before or outside of marriage. It means every kind of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexual acts, sexual acts with children, sexual acts with animals, etc. This new and different Jesus that former President Carter believes in is a fraud. He is not our Risen lord Jesus Christ Who "came into the world to save sinners (I Timothy 1:15)."

That's right. He came to save sinners, indeed "to save His people from their sins (Matthew 1: 21)." Not in their sins, but from their sins. Jesus Christ came into the world for that, not to make the world safe for porneia. His coming was not to wink at immorality, and give His okay on carnality. Those who are now teaching that He did, or "would" are false prophets, for a Jesus who "would" do this or that, rather than the real Jesus Who did speak very clearly, is a false Jesus indeed, one who can be controlled by sinful imaginations. 

What would you say of a doctor who, seeing that you have brought yourself to a fatal condition that will end your life in six months max, failed to tell you his diagnosis, and that you could live a long and healthy life by changing your habits immediately? We would consider him most unprofessional to say the least, unethical to say more, and criminal to say much more. But, what if he failed to tell you how to save your life because, in his words, to deprive you of temporary pleasures just wouldn't be loving? What judgment awaits clergy who fail to preach repentance, because of "love?"

The new liturgical declaration of Episcopalians in the Salt Lake City General Convention is utterly Satanic. A modern pagan religion, "The Law of Thelema," invented by Aleister Crowley, an English magician, in the 1900s, declares, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the law, love under will." This was taken also by modern Satanism in 1966, and promoted by Anton Szandor LaVey, founder of the "Church of Satan." That is the same mentality that the LGBT supporting Episcopalians were expressing in their new liturgy: "Disordering our boundaries and releasing our desires." 

Against that spirit and mind stands the Cross of Christ, demonstrating God's judgment on sin while saving sinners because of Divine love - the real love. 

For the Love of God

The following article appears in the July edition of GQ magazine, and is reprinted with kind permission of the publishers, Conde Nast. Sadly, it appears that, rather than cross check with third parties what he wrote about theology, author Andrew Corsello swallowed Gene Robinson's post-modern version of Christianity hook, line and sinker.

I anticipate that this article will generate some heated discussion, so let me remind our readers that commentary must be civil. I will not tolerate ad hominems against anyone, and I will be ruthless in rejecting those comments that do not meet our standards of Christian decency.


LET GOD LOVE GENE ROBINSON

Five years ago, Gene Robinson was elected the first openly gay Christian bishop, causing the greatest crisis the modern Protestant community has ever faced. Will his love for another man rip the church in two? We’re about to find out

By Andrew Corsello; Photograph by Gillian Laub

Even before he could speak, he knew it and felt it: knew he would never be separated from it; felt it in the form of light and heat. actually, light and heat belittled what he felt. They were just words, and words were small, man’s way of knowing; words could point and suggest, but never apprehend. When he was old enough to search for better ways to convey what he felt when the love of God came upon him, he would tell his mother and father and minister and anyone else in Nicholasville, Kentucky, that it was like butter, liquid-warm, luminous, drizzled atop his head and descending over and through him in a seamless golden coat to his feet.

As a child, he prayed the way he breathed, and for the same reason. His Sunday-school attendance record was unblemished, from toddlerhood to the time he left for college. One Sunday morning, he woke feeling that his insides were being dry-baked. “Nothing’s wrong,” he told his mother when she saw the color of his face. “Let’s go to church!” So off they went, where he passed his measles on to every student in his Sunday-school class. Weighed against the prospect of not getting his Sunday fill of Jesus, the reprobation that came from being a Patient Zero was a small price to pay.

Read on

Women's "Ordination" a major factor in San Joaquin and Ft. Worth votes

Please, let us not be snobs. We turn our attention to a few points about current events in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion-those other Anglicans out there.

Earlier I reported how out of touch one blogger has proven to be in his declaration that women's "ordination" is a dead issue, and that "nobody cares" about it-to clean up the unacceptable language of Greg Griffith at Stand Firm. I know that a whole army of "conservative Episcopalians" believes that the realignment of one TEC diocese into the Province of the Southern Cone, and the move to do the same in Ft. Worth, is all about the TEC rejection of the Windsor Report, that is, all about the homosexual thing. In Pittsburgh, that is mostly true (though a deeper conviction about more than just one issue is involved there as well).

In the diocese of Quincy (which has delayed its first vote until their Diocesan Convention in 2008), where the leader of Forward in Faith North America (FiFNA), Bishop Keith Ackerman is the Ordinary, in the Diocese of Ft. Worth, and in the already (as of December 8th) realigned Diocese of San Joaquin, the foremost consideration that got the realignment ball rolling was their commitment to the principles of FiF, that is, to the all male priesthood of the Catholic Tradition as a theological belief, a conviction and matter of conscience. Because the rules of the Episcopal Church would make it impossible for any orthodox successor of these current bishops to be consecrated by the bishops of the Episcopal Church, it was necessary to leave TEC and seek realignment, in the words of Jack Iker, "with a Province that does not ordain women to the priesthood, or receive women priests." By "orthodox," Bishop Iker meant, specifically, someone who shares the theological conviction of FiF that only men can be ordained to the priesthood.

I will include more details about this and many other things in the upcoming issue of The Christian Challenge.

As much as it may grieve some of the people who think that only their one issue, the homosexual issue, has been driving realignment, the facts show that an orthodox understanding of the priesthood (and let us pray that a better understanding across the board of the Diaconate is forthcoming) was first and foremost in Quincy, Ft. Worth and San Joaquin, each of them committed to the principles we of the Continuum share with Forward in Faith. For now, anyone who chooses to doubt what I have written here can listen to the speech given by Bishop Jack Iker back in October, in England. I posted a link at the time in a piece called, "To Whom it May Concern."

Sorry G.G. You are simply out of touch. Women's "ordination" does matter to quite a lot of people, and right in your backyard where you fail to look.

Howe to be One of the Good Ole' Boys

Following my post of September 24, and still with all due respect for the work Bishop John Howe did in his days as national director of NOEL, I am posting yet another of the ECUSAn bishop of Central Florida's public statements. I am posting it because it demonstrates the problem facing any ECUSAn parish whose people want to leave that heretical sect. Since this blog is international, it may come as news to some readers that, for the last few decades, parish properties, as such, have not existed in the Episcopal Church. Except for California, where, long ago, now retired Archbishop Robert Morse won a lawsuit to keep church property for the local congregation in Berkeley where he had served as parish priest, the church properties are owned by each diocese, a rule protected by legal precedent. Furthermore, the Episcopal Church managed to have the Canon Law amended so that each diocese holds these properties in trust for the national "church" headquartered in New York. With the exception of California, and a few rare cases regarding very unusual land grants, the courts have always ruled in favor of the diocesan ownership. This may be good news for bishops such as Bps. Iker and Ackerman, and all "Common Cause" bishops, if they pull their dioceses from the denomination, since the courts may consider national ownership to be in conflict with the "local" or diocesan ownership that has been upheld by precedent. Whether or not to contest in court such a congregation's wishes to withdraw, however, is the call of each diocesan Ordinary. But, for ECUSAns, or may I say, for Episcopalians in Central Florida who wish to convert to real Anglicanism, or something a little closer to it than ECUSAn heresy, the Evangelical, Charismatic John Howe stands as much in the way as do the bishops who support Same Sex Blessing, or, for that matter, "a woman's right to choose" to murder her baby.

The religion business makes strange bed fellows.

Bp. Howe's dictatorial statement, to those whose money, time and energy have been keeping church properties in good repair:

Dear Brothers and Sisters,
There has been a great deal of conversation over the past few years about whether or not those who wish to leave The Episcopal Church might "negotiate" with the Diocese of Central Florida to purchase church properties and affiliate with some other Province of the Anglican Communion. It is time to end these discussions. The simple answer is: No. The Windsor Report and the several Communiques from the Primates of the Communion have said that the incursions by foreign Bishops and Archbishops are illegitimate. The Presiding Bishop has said that The Episcopal Church will not allow the purchase of any property by any group that seeks to affiliate with an offshore Province. I will not permit the passage of any Resolution by the Diocesan Board, the Standing Committee or the Annual Convention of the Diocese of Central Florida that seeks to alter the accession clause in our Constitution to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, or that seeks to transfer any property held by parishes in trust for the Diocese of Central Florida and The Episcopal Church. If you must leave, for conscience sake, I will do all in my power to make your leaving amicable. But when you make the decision to leave you immediately cease being a member of The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Central Florida. You immediately cease having any say in decisions regarding any congregation of the Diocese or its property. Please be aware of this in any plans you might be making.

Warmest regards in our Lord,
The Rt. Rev. John W. Howe
Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida

Compare this to the very important line in our own document, The Affirmation of St. Louis: "The right of congregations to control of their temporalities should be firmly and constitutionally recognized and protected." Is it hard to see which is ethical, and which is tyranny?

Last One Out Turn Off the Lights

My head is spinning. I never would have imagined that it would happen so fast, but then it really didn't. It has been in the offing for four years.

The Common Cause Partnership (CCP) is born.

This is Explosion Number One, as predicted here just a few days ago:

"Anglican bishops from ten jurisdictions and organizations pledged to take the first steps toward a “new ecclesiastical structure” in North America. The meeting of the first ever Common Cause Council of Bishops was held in Pittsburgh September 25-28.

"The bishops present lead more than 600 Anglican congregations. They formally organized themselves as a college of bishops which will meet every six months. They also laid out a timeline for the path ahead, committed to working together at local and regional levels, agreed to deploy clergy interchangeably and announced their intention to, in consultation “with those Primates and Provinces of the Anglican Communion offering recognition under the timeline adopted,” call a “founding constitutional convention for an Anglican union,” at the earliest possible date agreeable to all of the partners.

"'We met deeply aware that we have arrived at a critical moment in the history of mainstream Anglican witness in North America. God has led us to repentance for past divisions and opened the way for a united path forward. To him be the glory,' said Bishop Robert Duncan, convener of the council."

Read it all here.

The Episcopal Church has been hit by the first major blast, as a whole host of groups and jurisdictions come together to form a new church. They are the American Anglican Council (AAC); the Anglican Communion Network (ACN); the Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMiA); the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC); the Anglican Province of America (APA); the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA); the Anglican Essentials Federation (AEF); Forward in Faith, North America (FIF/NA); and the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC).

Therein lie the elements that will cause Explosion Number Two, as I see little hope of such a disparate group maintaining any sort of real unity.

In the short term, however, we face the prospect of Avignon versus Rome -- two entities vying with each other as the true face of "mainstream Anglicanism" and seeking to convince the world of their bona fides. The Episcopal Church will no doubt retain its recognition by Canterbury, while the CCP will be embraced by the so-called Global South.

There will be more explosions to come, as catholic individuals, parishes and dioceses now belonging to the ten founding entities of the CCP find that there is no place for them in an institution that, in all likelihood, will continue to "ordain" women and worship with the 1979 "book of common prayer."

On that first point, the declaration says as much, when it states that one issue that will have to be dealt with is "How we will live together with bishops and congregations and dioceses that do ordain women and others that do not ordain women, affirming that we will not violate anyone’s conscience on this matter."

As to the second point, it hints as much when it says that two other issues to be dealt with are common worship and stating and maintaining a common Anglican ethos.

Both of these points are a far cry from the clarity provided by the Affirmation of St Louis.

I would so very much like to think that I am wrong, and that there will be no second or subsequent explosions; that the CCP could indeed be the foundation of a truly orthodox and catholic jurisdiction. But I fear that I will be proved right.

Let us pray for Bishop Duncan and all those involved in this bold venture, that they might take the steps necessary to prove me wrong. May God bless them.

And let us in the continuing movement not stand on the sidelines, pooh-poohing. Instead, let us seek dialogue with the CCP. They have already thought of that. The very final point included in their list of issues to be dealt with is this: Consistent with resolutions of Lambeth Conference, seeking to draw continuing churches, not members of the Common Cause Partnership, into fellowship.

Meanwhile, watch as the implosion now begins in earnest, as liberal, faithless "Anglicanism" begins to wither before our very eyes.

At least they'll save on their electricity bills.

The Coup de Grace?

The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States has spoken, and its statement can be found at Stand Firm in Faith. The die is cast for the eventual disintegration of the Anglican Communion. In short, the bishops have refused to accede to the demands of the communion's primates in February to put an end to the blessing of same-sex relationships and to refrain from consecrating as bishops practicing homosexuals.

As this is one of the most classic examples of Anglican fudge ever written, the analyses will consist of hundreds of millions of bytes but the end result will be what has been predicted: the Anglican Communion will suffer both implosion (the steady and inexorable decay and death of those parishes, dioceses and provinces that remain within it) and explosion, as more and more others leave and realign themselves with others.

For early examples of intepretations of what the bishops have done, see the piece in the New York Times, which pretty much concurs with me, and this one by the BBC, which would suggest that all is well.

For those of you who wish to look more closely at what was asked for in February, you can find here a link to the Primates' communique, in which they noted the following: "... we believe that there remains a lack of clarity about the stance of The Episcopal Church, especially its position on the authorisation of Rites of Blessing for persons living in same-sex unions. There appears to us to be an inconsistency between the position of General Convention and local pastoral provision. We recognise that the General Convention made no explicit resolution about such Rites and in fact declined to pursue resolutions which, if passed, could have led to the development and authorisation of them. However, we understand that local pastoral provision is made in some places for such blessings. It is the ambiguous stance of The Episcopal Church which causes concern among us."

What the Episcopal bishops said in response was that "We, the members of the House of Bishops, pledge not to authorize for use in our dioceses any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action. In the near future we hope to be able to draw upon the benefits of the Communion-wide listening process. In the meantime, it is important to note that no rite of blessing for persons living in same-sex unions has been adopted or approved by our General Convention. In addition to not having authorized liturgies the majority of bishops do not make allowance for the blessing of same-sex unions. We do note that in May 2003 the Primates said we have a pastoral duty 'to respond with love and understanding to people of all sexual orientations.' They further stated, '…[I]t is necessary to maintain a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care.'"

What the bishops did not address is the fact that some of them allow same-sex blessings, if not even implicitly encourage them.

ECUSA goings on. Howe can this be any kind of solution

...for what ails them?

Photo: The Episcopal Church

To some degree the happenings of the official Canterbury Anglican Communion may seem irrelevant to us. I suggest that we cannot afford to ignore it completely if we understand the duty that charity places upon as Christ's servants and evangelists. We must be more visibly welcoming as the truly alternative Anglican home. Our churches are the life boats for those who realize that their ship is going down, and that along with the rats who desert sinking ships, it is intelligent people who abandon them.

The following has been unscrupulously lifted by me from the Stand Firm blog, where it had been posted by Matt Kennedy. I am pasting it here, like the bad fellow I am, and will comment below it.
___________________________________________________________________

A Proposal to the House of Bishops from Bishop John Howe

---

To My Fellow Bishops: We are deeply, tragically, horribly "stuck," not only in The Episcopal Church, but in the Anglican Communion as a whole. In the past three days we have heard again what we already knew, that we have damaged our relationships with many parts of the Communion by failing to give sufficient attention to "common discernment," and by moving ahead with decisions in the area of human sexuality before the rest of the Anglican family is able to accept those decisions. It is clear that the great majority of our Bishops cannot retreat from what they believe to be not only a matter of justice, but a "Gospel imperative." But, in the light of that, we are squandering members, finances, and energy in our deadlock. What we need is a comprehensive solution that will end the international interventions, end the defections, end the property disputes, end the litigation, and end the ravaging of our witness and mission to the outside world simultaneously. I believe there is such a solution, but it will require great sacrifice on all sides.

I propose that we:

1) Put the Resolution of the "Windsor Bishops" to a vote. It calls for full compliance with the requests of the Primates in their Communique from Tanzania last February.
2) Those who cannot, for conscience' sake, abide by the acknowledged teaching and discipline of the Communion (Lambeth I:10) will then voluntarily withdraw (at least temporarily) from the official councils of the Communion (as per Professor Katherine Grieb's much appreciated proposal to us in March at Camp Allen ).
3) Those committed to the Communion's teaching and discipline will continue their participation in the councils of the Communion.
4) Perhaps we will then adopt the Archbishop of Canterbury's terminology of "constituent" and "associate" membership for our dioceses. "Constituent" = fully Windsor-compliant. "Associate" = committed to remaining Anglican, but unable to accept the Windsor proposals.
5) Those congregations and clergy which are in "associate" dioceses, who wish to continue in "constituent" membership will be transferred to the oversight and care of "constituent" dioceses and Bishops - and vice-versa.
6) We will then request the Primates who have established extra-geographical oversight in this country to give that up, and fold any congregations under their care back into "constituent" dioceses.
7) We will endeavor to fold any American clergy who have been consecrated by international jurisdictions into Suffragan and Assistant Episcopal positions in "constituent" dioceses.
8) Without relinquishing their membership in The Episcopal Church, the "constituent" dioceses will elect their own Coordinator, and function as a parallel provincial entity for a period of 5 years (or perhaps 6 = two General Conventions, or 10 = the next Lambeth Conference).
9) After 5, 6, or 10 years we determine whether or not a "new consensus" has emerged within the Anglican Communion, and in the light of that determination -
10) We either recombine as a single jurisdiction, or we fully separate.

Warmest regards in our Lord,
The Right Rev. John W. Howe
Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida ___________________________________________________________________

For those who do not know, before he was a bishop, John Howe was the well known Rector of Truro Episcopal Church in Virginia, during which time he was the director of the National Organization of Episcopalians for Life (NOEL), and in that role deserved credit for his pro-life work; a fact I will not forget. Nonetheless, my disagreements with him date back to his extremely Protestant book, Our Anglican Heritage, and have continued to grow due to his support of women's "ordination," and his sadly compromised vote on sexual morality in the Episcopal Church's General Convention of 2000 (concerning the measure that left it up to each Diocesan Ordinary to determine his own policy on the blessing of same sex unions). When he says, "It is clear that the great majority of our Bishops cannot retreat from what they believe to be not only a matter of justice, but a 'Gospel imperative,' " he is being altogether too polite to those who teach that the Church must include "gays and lesbians" by affirming a life of willful sin, without regard to the need for repentance and the healing that only Christ gives to those who truly ask for it.

In Bishop Howe's proposal above we see the desperate measures of Evangelicals and other conservatives in the Episcopal Church who want to hold their national church together, and want to prevent it from being forced out of the world wide Anglican Communion. Not that the Archbishop of Canterbury is really willing to do the things he was promising only last year when he saw no way to keep the Episcopal Church in the AC. His trip to the United States, and his spineless compromise at every turn from the time he got here, have all been proof that Archbishop Rowan Williams is the one man who can hold a debate on any issue without an opponent. Just put two podiums on a stage, and let him walk back and forth between them, and the debate can proceed. Nonetheless, the African Primates, the Primate of the Southern Cone, and others, will stick to their guns, and insist on the terms of the Windsor Report and of the Dar es Salaam Communigue. So, while the boneless wonder makes nice with the apostates, the swords are being sharpened nonetheless. I mean swords of division. After all the dust settles, the Anglican Communion will never be the same, for it will no longer have even the appearance of collegiality and union.

What does this mean for those of us who stand on the 1977 Affirmation of St. Louis? It means that we really have to clarify our evangelistic priorities. As people leave the Anglican Communion (a likelihood for which we must prepare whether it happens in big numbers or not), we must not provide reasons why they should pass us by and look for options in Protestantism, Rome or Orthodoxy. Neither should we give them reason to feel a need strictly for other Anglican options such as the AMiA, and other bodies that remain compromised on various issues.

We see a blind spot in the Low Church defections from the Anglican Communion. But they see one in us.

Their major blind spot is women's "ordination." In the case of the AMiA, I have made it clear on this blog, consistently, that to the degree we marginalize them we only help solidify them in their Protestantism (speaking in Anglican terms, of course). Their study of women's "ordination" was clearly honest, and not agenda driven, which is why they came close to the right decision. They no longer have any women serving as priests, and they have a clear understanding that such a thing must not be allowed again; for this we can give thanks and we credit the Holy Spirit for opening their eyes. But, they lack still a true understanding of Holy Orders (indeed, not even knowing that Holy Orders is a sacrament), and so they "ordain" women to the Diaconate. 1

But, the Evangelical defectors from the AC, and some still in the AC, have every right to mention a possible blind spot of ours: Are we truly evangelistic? Do our churches reach out to everybody, including the unchurched? I believe that a good number do; but on the whole we are not addressing this as much as we should (by the way, where is Ohio Anglican lately? He was always good at reminding us that this is important).

Our blind spot is the one we must think about the most, because it is ours. This is a time of opportunity, but it is a time of peril. If, indeed, a large defection from the official Anglican Communion is going to happen, we can reach out to those in the waters and give them a life boat- more than that, the home they need- or we can become irrelevant like never before. Also, we can ignore the Anglican Communion in its mess and confusion, and continue to keep ourselves "pure" from its imperfections, or we can be part of the discussion, and so help restore true orthodoxy to any of them who still have ears to hear. We can try to restore the Anglican Way of Faith and practice to Anglicans, which is nothing more or less than the Catholic and Evangelical Christianity of the Fathers.


1. I posted a piece about Holy Orders in January that I recommend for those who want to think seriously about the theology of the priesthood. See it here.

My Cantuarian predictions

This is the big month, the big make or break month with the Windsor Report deadline. What will happen? The "covenant" that was supposed to establish rules that would exclude the Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion will be reinterpreted to mean, somehow, the exact opposite, and to become an inclusive and affirmative stall. The rescinding of invitations to the Lambeth Conference sent to the bishops of the Episcopal Church will not happen, for some reason to be excused in a wordy mealy mouthed way; and the African Primates will not be present at Lambeth to make any sort of prophetic stand. Their silence by means of absence will make no difference as to what is decided at the Lambeth Conference.

There. No need to waste time on the Anglican Communion news to come. The only question is, what will Bishops Iker, Ackerman and Schofield do?

The Importance of Language

The following was written by The Right Revd Harold Miller, Bishop of Down and Dromore, Church of Ireland and shared by Canon Hollister on the ACC Members list:

I should probably have said all of this six years ago, when I had just returned from being in the United States on Sabbatical, but it all seemed very subjective. What I noticed then were several trends in the Episcopal Church in the USA which have probably become more pronounced over the intervening years. Some, if not all, of these first-hand but subjective observations bring into focus key issues which are at the heart of the new ways of understanding the faith in The Episcopal Church today. These highlight the fact that the divisions we are experiencing in the Anglican Communion are not simply to do with sexuality. I write about these because it is important to note that there really is the beginning of a new kind of religion in parts of The Episcopal Church - a religion which not only re-interprets the traditional central tenets of the Christian faith, but which in fact has the potential to jettison many of them altogether.

My first observation six years ago was the gradual replacement of the word "Lord" in reference to Jesus Christ. There was a perceptible change as I travelled across from the East Coast to the West, from the traditional: "The Lord be with you" in the liturgy, to the revised version, "God be with you", and eventually, on the West Coast God is in you... and also in you"! The reason for the change is relatively obvious: "Lord" is not only male, it is also perceived as authoritarian. But there is a great seriousness about a simplistic removal of the word, which would eventually preclude rather than necessitating the basic early Christian declaration of faith "Jesus Christ is Lord" - the very declaration which all will make when every knee bows and every tongue confesses him.

Secondly, and aligned to the last point, is the removal or weakening of the title "Father" in relation to the first person of the Trinity. This has led to an uncomfortableness for some with the basic baptismal formula: "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" and to replacement "blessings" such as "The blessing of God - Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer" where God is described by function rather than in personal names. Last year at the General Convention a series of prayers were introduced for every situation from a child coming out of nappies to a person passing a driving test, and including, of course, a "coming out" prayer. When I asked myself why it was necessary to provide liturgical prayers for such occasions, the answer immediately stared me in the face: All the prayers were devoid of the words, "Father", "Son" and "Lord", and clearly were enabling people to pray in this new way! But the removal of "Father" (a revealed name of God) would be a disastrous move, since it is the name by which Jesus taught us to address God in the Lord's Prayer, and it is also central to the first tenet of the Apostles' Creed: "I believe in God, the Father Almighty...".

My third observation was an emerging new theology of baptism. This was clarified for me when I was taken with members of the International Anglican Liturgical Consultation to a radical Episcopal church in San Francisco. When we entered into the liturgical space, I could see the table, which was unbounded by rails and clearly open to all. But I could not see the place of baptism. When I asked where it was, I was taken out the back, and told that it had been placed there so that baptism would not be a stumbling-block to newcomers. In other words, the idea goes, all people are welcome to the table no matter what their belief or lifestyle, as Jesus had table-fellowship with prostitutes and sinners. Baptism can be looked into later when there is time to think things through. This is, of course, a reversal of the biblical model, where baptism was the sacrament freely and always available for all who come to repentance and faith, and communion, the table fellowship of the baptized for which self-examination was necessary.

Aligned to that, I have also observed, and have seen particularly in the West Coast, an uncomfortableness with repentance and confession of sin. The theory, as I understand it goes something like this: The archetypal Eucharistic rite is focussed around the gathering, the word, the intercessions, the table and the going out. Confession is an optional extra. This was almost encouraged by the International Anglican Liturgical Consultation document on the eucharist, and by the pattern where the confession in the middle section was displaced when there was, for example a baptism, marriage, or an ordination. There has been a reclaiming of penitence in some of these rites recently, especially in the Church of England, by placing the penitential section at the beginning of the service. It is one thing to omit penitence in a church which has the expectation of personal auricular confession, but quite another to omit it in a church of the Reformation which enjoins General Confession. There is, in my view, behind this, a serious underplaying of personal sin and personal salvation.

The next element of the liturgy to be "downplayed" was historic Creeds. Again, we are told that the Eucharistic prayer is creedal (a part-truth), or that Creeds are not a necessary part of worship (another part-truth), but the eventual reality which I observed was the omitting of the historic creeds altogether in the main Sunday liturgy. I was sensitized to expect something of this sort several years ago when I met a very radical Presbyterian minister from Albuquerque. I asked him did they have the historic creeds in the worship of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. His answer was this: "Yes. We have fourteen declarations of faith at the back of the book and they all interplay with each other"! There is a real reaction to and distancing from propositional statements of faith, even the historic ecumenical creeds - and in some cases from their central tenets and beliefs.

Sixth, and following on from the last point, there is an inclination to try to find ways of holding all faiths together as believing in a common god. This is seen, for example in Grace Cathedral, San Francisco, where there is an interfaith labyrinth and an interfaith chapel, in which the symbols of all the major world faiths are displayed. This makes its way into the liturgy, where, when the Eucharistic bread is broken, I heard words similar to the following used: "We break this bread for our ancestors in the Jewish faith, our brothers and sisters in Islam, our friends who are Buddhists etc.,..." - and this at a key Christocentic part of the liturgy.

And last, though in fact there are many other observations I could also make, there is, in my personal subjective view, a dawning realization that the heart of the central act of worship (the bread and wine of communion) is the doctrine of the atonement - a doctrine increasingly disliked in the new religion. I noticed an increasing emphasis on the eucharist as "community meal", a reduced emphasis on the sacrificial death of Christ in some newer eucharistic prayers, and the preference in some places to distribute the elements with words such as "the bread" and "the cup" rather than "the body" and "the blood". Alongside this, the issue has been raised as to whether the Words of Institution ("this is my body" ..."this is my blood") are required for a eucharistic prayer. Whatever disagreements on eucharistic doctrine there may have been between "catholics" and "evangelicals" in the past, there was always an agreement that the heart of the matter was the sacrificial, atoning death of Christ.

I write all this because we need to be aware that change is incremental. It is only noticed after a period of time. I do not say this to "damn" the Episcopal Church. Indeed, my own diocese is in a very happy link relationship with a diocese of the Episcopal Church. But changes are happening, and changes which are not peripheral, but central to our identity as Anglicans and indeed as Christians. The issue which we face, as has so often been pointed out, is not essentially one of sexuality but one of authority and doctrine. In so many ways, parts of the Episcopal Church have been losing deep aspects of their identity. If God is not Father, Jesus is not Lord, the Son is not unique, baptism is not necessary, the creeds are optional, repentance and sin are dated concepts and the atonement is marginalized or even rejected, where do we go from here? The faith remaining will be a very different faith from the Christian faith once delivered to the saints - and I, for one, am not going there!

Update on TEC's Muslim Priestess

The following was posted on Stand Firm in Faith:

To: Clergy, Members of Diocesan Council and Standing Committee
From: The Rt. Rev. Geralyn Wolf
Re: The Rev. Dr. Ann Holmes Redding

As many of you know, The Rev. Dr. Ann Holmes Redding is an Episcopal priest who has recently professed her faith in Islam. Dr. Redding is canonically resident in the Diocese of Rhode Island, though she has not served here for over twenty years.

After meeting with her I issued a Pastoral Direction giving her the opportunity to reflect on the doctrines of the Christian faith, her vocation as a priest, and what I see as the conflicts inherent in professing both Christianity and Islam. During the next year she is not to exercise any of the responsibilities and privileges of an Episcopal priest or deacon. Other aspects of the Pastoral Direction will remain private.

I am sending this e-mail to you because the continued web-site coverage suggests that I be as clear as possible with those exercising leadership in our diocese.

Personal Prelature?

Okay, let's see if we can "out Virtue" David Virtue.

A hitherto unknown reader of The Continuum who goes by the intriguing nickname of Invicta Veritas, posted this as a comment on the piece about Archbishop Morse. I thought it might be fun to highlight, though I'd be ready to bet a goodly sum that it's just wishful thinking on someone's part:

"Oh, and you might also spare a glance for Rome as well -- if that is true which I heard the other day, that at a meeting of the SSC clergy of the Fort Worth ECUSA diocese (together with Bishop Iker) with the RC Bishop of Fort Worth, Bp. Vann, the latter announced that Rome will soon be transforming the "Pastoral Provision" for "Anglican Use Roman Catholics" by erecting a world-wide "Personal Prelature" for Anglicans wishing to enter into communion with Rome."

I did a quick Google of Iker, Vann and Rome, and came up with the following tidbit from Chris Johnson at the Midwest Conservative Journal, posted in April:

"There's some interesting speculation in the Anglican world these days:

"Over the past week or so there’s been a spike in 'intelligence chatter' in the Anglican-Episcopal universe. From the sources I have been able to tap, along with those that have just fallen in my lap, I am reasonably well assured that a sub-group of some five dioceses within the Anglican Communion Network have cooked up a plan to hold hands and jump off the slowly-sinking ship that is the Episcopal Church and swim to . . . well, here’s where the intelligence gets sketchy--OK, non-existent.

"I don’t expect I’ll cause any tsunamis by predicting that I’m probably not going to like the details when I hear them. In the most charitable construction, a move of this sort represents a ’Plan B’ in response to last month’s resounding rejection of the Primates’ Pastoral Council/Primatial Vicar plan by the House of Bishops. A more jaded exegesis sees it as the most radical fringe of the Network exploiting the HOB’s ill-advised actions by making a run for something more like they would have wanted in the first place anyway.

"A commenter has heard things too. He suggests a possible destination for at least three of the five.

"But where to go? There was that curious meeting last September 6th in Newark, NJ, between the RC Archbishop of Newark, John Myers, who is the 'Ecclesiastical Delegate' for the Anglican Use Roman Catholics, on the one hand, and +Ackerman, +Iker, +Schofield and +Herzog. Well, we know now why Herzog was there, but what about the others? It would appear that +Clarence Pope kept a safe-full of documents relating to those conversations of ca. 1976-1980 with Rome that eventuated in the promulgation of the Pastoral Provision, but which were much more ambitious than that in their scope; and that among these documents were some interesting, detailed and favorable comments by one Joseph, Cardinal Ratzinger -- and that these documents, or copies of them, were literally 'on the table' at that meeting. There is some well-founded thought that a document has been on the pope’s desk for some months, awaiting resolution, that would transform, or at least greatly widen the scope of, the 'Pastoral Provision' if it ever sees the light of day (but cf. the fabled Motu Proprio that is supposed to 'liberate' the old Tridentine Mass: it has been on the pope’s desk for well over a year without a final resolution, but now we are told to watch May 6th). So will it be, for the Forward-in-Faith bishops, a case of 'heigh ho, heigh ho, it’s off to Rome we go, with a steady gait and a cheerful noise, heigh-ho, heigh-ho?' Such a denouement would make some hearts glad, but others sad; and as 'anam cara' has said, there is also the Orthodox option.

"Is there anything to these rumors? It's hard to say. But this idea is not a new one. In 2003, Seattle Archbishop Alex Brunett reported that an Episcopal diocese approached Catholic officials with just such a proposal.

"Just back from meetings in Rome, Archbishop Brunett revealed in an interview that Catholic officials have received a startling overture from Episcopalians who refuse to recognize Robinson.

"We were approached by a whole Episcopal diocese about coming into the Roman Catholic church, as perhaps Anglican Rite Catholics," Brunett said. He declined to identify the diocese."

"Stay tuned," said Chris.

Just When You Thought it Couldn't Get Any Worse

Assuming that the following article presents a fair assessment of this woman's beliefs, she is a heretic, an Arian at the very least. What, I wonder, are the chances that she will be brought up on presentment. Nil, probably.

A little more than a year ago, the Rev. Dr. Ann Holmes Redding found herself at the doorway of a new world, Islam, and wasn’t quite sure how she got there. As she reflected on her journey, she realized Jesus was her guide. Now both a practicing Muslim and an Episcopal priest, Redding shares her thoughts on how the two faiths inform each other.

"The way I understand Jesus is compatible with Islam,” Redding explains, "and although there are Christians and Muslims who think I must convert from one to the other, the more I go down this path the more excited I am about both Christianity And Islam."

Redding credits her upbringing for early exposure to interfaith relationships. She was baptized by an African Methodist Episcopal minister but the only Sunday school she attended was Episcopal. She attended a Unitarian youth group in high school when the Episcopal group disbanded. She was influenced by a cooperative community near where she grew up that was comprised of mostly Quakers, Unitarians and Jews. Her father was a prominent civil rights lawyer whose work brought him and the family into contact with people of many faith backgrounds.

After an introduction to a Muslim prayer practice in early 2006, Redding knew she had been wrestling with a call to Islam. She approached a Muslim woman and told her so, and the woman replied, "Christianity has been good to you and you to it, and you don’t have to choose." That made all the difference in Redding’s choice to practice Islam.

"What Islam has done for me is shed this light on Christianity and shown for me anew what a glorious way Christianity is," she explains.

"We Christians, in struggling to express the beauty and dignity of Jesus and the pattern of life he offers, describe him as the ‘only begotten son of God.’ That’s how wonderful he is to us. But that is not literal," she continues. "When we say Jesus is the only begotten one, we are saying he’s unique in some way. Islam says the same thing. He’s the only human aside from Adam who is directly created by God, and he’s different from Adam because he has a human mother. So there’s agreement -- this Person is unique in his relationship to God."

If you have the stomach to read on, you can find it all on Page 9 here.

Anglican Communion Covenant

Subtitle: The Skinny Lady is Singing

Here is the draft of the Covenant.

Not sure it matters any more for members of the Continuum, if it ever did. Have a look at what Ruth Gledhill has just posted."

You can follow the breaking news here."

Hepworth on TEC and Departing Parishes

Our hearts and our prayers are with the former members of the Episcopal Church – from Virginia and other places - as they begin to "walk apart".

We understand their experience that is at once painful and joyful. Joyful, because there can only be joy for those who walk in His ways. Painful, because being forced by the power of conscience to follow the way of Jesus and separate themselves from a church that has chosen the way of sinfulness, involves the risk of leaving family and history and much-loved places. It involves leaving good people who are still confused and not yet driven by their consciences to this point. It involves, above all, leaving in the knowledge that others have done the wrong, and we are paying the price. In the Crucified Christ, we gaze at the one who has already paid the price, and he was without fault.

Our feelings for those now walking apart are intense, because we began walking this way thirty years ago, and it has been a long time in the wilderness. For Anglicans in the Catholic tradition (who until then were in beautiful balance with Anglicans of the Evangelical tradition, producing an Anglicanism that was a true Communion, with a dynamism that took the Faith to the furthest corners of the world), the point at which conscience broke was the ordination of women to the Priesthood. Catholic Order could not be stretched that far, for we could not be party to Sacramental and Eucharistic schism against the pleading of those who led the Catholic and Orthodox churches of East and West.

We grieved then, and still grieve, that our fellow Anglicans little understood the cause of our reluctant decision to walk apart, and that in many places they embraced this first wave of Anglican gender revolution with enthusiasm. We understood that we were following the demands of the Gospel and the practice of the undivided Church (to which all Anglicans once appealed) in upholding the great doctrines of Creation, Incarnation and Redemption, each of which is challenged by the ordination of women.

Separation in the Church can never be justified by the sinfulness of a minister, even a chief minister. Each of us sins and cries out for redemption. We have in our turn struggled to understand those who seem to be now separating because of the unworthiness of fallen human nature to be immersed in the work of God. But we recognise that we are now dealing with much more than sinful ministers. In the Episcopal Church, and elsewhere in the Anglican world, those very same doctrines, of the Father in Creation and the Son of God in Redemption, are denied by those who deny the power of God's will in human creation, and the even greater power of God's will in the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus, his Son. "Mother Jesus" and "Gay marriage" offend the mind of God with just the same intensity as "gender is irrelevant" offends His creating Spirit. The ancient Church, and Jesus himself, would have us walk apart from those who teach evil about God and Salvation. We have noted with joy the steadfast leadership of the Province of Nigeria, the Diocese of Sydney, and the Anglican Mission in America, in upholding as biblical the discipline of East and West on ordination, as well as the related biblical discipline of gender relationships in marriage and morality.

There is now a great company of those who walk apart but who continue to cherish their identity as Anglican Christians. In the impoverished townships of Africa, in the persecuted Anglican communities of India and Pakistan, in the prophetic fragments of Christianity in Asia, in Australia and the Pacific nations, and throughout the American continent, there are now thousands of Anglican communities that have heard the Gospel imperative to "walk apart". That they do not walk together surprises none of us – people do not walk together after they have suffered devastation. They must be gathered by shepherds who know and love their sheep. That is our next challenge. May God give us strength, especially to those just joining the walking. May He make the rough places smooth for them, and every mountain and hill in their pathway be made low.

+John Hepworth, Primate, Traditional Anglican Communion

From The Messenger

Wanna Add a Question or Two?

Some wag recently expressed surprise that those tough hacks who have been grilling Katharine Jefferts Schori over her faith left out some of the most probing questions, such as "what is your favorite color" and "is Bob Dylan as good as he used to be."

Seriously, though, Terry, a commenter on Amy Welborn's blog Open Book, had the following to say: "Bishop Jefferts Schori’s interviews always feature softball (or even NERF-ball) questions. Here are some questions I would like to see a reporter ask her (I can dream can’t I...):

In your papers and press releases prior to your election as Presiding Bishop, you made a big point of “el buen Samaritano” and your deanship of the “Good Samaritan School of Theology.” Yet, you have admitted both of these were inflated terms. They have also disappeared from any post-election materials (such as the Episcopal page ‘Who is the Presiding Bishop?’). Why did you lie on your resume?

Why were you elected? On paper, even with your inflated claims, you were clearly the least qualified candidate. Were you elected solely because of your gender?

During your tenure as Bishop of Nevada, you used the Kairos Prison Ministry materials inappropriately. This organization considers the breaches significant enough that they are suing the Nevada Diocese for copyright violations. Would you care to comment?

The Kairos organization feels that their approach of gender-specific ministers for prison populations is both sound Biblically and practically? Would you care to comment.

What happened to “el buen Samaritano?”

Reporters seem to be very impressed by your experience as an oceanographer and as a pilot. Why are these relevant?

During you tenure as Bishop of Nevada, how much did the diocese grow? In that same period how much did the state of Nevada grow? Why do you think the Episcopal percentage is so much lower?

Jesus said, “No one comes to the father except through me.” What does that mean?

The Episcopal Church has been losing members for many years, why?

Do you really think, as you said in a New York Times Magazine interview, that the conservatives (such as Catholics) are “outbreeding” the Episcopalians?

Is it not possible that the liberal social gospel and ordination and promotion of gay ministers bears some responsibility for the membership loss?

In recent memory, two ministers confessed to breaking their wedding vows, one left his marriage and one did not. Why has one been made an Episcopal bishop and the other has resigned his position in disgrace. Compare and contrast - Vicki Gene Robinson’s marital breakup and Ted Haggard’s fall.

You state in the New York Times Magazine interview that we “are all hypocrites.” Isn’t the Christian belief that “we are all sinners?”

What is sin?

The Episcopal Church in America was at one time named the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States. With this Protestant background, how is “deeds-based evangelism” consistent with the Protestant principle of “faith alone?”

Why was one of your first acts as Presiding Bishop the formation of a committee to make sure property does not leave the TEC when parishioners leave the TEC?

Why does all material related to the issue of gay sexuality refuse to include references to Dr. Gagnon’s work. For example, the study guide prepared by the association of Episcopal Seminary Librarians has expressly excluded Gagnon’s work. This is so, even though Biblical scholars consider it a masterful treatment of the Biblical issues.

If the Millennium Development Goals are so important, why is the TEC allocating only seven-tenths of one percent of its budget to them?

If the MDGs are a sign of our deeds-based evangelism, how do you justify the buildings, salaries, and budget of the TEC bureaucracy?

Why have you singled out eight dioceses as “problem dioceses?” What exactly is the problem?

Has the Dennis Canon ever been tested and upheld in a court of law?

You and your supporters often criticize the African Bishops for turning a blind eye to polygamy. Where is the evidence of this?

You have an “honorary” doctorate from CDSP. The African Bishops, as a group, have a significant number of earned doctorates from major Western theological schools. Why should we listen to your theology rather than theirs?

Why is the Episcopal Church in Nigeria one of the fastest growing churches anywhere on earth?

Who is Jesus?

In what way is threatening churches consistent with deeds-based evangelism?

Two churches in Virginia have just proposed leaving the TEC. Their Average Sunday Attendance exceeds that of the entire Nevada Diocese. Shouldn’t their concerns be taken seriously?

In your New York Times interview, you discuss the relative childlessness of Episcopalians in terms of stewardship of the Earth’s resources. In light of this stewardship, what percentage of the TEC budget could be reduces if the offices at 815 were moved to say, Topeka or Omaha? In this day of instant communications and the Internet, surely a less expensive and wasteful location could be found for the headquarters of such an environmentally responsible church.

Why should I be Episcopalian rather than sleep in on Sunday morning?

I understand your mother became an Orthodox Christian in the 1970’s. What was that like?

You have criticised some for placing God in a “little box.” Jesus speaks of the “eye of the needle” and the “narrow way.” Compare and contrast your and Jesus’ viewpoints.

Why has the outreach to LGBT individuals been such a failure in terms of growing the Episcopal Church?

A significant portion of Christianity (Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy) does not allow women to be priests. What is your response to this fact?

At your investiture, I noticed that none of the major celebrants nor you had any cross symbols on their vestments. Was this intentional?

What is the Resurrection?

Do you think Terry has missed anything that needs to be covered? If so, feel free to add to the list.

Schori is Not a Christian

Katharine Schori, the woman elected to head the Episcopal Church in the United States, cannot or will not affirm one of the basic tenets of the Christian faith -- that Jesus Christ is The Way, The Truth and The Life and that no one comes to the Father except through Him. A sad day it is when an institution claiming to be part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church chooses as its leader someone who does not hold, or is at least incapable of expressing the fact that she does hold, to one of the most fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. In fact, on rereading, I am not even sure that she recognises Jesus as God. I not only do not recognise her as the head of her church, I do not recognise her as a Christian.

If this sounds incredible, read for yourself these comments excerpted from an interview with National Public Radio:

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

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

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

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

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

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


Read the full transcript here

THE FEAST OF CHRIST THE KING

Colossians 1.12-20
St. John 18:33 – 37

In my own experience the very real clash of two kingdoms has been visibly portrayed in a scene very much like something right out of the Gospels, and even more directly from the Book of the Acts of the Apostles. Several years ago I was teaching a lesson from the scriptures as part of a regular Friday evening service of prayer in a chapel, part of church just outside of Baltimore. When I had said my bit, and we were closing in prayer, a woman in her thirties who had been coming to church regularly with her parents, began to be tossed around by an invisible power that controlled her. She was levitated a bit off the floor, and looked very much like a marionette on strings being jerked about by a mad puppeteer, twisting and bending in movements that no trained dancer could imitate. She landed on the floor, telling everyone that the Messiah was present, speaking in the Hebrew language that no one there but I could understand. She landed on the floor crying out, finally, "Meshiach! Meshiach!” over and over.

The demon, or unclean spirit, was right about that, because the Messiah was present with us as we were praying before His throne, just as He promised in scripture. I was reminded that the demons, who, as Saint James informs us “believe and tremble,” would often cry out accurate things, such as that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, or, as in the sixteenth chapter of Acts, that the Apostles had come to show the way of salvation. While she was lying on the floor in a state of bondage to an evil bullying spirit, I knew that this thing inside her was panicking, and that the presence of Christ with us that night was the cause of it. I learned later that this woman had for a while departed from the faith and involved herself in occult practices, and that she was now, in this service, praying for the first time in years. This explained why she always looked gloomy and depressed since we had first met her.

I did not know any of this at the time, but I knew what I was dealing with. So did everyone else, because all of those people who had been praying and holding their standard service that was held every Friday night at that church, were huddled next to each other at a safe distance across the chapel. Diane was standing right behind me, as I recall, pregnant with David (now 21). I spoke directly, just as Saint Paul did in the sixteenth chapter of Acts: “I command you, in the Name of Jesus Christ, to come out of her.” I said this a second time, and added the word “now.” The woman looked up at me, suddenly as if awaking, and began to weep. All she knew was that one moment she was praying for the first time in years, and the next moment was lying on the floor looking up at me, with no idea what had happened in between. After several months her parents moved to Florida, and she went with them. From the time of this impromptu exorcism until she moved away, never again was she a depressed or gloomy sight, but rather always vibrant and appearing to be quite joyful, like someone back from the dead.

In today’s Epistle Saint Paul tells us that God “hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son: in Whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins.” The real fight is between the kingdom of God and the usurpation of the Devil; and in this fight there can be no contest in the ultimate sense, because God’s power is unlimited, and even the powers of darkness are merely creatures who cannot withstand Him. But, for us, the battle goes on because we have to deal with those three enemies, the world, the flesh and the Devil. Furthermore, only those who have been translated into the kingdom of Jesus Christ and who appreciate something of what that means, are in the fight at all. “The world,” says Saint John, “lies in the lap of the evil one.” When the term “the world” is used in this very unpleasant way, it is a specific use of that word that is different from what that word normally means, different from such statements as “for God so loved the world…” In that sense it speaks of God’s creation, and especially of the human race made in His image. But, in the sense that our Lord uses it in today’s Gospel: “My Kingdom is not of this world,” it means something else. For that definition we go to the first chapter of the Gospel of John, and see that it says, “He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.” The world, in that sense, speaks of the fallen condition of man under the dominion of the evil one, also called “the prince of this world.”

So, Saint John tells us, “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.” (I John 2: 15-17) In that one category, “the world,” we come face to face with the flesh and the Devil. The flesh because we are fallen from grace, as sinners, and the Devil because he dominates the world of sinful humanity. I know this as a theologian, and I believe that no historian could dare to contradict the fact that the world is subject to evil.

The world is not what it should be, because man is not what he should be, but is, rather, fallen and in need of redemption. It has been stated by many religious folk that life is a test. What a horrible lie that is. If it were a test we would all fail. Life, due to the Fall, is not a test but a shipwreck. And, the One Man who saves us from the shipwreck of sin and death is none other than God in the flesh, Jesus Christ the Son of the Everlasting Father. He does not receive His authority from the realm we call the world. “My kingdom is not of this world,” He told Pilate. Earlier, the Lord had said to the people: “Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.” (John 8: 23, 24) Little phrases in scripture mean so much, and very easily we overlook their significance. Jesus spoke of Himself as the One who has come into the world. He alone can say that. We did not come into the world. We were conceived here, and this is our native home. But, the Son of the Everlasting Father is “God of God, Light of Light, very God of Very God, begotten not made.” This world was not the origin of the Word who was made flesh and dwelt among us. Into His eternity He took time, into His divinity He took humanity, into His uncreated Person he took a created nature, a nature alien to His true identity as Wholly Other from every created thing. And the King allowed His rightful subjects to beat Him, humiliate Him, and crucify Him so that the Lion of the tribe of Judah Himself could be for us the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world; so that we could be translated out of the power of darkness into the kingdom of God’s dear Son, in whom we redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of our sins.

What does the king give to us so that we can go forth in His name and conquer the power of evil, and deliver captives from the power of sin and death? Not the sword. “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” If not military might, then what? As said the prophet Zechariah: “Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.” (Zech. 4:6) On the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit empowered the Church for its ministry in hostile territory, to take ground in the word, to bring the Gospel to every nation under heaven. And, the power of the Holy Spirit is present when we care about the truth. The power of evil is in the lie; it is in deception. The powers of darkness do not care what you believe just so long as you do not believe in the truth of Jesus Christ and His Gospel. The authority of Jesus Christ as the King is found, here and now until he comes again in glory, by proclamation of the truth. “Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.”

No matter what your political persuasion, no matter what turns the tides of history take, the whole structure of the fallen world is the power of deception, of the lie. “Yea, hath God said?” and, “Ye shall not die.” The lesson early on in Genesis is that deception, the lie, was used to bring man into bondage to sin and death. In Genesis chapter three we read: “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” “Good for food…pleasant to the eyes…desired to make one wise.” From this, no doubt, Saint John taught us that which we have heard already, “all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life.” These three elements of the world that knows not Christ, were the method of the lie, the essentials of deception. And, so it remains to this day. The lie is always drawn from these three things, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life. These have brought about every destructive habit of sin by which people ruin their lives, these have brought about all the wars and bloodshed throughout time, and these will taper off into a quiet complacence to lure you into apathy about your own soul and those of the people around you.

Against these essential elements of the lie is the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Word made flesh. Against the lie is the truth that the Son of God has been manifested to destroy the works of the Devil. Against the deception is the truth that Jesus Christ has taken our sins on Himself and nailed them to His cross, that by death he would destroy him who has the power of death, and by His resurrection deliver to us His gift of immortality, making us able by grace to live and reign with Him forever. His kingdom is not of this world, and in Him we are not of this world either, though for the time being we are in the world to occupy until He comes.

ECUSA's troubles

COLUMBUS, OH: No female Presiding Bishop for Fort Worth DioceseBy Peter Toon Virtueonline correspondent http://www.virtueonline.org/ 6/19/2006

There have been appeals over the centuries to the Archbishop of Canterbury for help for a variety of reasons but none has previously asked for "alternative Primatial oversight." This is what the Diocese of Fort Worth has requested in Letters sent to London, England, from Columbus, Ohio, on Monday June 19, 2006.

Read the whole article.

ECUSA in deep doo doo

As reported in the Times Online (where you can read the entire article):

"The US branch of Anglicanism faces losing its status of full membership of the Anglican Church in the wake of its consecration of the openly gay Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire, an act which has propelled the worldwide church to the brink of schism.

"The final straw came when The Episcopal Church failed to "repent" of its action at its General Convention in Columbus, Ohio earlier this month, and failed to vote through a moratorium on any more gay consecrations. "

(Typical press reporters- when they write "church" they ought to be writing "Communion.") Well, at least this gives us one advantage. Here in America the Episcopal Church will lose any claim that they are somehow more legitimate than we, based on their relatively new theory that real Anglicans are those in communion with the See of Canterbury (which would have come as quite a surprise to the first Episcopalians right after the American War for Independence, when the English bishops could not consecrate the Amercian priests as bishops, and had to send them to Scotland). Beyond that, it hardly presents us with a victory for orthodoxy, since the Church of England is on footing almost as slippery as the Episcopal Church. But, it stops the Ecusans from saying they are legit (pronounced le'zheet) and we are not. Considering that most of the world's Anglicans consider themselves to be in full communion with us, and not with them, we are more legit- in terms of the Anglican Communion.

Is the ACN Finally Taking the Plunge?

Here is the statement presented at a news conference by Bishop Duncan ofPittsburgh on behalf of ACN bishops.

TO THE FAITHFUL IN CHRIST JESUS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD: We, the undersigned, Bishops of the Episcopal Church make the following statement:

In the wake of the action by this House granting consent to the consecration of Canon V. Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003, many of us in this House made an appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates of the Anglican Communion "to intervene in the pastoral emergency that has overtaken us." That appeal was heard and the Archbishop called for an extraordinary meeting of the Primates on 15-16 October, 2003. The Primates spoke forthrightly and unanimously about the consequences that would ensue across the Communion in the event that the consecration went forward, warning that it would "tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level." They also called for the formation, under a mandate given by theArchbishop, of the Lambeth Commission on Communion. This General Conventionhas now given its response to the recommendations of the work of thatCommission, known as the Windsor Report.

Now, once again, we find the need to speak candidly. The responses which the Convention has given to the clear and simple requests of the LambethCommission, the clear and simple requests indeed of the Anglican Communion, are clearly and simply inadequate. We reaffirm our conviction that the Windsor Report provides the way forward for the entire Anglican Communion, the ecumenical relationships of the Communion, and the common life of a faithful Episcopal Church. Further, we have agreed to submit ourselves to the Windsor Report's requirements, both in what it teaches and in the discipline it enjoins. We have not changed in our commitment.

Sadly, because of statements made by members of this House at this Convention, we must question whether this General Convention is misleading the rest of the Communion by giving a false perception that they intend actually to comply with the recommendations of the Windsor Report. We therefore disassociate ourselves from those acts of this Convention that do not fully comply with the Windsor Report.

It is our intention not only to point to the inadequacies of the General Convention's responses, but to declare to our brothers and sisters in Christ throughout the Communion that we continue as The Episcopal Church in this country who uphold and propagate the historic faith and order we have come to know through the Anglican heritage of apostolic teaching and biblical faith; who desire to be fully a constituent member of the Anglican Communion; and who are ready to embrace and live under the Windsor Report without equivocation. Accordingly, we repudiate the actions of the General Convention of 2003 which have breached the bonds of affection within the Communion. We bishops have committed to withhold consents for any persons living in same gender relationships who may be put forward for consecrationas a bishop of the Church. And we have refused to grant authority for the blessing of sexual relationships outside Christian Marriage in our jurisdictions. We intend to go forward in the Communion confidently and unreservedly.

Our chief concern now is to fulfill our charge as bishops of the Church ofGod in the Anglican tradition to "guard the faith, unity and discipline" of the Church. Pastoral care and apostolic teaching must not only be given to our own dioceses, but to all the faithful in this country who seek apostolic oversight and support. We will take counsel together to fulfill our service on behalf of faithful Anglicans in this country, both clergy and laity, and to proclaim the Gospel and build up the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, and we seek the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates andBishops of the Anglican Communion as we do so.

Signed . . . Wednesday, June 21, 2006