Church Today. Church services today were well attended, especially considering this is really the peak vacation time in the DC area. Nevertheless, not all could attend. I understand that a life-long member of Truro church met our rector at the door and handed him a letter of resignation and turned and left -- not able to set foot in the door.

The opening hymn was very well chosen:

Alleluia! sing to Jesus! His the scepter, His the throne.
Alleluia! His the triumph, His the victory alone.
Hark! the songs of peaceful Zion thunder like a mighty flood.
Jesus out of every nation has redeemed us by His blood.

Alleluia! not as orphans are we left in sorrow now;
Alleluia! He is near us, faith believes, nor questions how;
Though the cloud from sight received Him when the forty days were o’er
Shall our hearts forget His promise, “I am with you evermore”?

The readings for today in the Lectionary were so on point, I got goosebumps. Consider the opening lines in the first reading: "Moses said to the people: This entire commandment that I command you today you must diligently observe, so that you may live and increase, and go in and occupy the land that the LORD promised on oath to your ancestors." The second reading I thought was a direct warning to me: "Putting away falsehood, let all of us speak the truth to our neighbors, for we are members of one another. Be angry but do not sin..." (emphasis added). God knows the anger and hurt I feel. It's multiplied in some respects at not being given any form of outlet. If Peter Lee came and put a dagger in my back at least I could give voice to my frustration. I wrote him last week, but I imagine it will go straight to his circular file.

My only quibble with the Lectionary readings -- I thought the letter to the Ephesians ended one verse short -- it stopped before this verse: "But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. "

I imagine that verse will be missing from quite a few Episcopal pew Bibles in the years to come.

The services were a time of worship and encouragement -- building up -- we all need it now. The reporting of what went on at the ECUSA General Convention was saved for a later meeting -- held at 3 pm today. Reports were given -- some quite tearful. I did notice quite a few non-Truro clergy members present -- I suspect we're all struggling with how to come to grips with the decision of a small number of our Bishops and Deputies.

One member of the Virginia delegation -- a lay member -- attended and stood up to give his report and also to plead for unity. He was the only lay member of the Virginia delegation to vote against -- a difficult vote that ran counter to what the Epicopal establishment wanted. I respect this gentleman, Russ Randle, although I disagree with him as far as his comments to continue on with where the ECUSA is going. A short version of what he said, in different form, may be found here. It must be understood that I am just as much an Episcopalian as I was last week or last month and if the Episcopal Church USA remained faithful to the historic faith, there would be no question of "staying." The fact is the Episcopal church has decided to forsake the historic faith and has taken a strong turn, leaving a good number of us behind.

The word Apostacy comes to mind and it appears to be appropriate for this situation: "An abandonment of what one has professed; a total desertion, or departure from one's faith or religion." See also, the Encyclopaedia Britanica, but see the Catholic Encyclopedia.

I am purposefully not "reporting" what went on during this meeting, as our Rector indicated it was to be a "family meeting." Also, it should be noted that it wasn't a time for members to say what they wanted to say. Reports were given and questions fielded, but there was no opportunity for congregational members to express their hurt and anger. There is a lot of hurt and anger. A lot.

I would like to continue as a member of Truro, but if it remains aligned with an apostate church, I can not do so.

One fellow stood and read a brief passage from Corinthians as preface to his question:

1 Corinthians 5:9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

Similarly, when I look at the mere Biblical qualifications to be a Bishop, as set forth in I Tim 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9, I must ask myself whether this church can truly call itself a Christian church. For now, I will stay at Truro, but if it continues to finance the ECUSA and the Diocese of Virginia and Peter Lee, I will not be able to contribute. And if I can not contribute to my own church, I will need to find another place...

Prayers are always appreciated.

A Gay Atheist Speaks The following essay, published yesterday, August 9, in the Times of London speaks truth.

No, God would not have approved of gay bishops
Matthew Parris

Anglican evangelicals are right. Knowingly to appoint gay bishops robs Christianity of meaning. It is time that convinced Christians stopped trying to reconcile their spiritual beliefs with the modern age and understood that if one thing comes clearly through every account we have of Jesus’s teaching, it is that His followers are not urged to accommodate themselves to their age, but to the mind of God. Christianity is not supposed to be comfortable or feel “natural”. The mind of God, contemplating the behaviour of man, is not expected to be suffused with a spirit of “whatever”. As it happens I do not believe in the mind of God. But Christians do and must strive to know more of it. Nothing they read in the Old and New Testaments gives a scintilla of support to the view that the God of Israel was an inclusive God, or inclined to go with the grain of human nature; much they read suggests a righteous going against the grain.

Certainly it is true that Jesus departed from conventional Judaic teaching in the emphasis He put on forgiveness, but neither the story (for example) of the woman taken in adultery, nor the parable of the prodigal son suggest that He countenanced a continuation of the sins of either. What these stories teach is that repentance is acceptable to God however late it comes, and that the virtuous should not behave in a vindictive manner towards sinners. That is a very different thing from a shoulder-shrugging chuckle of “different strokes for different folks”.

When the row over the appointment of gay bishops first blew up I expected, being gay, to join the side of the Christian modernisers. But try as I do to summon up enthusiasm for my natural allies; sorry as I feel for homosexuals struggling to reconcile their sexuality with their membership of the Church; and strive though I have to feel indignant at the conservative evangelicals, passion fails me. I know why.

“Inclusive”, “moderate” or “sensible” Christianity is inching its way up a philosophical cul-de-sac. The Church stands for revealed truth and divine inspiration or it stands for nothing. Belief grounded in everyday experience alone is not belief. The attempt, sustained since the Reformation, to establish the truth of Christianity on the rock of human observation of our own natures and of the world around us runs right against what the Bible teaches from the moment Moses beheld a burning bush in the Egyptian desert to the point when Jesus rises from the dead in His sepulchre. Stripped of the supernatural, the Church is on a losing wicket.

Even as a ten-year-old boy in Miss Silk’s Scripture class, when I heard the account of how the parting of the Red Sea could actually be explained by freak tides, and that the story of the loaves and fishes really taught us how Jesus set an example by sharing His disciples’ picnic (so everybody else shared theirs), I thought: “Don’t be silly Miss Silk! If Jesus couldn’t do miracles, why should we listen? If the bush was just burning naturally, then Moses was fooled.”

But — perhaps because like countless would-be Christians down the ages I was fighting an internal scepticism about the supernatural claims of religion — I found myself as an undergraduate powerfully drawn towards the sermons and writings of Joseph Butler. The persuasive, quiet sense of this early- 18th-century Bishop of Durham makes (as our college dean, Mark Santer, later to become Bishop of Birmingham, put it gently to me) “the best case one can” for the theory of natural religion.

By induction alone, Butler seems to suggest, we can draw from what we know of ourselves, of science, and of our world, a picture of the mind of God. He was suspicious of revelation. Butler it was who remarked to the evangelist John Wesley: “Sir, the pretending to extraordinary revelations and gifts of the Holy Ghost is a horrid thing, a very horrid thing.”

In typically compressed but lucid style, he ascribed human goodness to a divine intention. Look at human nature, he said. “It will as fully appear from this our nature . . . is adapted to virtue, as, from the idea of a watch, it appears that its nature . . . is adapted to measure time.” Every work, he said, “is a system; and as every particular thing, both natural and artificial, is for some use or purpose, out of or beyond itself,” so we must ask what mankind is for. He went on to induce the existence of God from the fact that human nature yearns towards something greater and more perfect than itself.

My 1910 Encyclopaedia Britannica devotes 6,000 words to Joseph Butler, and about the same to John Wesley. By the 1960 edition Wesley is steady at 6,000 but Butler is down to a quarter of that length. Today Wesley gets about six times as many words as Butler. Revelation may be a very horrid thing, but it seems to be selling better than reason.

At university I tried very hard to convince myself (as one senses Butler was trying to convince himself) that this appeal to sense will do. I was wrestling with my own sexual leanings at the time (I was 19) and the idea that anything we find within ourselves must be put there for a purpose appealed. Interestingly, it is the Butlerian slant we get today from those Anglicans who advocate the ordination of gay bishops: God cannot reject any loving impulse He has implanted in men, they say. “Really?” I asked the shade of Joseph Butler at 19, and ask the modernists now: how about child- molesting?

At 20 I turned from natural religion to an agnosticism which by degrees has slipped into something as close to atheism as makes no difference. But one could as easily — or, at least, as logically — have turned the other way: towards evangelism, revealed truth and self-denial. For though the New Testament says little about sex or marriage, nothing in the Gospels suggests any departure from Judaic wisdom on such matters, a pretty robust sense of which we gain from the Old Testament.

Jesus was never reluctant to challenge received wisdoms that He wanted to change. He gives no impression that He came into the world to revolutionise sexual mores. Even our eye, if it offends us, must be plucked out.

So this, in summary, is my charge against the Anglican modernists. Can they point to biblical authority for what, on any estimate, amounts to a disturbing challenge to the values assumed in both Testaments? No. Can they point to any divinely inspired religious leader since to whom has been revealed God’s benevolent intentions towards homosexuals? I know of no such saint or holy man. Most have taught the opposite.

Can they honestly say that they would have drawn from Christ’s teachings the same lessons of sexual tolerance in 1000, or 1590, or indeed 1950? Surely not, for almost no such voices were heard then.

In which case, to what does this “reform” amount? Like the changes to Church teaching on divorce or Sunday observance, the new tolerance gains its force within the Anglican Communion from a fear of becoming isolated from changing public morals. Is that a reason for a Christian to modify his own morality? I cannot recall that Moses took this view of golden calf worship. Whispering beneath the modernisers’ soft aspirational language of love and tolerance, I hear an insistent “when in Rome, we must do as the Romans do. Times have changed.” Gays in particular should be very wary of that message; some of us remember when it was used against us, and such a time may come again.

A religion needs a compass. Logic alone does not point the way and religion adds to the general stock of human reasonableness a new directional needle — if it adds anything at all. I cannot read the Gospels in any way other than as declaring that this was revealed to man by God through Jesus. Revelation, therefore, not logic, must lie at the core of the Church’s message. You cannot pick and choose from revealed truth.

The path to which the compass points may be a stony one, but this should not matter to a believer. The teachings of the early Church looked unattractive to the Romans. Revelation pointed the way, and only Revelation can point the way now. I believe this Revelation is false, but Christians have nothing else firm to cling to. The common sense of 1720 may almost have seemed to suffice in Joseph Butler’s day, but it will not suffice now. The Church must take wings and fly above sense, or it will drown. Let it fly — and fly away.

A Reading; A Prayer; A Reading. The House of Pancakes, excuse me, Bishops, voted this afternoon to seat a practicing and unrepentant homosexual as a Bishop. No comment -- it is a time for prayer and meditiation. The Readings are taken from the back of the Bible, from a couple of letters from Peter to the Church.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2 Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;
5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;
6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men
8 (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)--
9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.
10 This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority.
11 Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord.
12 But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.
13 They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.
14 With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed--an accursed brood!
15 They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness.
16 But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey--a beast without speech--who spoke with a man's voice and restrained the prophet's madness.
17 These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them.
18 For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error.
19 They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity--for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him.
20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.
21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.
22 Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit," and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."

Almighty and most merciful Father, We have erred and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep, We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts, We have offended against thy holy laws, We have left undone those things which we ought to have done, And we have done those things which we ought not to have done; And there is no health in us. But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us, miserable offenders. Spare thou them, O God, which confess their faults. Restore thou them that are penitent; According to thy promises declared unto mankind in Christ Jesu our Lord. And grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake, That we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life, To the glory of thy holy Name.

[Psalm 43. Judica me, Deus]
V. GIVE sentence with me, O God, and defend my cause against the ungodly people;
* O deliver me from the deceitful and wicked man.
R. For thou art the God of my strength; why hast thou put me from thee?
* And why go I so heavily, while the enemy oppresseth me?
V. O send out thy light and thy truth, that they may lead me,
* and bring me unto thy holy hill, and to thy dwelling.
R. And that I may go unto the altar of God, even unto the God of my joy and gladness;
* and upon the harp will I give thanks unto thee, O God, my God.
V. Why art thou so heavy, O my soul?
* and why art thou so disquieted within me?
R. O put thy trust in God;
* for I will yet give him thanks, which is the help of my countenance, and my God.
V. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son,
* and to the Holy Ghost;
R. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be,
* world without end. Amen.


1 Peter 4:1 Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because he who has suffered in his body is done with sin.
2 As a result, he does not live the rest of his earthly life for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God.
3 For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do--living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry.
4 They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you.
5 But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.
6 For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.
7 The end of all things is near. Therefore be clear minded and self-controlled so that you can pray.
8 Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.
9 Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling.
10 Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms.
11 If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.
12 Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you.
13 But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed.
14 If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you.
15 If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler.
16 However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.
17 For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?
18 And,
"If it is hard for the righteous to be saved,
what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?"
19 So then, those who suffer according to God's will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good.

May God Have Mercy.

Allegations. These last minute allegations against Gene Robinson are not a good thing -- they are terrible for him and terrible for the side opposed to his nomination. It is my hope that they will be swiftly and utterly disproved.

It is my belief that this nomination must be rejected on the simple fact that this is a man who is living contrary to the teaching of Scripture, a teaching which was affirmed by the Anglican Communion 5 years ago today at Lambeth.* The ECUSA should not reject this man based on a last minute allegation of "inappropriate touching " -- as my wife said to me last night, "Do they [the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops] think his living with a man involved appropriate touching?"

Regrettably, the damage has been done to the ECUSA by the House of Deputies when they approved Canon Robinson on Sunday.

----------------
* Specifically, the Bishops assembled at Lambeth approved a statement, which read, in relevant parts:

This Conference . . .in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage.

It further "reject[ed] homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture."

Et Tu? Peter? Bishop Peter James Lee, the man who baptized my oldest child, announced today that he will vote for the elevation of a man living contrary to the shared Anglican belief "that . . . 'the normative context for sexual intimacy is lifelong, heterosexual, monogamous marriage.'”

Oh Peter, Peter -- how could you betray this clear standard?

I can see that we can no longer support this apostate bishop.

Moreover, the Virginia Delegation voted 3 to 1, both laity and clergy, against the plain standard. The church I belong to, the one where all my children were baptized, has long been a support of the Bishop and the Diocese. Concurrent with the posting of this message I am calling upon the Vestry of my Church to withhold all further financial contributions from the Diocese and the Bishop. Let us finance the Gospel, not a social agenda.

Utterly Crushed Today, I am crushed. Today the House of Delegates, composed of clergy and laity, has told me that my faith is irrelevant. It has turned it's back on me and tens of thousands like me.

As a church, we have driven off the true conservative wing years ago -- over the issue of the ordination of women. That issue, which I support, one that is consistent with the teaching of the Scriptures. Nevertheless, the extremist left wing of the ECUSA strove to minimize, marginalize and hound those who hold to a contrary belief. As a result, those of us who are the real centrists now find ourselve on the right flank, labeled "conservatives."

In truth, we need all members of the body -- right, left and center, and those shades in between. This is a simple recognition that we are not each personally inspired with Divine revelation. Each errs and needs to be called back to the path. This does not mean that each person's truth is right or whatever that fluff is that you hear so much of. There is a standard and it has been revealed to the Body of Christ and delivered from generation to generation through the holy Scriptures.

*sigh*

I am truly crushed and despondent.

The idea that a man or woman living outside the doctrine and discipline of the Church is eligible to be a minister in that Church, must less a Bishop, is plainly repugnant to the teaching of Holy Scripture and apostolic tradition. The doctrine and discipline which has been vitiated today is simply that it is immoral to be engaged in a sexual relationship outside of marriage. What am I supposed to tell my kids? "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain?"

At least the Church of Rome affirms that it is wrong to engage in such conduct, even if they have had rogue ministers engaging in practices contrary to these teachings. The lesson for JP2 should be just jettison your core beliefs and accept whatever Hollywood wants -- those rogue ministers can bugger little boys and we'll all affirm how wonderful you are.

My church has turned its back on me. It has turned its back on the saints and sinners who have sought refuge in its wings for centuries. It has very flippantly abandoned essential Anglican teachings, affirmed just a few short years ago at Lambeth.

However, this is irrelevant to the theological left -- they seek an purity of extreme belief and are now attacking the center. The center will not hold -- indeed, we are being driven off as certainly as the "right" was.

I say to the bishops, priests and other ministers: you have driven off the right and are now working on the center. I will not rush into my decision in a hasty manner, but you can rest assured that you have severed me from your fellowship with this vote.

8 I am feeble and utterly crushed;
I groan in anguish of heart.

9 All my longings lie open before you, O Lord;
my sighing is not hidden from you.

* * *

19 Many are those who are my vigorous enemies;
those who hate me without reason are numerous.

20 Those who repay my good with evil
slander me when I pursue what is good.

21 O LORD , do not forsake me;
be not far from me, O my God.

22 Come quickly to help me,
O Lord my Savior.

Psalm 38:8-9, 19-22

Off with His Head. Very interesting observations here, by Rev. John Burwell who is attending the Episcopal General Convention. He noticed the opening liturgy of the convention intentionally omits are references to the Lordship of Christ. Well, I guess if you are intending to jettison fidelity to the teachings of the Lord, the first thing you have to do is de-throne Him. For example, the Gospel reading began with these words (I am bracketing the words omitted): "The Holy Gospel of our [Lord and] Savior Jesus Christ, according to Matthew." Similarly, the Presiding Bishop jettisoned the opening reference to the triune God: "Blessed be God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit" by using these words in place: "Blessed be the one holy and living God."

But I don't want to give you the impression that there was no reference to the Trinity. Apparently there was, in the closing blessing:

May the blessing of the God of Abraham and Sarah,
and of Jesus Christ born of our sister Mary,
and of the Holy Spirit
who broods over the world as a mother over her children,
be upon you and remain with you always.
Amen.

This kind of thing is almost enough to give me, a supporter of the ordination of women, doubts...

More That gospel reading I mentioned above was from the end of the 25th Chapter of Matthew regarding the separation of the sheep from the goats. Omitted was verse 46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Still Okay. Just a quick follow-up to the message immediately below -- we are all okay. We've been checked out by the doctors and had numerous x-rays and have no broken bones or dislocations. I had a glass fragment removed from my hand and Debbie and I got shots and meds and are now looking for a replacement vehicle.

If you saw our van, I think you'd realize what a miracle this was.

We're Okay ...but our van is (probably) totaled.

We were in an accident on Sunday while driving through the mountains in western Maryland. Here is a link to the area near where the wreck occurred. Right about here was the approximate location. We were all headed out west for three weeks -- two different family reunions, the Grand Canyon, Mexico, etc.

Thanks to God and his angels, none of us are hurt. The van went completely over and slid for a brief (but rapid) time on the roof and hood. I was asleep when the accident occured, riding in the front passenger's seat -- I awoke to see a shower of sparks flying over my head as the van slid down the road before flipping again and landing upright. We were going through a high mountain pass that was very windy -- Debbie thought she started to veer off to the right and overcompensated, but a trucker I talked with later said that he thought it was the wind taking us first to the right and then flipping us when Debbie tried to get back on track.

Thanks to Debbie's Dad and my sister, Ann, both of whom drove more hours than I realized at the time, we are back home safely.

I'm not sure what comes next -- obviously, we won't be driving anywhere in the next day or two. I'm trying to figure out if we can get flights out for the two family reunions, plus we need to get the insurance straightened out and get a rental van, short-term -- I imagine -- and look at a replacement vehicle long term.

The really important thing is that we are all okay. All of us were wearing seatbelts and the kids were well strapped in their respective car seats/booster seats. It's hard to say who got the worst of it -- I looked bad because I cut my elbow and leg on the glass after the accident, but it really wasn't anything but blood that looks bad. The car was full of gravel -- we must've plowed up at least 50-100 lbs of gravel in the car alone. Emilie came up the worst on that end -- she had it in her face and mouth. None in her eyes. Joe and Sarah were both scared, but no aches or pains -- both got quite chilled outside the van -- a very nice couple stopped and gave them blankets to warm them up. Joy has a sprained finger that I want to check out tomorrow -- there's always a possibility of a hairline fracture. Debbie was shook up and covered with gravel but seemed to be fine. Both Debbie and I seemed to have minor brusing from the seatbelts, but that's nothing. I realize that if I wasn't wearing a seatbelt I would've very easily been thrown through the windshield and ... well, you get the idea.

I'm detailing the minor scrapes really just to emphasize that we are okay and that we really have been delivered from something that could've been quite bad.

Thanks again to family and God for deliverance.

"...the difference between a fetus and a premature infant is a social distinction, not a biologic one" I don't normally post long essays -- especially from other sources -- but this letter to the editor of the Washington Times merits posting in whole:

According to The Washington Times, Senate Democrats are slowing progress of legislation banning partial-birth abortion ("Abortion bill faces conference setbacks" Nation, Monday). Both the House and Senate have overwhelmingly passed bills that ban this procedure, and President Bush has promised to sign such legislation. Here is my experience with this issue:
In 1976, I was a medical student on my first obstetrical-gynecological clinical rotation. In my second week on the gynecology service, I checked the operating room schedule and saw I was to assist with a hysterectomy/TAB. At the operating table, I learned that a hysterectomy/TAB was the surgical procedure where the pregnant uterus is removed. TAB stands for therapeutic abortion; the hysterectomy was for sterilization. I held the retractors as the professor methodically excised the gravid uterus.
I already had assisted on two other hysterectomies, one for endometrial cancer and the other for a benign tumor. I had been taught during those first two cases to "always open the uterus and examine the contents" before sending the specimen to pathology. So, after the professor removed the uterus, I asked him if he wanted me to open it, eager to show him I already knew standard procedure. He replied, "No, because the fetus might be alive and then we would be faced with an ethical dilemma."
A couple of weeks later, now on the obstetrical service, I retrieved a bag of IV fluid that the resident physician had requested. The IV fluids were to administer prostaglandin, a drug that simply induces the uterus to contract and expel. The patient made little eye contact with us. A few hours later, I saw the aborted fetus moving its legs and gasping in a bedpan, which was then covered with a drape.
Several years later, I had my only experience with a partial birth, or late term, abortion during my neonatology training.
One day, the obstetrical resident who was rotating through the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) was excited that he was going to get to learn a new procedure, a type of abortion. This obstetrical resident explained to several of the pediatric residents and me that a woman in labor and delivery in her late third trimester had a fetus who was breech (a baby positioned buttocks, not head, first) and also was severely hydrocephalic.
The resident described how he was going to deliver the body of the baby and then, while the head was entrapped, insert a trochar (a long metal instrument with a sharp point) through the base of the skull. During the final portion of this procedure, he indicated that he would move a suction catheter back and forth across the brainstem to ensure that the baby would be born dead.
Several of the pediatric residents kept saying, "You're kidding" and "You're making this up," in disbelief. The pediatric residents all had experience caring for infants and children with hydrocephalus and had been taught that with any one infant the degree of future impairment is difficult, if not impossible, to predict.
Later that afternoon, the obstetrical resident performed the procedure, but unfortunately the infant was born with a heartbeat and some weak gasping respirations, so the baby was brought to the NICU. All live-born infants, even if it is clear that they were going to die in a short period of time, were always brought to the NICU so they could die with dignity, not left in the corner of Labor and Delivery.
I admitted this slightly premature infant, who weighed about 4 pounds or 5 pounds. His head was collapsed on itself. The bed was a mess from blood and drainage. I did my exam (no other anomalies were noted), wrote my admission note, then pronounced the baby dead about an hour later.
Normally, when a child is about to die in the NICU and the parents are not present, one of the staff holds the child. No one held this baby, a fact that I regret to this day. His mother's life was never at risk.
When I was in medical school, abortions were done up until 28 weeks (full term is 40 weeks). It was confusing that on one side of the obstetrical unit, pediatricians were placing extremely premature infants on warmers, intubating them to help them breathe, and rushing them off to the NICU, while on the other side similar premature infants/fetuses were being delivered in bedpans and covered with drapes. Most 28-week fetuses died back then, even with NICU care. Today, more than 95 percent of all 28-week premature infants survive and thrive. Most states won't do an abortion beyond 24 weeks now. However, today more than 50 percent of all 24-week premature infants survive if delivered in a hospital with an NICU, and infants as young as 22 weeks have survived and done well. Infants weighing as little as 9 ounces or 10 ounces have survived.
As a neonatologist who has cared for numerous spontaneously aborted and a few intentionally aborted fetuses in the past 20 years, I now realize that the difference between a fetus and a premature infant is a social distinction, not a biologic one.
If it is wanted, it is a baby; if not wanted, it is a fetus. When I started medical school, I viewed abortion as just another medical procedure and the products of conception as tissue. After 20 years of practicing neonatology, I now know this is not the case. I believe that after abortion became legal, the mantra of "it's just tissue" took hold in the medical and lay communities, and most never stopped to question if it were correct.
More than 1.2 million induced abortions are done annually in this country; roughly one out of every four pregnancies is terminated by abortion. Medical or social euphemisms such as TAB, D&C (dilation and curettage), choice, women's health or reproductive freedom don't change the fact that abortion is a violent and unethical — if legal — procedure. Elective abortions have degraded both the medical profession and the women who have made this choice.
Of course, partial-birth or late-term abortions constitute only a minute fraction of the abortions done daily in this country. Why should Congress and the president limit the few partial-birth abortions that are done? Simply because it is the right thing to do.

DR. HANES SWINGLE
Pediatric Fellow
University of Iowa
Iowa City

Two Good Links. As always, if you want good news about the Anglican Communion, your starting point must be Classical Anglican Net News or CANN: http://www.anglican.tk/index.php.

Second, this website developed by the American Anglican Council looks promising: http://www.aplacetostand.org/

Two More: Titusonenine and MCJ.

Advance. There was a big convocation -- an advance, I think you'd have to call it -- of Anglican ministers at my church today. It looked more like a UN meeting. Actually, I take that back -- it had a very third world flavor (the UN being very European). As I understand, the gist of the meeting was that the confessing church members in the Anglican communion agreed to meet after the Episcopal General Convention if (1) it authorizes any same sex blessings or allows Gene Robinson (the fellow who left his wife and kids for a same sex lover) to take a seat as bishop, or (2) it takes action to bless same sex unions.

It must be recognized in the days ahead that the Episcopal Church in America is just a small part of the Anglican body.* It is a hand, if you will. The Anglican Body, speaking in unison at Lambeth reconfirmed that the union of a man and a woman is the only biblical standard -- only a man and woman may be joined in holy matrimony and santified by the Church as Christ's representative. If the Episcopal Church were to take one of the two steps I noted above, it would be affirmatively separating itself from the Anglican Body.

It would be like severing a hand from the body.

Those of us remaining in the Episcopal Church who are standing for the standard endorsed by the Anglican body may be just a finger on the hand, but we will do what we can to see to it that the hand remains firmly attached to the body. I think we may be that opposable thumb that makes the hand so useful -- if so, we will stay. God willing.

-----------------------------------------
*I must acknowledge that in reality the Church of Christ universal, as the Bride of Christ, is so much greater than the Anglican communion -- Thanks be to God. In truth, the Anglican Communion may come closer to being the skin on the left shin. Nevertheless, when you bang the shin, it hurts and the body may stumble.
-----------------------------------------

More: Here, a news report from the WaPo. Here, from the NY Times.

Shields Up. I noticed today, driving by the Pentagon, that the levels of defense are definitely way up. For example, just the number of police parked on the shoulder has at least doubled. But more noticeable where the humvees and jeeps with mounted guns, each staffed by at least three soldiers. This had been scaled back over the past few months -- don't know if there is any connection with the deaths of EBay and Queasy, but I wouldn't doubt it. Also, they are wearing the dark green BDUs and cammies (Woodland style, I think) -- not the lighter cammies, which blends better with the Virginia shrub brush. They've also dispensed with the military camouflage netting. They are projecting a prescence.

More It looks like that was just a one day deal.

Feed the people. Archbishop Peter Akinola, the Prelate of the Anglican Church in Nigeria, spoke at worship this morning. In Nigeria they have 17 million communicants, more than the Anglican communion has in England, Canada, and the U.S. -- combined. This branch of the Church is quite strong and healthy, albeit materially poor. He is in America to give support and sustenance to those members of the confessing church who remain in the Episcopal denomination. I can not begin to tell you how wonderful it was to listen to the spiritual strength and vitality of this man. I've heard Billy Graham preach and this man outdoes him -- not that it's a competition.

He spoke on the feeding of the 5,000 and also participated in a number of baptisms.

I believe we are on the verge of a historical shift -- a turning point.

More later.

Adios. Well done, Bill Bright.

Micah 6:8. One interesting proposal, from Louie Crew, is an amendment of the Catechism

to quote Micah 6:8 correctly:

“Question: What response did God require from the chosen people? Answer: God required the chosen people to be faithful; to love justice, to do mercy, to do justice, to love mercy and to walk humbly with their God.”; and be it further

Resolved, That all future printings of The Book of Common Prayer include this correction in an erratum until a new edition is approved.

Explanation:
It is much easier to love justice than to do it. It is much easier to be merciful than to love mercy. We should set for ourselves the high standard that Micah articulates.

The NIV translates the verse this way

He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.

and the KJV

He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

On this one, I agree with Dr. Crew.

GC2K3. I find it hard to believe that it was just a few months ago a friend of mine, a pastor of a UMC church, asked about the Episcopal Church's General Convention and I replied that I thought it would be a relatively quiet affair. Of course that was before New Hampshire nominated a man who had left his wife and children and was living with sex partner.

In preparation for the General Convention, the Theology Committee of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church released a report ("The Gift of Sexuality: A Theological Perspective") that, while not an endorsement of Biblical ethics and morality, at least recommended a "cooling off" period: "Because at this time we are nowhere near consensus in the Church regarding the blessing of homosexual relationships, we cannot recommend authorizing the development of new rites for such blessings."

Nevertheless, the Convention has the task of affirming or rejecting the Robinson nomination. Talking with a vestry member tonight (actually Friday night, I see by the time I post this it will be Saturday morning), he said he thought the Robinson nomination would be the first order of business and will set the pattern for the convention.

The Diocese of California has proposed a number of proposals, one calling for "Rites for Blessing and Supporting Committed Relationships;" another which attacks anyone who seeks deliverance from sexual bondage. Similarly, the Diocese of Newark has a proposal which condemns by name the American Anglican Council (AAC) for running a campaign focusing on "God's Love Changed Me."

Wetting Down. I just got a note from the fellow who was my best man (actually, the note was from his wife) -- he has been promoted to Captain in the Navy, which is the equivalent rank of Colonel in the infantry forces - one step below flag rank. I am very thrilled.

They will be having a 'wetting down' party in about 10 days. (Actually, I'm not sure if the Navy calls it that.)

Santorum was right. A state district court judge threw out the charges against a man arrested on solicitation of sodomy in a public park in Charlotte, NC.

Links/E-mail. I finally updated my links and e-mail. I had previously had a mailto: with my e-mail address in it. The spambots got ahold of it and I got to the point where I couldn't bear to open my mailbox. Anyway, you know the routine. substitute the @ for the -at-.

Bonhoeffer. This movie will be playing in town at the Avalon -- I'd like to see it (and perhaps take my son, age 5, to it. He is very facinated with DB -- he has a book that he regularly asks us to read to him). Here's a good article on the documentary.

Foreign Law. USA Today has an article today noting the reliance by several justices upon case law from other countries. I've noticed this for awhile in Justice Breyer's opinions -- basically it turns out to be an appeal to authority to support one's own predetermined opinions.

What strikes me as interesting is that it's the white liberals on the court who are the leaders in this trend. As can be imagined, they only look to European opinions -- one never finds reliance on any African Courts or, say Jewish courts.

Liberal Supreme Court. Get used to the phrase -- start using it, it reflects the reality. See Stuart Taylor, here, if you need convincing.

"Bring 'em on". I don't see what the Democrats problem with this is. But then, I grew up the son and grandson of a Marine -- this is typical talk.

My Grandfather fought at Belleau Woods, the spot that GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly uttered the famous line to his men: "Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever?" (near Lucy-le-Bocage, 5th Marines June 6, 1918.) Same battle: "I have only two men out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold. " - 1st Lt. Clifton B. Cates, July 19, 1918.

Here are some more:

"You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em." -Lieutenant General Lewis B. Puller, 1962.

"Hard pressed on my right. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I am attacking!" -Ferdinand Foch

"We're surrounded. That simplifies the problem!" -General Puller

"We're not retreating, Hell! We're just attacking in different direction!" -Gen. Oliver Smith

[Withdrawn]

Thinking on the Declaration. This is not a call for rebellion -- the drafters of the document observe "that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." Thus begins the tipping point, the transition to the statement of the case against the government: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." The bulk of the document "is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states..."

Interestingly enough, it begins not with a burdensome law or demand, but with this: "He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good." That almost sounds like it could've been lifted from Scalia's dissent in the Lawrence case.

The drafters note that they have tried to obtain relief from these injuries: "In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. "

So they appeal to "to the Supreme Judge of the world."

Then they note that because of the repeated injuries effectively void the relationship with the prior state and create a new one: " that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levey war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do."

Make Way for Mr. McCloskey. I just heard this news, via Orin Judd. (Yes, I'm even ripping off OJ's headline.)

Fittingly, I think, my wife and kids had gone blueberry picking today.

Rest in Peace, Mr. M.

When facing a protestor. Here's a statement, purportedly from the Commanding General, 1st Marine Division:

When you guys get home and face an anti-war protestor, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a p****

Mojo. The June 2003 issue of MOJO magazine has a nice CD included -- titled Instant Garage, the 28-track disc includes tracks by The Kinks, the Ramones, the Electric Prunes, and a lot of minor bands that might otherwise get overlooked.

tracklist:

mc5 – kick out the jams
electric prunes – i had too much to dream last night
sonics – psycho
new york dolls – personality crisis
ready men – shortnin’ bread
the bush – to die alone
jonathan richman and the modern lovers – she cracked
the express – wastin’ my time
gil bateman – daddy walked in darkness
love – 7 and 7 is
rocky & the riddlers – flash & crash
she – outta reach
ramones – i wanna be your boyfriend (demo)
kinks – milk cow blues
little john & the monks – black winds
alarm clocks – no reason to complain
count five – psychotic reaction
artesians – trick bag
dean carter – jailhouse rock
iguanas – again and again
the nazz – open my eyes
wailers – dirty robber
paul revere and the raiders – just like me
bunker hill – the girl can’t dance
the brave new world – train kept a rollin’
amboy dukes – baby please don’t go
the rats – rat’s revenge part 2
mouse and the traps – sometimes you just can’t win

A Tale of Two Cases. Most of you are familiar with the facts of the first case, as recounted by Justice Kennedy:

. . . officers of the Harris County Police Department were dispatched to a private residence in response to a reported weapons disturbance. They entered an apartment where one of the petitioners, John Geddes Lawrence, resided. . . The officers observed Lawrence and another man, Tyron Garner, engaging in a sexual act. The two petitioners were arrested, held in custody over night, and charged and convicted before a Justice of the Peace.

The relevant statute, Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 21.06, declares that an offense is a Class C misdemeanor under Texas law, subject to a fine of up to $500. Lawrence and Garner were each assessed $200 fines.

The facts of the second case, as described by Justice Souter:

In March 1997, Petitioner Gail Atwater was driving her pickup truck in Lago Vista, Texas, with her 3-year-old son and 5-year-old daughter in the front seat. None of them was wearing a seatbelt. Respondent Bart Turek, a Lago Vista police officer at the time, observed the seatbelt violations and pulled Atwater over. According to Atwater’s complaint (the allegations of which we assume to be true for present purposes), Turek approached the truck and “yell[ed]” something to the effect of “[w]e’ve met before” and “[y]ou’re going to jail.” He then called for backup and asked to see Atwater’s driver’s license and insurance documentation, which state law required her to carry. Tex. Tran. Code Ann. §§521.025, 601.053 (1999). When Atwater told Turek that she did not have the papers because her purse had been stolen the day before, Turek said that he had “heard that story two-hundred times.”

Atwater asked to take her “frightened, upset, and crying” children to a friend’s house nearby, but Turek told her, “[y]ou’re not going anywhere.” As it turned out, Atwater’s friend learned what was going on and soon arrived to take charge of the children. Turek then handcuffed Atwater, placed her in his squad car, and drove her to the local police station, where booking officers had her remove her shoes, jewelry, and eyeglasses, and empty her pockets. Officers took Atwater’s “mug shot” and placed her, alone, in a jail cell for about one hour, after which she was taken before a magistrate and released on $310 bond.

Atwater was charged with driving without her seatbelt fastened, failing to secure her children in seatbelts, driving without a license, and failing to provide proof of insurance. She ultimately pleaded no contest to the misdemeanor seatbelt offenses and paid a $50 fine; the other charges were dismissed.

[some citations omitted.] The original offense, driving without a fastened seat belt, is governed by Tex. Tran. Code Ann. §545.413 which provides a punishment of "a fine of not less than $25 or more than $50."

Disclaimer: Before I go on I believe I should add the requisite disclaimer that these laws are "uncommonly silly.”

So how did the Supreme Court view these cases? In the sodomy case, the Court found the Texas law an improper moral code that burdened a fundamental freedom. In the seat belt case, the Court found tossing a mother in jail for failing to fasten her seat belt was constitutional.

The Judges who voted with the majority in both cases: Kennedy and Souter.

Query: What if Texas were to pass a law requiring safe sex? I.e., no sodomy without condoms?

Myth of the Conservative Court. For most of my life I've heard the Supreme Court labeled "conservative" or even "right-wing." After the term just concluded we heard Kimberle Crenshaw of UCLA on PBS discussing "broad themes that really sound very much like a Warren Court coming out of a very conservative court's mouth." Last Sunday saw NY Times doyenne Linda Greenhouse write: "Will the Court Move Right? It Already Has." Charles Lane, writing in the WaPo describes "an increasingly conservative court."

This is a myth and no matter how much the mantra is uttered, it remains a myth.

For those who have a shred of integrity, there is the beginning of a breakdown of the myth. Dahlia Lithwick describes this past week as "a shockingly progressive set of decisions from a supposedly conservative court." To which former Clinton solicitor general Walter Dellinger agrees:

But the number of progressive results is close to stunning.

The method of funding of Legal Services for the poor by "taking" the interest on lawyers trust accounts is upheld against a property rights challenge.

The Family Medical Leave Act is upheld as applied to the states, in spite of strong case law on state sovereignty.

Justice Powell's lone opinion in Bakke sustaining the use of race for diversity becomes the opinion of the court.

A capital case is overturned because of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The retroactive extension of the time for bringing sex abuse charges is held unconstitutional.

Bowers v. Hardwick is overruled.

In fact, this Court is a liberal court.

Consider: the twin big rulings of the past term: upholding state sponsored racial discrimination and discovering right to homosexual activity.

In the prior term the Court ruled for pornographers striking down the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996. It further ruled that executions of mentally retarded criminals are "cruel and unusual punishments" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. (This is as good a point as any to add that I don't necessarily disagree with the court on these rulings -- my point is that this is a "conservative court" is a myth.)

In the 2000-2001 term the Court ruled the ADA required the PGA to provide Casey Martin a golf cart, allowed the jailing of people for failing to wear a seat belt, and did something involving Al Gore.

In the 1999-2000 term, the Court struck down a state law prohibiting partial birth abortion, banned student led prayers before football games, and reaffirmed the Miranda decision (it should be remembered that Miranda was a 5-4 decision of the Warren court, this was 7-2, with Rehnquist writing the opinion).

In prior terms, the Court struck down the Line-Item Veto, held that school districts can be liable under Federal law for offenses by students, and struck down a state initiative effectively granting special gay rights in Colorado.

In fact, this is a liberal court with a few bones tossed to the right.

By the Time I Get to Phoenix . It's a little after midnight here in Phoenix and I've gotta whine again -- I'm really getting tired of traveling. On this trip at least we're staying in a very plush resort -- as you can imagine the resorts are empty in June in Phoenix. My room is on the ground floor about 40 yards from a 25 meter swimming pool, so I get up and swim first thing in the morning.

I've really missed access to the internet. My work provider is down (or off or something). I hadn't put my home ISP software on my laptop, so I was flat out of luck. What I've really missed is being able to read Supreme Court opinions -- I can't get over how much the 'net access to these opinions has changed my life -- ten years ago I would be down at the Court to get slip opinions to read -- that was the only way until we got the paperback opinions in the library 2 to 3 weeks later (I didn't have Lexis or Westlaw access either). Since it's the end of term I have been motivated to go out and get some of that free trial software to install so I could read these things. Well, it's been a busy week as well. More later.

Hiatus. I believe I will be taking a hiatus from blogging through the period of Lent.

My Turn. Five minutes ago, my daughter handed me the book -- she's done reading it in less than 24 hours. I couldn't tell how much she liked it -- I know she doesn't want to spoil it for me. She may post a review here later.

Harry. We just got back from picking up Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

Half the church was at the Borders we were at. In fact one parent who indicated disapproval with the whole thing was dismayed to find it so popular. We got to the store about 8:30 and my daughter and her friends had a great time (from what I could tell). After awhile I couldn't locate them but finally found them all planted right in the middle of the occult section playing cards. They said they figured that kept people from browsing through those books and if anyone did, they made derisive comments.

Okay, so a passive-aggressive streak runs in my family -- I'm pleased with her.

Time to Stand Up. The June Virginia Communique is out with a message from our Bishop, Peter Lee, that sets forth some of the concerns with respect to the New Hampshire situation, yet fails to set forth a position. I have tremendous respect for Bishop Lee, although I frequently disagree with him. He is an attorney and was Phi Betta Kappa -- in short, he has a keen intellect.

In his message, he lays out the basic facts but does not indicate how he will stand. Please pray for Bishop Lee to stand faithful.

Astounding! I'm not planning on reading Hill's novel -- yet, this note on a very revealing admission caught my eye. If anything, Prof. John O. McGinnis is too kind to Hillary -- I can not believe she ever contemplated this.

Books. I just finished reading Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time based on a recommendation from a friend. Next up will probably be Royal Blood: Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes by Bertram Fields (on the same subject). I'm also listening to The Devil in the White City: Murder, Magic, and Madness at the Fair That Changed America by Erik Larson with the audio book Holes by Louis Sachar on deck.

Friday night, I'll be taking my daughter and her friends from church to Borders so they can pick up Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. I'm on the library's wait list for that one, although at nearly 900 pages (over 255,000 words), I don't know when I'll find the time. (I'm also on the wait list for the audio recording). The publishers have released a great teaser:

Dumbledore lowered his hands and surveyed Harry through his half-moon glasses. 'It is time,' he said 'for me to tell you what I should have told you five years ago, Harry. Please sit down. I am going to tell you everything.'

One last thing, before I forget -- if you haven't stopped by the Brothers Judd web site for their reviews and treasure trove of related links, you really are missing a treat. I stop by after nearly every book I finish to check on their thoughts -- it's amazing how much they've covered.

Unfinished Business, Bishops, Books, etc.. Helena, MT - (I love this dateline thing) I've got a great deal of unfinished business. This is almost a note to myself. I want to talk about my niece's confirmation, which happened last Sunday. The election for Bishop in NH happened last weekend and I have some thoughts about that. In the meantime, here are a couple of stories: Dancing in the aisles and lover's kiss greet election of gay bishop and Bishops criticize election of gay man. The following is from the statement from the Bishops of South Carolina:

The Anglican Communion now faces one of its greatest crises ever over the question of whether or not same sex relationships are sinful or to be blessed by the church. Earlier today, on the second ballot, the diocese of New Hampshire elected the Rev. Canon Gene Robinson to be their next bishop. To his credit, Canon Robinson made no secret of his involvement in a relationship with his same sex partner, whom he named but didn't make a focus of the election process.

This election causes us the gravest possible concern, for if the church ratifies it, we would clearly be approving of the relationship in which Gene Robinson is involved. This is not about a person or a diocesan election process; it is about a radical change in church doctrine.

The union in which Canon Robinson participates is not Holy Matrimony but an intimate relationship outside the bounds of marriage. This would be true whether he were cohabiting with a man or with a woman. For the church implicitly to sanction such a partnership will be a clear repudiation of the teaching of Holy Scripture and the tradition of the church; it also would signify a massive overhaul of the Christian theology of marriage by the Episcopal Church. It would in addition be against the expressed will of the Anglican primates at the recently concluded meeting in Brazil, as well as the two documents commended by the primates, "True Union in the Body", and the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops' Theology Committee report. Finally, it would be against a whole host of General Convention resolutions on this subject dating back several decades.

We keep hearing about doing justice in the Episcopal Church; we think it is important to stop and consider what this means. The currently unchanged official position of the Episcopal Church is that the only proper context for the expression of sexual intimacy is between a man and a woman who are married to each other. For the last two decades, there has been a debate about whether or not to alter this teaching, a conversation which has been so challenging and difficult precisely because to move to bless same sex partnerships would represent such a breathtaking departure from all previous Christian teaching.

* * *

If Gene Robinson's election is confirmed by General Convention, it would bring through the back door a practice that the Episcopal Church has never agreed to approve through the front door. How can this be considered doing justice? We do NOT have a theology for same sex relationships, and to agree to the Robinson election would be tacitly to sanction relationships still searching for a theology. We do not believe such a theology is possible without doing violence to Holy Scripture. . . .

This really hits the nail on the head.

It's my own belief after having read the biographies and statements of the candidates that in most respects Robinson was the most moderate and temperate of the candidates. Nevertheless, he is living in open defiance of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. It would've been better to not fill this vacancy.

Still more unfinished business: I realize I've failed to update my current reading. I'll try and get to this next week.

Six Pack. What a game -- six pitchers combine for a no-hitter against the mighty Yankees. This is the first time the Yankees have been no-hit in my lifetime!

Naturally, this take me back to my childhood when Blue (5), Abbott (1), Lindblad (1), and Fingers (2) combined to no-no the Angels.

[We won't talk about Ted Lilly tonight]

More -- good article on no hitters here.

Best Ever. ESPN writer Rob Neyer has put together the all-time ball team for each team -- looking these over I've got to say that I am actually in general agreement with his choices. It's important to note, however, that the all-time team just features those players who played with the team in the current city -- not all the players that ever played with the franchise (which is why you won't find Walter Johnson on any team).

Here's Neyer's A's all-time team (err, from Oakland):

C Terry Steinbach 1986-1996.
1B Mark McGwire 1987-1997.
2B Dick Green 1963-1974.
SS Miguel Tejada 1997-2002.
3B Sal Bando 1966-1976.
LF Rickey Henderson 1979-1984; 1989-1993; 1994-1995; 1998.
CF Dwayne Murphy 1978-1987.
RF Reggie Jackson 1967-1975; 1987.
SP1 Catfish Hunter 1965-1974.
SP2 Vida Blue 1969-1977.
SP3 Dave Stewart 1986-1992; 1995.
SP4 Bob Welch 1988-1994.
RP Dennis Eckersley 1988-1995.

My only disagreement with this list would probably be shortstop -- Bert "Campy" Campaneris. I might also go with Antonio Rafael Armas Machado in right -- if looking at the position from the defensive standpoint. (SI named that trio -- Armas, Murphy, and Henderson -- the greatest defensive outfield ever).
Last, maybe Tony Phillips instead of Dick Green at 2nd (which also highlights the fact that this is an Oakland only list -- I'm sure the all-time A's team would have Nap Lajoie at 2nd).

Nolan Ryan makes three different teams lists -- and arguably should've made the Mets (over Leiter). [But see, Mark Byron's comments. He's made me take a closer look and I have to agree.] Don Baylor makes two as DH -- not a real position, right? (I mean if you were to choose someone from the Yanks roster to be DH, wouldn't you chose Joltin' Joe, since Neyer put Mick in CF?) And why not the Babe on the Red Sox all-time pitchers list?

[Where's Dave Kingman?] [That is a joke.]

Never Forget. Unfortunately, the 20th Century gave us far to many things to "never forget." One of these was the extermination of the Czech village Lidice. Here is the story. On June 10, 1942, the Nazis wiped out the entire village in reprisal for the killing of Reinhard Heydrich.

Travelogue, Pt. 1. Salt Lake City - I guess I'm getting the dateline, a la Rick Bragg. This wasn't one of the cities that I was supposed to be visiting -- just passing through, but with airline problems I'm at the Airport Marriott. In the meantime, I wanted to make an account of the places I've been to so far this year -- it has been a busy one.

I've spent a lot of time in eastern Ohio: Akron, Canton, Kent, Cleveland and Lorain. I will stay that I was really surprised at how much I liked Cleveland -- none of that "mistake by the lake" talk around me. I'm already forgetting where else I've been -- St. Paul, MN, as well as Prior Lake and Mankato. Kokomo and Indianapolis in Indiana and Chicago (where we celbrated Mother's Day at Lou Malnati's. I think that's it -- if I remember anyplace else, I'll add it. This is just the first five months -- I'll do a part 2 later.

The Lamb by William Blake

Little Lamb, who made thee?
Dost thou know who made thee?
Gave thee life, and bid thee feed
By the stream and o'er the mead;
Gave thee clothing of delight,
Softest clothing, woolly, bright;
Gave thee such a tender voice,
Making all the vales rejoice?
Little Lamb, who made thee?
Dost thou know who made thee?

Little Lamb, I'll tell thee,
Little Lamb, I'll tell thee:
He is called by thy name,
For he calls himself a Lamb.
He is meek, and he is mild;
He became a little child.
I a child, and thou a lamb.
We are called by his name.
Little Lamb, God bless thee!
Little Lamb, God bless thee!

Mad Bomber Caught? Interesting development -- my daughter and I had just left the Olympic Square and were at the subway station when the bomb went off -- we were fine but it was nerve-racking for my wife watching on TV waiting for us to get home. I want to see the proof on this. I hope they got the right guy.

Dear Diary. Two quick notes: (1) Last night Debbie and I helped our oldest daughter and her friends plant lawn flamingos at a neighbor boy's house. (2) Spent most of the day yesterday fixing the book shelves that inexplicably fell off the wall -- still not sure how that happened.

Don't Censor Me. It's late spring and time for the censors to arise again -- you know Barry Lynn and the thugs at the ACLU. Today it's the government telling a senior she has to delete "God" from her graduation solo.

I'm an old geezer, so let me go with an old song (1994) -- I wouldn't do hers, I'd do one from Audio A:

You can take God out of my school
you can make me listen to you
You can take God out of the pledge
but you can't take God out of my head
Listen to me closely, lend me your ear
the substance of my statemnet lets you know I'm sincere
Government officials, shapers of the land
I've to to tell you something you need to understand

You can't take God away from me
you can take my life, my land, my liberty
Lock me up, I'll still be free
'cause you can't take God from me

You can take God out of the law
you can make me listen to ya'll
You can take God out of the start
but you can't take God out of my heart

Listen to me closely, lend me your ear
the substance of my statemnet lets you know I'm sincere
Government officials, shapers of the land
I've to to tell you something you need to understand

You can't take God away from me
you can take my life, my land, my liberty
Lock me up, I'll still be free
'cause you can't take God from me

You can't take God, you can't take God away
You can't take God, you can't take God away
You can't take God, you can't take God away
You can't take God, you can't take God away

You can't take God away from me
you can take my life, my land, my liberty
Lock me up, I'll still be free
'cause you can't take God from me

Chortle. It's not nice, but it is funny to think if Kyoto Protocol passes, Enron lives and prospers. By opposing Kyoto, Bush dooms Enron. Story here.

Sid takes the Red Pill. Michael Isikoff demonstrates Sidney Blumenthal lives in his own personal Matrix.

More. Here is Christopher Hitchen's early take on the book.

And - "Tom" is correct, in his comments. I should've titled this "Sid takes the Blue Pill." If you take the red pill, you embrace reality -- taking the blue pill, well, let Morpheus explain: "You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and you believe whatever you want to believe."

Finally. Hitchen's Atlantic review is online.

Hedging Bets. The Rockford College graduation speech by New York Times reporter Chris Hedges deserved to be booed -- not just because he was opposed to the battle for Iraq, not just because he's anti-American, but it has to be the most ponderous, pretentious commencement address I've ever heard. You can listen to it to courtesy of the Rockford Register Star.

More This guy won a Pulitzer? Not quite. He was part of a "team" that won a Pulitzer -- This story that he co-wrote was the only one submitted that had his byline. Sort of like saying Rickey Dudley won the Super Bowl last year.

Baptism. We came back from St. Paul to be godparents to two adorable twins, Brian and Benjamin. There were 35 baptisms at our church today -- we do them every other month. I think the real treat was an entire family that got baptized together. Most services we use the standard Episcopal baptismal font and dribble. Today we pulled up the floor boards (there's a tank under the altar table) for a good dunking, which really is the right way to do it, IMO. Our rector was raised Baptist (in England), so I could see he was thrilled to "take a swim."

BTW, speaking of baptism -- the best depiction of baptism on film? See the movie Tender Mercies with Robert DuVall.

More. The Associate Rector, Marshall Brown had an excellent sermon which started off thusly,

“Do Episcopalians believe in transubstantiation?”

Well, first of all, what are we talking about? In the beginning of the 13th century, the Catholic church defined the way Christ is present in the sacrament of Holy Communion with the doctrine of transubstantiation. In the philosophical language of the day, people believed that you could divide things into two parts: their “substance,” and their “accidents.” And according to this line of thinking, something like bread is made up of two parts: flour and water – which are “accidents,” on the one hand, and secondly “breadness” – which is its “substance.” And so when the priest consecrated the bread, it’s so-called “accidents” of flour and water stayed the same, but its “substance – its “breadness”, was transubstantiated into the body of Christ.

But the problem was, this was not a Biblical or theological line of reasoning, but a worldly philosophical argument. And so from the moment the doctrine was formulated, people got it wrong! There was a long period of misunderstanding, which culminated in the Protestant Reformation. The great majority of the common people, as well as most of the trained religious folk, misunderstood the doctrine. They believed not in transubstantiation but in what one might call “transaccidentalism.” The were stories of bread bleeding when the priest broke it, and things more outlandish than that! And so there grew up a tremendous misunderstanding and superstition about the sacrament of Communion. As we gather this morning, we believe that Jesus Christ is really and truly present in this sacrament. We believe it with a passion. But we Anglicans, you see, don’t particularly like explanations.

Queen Elizabeth I, when asked what she believed about the bread and the wine, said these famous four lines:

T'was God the Word that spake it,
He took the bread and brake it.
And what that Word did make it,
That I believe and take it.

The entire sermon can be found here.

Very Happy. I have been married to this beautiful bride for 22 years now.

Unfortunately, I finished a project yesterday in St. Paul, Minnesota yesterday morning and we spent the day (and night) driving back to DC from there. My wife spent her pre-K through 6th grade years there, so the whole family came along for the week. They had a great time and I worked hard and saw a lot of good stuff. I can't believe we drove all the way back from there -- we left after 11 a.m. CDT and got home around 9 a.m. EDT.

It was also my baby's 2nd birthday. More pictures later (and maybe more thoughts -- my brain is down now -- no sleep).

I am tired, but I am a happy man.

The Matrix: Overloaded. Saw the 2nd chapter in the Matrix on Thursday. My opinion: a good chase scene -- some interesting dialogue, nevertheless, the movie runs way too long. Start by cutting the whole prayer/rave party in Zion. [BTW, Zion's ethnic diversity is great -- too bad there's not similar veins of diversity for other categories, such as age, ideology, faith.] Also the expository dialogue runs a little too long. But maybe I was missing something. Yes, I will see it again, but not until my free ticket arrives and not for a month or more.

Still too violent.

Sleep on it. The new General Motors Corp. commercial uses a clip from the Meatloaf song, Paradise by the Dashboard Light.

Let me sleep on it
Baby, baby let me sleep on it
Let me sleep on it
I'll give you an answer in the morning

Ah, but do you remember the punchline:

So now I'm praying for the end of time
To hurry up and arrive
'Cause if I gotta spend another minute with you
I don't think that I can really survive
I'd never break my promise or forget my vow
But God only knows what I can do right now
I'm praying for the end of time, it's all that I can do-oo-oo
Praying for the end of time
So I can end my time with you.

What is the temperature at which paper burns? A good essay on a great book.

Go Annika!

Absence of Malice. I didn't like this when Elliot Rosen did this to Paul Newman. I don't like it that the fibbies are doing it now to Dr. Steven Hatfill. Sequels are almost never as good as the original.

Where's Wilford Brimley? ("You had a leak? You call what's goin' on around here a leak?! Boy, the last time there was a leak like this, Noah built hisself a boat.")

Haw! LA Mag does Chick.

Big Green. In case you missed it -- and it didn't seem to get a lot attention -- the WaPo had a very good series on the Nature Conservancy. Yes, it's pretty much what the Washington Times and other periodicals have done over the years, but it's nice to see the official newspaper of the conventional wisdom giving this story some attention.

Cinco de Bennett. We just had our little family dinner of tacos toasting Mexico's defeat of the French in the Battle of Puebla. [BTW, has France won any battles since before Waterloo? Or are they just the Devil Rays of the World? Oh, okay.]

Which brings me to Bill Bennett (Over/Under = $8 million), who has apparently replaced brother Bob as the black sheep of the Bennett family with disclosure (and admission) of his gambling problem.

I'm not going to throw stones -- I've gambled in the past -- I've bought a lotto ticket and have signed up for a square on a pool. Obviously, never anything big. But the point is that I guess I've never thought of gambling as a "per se," absolute sin, like lying or stealing or adultry. [You can see from my Inferno Test Score, below, that I have my areas of failings.] It falls into that grey zone of activities like drinking and smoking where context and amount (or situation and addiction, if you prefer) are factors as to whether it is "sinful."

Nevertheless, the sheer amount wagered -- an $8,000,000 net loss -- if reported correctly, over a 10 year period, would cross the threshold into sinful behavior, IMO.

William Bennett has acknowledge his addiction to tobacco in the past -- when he was Drug Czar Garry Trudeau took him to task on this (the moralist Trudeau being unable to distinguish between a legal and an illegal addiction, I guess). Therefore, the fact that the guy is a sinner is not surprising.

But it is disappointing. There have been admissions and disclosures over the past 20 years that have shaken people or disclosed persons to be liars, hypocrites, dupes, etc. Sometimes, I have been surprised -- while Jim Bakker didn't surprise me, Jimmy Swaggert did (although I never had any appreciation for either of them). The high profile "Reverends" have all had moral failings exposed: be it Pat Robertson and his ponies and the gambling, to Jesse Jackson and his mistress and payoffs. The list could be very long: Martin Luther King, Tony Campolo, John Howard Yoder, Mike Warnke, Jim and Tammy Faye, Swaggert, and on and on.

Yet, I don't know that Bennett's failings are significant enough to join this list -- I don't think he's been involved in fraud or adultry or the rest.

I'm not sure if this even approaches the Amy Grant line (high-profile Christian entertainer who divorces husband just because he doesn't turn her on for another guy who does). The Amy Grant line? Is that sort of like the Mendoza line?

Well, there has long been a perception of varying degrees of virtue and vice, just as there are levels of heaven and hell (again, see Dante). The Church of Rome distinguishes between mortal sins and venial sins. I disagree with this doctrine, slightly. I believe that all sin separates us from God -- even the most minor (yet, who is to say what's minor -- look at this list of what God hates). Nevertheless, there does seem to be Scriptural authority for degrees of sinfulness.

As an aside, are the critics of Bennett disclosing they believe that gambling is immoral, even though he apparently not ever labeled this activity a vice? I think there is an element of this, although I suspect the glee is merely a transference of claims of vice. By and large, in Protestant American culture, gambling has been viewed as sinful -- although I don't think you could project that sin on the American Catholic with respect to bingo and so on.

So is Bennett a hypocrite? ("One who plays a part; especially, one who, for the purpose of winning approbation of favor, puts on a fair outside seeming; one who feigns to be other and better than he is; a false pretender to virtue or piety; one who simulates virtue or piety.") I don't think so. As I note above, he comes out of a tradition (Roman Catholic) that doesn't treat gambling as sinful on its face. But maybe I'm splitting hairs. I think Hillary Clinton with her public pronouncements on the greedy capitalists, yet secretly made boo-coo bucks with her cattle trading is a hypocrite. Michael Moore = hypocrite. Jimmy Swaggert = hypocrite. Jim Bakker = hypocrite.

I think if we found out that Bennett were smoking pot, yes, you could call him a hypocrite (afterall, he has consistently opposed drug use). Yet, Bennett the tax-paying gambler -- engaging in a legal activity -- doesn't seem to be a hypocrite.

Now, were he doing this activity in violation of the law -- or were he lying about it in his IRS filings, then you would be correct in labelling him thusly.

Nevertheless, Bennett has fallen -- if not from grace, at least from public favor. Is it surprising? That Bennett did this -- yes -- he's sharp enough to have predicted this reaction. The reaction is not surprising -- nor that another person falls. This may be his own Waterloo. Or his Puebla.