High School. Today's the first day of high school for my oldest daughter. I'm feeling many mixed feelings. I'm so proud of her -- she's really an outstanding girl. She's learned a lot over the past few years (under my care and guidance as her 7th and 8th grade teacher -- yet, most of her learning has been "self-taught" rather than instruction). [For an example of her work-product, consider her science experiment, here.] I am confident in her and her abilities, yet, it is always hard to let go...

I'm most pleased with her work in math and geometry (and, somewhat related, logic). Her proofs have been very well laid out -- something I could never grasp. At the orientation on Friday my wife and I saw another mom who was homeschooling her daughter. This mom was surprised we put our daughter in Algebra II (Honors) and asked if we had to have her tested to skip geometry. I guess that's a question that comes up from time-to-time, see, for example, this article. Yet, it never occurred to me that she couldn't handle this level course (although she's the only 9th grader in the class). I'll tell you, I spent a lot of time examining different mathematics curricula -- plus I got good advice from bright homeschooled students (thank you nick e, wherever you are). I used the Harold Jacobs Algebra and Geometry books (get the teacher's guide and test form book, if you use these -- both are worth the money). [I see that there is now a third edition of Geometry out.]

10 Comedian Argus Hamilton observes:

Alabama complied Friday and moved the Ten Commandments from the court lobby to a closet just off the lunchroom. It's insane. In the space of three months, the federal courts have put the Ten Commandments in the closet and let the sodomy laws out.

While I have not written in this space on this controversy (I did try to submit a lengthy comment to Peter Sean Bradley's post here, apparently too long and swallowed in the ether), my thought is that both the lower Federal Court and the Court of Appeals were wrong -- but C.J. Moore was more wrong.

I do take a perverse amusement in people who love to throw stones at "fair-weather federalists" turning out to be fair-weather federalists themselves. Not to mention playing fast and loose with history.

The Churching of Women. A recent Christianity Today editorial notes

More than four decades after the introduction of the Pill, hardly anyone now getting married remembers the time when pleasure, procreation, passion, companionship, and parenthood were all intimately knotted into a bundle called marriage.

It then goes on to offer six points whereby "the local church [may] recreat[e] a biblical understanding of marriage in our society."

The fifth point

Fifth, churches must help their members recover the link between marriage and procreation. . . . Churches need to celebrate the fact that every marriage is procreative by design.

It seems to me that in the Episcopal Church, there is a wonderful little ceremony that reflects this reality. In the 1928 Prayer Book, it went by the quaint name "The Thanksgiving of Women after Child-birth commonly called The Churching of Women." I'll be honest - I know little about the origin of this service. Could it be derivative of Lev. 12, which calls for the purification of women after childbirth? Possibly [Probably]. Yet, the thrust of the title and the service appears to be one of giving thanks for a safe delivery. ("FORASMUCH as it hath pleased Almighty God, of his goodness, to give you safe deliverance, and to preserve you in the great danger of Child-birth") This probably seemed more necessary in a pre-modern age where there was a high rate of mortality in child-birth. Nevertheless, this simple ceremony is something I think almost every parent desires. I know we did -- the first public outing for all of our children was to Church -- to give thanks to God.

The rubric provides:

As soon as convenient after the birth of a child, or after receiving a child by adoption, the parents, with other members of the family, should come to the church to be welcomed by the congregation and to give thanks to Almighty God. It is desirable that this take place at a Sunday service. In the Eucharist it may follow the Prayers of the People preceding the Offertory.

The brief service includes this prayer:

O God, you have taught us through your blessed Son that whoever receives a little child in the name of Christ receives Christ himself: We give thanks for the blessing you have bestowed upon this family in giving them a child. Confirm their joy by a lively sense of your presence with them, and give them calm strength and patient wisdom as they seek to bring this child to love all that is true and noble, just and pure, lovable and gracious, excellent and admirable, following the example of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

In short, I submit, our predecessors left us a Biblical understanding of marriage, which we have, through neglect, allowed to wither. Let's bring them back to life.

Latest Form Letter. Responding to Bishop Peter Lee's last form letter, I sent a terse reply:

Thank you for responding. I had hoped you would at least read my letter before sending off a form response.

and received this response

Mr. William Sulik (a20)
Dear Mr. Sulik,
Your most recent message was forwarded to me in South Carolina where I am on vacation.
I assure you that I read personally every email and every letter I receive. I recognize I am a servant of the Body of Christ and try to listen to members of the Body, even when they are unhappy with me.

Faithfully yours,
Peter James Lee

The road must be trod I received a message with this J.R.R. Tolkien quote attached as a .sig file. This speaks to me in so many ways:

"The road must be trod, but it will be very hard. And neither strength nor wisdom will carry us far upon it. This quest may be attempted by the weak with as much hope as the strong. Yet such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere."

--J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring

Thanks, Angel.

The Calf. Thinking more about Lee's letter yesterday and talking with my wife, it finally occurred to me what this situation is like. Peter Lee is like Aaron taking up an offering: "Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me." (Exodus 32:2). Some of us have the temerity to refuse to make an offering for the golden calf he and the other caretakers are building.

One more thing -- now, when it suits his pleasure, he cites to the Bible (did you leave your Bible in Virginia while you were in Minneapolis, Peter? Didn't your hotel room even have a Bible?). The only problem -- he gets it wrong. He writes:

Since the First Century, the church has made allowances for differences in the way believers live together in marriage. Jesus' prohibition of divorce was absolute. By the First Century, the church made allowances for divorce in certain circumstances."

Let's go to videotape, err, Scriptures. Jesus, speaking in the Sermon on the Mount, does, indeed provide an exception allowing for divorce:

It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

(emphasis added). See also, Mt.19:1-12, which containst the same exception. (But see Mark 10 or Luke 16:18, which do not contain this exception.

More. Sorry for not posting the text of the letters, I'm a slow typist. To read the original letter from the Truro Vestry, go here. To read a .pdf version of Lee's response, go here. To read the Vestry reply to the Lee response, go here. If you can't get the .pdf versions from those links, you may have to go here instead.

He Still Speaks. I'll tell you, the readings in the lectionary are so on point for the Episcopal Church, it makes me wonder if our "leaders" ever read them. Today's readings were from Joshua 24:1-2a,14-25 ("...as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."), Ephesians 5:21-33 (comparing marriage between husbands and wives to Christ and the Church) and John 6:60-69 ("... the spirit that gives life, the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But among you there are some who do not believe." )

The Saga Continues. Since I last updated this, there has been an exchange of e-mail between Peter Lee and the Truro Vestry. I'll try to post the letters later. What has me really ticked off is that Lee has taken to calling our Vestry's decision to escrow it's pledge to a clearly apostate denomination a "financial weapon."

This is a profoundly wrong reading of Biblical stewardship -- but it does indicate that Lee views his vote, and that of the Virginia delgation, as a "weapon" against the Biblical model of the church.

Infected. Listen, I'm infected at home, on my laptop, and even at work, where we have some very tough firewalls. Accordingly, I've really cut back on e-mail and time on-line. I think I've got all three PC's worm and virus free, but I'm staying off the 'net for the most part to avoid catching and spreading.

If I haven't responded to an e-mail or note, that's why. I should be back by Friday.

Response I just received an e-mail response from Peter Lee, unfortunately in an obvious form letter, so I have no way of knowing whether he even read my letter, which was appended to his note, below.

August 14, 2003
Mr. William Patrick Sulik (a4)
Dear Mr. Sulik:
Your email reached me at the General Convention and I have not been able to
respond until now. I take your message as a sign of you concern for your
church and welcome it in that spirit. Of course I am saddened that my vote
to consent to Canon Robinson's consecration disappointed you. I can assure
you that I made the decision only after much prayer and believe it to have
been the correct decision for the good of the church.
The fact is that the Episcopal Church is divided over the place of gay and
lesbian persons in our common life.
My prayer is that we can remain united in Christ, whatever our differences,
and wrestle with these issues together in a spirit of compassion, mutual
respect and civility.
Thank you for writing.
Faithfully yours,
Peter James Lee
----- Original Message -----
From: Raider Raider --@hotmail.com
To: pjlee@thediocese.net
Cc: WillSulik@---.com; debbiesulik@---.com
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 4:18 AM
Subject: Utterly Crushed


> Bishop Lee:
>
> Years ago, when you were a new Bishop, and I was a young man, you received
> me into the Episcopal Church. Many years after that, you baptized my
first
> born child into the faith of the Church. I have always admired you and
> appreciated your wisdom and balance. I was extremely disappointed when
you
> removed yourself from consideration to be Presiding Bishop because I
> believed you would bring a sense of balance needed to the ECUSA.
>
> Today, I was crushed to learn that the House of Deputies had voted
agaiinst
> the standards clearly set forth by the Anglican Communion, and indeed, by
> the totality of the Holy Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation, not to
> mention the traditions handed down from generation to generation for as
many
> years before Jesus as there have been since.
>
> However, I was utterly crushed to learn that you had released a letter
> today, August 3, announcing that despite the clear teaching of Scripture
and
> the worldwide Anglican Communion (August 5, 1998, which "reject[ed]
> homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture"*) you would vote to
> elevate to bishop a man who was living in relationship contrary to these
> very clear standards.
>
> I feel that not only has my church turned its back on me and those like
me,
> but you have turned your back on me. I thought that you meant what you
said
> when you voted for the Lambeth Resolution on Sexuality.
>
> In today's letter, you first pull a little lawyer's trick. I know about
> these things, being a lawyer myself. You try to downplay immutable
Biblical
> standards by calling it a mere "policy." Moreover, you try to minimize
the
> fact that these standards are standards shared by the worldwide Anglican
> communion by saying it's just a *Virginia* policy.
>
> Secondly, you express your belief that "the Holy Spirit guides the church
> often through the decisions of lay people and clergy at diocesan
> conventions, councils and synods." Fair enough -- it is hard to discern
the
> move of the Holy Spirit sometimes. When I lived for awhile in Tulsa,
> Oklahoma, there was a televangelist there who said that the Holy Spirit
was
> going to kill him if not enough people sent him money. This person's
claim
> was contrary to the clear teaching of the Holy Scriptures, therefore, I
> didn't need councils and synods to know it wasn't the Holy Spirit
speaking.
> Similarly, if councils and synods issued decrees or take votes which run
> contrary to the clear teaching of the Holy Scriptures, I know it's not the
> Third Member of the Trinity speaking.
>
> But this is really a minor point; the major point is that the Holy Spirit
> does speak through councils and has done so throughout history: Jerusalem,
> Nicea, Ephesus, and so on to Lambeth. Yet, if a diocesan convention
passed
> a resolution denying the divinity of Jesus (Arianism), you would certainly
> (and rightly) oppose this action as being contrary to the First Council of
> Nicaea.
>
> In short, I don't understand why you are willing to affirm a position that
> is contrary to what has been decided.
>
> While you and the majority of the ECUSA establishment have turned your
back
> on me and the worldwide Anglican communion, that is only a *feeling* of
hurt
> and rejection. What has me more alarmed is that you and the Diocese of
> Virginia have decided to endorse a postion that is clearly repugnant to
the
> teaching of the Church of Christ. Since you have decided to drive me away
> from the Episcopal Church, I must ensure that I, as well as my family and
> co-parishioners may remain in a Church which supports a Biblical ethic.
>
> Nevertheless, I can not begin to tell you how much your betrayal has
grieved
> me.
>
> William Patrick Sulik
> [address in the original, deleted here]
>
>
> "Let the reader, where we are equally confident, stride on with me; where
we
> are equally puzzled, pause to investigate with me; where he finds himself
in
> error, come to my side; where he finds me erring, call me to his side. So
> that we may keep to the path, in love, as we fare on toward Him, 'whose
face
> is ever to be sought.'"
>
> -- Augustine of Hippo, The Trinity 1.5
>
> -------
> * The Lambeth Conference Resolution on Human Sexuality, stated, 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. . .
> while rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture, [A36]
> calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all
> irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of
> homosexuals, violence within marriage and any trivialisation and
> commercialisation of sex;
> . . . cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same-sex unions, nor
the
> ordination of those involved in same-gender unions. . .
>

Football! In particular, Blogger Bowl 2k4. The team that I owned last year has been forced out of left the quaint little town of Asylum, Pennsylvania, for the sunny shores of Makapu'u Beach, Hawai'i. Accordingly, we have switched team name, colors (no more puke green and pale pink), and uniforms -- so be sure to make your purchases early. We are now the Makapu'u Surfriders, with Aloha Blue and Sun Gold. In fact our uniforms look just like the Lions except we've got gold in place of silver. Yet, I need to stress here, especially in light of the Raiders lawsuit against the Bucs last year, there was no desire to emulate the Lions. I think the Lions record and performance for the past two years is proof enough of that.

Anyway, I've digressed enough. The purpose of this post was just to announce who the team would select with the second pick in the draft. Since we've not been able to come to early terms with Justin Fargas (the preseason rushing leader), we've decided to pick either Ricky Williams or LaDainian Tomlinson. It all depends on what number 1 does. If Mark Byron picks one, I'll go with the other. If both are available, I'll probably go with Ricky, but LaD was my main performer last year.

ECUSA(postate). I don't mean to keep flogging this story, the declared apostacy of the Episcopal Church in the US, but this is obviously important to me. Uwe Siemon-Netto, an ordained Lutheran and UPI religion correspondent, has an essay out -- apparently not on-line yet (when it is, I'll replace this and link) -- regarding the coming Primates meeting and the possibility of "one church" with "two opposing gospels coexist[ing] under one roof."

Here are the first few 'grafs:

The expanding crisis in the Episcopal Church USA and the worldwide Anglican Communion is about to reintroduce one of the most ancient dilemmas of Christianity: Can two opposing gospels coexist under one roof without doing damage to the Body of Christ?

The problem will presumably come up when in mid-October the world's Anglican primates meet in an emergency session to discuss the crisis caused by the approval by the ECUSA's General Convention of an openly homosexual priest as next bishop of New Hampshire.

Diane Knippers, president of the Washington-based Institute on Religion and Democracy, predicts, "There is an excellent chance of 7 or 8 out of 10 that an alternative (ecclesial) province will emerge in North America." Many observers agree.

Diane is a wonderful Christian lady who is a fellow parishoner at Truro Church in Fairfax -- please pray for her, especially her health. She is very committed to believers in the third world, especially those in the persecuted Church -- What's happening with the ECUSA(postate) is obviously distracting the orthodox and evangelical believers from the true mission of the Church, and consuming an enormous amount of resources.

If an alternate province is created, it will cause an interesting dilemma for the so-called "centrist" Bishops, such as mine in Virginia, who made a great show of holding their nose and voting for Robinson or the 'blessing' of alternate relationships. Specifically, Peter the Apostate (or Bishop Lee, if you prefer) strongly emphasized local determination as the justifying his vote on both Robinson and locally developed liturgies. It will be interesting to see what he does when local congregations want to stay in the Anglican communion and separate from the Episcopal diocese. I imagine Peter Lee will want to stay in the ECUSA, even though it will be the province which abandoned the historical faith. Yet he professes to disagree with the issues that the ECUSA(postate) decided to stand on.

On a related point, it will be interesting to see what the courts do, if the ECUSA(postate) establishment decides that they don't want to let local congregations assemble under an alternate province. Generally, the Episcopal diocese would get all the property in such a split, but if the broader Anglican communion determines that the ECUSA is, in fact apostate, what will the courts do? I have no knowledge or insight about this -- I'd look to someone like Peter Sean Bradley who has represented local congregations against the evil empire.

Nevertheless, I can see that it is excellent legal counsel to hold tight, local congregations, until you have cover from the Anglican communion.

More. NPR did a fair and balanced (can I say that?) story on this issue on Monday (I'm doing this update on Tuesday). You can listen to it on the web, here.

Power. I don't suppose I should mention we lost power for 5 hours last night? Thunderstorms. Okay, didn't think so.

Local Church. Let's see, it's the second Sunday following the ECUSA General Convention. Our rector is out on vacation. Our assistant Rector preached an excellent sermon on interpreting Scripture, which I will post when it becomes available.

Following communion, we had a rousing chorus of "A Little Talk With Jesus." (midi) I told Debbie that if we do have to leave Truro, we're going to a gospel church.

There were two letters of interest, the first from our Rector to the Congregation:

August 14, 2003

Dear Friends,

We had an extraordinary parish meeting last Sunday in response to the actions of General Convention. A number of presentations were made and many questions were asked. I am very grateful for the more than 500 who were present, including a number of visitors from other area churches. The atmosphere was somber and concerned, with strong emotions of sadness and grief just below the surface.

Let me restate my opening comments:

• The policies and teaching of Truro Church will not be changed by the actions of this General Convention.

• Although we approach Bishop Lee with profound disagreement regarding his leadership on these issues, we will maintain respect for his office as we pursue considered responses to these actions.

• We will continue to be a church that welcomes and cares for all people, especially those who struggle faithfully with homosexual temptation.

• We strongly dissociate ourselves from the election of a non-celibate homosexual man as a Bishop in this church, and we reject the claim that celebrating and blessing same sex unions is within the “bounds of our common life.”

A statement of disassociation was distributed and signed by 504 people. Truro will continue to collect signatures until August 31, at which time we will deliver them in a communication to Bishop Lee, Presiding Bishop Griswold and Archbishop Rowan Williams.

Among the many concerns raised at the meeting was the question of how to communicate with our children. I have responded to those concerns in my article in this week’s Truro Family News. Questions were also asked about the faithful stewardship of our finances. The offering on Sunday included a significant number of checks marked “for Truro Only,” or otherwise indicating that money was not to be passed on to the Diocese or National Church. At the Vestry meeting held later that afternoon we established a restricted fund to make this possible, and we also agreed to hold in escrow any future payments of our 2003 Diocesan pledge to allow time for further reflection. More information about the vestry’s actions will be available at the Vestry table after services in the coming Sundays.

I also reminded those gathered of our “Anglican Strategic Initiatives”—an initiative to support the work of those international leaders within the wider Anglican Communion who are standing with us. We took up an offering of more than $12,000 to further that mission.

What next? Pray! Pray for the Anglican Primates as they prepare to meet in October. Pray for the gathering of church leaders in Plano which will also be in October. Pray that we will not be divided or prideful as we seek to remain faithful to our Heavenly Father. Pray that in all this Christ will be glorified and His Church strengthened.

The second letter was from our Vestry to Peter Lee (and was much more gracious than I could ever be):

August 12, 2003

The Right Reverend Peter James Lee
Bishop of Virginia
Mayo House
110 W. Franklin Street
Richmond, Virginia 23220

Dear Bishop Lee:

In the words of the Apostle Paul, “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

As brothers in Christ, we are writing you on behalf of the Vestry of Truro Episcopal Church to convey to you the depth of our grief over the consent vote to approve the election of Canon Gene Robinson to be the next bishop of New Hampshire and over the recognition of the legitimacy of blessing same sex unions, as expressed in the 5th clause of Resolution C051 of the 74th General Convention of the Episcopal Church. The Truro Vestry is dismayed that you chose to support these actions. Many at our Sunday Vestry meeting expressed a strong sense of betrayal that the leaders of our Church showed such singular disregard for the consistent teaching of the universal Church regarding human sexuality based on clear biblical principles.

Our Rector, Martyn Minns, called a special parish meeting at 3:00 p.m. this past Sunday, August 10, in pastoral response to the confusion and anger caused by the actions of the General Convention. Our parishioners had an opportunity to hear directly from Martyn and others who were present at the Convention and to ask questions of him. At the conclusion of the meeting, 504 of those present signed the attached statement dissociating themselves from the unconstitutional actions by the 74th General Convention cited above.

Afterwards, the Vestry met to respond to the concerns expressed by our parishioners. The fifteen Vestry members present unanimously approved the following resolutions:

In response to the unconstitutional actions by the 74th General Convention of the ECUSA and the pastoral needs of our congregation, and as a matter of conscience, our diocesan pledge will be held in escrow, pending a review of the situation in November. The diocesan pledge amount will be adjusted to reflect any changes in the amounts donated to unrestricted funds.
We will immediately create a restricted “Truro Only” fund for the exclusive use of Truro missions and ministries, not to be used to support the diocesan or general church budgets. The restricted fund would be under the direction of the Vestry.
In your August 3, 2003, letter to the Diocese defending your decision to consent to the election of Canon Robinson, you said “We must look to the cross of Christ, which embraces us in unity and not to peripheral matters of sexuality where we differ.” While we agree that it is only at the foot of the cross that we can find unity, we profoundly disagree that matters of human sexuality are peripheral. In Genesis 1:27 we learn God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

The issue of how human sexuality is to be expressed is central to who we are as human beings made in God’s image and likeness. This is why such passions are brought to bear on these issues. Each one of us needs love, and needs to know what ways are appropriate or not appropriate for the expression of that love. Children and youth growing up need practical guidance for their daily interaction with others. The Judeo-Christian tradition has upheld as a clear standard expressed in the Old and New Testaments that the proper place for sexual love is between a man and a woman in a faithful marriage. The election of an actively homosexual bishop and the legitimizing of same-sex blessings effectively changes the doctrine of the Episcopal Church. It is precisely this unilateral alteration of the standards for sexual conduct that is seen by many in the Anglican Communion as not peripheral but a significant and divisive departure from established doctrine.

For a Church that deeply knows the power of symbolic action, this change is a profoundly troubling one. It signifies to our permissive culture that the Episcopal Church has now abandoned over 3000 years of consistent teaching within the Judeo-Christian tradition on the standard for the expression of human sexuality. In this media age of sound-bite communication, the Episcopal Church will henceforth be known as a Church that says without distinction: “Homosexual behavior is OK!” Episcopal parents can no longer turn to the Church for guidance and example if they want their children to live by the traditional Christian standard for sexual expression.

Perhaps this is what many lay, clergy, and bishops wish for our Church—a fundamental change that impacts the practical ways in which Christians live and order their public life in society. There are many—perhaps a large majority in the Anglican Communion—who believe that such a change would be a tragedy that would undermine the truth of the gospel itself, by promoting destructive behavior that is neither good for the individuals involved or for our society, nor pleasing to God.

It is crucial that our Church find loving, compassionate, and just responses to those who see themselves as homosexual individuals. Those of us who articulate a conservative theological position on this bear a special responsibility to find appropriate ways that such individuals can truly be welcomed in our churches, where all are called to new and transformed life in Christ.

Christians are always called to act out of faith, hope, and love. That hope can only be realized as we stand together at the foot of the cross. Jesus prayed on the night before he died, that His followers “may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.” For the sake of the gospel, that all may know the all-inclusive, transforming love of Christ, we respectfully call upon you to reconsider and repudiate the actions of the 74th General Convention, which have effectively separated the Episcopal Church from mainstream Anglicanism.

Yours in Christ,

Paul S. Julienne Warren A. Thrasher, Jr.
Senior Warden Junior Warden

More on Da Vinci Code. I received a note asking: "What does it mean that supposedly (I can't remember the source of that -- some columnist) this book is all the rage in the Bush White House?" If that's the case, I'd say it means that there's a fool born every minute and the White House is full of them. [BTW, I'm not able to confirm this -- I see that John Edwards just finished reading the book, but have not been able to link it to the White House.]

I have to say that I returned the Da Vinci Code audiobook to the library in a fit of pique. I was driving to the library to pick up the Clancy book while listening to this one and it just got to be too much for me. Part of it was the story telling was just getting so trite -- it reminded me of one of those really bad Christian novels: "So Skip, do you know the four spiritual laws?" "Why no, Chip, tell me?" The other is that it was blatently lying: "Every major scholar in the world knows that Mary Magdalene married Jesus and they had a child and the Roman Catholic Church has been suppressing it ever since." What a big fat one -- even heretical "Jesus scholars" such as John Dominic Crossan put no faith in the gnostic texts relied on by Holy Blood, Holy Grail (which finally got mentioned as a dusty old book that is the source of all this drivel -- descibed in such a way as to make it seem almost reputable). [And just for clarification -- Crossan does like the gnostic gospels, just not the HBHG ones.]

As for me, I'd rather spend time with Monty Python and the Holy Grail than the Da Vinci Code.

The Minneapolis Creed. Via Touchstone Magazine's "Mere Comments" the following satiric "Creed" was composed by the Rev. Eric Zolner in response to General Convention 2003 (reprinted with permission):

The Minneapolis Creed

We believe in Justice Mother,
the all inclusive Maker of good self esteem.

And in Jesus,
The only name we recognize from the Bible
He was conceived in an alternative committed relationship
And became person.
He was crucified, died, and was buried.
On the third day his ideals were raised in the minds of his friends.
He "Ascended" into "Heaven" and sits there with the heavenly Parent
But since there is no judgment, he shan't be back.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, Sophia.
She serves as a great rationale for whatever we want to do.
With the Parent and the Child she is used for furthering our agenda.

We believe in one church, as long as it agrees with us,
One baptism for the extinction of sins.
We look for the conversion of those less enlightened,
And a life of full inclusion of all who agree with us

Amen.

---
Rev. Zolner is the Associate Rector of Youth and Young Adults at Grace and St. Stephen's Episcopal Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

MoreI suggested to Rev. Zolner that he could end it, in the alternative with "Let it Be" in place of Amen. He responded "Or, maybe more appropriately, the end should just say, 'or whatever.'"

Books. It's happened to me again -- several books that I've put on hold at differing times have all become available at once. As a result, I'm "reading" the audio book Da Vinci Code and reading Jasper Fforde's Lost in A Good Book. The first is aggravating, yet a page turner (or a cassette flipper -- what do you call it for an audio book?). I'm also going through Eva Brann's Homeric Moments: Clues to Delight in Reading the Odyssey and the Iliad in preparation for reading the Odyssey and Iliad to my middle children (although, I'm not sure why, since I'll use one of the children's versions -- probably the Padraic Colum edition. (hey, they're just 5 and 6).

Earlier today, I received an e-mail that Tom Clancy's new book is available. Fortunately, this one is less than 500 pages, so I might be able to handle it.

I do want to add a word about the Da Vinci Code, the written equivalent of Oliver Stone's JFK. Yes, I know it's a novel -- it's fiction through and through. Yet the author, Dan Brown, bases so much of his story on true events and facts that it seems plausible. Indeed, if you leaf through the comments at Amazon or Barnes and Noble, you find so many people treating this as (gnostic) truth. It starts off with a killer sent out by the Catholic Church -- Opus Dei, the Pope's storm troopers, naturally. And it goes downhill from there. The book's protagonist, a supposedly urbane, brilliant Harvard professor, Robert Langdon, is a -- well, to call him a blithering idiot would be an insult to blithering idiots everywhere. So too, his aide de guerre Sophie Neveu.

The thesis for his book is take straight from Holy Blood, Holy Grail, yet there's no reference to this idea or source (okay, maybe it will come -- I'm still not finished). And his facts are so blatenly wrong! -- For example, he says the Catholic Church suppressed the role of women in religion and this is why there are no female Rabbis or female clerics in the Islamic religion. In this same discussion, he indicates that this is why everything related to the left side of the body -- supposedly the feminine side of the body -- has negative connotations -- to suppress the feminine divine. He even links this suppression (by the Catholics, no less) to the phrase "left wing" meaning "radical." In fact the origin of the phrase goes back to the seating arrangement in the French Assembly. See William Safire's Political Dictionary or this source.

In short, while this book is interesting and captivating (although Brown's character development makes Michael Crichton look like Jane Austen), it is really makes my teeth hurt from it's misrepresentations. Read Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum instead.

Carrot and Stick. It seems the Episcopal establishment is determined to use any means possible to wipe out dissent. We read in the East African Standard that gay activists beat Anglican Church of Kenya Bishop Simon Oketch in London simply for being a member of the confessing movement.

In the US, the screws will be turned much more subtlety: they will use the "golden handcuffs" (well, they use that term in lucrative areas of employment -- perhaps if you are an Episcopalian minister it would be the tin handcuffs -- still handcuffs): paycheck, health, life insurance, pension, and other benefits, to keep possibly dissident ministers in line. There will be a courageous few -- you'll see them portrayed in places like the WaPo and others as homophobes.

Nigeria. Chris Suellentrop has a good, but incomplete essay on Nigeria. He notes:

Perhaps most worrisome, Nigeria combines several aspects that are familiar from countries in the Middle East: an abundance of oil, a young population, economic stagnation, a corrupt elite, a legacy of colonialism, a vision of itself as a superpower that is in decline, and a rise in Islamic radicalism. Although Nigeria is only half Muslim (and President Obasanjo is a born-again Christian), 12 states in Nigeria's north have instituted the Islamic law of Shariah...

He fails to note the very strong and growing Anglican prescence in Nigeria . . . which was just severely undercut by the American bishops election of V. Gene Robinson, a notorious gay man to serve as Bishop of New Hampshire.

A butterfly flaps its wings in Minneapolis and Christians die in Nigeria and, perhaps, a country falls...

Ev'ry way you look at it, you lose.



More. Click here to see the original album.

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]