Head of Woman Is Man? I don't normally do this -- repost a webposting -- but I'm doing so today, because these change on a daily basis and the day is almost up.

IVP has the following essay up today, as part of its "Hard Sayings of the Bible" series looking at 1 Corinthians 11:3: "Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." (NIV) In other words, men are superior to women, just as God is superior to Christ, right? Wrong.

Because so much of the "debate" by the revisionists in the ECUSA has simply been "well we disregarded the what the Bible taught about women, why not disregard it when it comes to homosexuality." The Bible must not be "disregarded" it must be understood -- and sometimes that takes a little work:

These words in 1 Corinthians 11:3 are easily part of one of the most difficult and debated passages in all of Paul's epistles. What, precisely, does he mean when he says that "man is the head of woman"? How are we to understand the assertion of 1 Corinthians 11:7, which follows the "head" passage, that man "is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man"? And finally, who are "the angels" in 11:10, due to whom "the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head"?

These sayings, because they appear in the same immediate context (1 Cor 11:2-16) are closely tied to one another; thus in my interpretation I shall occasionally need to refer to matter treated in one or both of the other sayings.

In 1 Corinthians 11:3 the often-heated debate centers on the meaning of the word head (a literal rendering of the Greek kephale). For most English readers of the text, the common figurative sense of "head" as ruler, leader, chief, boss, director suggests itself almost immediately. Such an understanding of "head" as connoting "authority over" leads to an interpretation of this text (and of Eph 5:22-23) as Paul's teaching about hierarchical order in the relation between men and women. Some who stand within this interpretive tradition go so far as to posit a "chain of command," where authority is passed along: from God to Christ to man to woman.

While the NIV, RSV, NASB and NEB are cautious in their translation, rendering the Greek kephale with its literal English equivalent "head," other contemporary versions opt for a figurative meaning. Thus the TEV renders kephale with "supreme over." The LB's paraphrase becomes even more interpretive when it renders the text: "a wife is responsible to her husband, her husband is responsible to Christ, and Christ is responsible to God."

Even when such explicit interpretations of the term kephale are not employed, the literal "head," as in the NIV, implicitly suggests an interpretation along the same lines because of the common understanding of "head" in English when applied to persons in relationships such as marriage or other institutions. Common phrases like "she is head of the division" or "he is the head of his family" illustrate this everyday metaphorical meaning of "head" in our language.

Apart from the question whether this common English meaning is also the common Greek meaning of "head" when used figuratively, serious issues are raised by such an interpretation. How are we to see the relation between Christ and God? If God occupies a rank superior to Christ, then we have here a revival of the ancient heresy of "subordinationism" and a challenge to the classical doctrine of the Trinity.

Further, if husbands (or men; the Greek word is the same) are under the authority of Christ, and wives (or women; the same Greek word) are under the authority of husbands/men, do we then not have a situation where women stand only in indirect relation to Christ, via their husbands? Such a conclusion is in fact reached by some when they understand the series (God - Christ - Man -Woman) as indicating a "growing distance from God," or by others who extend the "chain of command" to children (on the basis of Eph 5:21--6:4) and maintain that the woman's authority over her children is a "derived" authority; that is, she exercises that authority "on behalf of" her husband.

The core issue in our attempt to grasp Paul's instruction is this: what meaning, or meanings, did the word kephale have in the common Greek language of the New Testament period? How would Greek-speaking Christians in Corinth have heard Paul when he used kephale? And how did this help them understand Paul's instructions concerning appropriate decorum in their public worship (1 Cor 11:4-16)? To answer these questions attention will be given to linguistic data, Paul's use of kephale elsewhere in his epistles, and the thrust of his argument in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.

The linguistic evidence points strongly, if not overwhelmingly, away from the common reading of head as "chief," "ruler," "authority over," though there are many conservative scholars who would challenge this. The most exhaustive Greek-English Lexicon covering Greek literature from about 900 B.C. to A.D. 600, among numerous metaphorical meanings for kephale does not give a single definition to indicate that in ordinary Greek usage it included the meaning "superior rank" or "supreme over" or "leader" or "authority."

What is especially interesting in this lexicographic evidence is that in the 1897 eighth revised edition of this lexicon, the final entry under "metaphorical" meanings is "of persons, a chief." But not a single citation from the literature is given to support or illustrate such a definition. Therefore, in light of the lack of evidence, that definition is not included in the later editions. However, among the range of meanings which kephale had in ordinary Greek were "origin" or "source" or "starting point" and "crown" or "completion" or "consummation." As we shall see below, these meanings do far greater justice to the Pauline usages of kephale than the "authority" nuances conveyed by the English "head."

Strong support for the linguistic evidence (that is, that the metaphorical range of meanings of kephale did not normally include the ideas of "authority over" or "superior rank") comes from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (commonly called the Septuagint) made between approximately 250-150 B.C. by a large group of Jewish scholars for the Jews living outside Palestine whose first, and sometimes only, language was Greek.

Like the English word "head" and the Greek word kephale, the Hebrew word ro's has first of all the literal meaning "head of man or beast." But like English and Greek, it also has numerous figurative meanings. In an exhaustive study of how the Septuagint translators rendered the Hebrew word ro's, the following data emerged. In the more than 200 times when it refers to a physical head, the translators almost always used kephale. About 180 times, ro's clearly has the figurative meaning of "leader" or "chief" or "authority figure" of a group. There is thus a close similarity between the English "head" and the Hebrew ro's; figuratively, both frequently designate an authority figure.

When the translators, however, sought the appropriate Greek word to render this figurative meaning, they used not kephale but archon (and its derivatives) in the great majority of cases (138 times). Archon means "ruler," "commander," "leader." Its derivatives include meanings such as "authority," "chief," "captain," "prince," "chief of tribe," "head of family." Most of the remaining occurrences of ro's (when it designates an authority figure) are translated by several other specific Greek words (such as hegeomai, "to have dominion over"). In only eight out of 180 cases was kephale used to translate ro's when it designated the leader or ruler of a group. It is very possible that one of the figurative meanings of kephale (namely, "top" or "crown") allowed the translator to use it in describing a prominent individual. It may also be that in these few cases one of the Septuagint translators simply used the literal equivalent for ro's, namely kephale (since both mean "head"). This is in fact what happens all too frequently in any translation when it is too literal. The exact equivalent may, in fact, distort the meaning conveyed by the original in its own context.

It is clear from this data that the Greek translators were keenly aware that kephale did not normally have a metaphorical meaning equivalent to that of ro's.

This linguistic evidence, which suggests that the idea of "authority over" was not native to the Greek kephale, has led numerous scholars to see behind Paul's use of "head" either the meaning "source, origin" or "top, crown, completion."

Another factor to take into consideration is that nowhere else in the New Testament is kephale used to designate a figure of authority. If that had been a prominent meaning, it could have served well in numerous places in the Gospels where the head or master of a household appears; yet it is never used to convey this meaning (see, for example, Mt 10:25; 13:52; Lk 13:25; 14:21).

If the readers of Paul's Greek did not hear our "headship" concept in the word kephale, but rather the idea of "source, origin," what did it convey to them, and how did that meaning in 11:3 lay the foundation for Paul's admonitions about appropriate hair length and decorum in public worship? Cyril of Alexandria, an important Greek-speaking leader of the church in the fourth century, commenting on this text wrote: "Thus we say that the kephale of every man is Christ, because he was excellently made through him. And the kephale of woman is man, because she was taken from his flesh. Likewise, the kephale of Christ is God, because he is from him according to nature."

This interpretation meets all the requirements of the passage and its context, and at the same time sheds light on several other of Paul's statements where both Christ and the man are designated as "head" of something or someone (Eph 4:15; 5:23; Col 1:15-20; 2:19). Paul, as other New Testament writers, affirms Christ as the one by whom all things were created (Jn 1:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16). Thus Paul can say that Christ, as God's agent of creation, gave the first man, and thus every man, life ("Christ is the source of man's life"). Such a meaning is confirmed by the fact that in the same passage (1 Cor 11:7-9) he clearly has the creation narrative of Genesis 1--2 in mind. Though it is obvious that, in a final sense, Christ/God is also the source of the woman's life (1 Cor 11:12), Paul is here considering the sequence of creation of the human species in Genesis 2.

This temporal, sequential thought continues in the sentence "And the head of the woman is man" (that is, "the man is the source of woman's life"). According to Genesis 2:21-23 Adam is the origin of Eve's being. And it is precisely this Old Testament text which Paul has in mind (1 Cor 11:8, 12). That "source" is the appropriate meaning of kephale in 1 Corinthians 11:3 is confirmed by Paul's "source" language in his appeal to Genesis 2.

Behind this temporal sequence stands God ("everything comes from God"; that is, God is the source of everything; see 1 Cor 8:6). Therefore, "the head of Christ is God" (that is, the source of Christ's being is God). Cyril of Alexandria said, "the kephale of Christ is God because he is from him according to nature" (emphasis mine). Though Cyril's language reflects the later trinitarian discussion, his affirmation is solidly grounded in the New Testament. According to John 1:1-14, the Word, which was God and was with God, came forth and became flesh in the Incarnation. In John 8:42, 13:3 and 16:27 Jesus is said to have come from God.

It would therefore seem best to translate 1 Corinthians 11:3 as "I want you to understand that Christ is the source of man's being; the man is the source of woman's being; and God is the source of Christ's being." When read like this, it lays a solid foundation for, and sheds light on, the rest of the passage (1 Cor 11:4-16), in which the next two hard sayings are located.

See also comment on GENESIS 2:18; 1 CORINTHIANS 11:7; 11:10.

.........

Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 2 vols., rev. H. S. Jones and R. McKenzie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940), 1:944-45.

Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen, "What Does Kephale Mean in the New Testament?" in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1986), pp. 97-110.

See, for example, Stephen Bedale, "The Meaning of Kephale in the Pauline Epistles," Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 5 (1954): 211-15; C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper & Row, 1968); H. N. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of Theology, trans. J. Richard deWitt (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 379-82; S. Scott Bartchy, "Power, Submission, and Sexual Identity Among the Early Christians," in Essays on New Testament Christianity, ed. C. R. Wetzel (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1978), pp. 50-80.

G. W. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), p. 749.

I heartily recommend the book that this comes from: Hard Sayings of the Bible by Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce and Manfred T. Brauch

No Confirmation. Since it made the newspaper, I can confirm that one of the things Rev. Martyn Minns, rector of Truro, announced (albeit in response to a question) was that Bishop Lee has been advised that he will not be welcomed to perform confirmations at Truro Church.

When the question was posed, Martyn collected himself a moment and made that disclosure. Martyn indicated that he had communicated that decision to Peter Lee, so it was appropriate to disclose it to the wider body. It was very obvious to me that this particular issue was extremely difficult for Rev. Minns. I can attest that Martyn does have a deep respect for Bishop Peter Lee -- as I think most of us at Truro. This is what makes his betrayal all the much more difficult.

For the record, this was what the Washington Times reported:

At Truro Episcopal Church in Fairfax, the second-largest parish in the diocese with a $3.5 million annual budget and 1,700 worshippers at weekend services, church leaders decided to halt confirmation classes altogether rather than risk a confrontation.
"Our youth ministers threatened to quit teaching confirmation [classes] because their parents won't let Peter Lee physically touch their children," said the Rev. Herb McMullan, head of outreach ministries. "In their minds, he is apostate."
Truro typically has 50 to 60 children per fall class.

No Bad Place to Be Thanks to an e-mail message from Oregon, I am drawn to this essay from N.T. Wright, the new Bishop of Durham. This short essay is richly packed with thought provoking ideas and observations("...the church turns out to be in pain at the point where the world is in pain. That's no bad place to be.")

+Wright notes the Primates in their joint letter are "moving . . . towards a more definite position of teaching (though not juridical) authority." (Yet, as I noted last night, action inconsistent with this authority will bring grave consequences.

Last, this brief paragraph applies not only to the Robinson/NewWest issues but to most conversations in the public square:

Our cultural history has left us disabled in our moral discourse. The rhetoric of progress on the one hand ("Now that we're living in the 21st century") and victimhood on the other ("My pain is worse than yours, so I claim the high moral ground") are poor substitutes for clear thinking and robust argument. Look what they have done in the Middle East.

Démarche. As I was listening to Martyn discussing the Primates statement from last week, it occurred to me that this is more of a demarche, which generally refers to a "formal diplomatic communication of a country's position on an issue, presented to an official representative of another country." In this instance, however, it's more of traditional demarche -- a statement setting forth boundaries to not be crossed or action to be taken and if the appropriate action is not taken, grave and serious consequences will be taken. Duhaime's internet law dictionary has this definition of a demarche:

A word coined by the diplomatic community and referring to a strongly worded warning by one country to another and often, either explicitly or implicitly, with the threat of military consequence. Demarches are often precursors to hostilities or war. In September, 1996, for example, US President Clinton issued a demarche to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein when intelligence reports showed troops massing along the border of Kurd communities.

In short, if ECUSA goes through with the Robinson ordination, it (ECUSA) will be responsible for the tearing apart of the fabric of the Anglican Communion.

...What Living Word ... I received my response today to my statement and questions submitted after the “Community Meeting” at St. John’s, McLean. I am disappointed to say that Peter Lee did not answer my questions set forth in my statement. I did add an additional question, which the Bishop did respond to:

If I were given additional time, I would ask many more questions, however one thing you said during the meeting troubles me. You stated: “My reading of scripture convinces me that the Gospel is ever-increasing its power to erase the barriers that we human beings erect among ourselves.” By this do you mean to say that you believe the passages in Scripture relating to homosexual practices and the requirement of fidelity within marriage are barriers erected by human beings? Do you see why this troubles me? The Episcopal Church holds and I believe, the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God; so called “because God inspired their human authors and because God still speaks to us through the Bible.” Do you really believe that the Scriptures are human made barriers? I think I must be misunderstanding you and welcome clarification.

In his letter, dated October 20, 2003, Peter Lee responds, (the entire letter):

I appreciate receiving a copy of your comments that you would have made at the meeting at St. John’s Church, McLean. I do most certainly believe that over the centuries, Christians have used the scriptures to erect barriers between human beings. We have done that in our relationship to Jewish people, in dealing with the place of women in the Church, and even in the support of many Christians for slavery. As I said in my statement at the community meetings, I believe that God is ever-increasing the power of scripture to put down the barriers that divide us and to unite us in Christ. With you, I believe the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God and that each generation needs to search the scripture to see what living word God has to speak to that generation.

Bradley v. Sullivan. The ever-brilliant Catholic philosopher and Thomas More-like attorney Peter Sean Bradley exquisitely fisks the craven Andrew Sullivan.

Personally, I gave up reading Sully awhile ago -- he is too dishonest for my tastes. Nevertheless, Bradley's effort is excellent.

Gay Martyr? So now Robinson is planning on meeting with the ABC. If he steps back from ordination, he makes himself a gay martyr.

Please remember that this is not solely about Gene ("God wants a gay bishop") Robinson. The ECUSA has authorized the blessing of same-sex unions which is contrary to Scripture. The Canandian Diocese of New Westminster has already been agressively doing this as well and has been persecuting anyone who disagrees.

If Robinson steps down, this does not end.

Down... but not out.

I came back from Oregon with a bad bug that's wiped me out. Also, I don't think I've checked e-mail for nearly a week. Will try to do so tomorrow.

Some other items. Consider these news reports for the background of what went on at Lambeth and the gradual fallout:

There were reports that Peter Akinola's life was threatened.

There was one report that the first stumbling block at the meeting was the fact that the Primates were not in communion with one-another. See this report. Contrary to that report (which seems to indicate that the Primates were pushed to communion only after being threatened), it is my understanding that the Primates were brought to the communion table by the nature of the sacrament itself -- that it is the Lord's sacrament, along with the fact that it was celebrated by Rowan Williams and not, say, Frank Griswold.

As reported here and other places -- one or more Primates from the Global South indicated to the Archbishop of Canterbury ("ABC") that the draft schedule did not leave room for the open discussions necessary. Furthermore, John L Peterson, Secretary General of the Anglican Consultative Council was excluded from the meetings.

Four Bishops and a number of American Clergy were in London assisting the Primates, particularly those from the Global South. The next day, following the conclusion of the Primates meetings, this group had breakfast with Rowan Williams. One of the four Bishops in attendance was John Howe -- his report is here.

Be on the lookout for "episcopal oversight" to be sought by minority parishes (the confessing churches as I've called them in the past -- borrowing from our sisters and brothers in the Presbyterian and Methodist Churches) in New Westminister and Colorado, among other places.

Parish Meeting. I went to the Truro meeting this afternoon. Basically, it was just a review of what happened this past week and a look at the Primate's statement. Martyn Minns did start the meeting saying he wanted it to be off the record and he specifically didn't want to see that he be quoted on the internet. So I abide by those wishes.

I'd say if you read Martyn's updates from London and the analysis of the Primate's statement on the Communion Parishes website, you got about 80-90% of what was brought up. The remaining percentage constitutes mostly small things.

Hold Steady. There is a scene in the movie Braveheart at the beginning of the battle of Stirling. The Scottish nobles have just departed the battlefield on horses leaving the foot soldiers behind. The English have unleashed their cavalry and they are bearing down on the Scots. The Scots stand motionless -- it is an unnerving scene -- they are about to mowed "down like grass." William Wallace steadies his men yelling "Hold

Hold.

Hold!"

And at last: "Now!" As the English close in, the Scots suddenly raise hundreds of long heavy spears from the ground. The horses crash into the spears throwing their riders. The first skirmish in the battle goes to the Scots.

If even one man breaks too soon, the battle would be lost.

This is the time we are in. It is time to hold steady.

Or, to put it another way, our eyes must be on the Lord and must not be distracted by the waves -- if we take our eyes off Jesus, we will lose faith and be swallowed by the sea.

There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:
a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain,
a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.
--Ecc 3:1-8.

I believe it is now a time to hold steady.

Family. I just got back home from a week in Oregon -- we had very beautiful weather, although I missed being in Virginia and I especially missed my family.

On the flight back I read Philip Jenkin's brief profile of Archbishop Peter Jasper Akinola, of Nigeria. This is a key passage from that article and should shed some light on the recent Lambeth Statement of the Primates:

Although Akinola believes that American and British churches are in error, his Anglican roots condition how and when he feels he can intervene directly. This tradition gives him a strong sense of the global dimensions of Christianity. He heads not the Church of Nigeria but the "Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion)," and that is a crucial difference. Anglicans everywhere fall within his area of concern. His communion is a family, and as he has put it, "That is where we belong." Yet Akinola is reluctant to speak out of turn. He venerates the Anglican idea of autonomous churches under their own primates and bishops, and feels that a primate has no right to interfere in another province, except in the direst circumstances. He has been remarkably moderate toward the North American churches—however difficult this may be to believe for those who know him only from his recent remarks. In interviews he has gone out of his way not to condemn the U.S. Episcopal Church, and he makes a point of praising Bishop Frank Griswold, its leader, and other American liberals. He refuses to ally himself with American conservatives who want to break away from their liberal bishops altogether. "You don't just jump from your diocese to begin to do whatever you like in another man's diocese," he told the Church of Nigeria News in 2001. "That is not done in our Anglican tradition."

Read the whole article -- it's available online.

Cruel and Unusual. In this brave new world, where wealthy white American gay men are considered oppressed and the Africans are the oppressors -- it should not be shocking to realize that a woman is being slowly starved to death, with the full approval of the law. It's happening right here in America. In Florida. To Terri Schiavo.

Please see the following excellent comments on this case: The Barrister; Ben Domenesch.

Here is the home of Terri's fight.

Contempt. Now, having written what I did below, I turn to the statements and news reports to find out what, if anything the Apostates are going to do. Will they repent? Or will they continue to treat the rest of the Anglican Communion with contempt?

According to the Washington Times, in response to the primates' statement that they "deeply regret the actions of the Diocese of New Westminster and the Episcopal Church U.S.A." Bishop Griswold announced that he numbered himself among "those of us who are not part of that deep regret." He added that "I stand fully behind the Diocese of New Hampshire as to who it wants as its next bishop."

Utter contempt is what Frank feels for the rest of the Anglican communion.

Looking at the NewWest statement, I am astounded. These guys just don't get it. They have no shame. When you read this statement of total spin, it's hard to keep from retching. These guys are shutting down churches and firing ministers, yet they have the gall to say something like this:

The [October 2003 Lambeth] statement speaks of the pain caused in some places by the actions of New Westminster in supporting permanent, faithful relationships between persons of the same sex. We acknowledge this. We have taken great care in our deliberations to listen to the voices of others in the church. Our concern has not been to cause pain, but to end discrimination and prejudice.

I do not say this lightly or unadvisedly, but Michael Ingham deserves to spend eternity in the deepest rung of hell.

What was surprising In the Statement, the actions Diocese of New Westminster are somewhat downplayed. It should be clear that not only has the Bishop in NewWest adopted a liturgy to bless a sinful relationship, but he is taking agressive and forceful action -- persecution -- of those who dare to disagree. Those being persecuted by this apostate bishop (Ingham) need protection.

[There is this passage, however: "We have a particular concern for those who in all conscience feel bound to dissent from the teaching and practice of their province in such matters. . . we call on the provinces concerned to make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates."]

Time to Choose. The Twelve included a homeboy lackey who was the tax collector for the invading Empire and a superpatriot -- a Zealot. It included a handful of simple fishermen and the worldly wise schemer who kept the money for the Twelve. They stayed together for the Master, until one betrayed Him. The betrayer -- chosen by the Master Himself -- later went out and hanged himself.

One out of twelve.

Extapolating that to a group of, say 38, you'd figure there will be at least three who will be willing to sell out the Master. [Do I have to mention the thing about controlling the money or being the simple, but faithful followers? Nah, didn't think so...]

Thanks to the comments by Craig, I could boot up tonight and read the Statement by the Anglican Primates first thing. I do not find much surprising.

In the ninth paragraph of the statement, we find the gravamen of the argument posed by Archbishop Griswold: ". . . it is not for [the Primates] to pass judgement on the constitutional processes of another province." The remainder of the ninth paragraph and the whole of the tenth paragraph is the key to this statement:

Nevertheless, many Primates have pointed to the grave difficulties that this election has raised and will continue to raise. In most of our provinces the election of Canon Gene Robinson would not have been possible since his chosen lifestyle would give rise to a canonical impediment to his consecration as a bishop.

If his consecration proceeds, we recognise that we have reached a crucial and critical point in the life of the Anglican Communion and we have had to conclude that the future of the Communion itself will be put in jeopardy. In this case, the ministry of this one bishop will not be recognised by most of the Anglican world, and many provinces are likely to consider themselves to be out of Communion with the Episcopal Church (USA). This will tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level, and may lead to further division on this and further issues as provinces have to decide in consequence whether they can remain in communion with provinces that choose not to break communion with the Episcopal Church (USA).

In short, it's time for Frank and his group to decide which way they want to go. They can go peddle to the metal -- damn the archbishops and go full speed ahead -- rip the fabric of the Communion to shreds.

Or they can repent of their arogance and hubris. They should repent of their decision to reject the Word of God.

Follow the Master.

News from London. The Telegraph is reporting:

. . .it appeared last night that their [i.e. the orthodox primates] united front was crumbling. One insider said that the conservatives no longer had majority support for their demand that the liberal American Episcopal Church be expelled for appointing Anglicanism's first openly homosexual bishop.

The mood of optimism was reflected by Archbishop Robin Eames, the liberal Primate of the Church of Ireland, who emerged briefly after seven hours of talks to say he believed the meeting was moving towards a consensus.

* * *

Sources close to the conservative camp, which is led by primates in Africa, said that they had hoped to have 20 signatories backing an ultimatum they presented to Dr Williams yesterday.

This called on the Archbishop to discipline the American Episcopal Church before the planned consecration of bishop-elect Gene Robinson, a divorcee who lives with his male lover, as Bishop of New Hampshire in November.

However, it is now thought that they have secured the backing of only 16 or 17 primates, with others calling merely for a rebuke for the Episcopal Church.

It is thought that the Asian primates have proved far less enthusiastic for an immediate showdown than the Africans and, while a split could still occur, it may not be as damaging as had been initially feared.

One Asian primate is understood to have walked out of a private meeting of conservatives on Tuesday because he could not accept the hardline position being proposed.

Canon Donald Anderson, the general secretary of the American Anglican Council, which represents traditionalist members of the Episcopal Church, said he no longer expected the liberal Americans to be expelled.

He added: "I hope that the Episcopal Church's current leadership will receive a significant censure and rebuke and at the same time there should be provisions for a safe place for orthodox Episcopalians."

Meanwhile, rumours are circulating that the Vatican has sent an emissary to America to see whether disenchanted Anglicans might convert to the Roman Catholic Church.

Gracious Father, we pray for thy holy Catholic Church.
Fill it with all truth, in all truth with all peace.
Where it is corrupt, purify it;
where it is in error, direct it;
where in any thing it is amiss, reform it.
Where it is right, strengthen it;
where it is in want, provide for it;
where it is divided, reunite it;
for the sake of Jesus Christ
thy Son
our Savior.
Amen.

Anglican News. The folks at CANN have a new website carrying all the news from London and beyond.

Remember. Tomorrow is a day of prayer and fasting for the Anglican communion.

Pedro Martinez should be suspended - for at least four games and probably seven. The crew that umpired today's Yankees-Red Sox game should also be sanctioned -- they clearly let things get out of hand. First you had Martinez throwing at a batter's head. I was 97% sure that was no accident -- and later events reduced that margin of doubt to nil. That, in itself was enough to warrant ejection -- although you hate to do that in a playoff game. When Martinez stood on the playing field and threatened to hit another Yankee in the head (he pointed at the bench and then at his head -- repeating this several times), he clearly should've been ejected. This is why the umpires need to be sanctioned -- they failed to control the game. Next, when Manny Ramirez overreacted to a pitch high and inside [picture] and the benches cleared, Martinez' assault on 72 year old Don Zimmer, pushed the nature of the sanction to be assessed to a suspension.

Don Zimmer and Manny Ramirez should be fined. I did not see the later fight in the Yankees bullpen, but from what I read and heard, it sounds like the Yankee players involved should also be fined and the Red Sox organization should be fined for failing to control their employees -- the groundskeeper who at best acted provocatively in the bullpen.

I went into this game rooting for the Sox (now that my A's are out). I was hoping for a Cubs-Red Sox World Series. I can't believe I ended up rooting for the Yankees after this.

I've never been a fan of Roger Clemens -- he's a hot head -- but he's also one of the truly great pitchers. Amazingly, he kept his cool today. Perhaps he learned his lessons long ago. There's a good argument for not ejecting a player -- especially a key player in a playoff game. The counter argument is that it teaches the player to put the team first. Pedro and the Sox need to learn that one.

More. Tom Boswell described what happened yesterday as "a self-inflicted black eye:"

The Red Sox now trail this series two games to one and, in many eyes, seem more guilty of bad behavior than the New York team that the Boston front office has dubbed "the Evil Empire." This was the day when it was Red Sox Nation's turn to blush.

He further articulates some of Zimmer's motivation for confronting Martinez:

Early in his career, Zimmer was considered a future star, but a beaning left him with a metal plate in his head and a warning from doctors that he was risking his life to stay in the game. He ended up playing a dozen seasons against their wishes. But, more than anyone, Zimmer has been a symbol, throughout his 55-year pro career, of what beanballs can do to a career. As soon as Martinez threw near Garcia's head -- the worst of all pitching sins -- Zimmer began screaming at him from the bench.

Read the whole thing.

Even the Boston Globe had to acknowledge the pitch that Ramirez overreacted to was "hardly a menacing pitch; in fact, it was almost a strike . . ." Nevertheless, it tried to equivacate, saying that both teams behaved badly and gave "baseball" a black eye.

Kneel With Us. The Archbishop of the Church of Nigeria and the Church of Nigeria is observing Monday October 13 as a day of prayer and fasting in the Church of Nigeria for the Anglican Communion. They would warmly welcome other Anglicans to stand with them in this.

I would amend the above statement to substitute "all Christians" for "other Anglicans" at the end.

We are praying for and ask others to pray for the discernment of the Holy Spirit; for God to guide our leaders to see what is at stake and to give all of us wisdom and courage to stand by the truth of Scripture whatever the cost. Jesus says "I am the way, the truth and the life" The truth is given in his word. We need wisdom, protection, and a great deal of God's Spirit.
--Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria

The Agony of Defeat

Fig Leaf. The news today is that South African Primate Njongonkulu Ndungane (Invertebrate) has proposed the establishment of a committee to study "human sexuality."

Let's lay aside the fact that this is nothing more than a fig leaf for the apostates to hide behind. Let's lay aside the fact that the apostates have completely ignored all committees, commissions, conferences, and other similar such clusters in the past. [After all, have any of the apostates abided by Lambeth? In the ECUSA, the responsible committees recommended tabling all such issues until agreement was reached. Did that stop the apostates this past summer?]

Let's say all the Primates agree to go with a study commission. If we do, what about Robinson? What about New Westminster? What about the blessings charade? Robinson and Ingham will both have to step aside pending the results of the committee. (plus Ingham will have to turn over the keys.) And all clergy will have to agree that there will be no blessings until agreement is reached.

Will the apostates and other members of the supportive liberal faction agree to this? Do they issue iceskates in hell?

I am so confused. Let me see if I have this right. If you divorce your wife and take up a long term sexual relationship, outside of marriage, with a man, carrying on in the church rectory, you're considered to be qualified to be a bishop in the Episcopal Church?

If you set up a website that directs teenagers to on-line homosexual pornography, you're considered to be qualified to be a bishop in the Episcopal Church?

But, if you "initiat[e] sexual conversations with two teenagers" you will be "deposed of [your] priesthood?" Here's the story on this case. I have no problem with this result -- it's appropriate. Why not apply the same rule to Rev. Robinson?

It must have something to do with pluriform truths?

(Or do presiding Bishops just chloroform truths? I'm so confused...)

Speaking of those radical conservatives... This is an interesting item. Apparently, Pope John Paul II is strongly being considered for the Nobel Peace Prize due to his opposition to the war in Iraq. This apparently pleases the anti-US liberal on the Nobel committee. He is being opposed because of his "position on abortion, contraception, the role of women in the church and homosexuality. . ." (emphasis added).

Umm, for the Roman Pontiff, these are not "positions," they are a way of life.

"Insurgent Conservative". The Associated Press has labeled the American Anglican Council meeting in Dallas "[a]n insurgent conservative movement that could split the Episcopal Church . . ." [see also here]

Note to the A.P., please decide which pejorative you want to use to label this group. An insurgent is "opposition to lawful civil or political authority" or "Rising in revolt against established authority." When insurgent is used as a noun to describe a person, it refers to:

A person who rises in opposition to civil or political authority; one who openly and actively resists the execution of laws. . . An insurgent differs from a rebel. The insurgent opposes the execution of a particular law or laws; the rebel attempts to overthrow or change the government, or he revolts and attempts to place his country under another jurisdiction. All rebels are insurgents, but all insurgents are not rebels. Webster's

On the other hand, "conservative" refers to "disposed to maintain existing institutions; opposed to change or innovation." Infoplease defines conservative thusly: "disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., "

Insurgent conservative Episcopalians? It sounds like a group opposed to crusts on white bread, or place settings without a salad fork.

I weep with Joy. I understand that a letter of encouragement has been sent to the Plano meeting from the Vatican. I'll post it when I obtain a copy.

More

From Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Prefect of the congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
The Vatican, on behalf of Pope John Paul II

I hasten to assure you of my heartfelt prayers for all those taking part in this convocation. The significance of your meeting is sensed far beyond Plano, and even in this city from which Saint Augustine of Canterbury was sent to confirm and strengthen the preaching of Christ's Gospel in England. Nor can I fail to recall that barely 120 years later, Saint Boniface brought that same Christian faith from England to my own forebears in Germany.

The lives of these saints show us how in the Church of Christ there is a unity in truth and a communion of grace which transcend the borders of any nation. With this in mind, I pray in particular that God's will may be done by all those who seek that unity in the truth, the gift of Christ himself.

With fraternal regards, I remain

Sincerely yours in Christ,

+Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

NFL Hall Nominees. The first cut of the class of 2004 -- the nominees for the NFL Hall of Fame has been announced. Here are my ten picks from that list:

John Elway QB
Barry Sanders RB
Art Monk WR
Cliff Branch WR
Russ Grimm G
Gary Zimmerman T
Karl Mecklenburg LB
Lester Hayes DB
Ray Guy P

Now, I generally think that wide receivers are way overrepresented in the HOF and the offensive linemen are very underrepresented. Therefore, I'm surprised to see that I've picked two WRs. Both deserve to be there, in my opinion. I'm also surprised to be picking Broncos -- I can't stand them, but they were excellent. (Ken Stabler should be in the HOF, but not ahead of Elway.)

Also, I don't normally like special teams players, coaches, owners, etc. However, Ray Guy revolutionized the game, elevating the appreciation of the punting game -- I don't think it would be overstating it to say he was worth an average of at least 4 points a game difference for the Raiders, just because of the results of field position.

Last, astute observers will note I only picked 9 players above. I'm reserving my final pick for Bob "Boomer" Brown a devastating tackle who played for the Eagles (and Rams and Raiders). He's been nominated by the Seniors Committee -- he should've been picked long before this.

[My favorite Boomer story was when he was first traded to the Raiders. The team was on the practice field and Boomer came out of the locker room late (making sure he had an audience). He lined up in front of the wooden goal post, came out of his stance and gave the post a forearm, leveling it.]

Implications. One of the things that really amazed me was the complete disregard by the Episcopal establishment for the rest of the church catholic. Not just their Anglican brothers and sisters in other lands (indeed, one of the proponents for Robinson declared these people to be "not relevant"), but also for those in other denominations here in the US and throughout the globe.

Of course the partisans who are trying to ram this change through haven't forgotten it. However, it appears that the "fellow travelers" who supported the Robinson ordination (yet claim to hold fast to their local policies opposed to this sort of thing) have clearly forgotten the larger Body.

I have a friend who is a pastor of a United Methodist Church who tells me that the pressure to both ordain practicing homosexuals and to consecrate gay weddings has really increased since GC2003.

Similarly, there is a strong push that has been going on for years in the Presbyterian church. This has given the revisionist proponents there a tremendous boost. Consider this part of an e-mail message:

One thing that may be interesting to others: some of the people at [a regional Presbyterian meeting] are wearing badges that say "gracious separation". This is a topic that will be discussed at one of the breakout sessions today or tomorrow, and we also discussed it for information purposes at the first group over the weekend. Some people in the evangelical wing are pushing to divide the PC(USA) into 2 denominations, one evangelical, the other free to do their ordination of whomever they want, etc. We are against it for several reasons (not least of which is to stay and fight the heresy for the sake of those who are too unsophisticated theologically to know which way to go, AND for the sake of those lost in the heresy), but we don't know what the outcome will be when this large group (the Pres. Coalition) breaks up on Wednesday. We don't have the same governing structure that the ECUSA has, so the questions raised by the selection of Gene Robinson are different for the Episcopalians than they would be for the PC(USA). I sure am praying for them, where a large part of my heart still is.

Sigh, Thank you.

See also this article by Uwe Siemon-Netto, UPI Religion Editor

The crisis in the Anglican Communion seems to foreshadow a rift worse than a schism for world Christianity. It does not only divide denomination from denomination. Worse, its fault lines cut straight through many branches of the body of Christ.

It only gets more powerful from there.

I would beg all my brothers and sisters in whatever denomination or fellowship to be in prayer for these things -- now. Not just the ECUSA, but the Anglican Church in Canada, which is under attack -- for the believers in different denominations. This is (spiritual)warfare and once a beachfront has been established and secured in these denominations, they will turn to you next.

Don Nickles. Senator Don Nickles announced yesterday that he would be retiring from the Senate.

Let me tell you a story about Sen. Nickles.

Back in 1981, I was Treasurer of the Student Government Association ("SGA") at James Madison University. Chuck Cunningham, the SGA President came to me with the idea of starting a tradition of holding a prayer breakfast at the school -- and since this would be the first, we needed to come up with a prestigious keynote speaker. Chuck started calling around and someone suggested calling this new Senator from Oklahoma. Chuck placed a call to the Senators office in DC and Senator Nickles picked up the phone. Chuck explained what he was doing and Sen. Nickles said that sounds great -- he checked his schedule and was free that day and agreed, on the spot to come down.

Sure enough, the day of the prayer breakfast, Sen. Nickles showed up -- it was a 2 and a half hour drive from D.C. We didn't pay an honorarium or even cover expenses. We weren't constituents. There was no press coverage (other than the school newspaper). In short, there was nothing in it for him but a lot of hassle.

It's been said that character is who you are when no one's looking. Don Nickles had character and his voice in the Senate will be deeply missed.

Narnia. I am taking a wonderful class for Sunday School on the Narnia Chronicles and I must say that part of what makes it so excellent is our instructor who has studied these books for well over 25 years. According to him the single best book ever written about Naria is Reading with the Heart: The Way into Narnia by Peter J. Schakel.

The bad news it's out of print. The good news is that it's on-line here.

If you want to get any further, you must use the map” (The Silver Chair p. 136).

Unquote. The Reuters article I was interviewed for was published here. I am actually very relieved to find that I was not mentioned.

Higher Primates, First Cut, supplemental. Based on e-mails and the very little research I've done (now that my A's were eliminated from the playoffs, I can focus...), the following Primate can be upgraded:

Yong Ping Chung (South East Asia)
Rev. Yong signed the July 23, 2003, Truro Statement. Rev. Yong is a Vertabrate.

On the other hand, these Primates might need to be downgraded. I haven't done sufficient research, but these were officially lauded by the General Convention, whereas other Primates* with strong backbones, who were present, such as Peter Akinola, were pointedly ignored:

George Clive Handford of the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East; . . . Martiniano Garcia-Montiel of the Anglican Church of Mexico; and Ignacio Capuyan Soliba of the Anglican Church in the Philippines.

*But see, Livingstone Mpalanyi-Nkoyoyo of the Province of Uganda who was recognized. Should he also be downgraded.

Why do I feel like a Kremlinologist?

More: See this: http://www.americananglican.org/News/News.cfm?ID=656&c=21

Deal Breaker. According to the Washington Times, Florida Bishop John Howe wrote about the mid-September meeting with Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold:

Many of our bishops ... have said they simply cannot comprehend why [homosexual clergy] is 'the deal breaking' issue . . . One bishop said, 'We can go side by side to the Communion rail in total disagreement over capital punishment — whether or not it is right to kill a human being — so why is this the issue that is tearing us apart?'

So why, indeed, is this a "deal-breaking" issue? I submit that the reason isn't that this is solely a human sexuality issue, but it is an issue of the place of Scripture in the Episcopal Church.* Specifically, those of us objecting to the actions of General Convention (should we be called Protestants?) are doing so because we have been told that the clear teaching of Scripture is irrelevant. In doing so, the ECUSA has denied the very authority of Scripture that the Anglican communion was founded on. See, for example, Art. XX of the Articles of Religion. ("...it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. ")

[See also, Richard Hooker, supposedly the initiator of the Anglican three-legged stool:

What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth. That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever.

(Laws, Book V, 8:2; Folger Edition 2:39,8-14). Note that Hooker place supreme emphasis on the authority of Scripture.]

In short, I have no problem with kneeling at the altar rail, under the cross, with a proponent of the death penalty, although I strongly disagree with him, or a proponent of consecrating gay marriage, although I strongly disagree with her. I will not, I can not be a member of a Church that has denied the authority of Scripture, because that church has forfeited it's birthright, it's standard, it's very reason for being.


*The Rev. Minns, in the note I posted below, explains that human sexuality is a "core issue." I am generally in agreement with him on this -- although I believe that there is such a difference between the authority of Scripture and the human sexuality issue that the two must be distinguished and prioritized.

Standing. Today, as many of you know, is the first day of the Plano Texas meeting, "A Place to Stand." If you're like me and want to know what is happening, I think the best place to get a report would be here, from Rev. John Burwell of Holy Cross, South Carolina (scroll down to find the appropriate daily links).

To review, the conference titled "A Place to Stand" arose out of a gathering of church leaders prior to the convening of GC2003. Reading the signs of the times, the leaders saw a need to be able to respond to a worse case scenario if that's what happened at General Convention. Christ Church in Plano offered to host such a meeting and the thinking was that there would be, "oh, 75 people attending." Because the actions taken at General Convention were such a radical departure for the Episcopal Church, the meeting grew and soon had to be moved from Plano to Dallas.

There are a number of news articles discussing or giving a preview of this meeting: The Washington Times, USA Today, AP, and the Guardian.

Of course the best site is operated by a bunch of Elves: Classical Anglican Net News (or CANN).

One little side note I find interesting is that in order to attend the meeting, participants were asked to reaffirm their belief in the AAC statement of faith entitled: A Place to Stand. A Call to Mission. According to this article, "More than 75 media credentials — which is highly unusual for a denominational meeting that has no legislative clout — have been issued to reporters. . ." Ahh, but are they all reporters? Rev. Burwell reports

Lydia told me that several prominent members of "the majority" including Dr. Louie Crew, applied for press credentials and will be in attendance at this meeting in Dallas. I couldn’t figure out why they wanted to be known as part of the media until I realized that this conference is not an open meeting for the entire church. If you wanted to attend, you had to sign a statement stating that you agree with the AAC’s beliefs. That’s not a problem for me since I am in complete agreement with every point, but it could be a bit of a roadblock for some on the more "progressive" side of the issues today. I learned that Dr. Crew and the others who tried this innovation had been denied press credentials. Interesting.

Yes, interesting.

BTW, Virginia's Peter Lee is sending Bishop Gray as "spiritual adviser" (why not just admit that he's your observer, Bishop Lee) to the Virginia Delegation.

More: See this page for reports on the Plano meeting from Father Eaton of the Diocese of San Joaquin in California. [Thanks Karen, for the heads up!]

Why This Issue? Why Now? The following is taken from the Truro Family News.

by Martyn Minns
Rector of Truro

The questions that have been in the forefront of my mind as I have been taking part in meeting after meeting in the aftermath of General Convention have been “Why this issue and why now?” Why has the decision to confirm the election of Gene Robinson and to authorize the blessing of same-sex unions prompted such a firestorm of negative response? Even among many of the bishops who were in favor of the actions there is recognition that they totally misjudged the intensity of the reaction. In our diocese the community meetings have attracted unprecedented numbers. In addition to moving to larger locations, two additional meetings were added to cope with the crowds. And the reactions have been overwhelmingly negative. What is going on? I will publish a longer essay with answers to this question, but I would like to offer some preliminary thoughts.
1. It is a core issue. Questions to do with human sexuality are core issues that deal with our identity and so necessarily produce a visceral response. This is not a peripheral matter. Rather, it has to do with the basic question of what it means to be human. Most people are more than willing to acknowledge that men and women who consider themselves to be homosexuals are entitled to the same fundamental human respect as anyone else. Or to use the language of the baptismal covenant we are to “seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself.” And we are to “respect the dignity of every human being.” But the idea that we are now confronted with an entirely new range of family combinations that must be treated as holy examples of a new anthropology is a step too far. It threatens our basic understanding of God’s design for man, woman and marriage.
2. It is a gospel issue. The consistent witness of the Scriptures and centuries of Christian teaching have underscored the deadly nature of sin and the universal need for repentance, freedom and forgiveness. The central image of our faith is the Cross and, although we all fall short, we acknowledge that without Christ’s work of salvation we are lost. However, in its actions the general Convention has taken behavior which has been declared to be inherently sinful and proclaimed that it is not only NOT sinful but something to be explored, celebrated and honored by the church. For many this is scandalous and puts souls at risk.
3. It is a global issue. Thanks to the immediacy of communication the entire Christian world, and especially the Anglican Communion, is very much aware of the actions taken and the response has been intense. Many see it as one more example of the decadent West forcing its immorality on the rest of the world in a high-handed imperialistic manner. It has been interpreted as one more example of American unilateralism. The fallout has been severe. Ecumenical relationships threaten to unravel, Christian-Muslim
dialogues have been suspended, missionary work has been imperiled, evangelism in places where Christians are an oppressed minority have been made much more difficult and the cause of the Gospel seriously jeopardized.
4. It is a God issue. There is something about the timing and the response that we cannot fully explain. It has to do with the sovereignty of God. I believe that, by its actions, the Episcopal Church has grieved the Holy Spirit and is now experiencing the judgment of God. For many years we have accommodated those who have lived and taught in ways that are contrary to the Scriptures. We have had bishops who have denied the resurrection and other core doctrines of the Faith. But God, in his mercy, has withheld judgment. For reasons known to God alone, we are now being brought to account. God is at work redeeming and reforming His Church and requiring discipline.
I would welcome your thoughts on “Why now?” and “Why this issue?” As we reflect further on these issues I encourage you to pray: )

"Gracious Father, we pray for your Church. Fill it with all truth, in all truth with all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is error, direct it; where it is any thing amiss, reform it. Where it is right, strengthen it; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of Jesus Christ your Son our Savior. Amen!")

(Book of Common Prayer)

R - E - S - P - E - C - T. Last Friday, I was interviewed briefly by Reuters reporter Sarah Tippit -- it was an engaging conversation. (I confess that it was a little distracting to hear her typing whenever I started blithering...) What I think I really appreciated was the sense that she was trying to understand what I was saying, even thought I'm not very articulate. This was what I sensed was missing from the "community meetings" held by Bishop Lee and the Delegates. They gave their statements, then turned it over to a limited number of people to make a very abbreviated statement and then the Bishops and Delegates again had an opportunity to make a statement. At the sixth meeting, in McLean, the Rev. Susan Goff, was asked by Bishop Lee to respond to the questions posed by those attending. She stood up and immediately dismissed all the questions posed as being "rhetorical" then blathered on about nothing for at least five minutes.

There were excellent questions posed and, given the time constraints, questions were sometimes tightly packed with a rhetorical element (see the questions I would've posed, below, for examples), yet all were worthy of answering and not merely dismissing.

One of the questions asked, but not answered, was why did you not hold these meetings before taking such divisive action. No answer was provided, but we all know it is easier to get forgiveness than permission.

At the VTS meeting, one of the commenters expressed her frustration with the the structure of the meetings, in part, as being designed to give a limited number of people a chance to blow off steam, but really more an exercise in "groupthink." This must have touched a nerve because before Bishop Jones started the Compline, Bishop Gray seized the microphone to say that he disagreed and thought the meetings were a way to have a conversation within the Diocese.

Bishop Gray was wrong. I really don't think there was any attempt to really discuss the actions by the Episcopal Church establishment. This has always been a fait accompli and there has never been a desire to see what the denomination as a whole thinks (not to mention those little things like, oh, Scripture, reason, experience, the wider Anglican communion, the universal Church).

Am I really naive/simplistic/stupid enough to think that Bishop Lee needed to talk to every member of the Diocese about this? Yes, actually I am. I think instead of putting in a couple of hours in at a parish on one Sunday doing confirmations, he should have gone to every parish and made an attempt to meet with the parishoners in small groups and discussed these decisions prior to making them. Christian charity? Respect? Humility? Any of those things would be welcome, Bishop Lee.

Moreover, the proponents of making such a radical change as this in the life of the Church bear the burden of demonstrating that such a change is consistent with Scripture, reason and tradition. Such a demonstration has not been made. Nor has it been attempted. The two votes at General Convention were nothing more than the exercise of raw political power. The "community meetings" are nothing more than smoke (dare I call it "smells and bells?") designed to cover the unlawful decisions of the convention.

Bishop Lee said this is not a church where we "pay, pray, and obey." No, it's one where we "sit mute and give up the loot." Prayer and obedience are not part of the Episcopal Church.

Simple Truths. Church this morning was nice. The readings were wonderful and Marshall Brown's sermon was brilliant. I was unaccompainied, since Debbie and Sarah were still sick.

This afternoon, Joe and I went to the Father-Son softball game sponsored by Truro. It's the first "semi-organized" ball game he's ever been in. He got a "hit" the first time up -- a short foul ball that actually rolled fair.

On the way over to the game, we listened to the A's - Red Sox game on the radio. The A's were ahead 4-2, but the Sox scored a run before we got out. After our game we all gathered in the park for subs and Gatorade. Eating our ham sandwiches, I mentioned to Joe about the A's game -- "So, who do you think won?"

He looked off thoughtfully and then, with wisdom greater than his five years said, "Even if the A's didn't win, we've had a blessed day."

They didn't, but we did.

Busy Weekend. Debbie, Sarah, and Emilie all sick.

The bunt. In baseball, the bunt, such a puny weapon, can be truly beautiful, when properly pulled off. Last night's bunt, by Oakland A's catcher, Ramon Hernandez, the slowest man on the team, must have been exquisite. I wish I could've seen the game in real time. Too late and on cable.

I recall Tony LaRussa once saying that a manager doesn't really win games for a team, but that a good third base coach could bring in 2 to 3 wins a year for a team. Based on what I could see, Ron Washington, while not calling for the bunt did tip off both Hernandez and Eric Chavez (who scored from third) to watch out for the third baseman, Mueller, who was playing back:

Washington told Hernandez before the at-bat to watch where Mueller was standing and if the opportunity presented itself to take a chance.

``He just saw Billy move back a couple steps, and it was on,'' Chavez said.

A bases loaded, two-out bunt. Who'da thunk it? (I mean, besides Danny Kaye.)

Mac Sledge. One of the greatest movies ever made, in my opinion, of course, was the movie Tender Mercies, for which Robert DuVall won an Oscar. Now he's starring in Secondhand Lions and there was this interesting note posted on the CT website:

Fans of Robert Duvall's Oscar-winning role in Tender Mercies might find this particular letter interesting. It's from Allan Hubbard of Paris, Texas, who has an interesting connection to the actor:

"I couldn't wait to see Secondhand Lions … got there on opening weekend. The cast was great. The story idea was great. [I had] no problems with the production like continuity or anything like that. But the flow of the script? The actual lines delivered, therefore the writing of the film in general? Deplorable. I simply could not believe with so many other things going for it that the script's details got passed over. I'm really surprised to read the Christian critics are praising the writing.

"I was in a film with Duvall in 1982 … Tender Mercies. I was the little boy, Sonny. Now I'm 31 and still love to watch his very subtle yet amazingly gripping choices. The single most redeeming thing about Secondhand Lions is the speech he gives the punk in the bar about 'fought two world wars, led thousands of men into battle, and loved only one woman with a passion that a flea like you couldn't understand.' Great moment there."

The Higher Primates, First Cut. Alright, I set forth below the list of the Primates who will be gathering in England in two weeks. Let's take a first cut to see who has a backbone and who are related to the American jellyfish.

Known Invertebrates (5)
Michael Peers (Canada)
Bruce Cameron (Scotland)
Njongonkulu Ndungane (South Africa)
Frank Griswold (US)
Barry Morgan (Wales)

Suspected Invertebrates (3)
John Campbell Paterson (NZ)
Peter Carnley (Australia)
Robert Eames (Ireland)

Undetermined (15)
Orlando Santos de Oliveira (Brazil)
Samuel Ndayisenga (Burundi)
Martin de Jesus Barahona Pascacio (Central America)
Rowan Williams (Canterbury)*
Peter Kwong (Hong Kong)
James Toru Uno (Japan)
George Clive Handford (Jerusalem)
Ellison Page Pogo (Melenasia)
Martiniano Garcia-Monfiel (Mexico)
Samuel San Si Htay (Myanmar)
Zechariah James Terom (North India)
James Ayong (Papua New Guinea)
Ignacio Capuyan Soliba (Philippines)
Datuk Yong Ping Chung (South East Asia)
Kunnumpurathu Joseph Samuel (South India)

Probable Vertebrates (5)
Michael S Baroi (Bangladesh)
Dirokpa Fidele (Congo)
Remi Joseph Rabinirina (Indian Ocean)
Paul Hwan Yoon (Korea)
Zechariah James Terom (Pakistan)

Vertebrates (10)
Bernard Malongo (Central Africa)
Benjamin Nzimbi (Kenya)
Peter Akinola (Nigeria)
Emmanuel Kolini (Rawanda)
Gregory Venables (Southern Cone)
Joseph Biringi Hassan Marona (Sudan)
Donald Mtetemela (Tanzania)
Livingstone Mpalanyi-Nkoyoyo (Uganda)
Robert Garshong Allotey Okine (West Africa)
Drexel Gomez (West Indies)

Now then, this is just a first cut -- I haven't checked anyone out in the middle and am just relying on other reports for the "leaning" columns. Also, I placed Rowan Williams (*) in the center, because, while he might personally favor, for example, the Robinson ordination, he clearly forced Jeffrey Johns to step aside for the good of the Communion -- therefore, he has shown evidence of a backbone in the past.

I Saw It On TV. I also meant to add that the folks from the PBS show Religion & Ethics News Weekly were filming on Tuesday night.

There was a very powerful statement of thanks from a gay woman that would most likely be used.

According to Bishop Lee, they will be putting together a segment to be aired in a couple of weeks, using footage from both the McLean meeting and the meeting in Plano.

Not so fast. A fairly good editorial on why the press shouldn't jump to conclusions about the 31 new Roman Catholic cardinals.

The Primates (both Vertebrate and Invertebrate) Thanks to an e-mail message from Karen B, (and this webpage) here are the known addresses and e-mails for the Anglican Primates:

Aotearoa, New Zealand & Polynesia
The Rt Revd John Campbell Paterson (leaning revisionist)
PO Box 37 242, Parnell,
Auckland, 1033, NEW ZEALAND

Australia
Archbishop Peter Carnley (leaning revisionist)
GPO Box W2067, Perth WA 6846
Phone: +61 8 9325 7455
Fax: +61 8 9221 4118
Email: abcsuite@perth.anglican.org

Bangladesh
The Rt Revd Michael S Baroi
St Thomas' Church,
54 Johnson Road,
Dhaka-1, BANGLADESH
cbdacdio@bangla.net

Brazil
Most Revd Orlando Santos de Oliveira,
Caxia postal 11.510,
Teresoplois, RS, 90870-970, Brazil
osoliveira@ieab.org.br

Burundi
Most Revd Samuel Ndayisenga,
Eglise Episcopale de Burundi,
BP 94, Ngozi, Burundi
Diocbuye@cbinf.com

Canada
Most Revd Michael Peers, (revisionist)
600 Jarvis Street,
Toronto, Ontario, M4Y 2J6, Canada Primate@national.anglican.ca

Central Africa (Orthodox)
Most Revd Bernard Malongo,
Private Bag 1,
Chilema, Zomba, Malawi
Dionorth@zamnet.zm

Central America
Most Revd Martin de Jesus Barahona Pascacio,
47 Avenida Sur, 723 Cor Flor Blanca, Apt Postal (01),
274 San Salvador, El Salvador
Anglican@saltel.net

Congo
Most Revd Dr Dirokpa Fidele, (Orthodox)
PO Box 134, Cyangugu, Rwanda
Anglicadiobkv@yahoo.com

England
Most Revd Dr Rowan Williams, (leaning revisionist)
Old Palace, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 2EE

Hong Kong
The Most Revd Peter Kwong
Bishop's House,
1 Lower Albert Road,
Hong Kong, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Office: +852 2526 5355
Fax: +852 2525 2537
Web: www.hkskh.org

Indian Ocean
Most Revd Remi Joseph Rabinirina,
Eveche Anglican, Lot VK57 ter, Ambohimanoro, 101 Antanarivo, Madagascar
Eemdanta@dts.mg

Ireland
Most Revd Robert Eames, (leaning revisionist)
The See House, Cathedral Close,
Armagh, Co Armagh, BT61 7EE,
Ireland Archbishop@armagh.anglican.org

Japan
The Most Revd James Toru Uno
NSKK Provincial Office,
65 Yarai-cho,
Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-0805, JAPAN
Office: +81 (0)48 642 2680
Fax: +81 (0)48 648 0358
Web: www.kitakanto.anglican.org

Jerusalem & the Middle East
The Most Revd George Clive Handford
PO Box 22075, CY 1517 - Nicosia, CYPRUS
bishop@spidernet.com.cy

Kenya
Most Revd Benjamin Nzimbi, (Orthodox)
PO Box 40502, Nairobi, 00 100, Kenya
archoffice@swiftkenya.com

Korea
Most Revd Paul Hwan Yoon, (Orthodox)
Anglican Church, PO Box 22, Taejon 300-600, Korea
Anck@peacenet.or.kr

Melanesia
Most Revd Ellison Page Pogo,
Archbishop's House, PO Box 19,
Honiara, Solomon Islands
Pogo@comphq.org.sb

Mexico
Most Revd Martiniano Garcia-Monfiel,
Calle La Otra Banda 40, Col San Angel, 01 000 Mexico
Ofipam@adetel.com.mx

Myanmar
Most Revd Samuel San Si Htay,
140 Pyidaungsu-Yeiktha Road,
Dagon, Yangon, 11191 Myanmar
Cpm.140@mptmail.net.mm

Nigeria
Most Revd Peter Akinola, (Orthodox)
Archbishop's Palace, PO Box 212, ADCP,
Abuja, Nigeria
Abuja@anglican.skannet.com.ng

North India
The Most Revd Zechariah James Terom
Bishop's Lodge, PO Box 1,
Church Road, Ranchi 834 001, Bihar, INDIA

Pakistan
The Most Revd Zechariah James Terom
Address: Bishop's Lodge, PO Box 1, Church Road, Ranchi 834 001, Bihar, INDIA
bishop_lahore@hotmail.com

Papua New Guinea
Most Revd James Ayong,
PO Box 893, Mt Hagen, West Highlands Province,
Papua New Guinea
Acpnghgn@global.net.pg

Philippines
Most Revd Ignacio Capuyan Soliba,
PO Box 10321, Broadway Centrum,
1112 Quezon City, Philippines
Soliba@edsamail.com.ph

Rwanda
Most Revd Emmanuel Kolini, (Orthodox)
PO Box 61, Kigali, Rwanda
Ek@rwanda1.com

Scotland
Most Revd Bruce Cameron, (revisionist)
Diocesan Centre, 39 King's Crescent,
Aberdeen, AB24 3HP
Office@aberdeed.anglican.org

South Africa
Most Revd Njongonkulu Ndungane, (revisionist)
16-20 Bishopscourt, Claremont,
Cape Town 7708,
Cape Province, South Africa
Archbish@bishopscourt-cpsa.org.za

South East Asia
The Most Revd Datuk Yong Ping Chung
PO Box 10811,
88809 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, MALAYSIA
pcyong@pc.jaring.my

South India
The Most Revd Dr Kunnumpurathu Joseph Samuel
CSI Bishop's House,
Diocese of East Kerala,
Melukavumattom P.O.,
Kottayam - 686 652,
Kerala State, INDIA

Southern Cone
Most Revd Gregory Venables, (Orthodox)
Conesa 1925 1B, (1428) Belgrano, Capital Federal,
Argentina Bpgreg@ciudad.com.ar

Sudan
Most Revd Joseph Biringi Hassan Marona, (Orthodox)
PO Box 604,
Khartoum, Sudan
Ecsprovince@hotmail.com

Tanzania
Most Revd Donald Mtetemela, (Orthodox)
PO Box 1028, Iringa, Tanzania
Ruaha@maf.or.tz

Uganda
Most Revd Livingstone Mpalanyi-Nkoyoyo, (Orthodox)
PO Box 14123,
Kampala, Uganda
Couab@uol.co.ug

USA
Most Revd Frank Griswold, (revisionist)
Episcopal Church Centre,
815 Second Avenue,
New York, NY10017, USA
Pboffice@episcopalchurch.org

Wales
Most Revd Barry Morgan, (revisionist)
Llys Esgob, Llandaff,
Cardiff, CF5 2YE
Archbishop@churchinwales.org.uk

West Africa
Most Revd Robert Garshong Allotey Okine, (Orthodox)
PO Box 980,
Koforidua, Ghana
Robokine@yahoo.com

West Indies
Most Revd Drexel Gomez, (Orthodox)
Addington House, PO Box N-7107,
Nassau, Bahamas
Primate@batelnet.bs

Community Meeting, McLean. Tonight was the Sixth community meeting being held by the Brother Love's Traveling Salvation Show Bishop of Virginia; the second in Northern Virginia. The forum was much smaller than the previous one, but maybe that lead more people to want to talk. This time there was only one round of speakers from each church present. This means that I didn't get to speak -- no great loss, I'm sure. Anyway, I'll post the statement I didn't give below.

The event was better run -- they're getting better at this kind of thing. The used Volvo salesman (Jim Papile, Rector from Saint Anne's in Reston) got up and gave his little spiel. He came perilously close to uttering the Clintonesque "I feel your pain" line -- in fact the word "pain" seemed to be passing from his lips when he caught himself, paused and said "deep hurt" in its place. (I really don't like this guy -- an old Larry Norman line "he quoted me perfectly and rewrote every word I spoke" came to mind. He kept trying to say "I hear what you are saying, but I say to you..." It was so evident, however, that while he may have heard what was said, he never understood it. He was very dishonest -- although I couldn't figure out if he was intentionally so or just incapable of understanding. He also looked like a cross between a very goofy Brian Wilson and a very goofy Bill Clinton. Do you get the idea I didn't like him?)

Peter Lee said that heresy and apostacy were just when you took a truth and pushed it to far. And he added that we haven't done that.

+Lee said that he would not consent to blessings in Virginia because there was too much division in the Church on the subject -- that would not come until there was more consensus. It was clear that if there wasn't so much vocal opposition, he would have no problem imposing it on Virginia.

+Lee again pulled out his choice between "fear and hope" line. It's a false choice -- you could plug anything in there. As my wife quickly jotted down "hope for restoration of a sinner" and "fear of the wrath of God." This seemed a lot more Biblical than what Lee proposed.

One of the presenters on "my side" really irritated me. It was a guy I've seen at Truro Church -- I don't know his name -- but he represented himself as being there on behalf of a campus ministry (he had to do this because Truro already had a speaker). Yes, I believe the one speaker per congregation rule was a bad one, but to misrepresent yourself (i.e., lie) to evade this rule was wrong. Of course, then he stood up and made a fool of himself. He was neither articulate nor logical, which belied his claim to university (intellectual) status. Now I'm extremely poor as a speaker -- so I shouldn't be throwing the first stone -- yet I almost believe that by sewing bad seed -- lying -- he reaped bad fruit.

Afterward, I saw an old friend from Apostles, who had also been standing in the line to speak. Someone from Apostles spoke so my friend didn't have the opportunity. I asked my friend what he would've said and it was excellent -- far superior to what the Apostles speaker said. Oh well. I was thankful the speaker from Truro (the legitimate one, that is -- not the University fraud) gave an excellent presentation.

In the earlier meeting, if I had to guess, the speakers were 75-25% opposed to what the Bishops and the delegates did at GC2003. At the 9/30/03 meeting, I'd guess it was probably closer to 60-40%

Oh, and Bishop Gray did try to clarify the statement he'd made at VTS. Tonight he seemed to be saying that he wasn't as concerned as to whether his opinion was thought of as right or wrong. I took his meaning to be that he did want to be right and was willing to admit if he was wrong. This is a far different meaning than what he said at VTS (and I confirmed it with others, so it wasn't just that I misunderstood him there).

Last, there was a presentation by two high school age girls from St. Christopher's. In passing one of them said that they thought we shouldn't place such emphasis on the Bible because in the Old Testament it teaches that women should be thought of as chattel. After the meeting, I asked where it said that -- I said I've never seen that. They were unable to point to any passage, but they said they've seen it there. I said that, to the contrary, in Proverbs 31, we see a woman being praised for buying and selling land, for trading in the marketplace -- in short, one who deals property, not one who is treated as property. She said that was just my opinion -- what a stupid way to respond. Nevertheless, on the slim chance she may be correct, I'd love it if anyone can tell me if there is such a passage -- even if it's a case of misattribution or hyperbole (like the "happy is he who . . . seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks" type passage).

So here's my statement with changes I made while standing in line (one major addition, because of what +Lee said about Martin Luther King, one deletion because the question was asked by Phil Ashley.

My Two Minute Statement.

My name is William Sulik and I am currently a member of Truro Church.

I rise today to tell you how deeply your votes in Minneapolis grieved me. You have taken the Episcopal Church away from the standard set forth in Article 20 of the Articles of Religion, which provides in relevant part,
“. . . it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.”

[added:] Martin Luther King once said that the church is not to be a thermometer merely measuring the societal values, but it is to be a themostat, changing society to conform to the Word of God.

In the remaining seconds, I would like to pose five questions:

First, Bishop Lee, you have indicated that you have voted for every candidate proposed for Bishop during your 19 years in this office. Would there ever be a reason for voting against a candidate for Bishop?

Second, what would be your authority for opposing a candidate, since in August you found no guidance in either the policy of Virginia or the Holy Scriptures?

Third, you have indicated that you believe the Holy Spirit speaks through councils. In Lambeth just five years ago the Holy Spirit spoke through the bishops assembled and “reject[ed] homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture.” Does the Holy Spirit change His mind like the blowing of the wind? Or could it be that either the bishops in Lambeth or the electors in New Hampshire were wrong?

Fourth, next month the Anglican primates are assembling to review the crisis provoked by the General Convention. If they announce the Episcopal Church has broken fellowship with the Anglican Communion, what will you do to restore communion?

Finally, you have indicated local control was the overriding factor in approving the Robinson vote. Will you similarly support local determination if individual congregations choose to follow the Articles of Religion and the Anglican Communion in separation from the Episcopal Church?

To my brothers and sisters in the Gay and Lesbian community, I would like to reaffirm the Lambeth statement that “all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ.” I need you in my walk with Christ and I believe the whole Church does as well. Let us meet at the foot of the Cross.

Thank you.

Tithes, Offerings, and the Golden Calf. Regular readers of this space know that one of the subissues related to the GC2003 fallout is the duty to continue to bring tithes to the local church, knowing they are being submitted to the National and Diocesean churches, which have frankly turned away from the teachings of Scripture.

Our Bishop has maintained that to withold funding of the Diocese is to employ "financial weapons." Indeed, I have heard some talk that we need to use contributions to the Diocese and National Church as a way of "sending a message" or holding the establishment accountable. In that context, Bishop Lee's comments are somewhat understandable; nevertheless, in my opinion, deeply offensive.

I see this a matter of contributing to a false and/or idolatrous religion. In my opinion, any religion that does not follow the Holy Scriptures is a false religion. Therefore, we should not be doing anything to support that religion.

Yet, what does the Scriptures teach? Clearly, we have a duty to bring our tithes to the local church -- if we are members, we can not withhold on the basis that the local church is idolatrous. If that is the case, we shouldn't be there in the first place. So then, does the local church have a duty to support the national and/or regional denomination? I don't know.

This afternoon, my wife pointed out in I Samuel, Elkanah and his wife Hannah regularly made their sacrifices and offerings, despite the fact the priests "were wicked men; they had no regard for the LORD" (I Sam. 2:12) and "This sin of the young men was very great in the LORD's sight, for they were treating the LORD's offering with contempt." (I Sam. 2:17).

God will judge the leaders who are wicked: "Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, 'The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' " I Sam. 3:14

More. From Karen, see Haggai 2 -- actually see the whole book, it's short. But consider this:

"This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'In a little while I will once more shake the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land. I will shake all nations, and the desired of all nations will come, and I will fill this house with glory,' says the LORD Almighty. 'The silver is mine and the gold is mine,' declares the LORD Almighty. 'The glory of this present house will be greater than the glory of the former house,' says the LORD Almighty. 'And in this place I will grant peace,' declares the LORD Almighty."

At verses 6-9.

Apocalypse. If the Cubs and the Red Sox meet in the World Series, does the Rapture Index go up?