Church Property. One of the huge issues, now that the leadership of the ECUSA has abandoned the Christian faith is control of local church property. The apostate leadership, realizing it's going to lose a large number of "cheerful-giving" Christians, is looking to seizing property to keep itself in chicken dinners until, well, kingdom come ("not that we really take that kind of thing literally")

There's part of me that thinks, if that's the case -- let's adopt a "poison pill" strategy. Mortgage all church property to the hilt and transfer the proceeds to the faithful churches in Africa. Then have the congregation and ministers walk out, leaving the property and debts to the ECUSA.

Of course, that wouldn't be a "good faith" type way to deal with this.

But it's fun to think about.

Actually, this is a serious issue. I walk around my own sanctuary and church grounds and see the discrete plaques -- "this pew was given to God in memory of..." These are all good faith gifts and there is a stewardship duty to protect them and to ensure that they are used to glorify God.

My family donated some altar clothes -- the Easter whites -- in memory of my Grandmother. It tears me apart to think that these could be desecrated one day to "bless" what God has not blessed.

In her address to the AAC convention, Diane Knippers observed:

I’m also hearing from laypeople who are beginning to realize what is at stake in terms of church property. They are willing to fight for it, but not sacrifice their faith for it. We do not want valuable resources to be at the disposal of those who have abandoned the faith. But we are willing to sing,

Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also;
The body they may kill: God’s truth abideth still,
His kingdom is forever.

More Thanks for the comments folks -- these are all excellent. I do want to highlight one from an attorney who is actually handling a similar case in California -- Peter Sean Bradley, the fifth comment.

Johnny Cash at Wembley, 1986. I'm involved in a trading tree right now where we're swapping the Johnny Cash and Family show in England, 1986. I'll have this on my hard drive for the next month or so. If any one is interested in it, e-mail me at myruststuff [-at-] hotmail.com. I'll do this blanks and postage (or trade, if you do that). As always, send no money -- no one profits.

This is really an excellent show!

Setlist:

Johnny Cash - 03/31/86
Wembley Arena (Wembley Country Festival)
London, England

CD#1 :
1. Intro Medley (Johnny Cash Band) (2:40)
2. Ring Of Fire (2:41)
3. Folsom Prison Blues (2:40)
4. Sunday Morning Coming Down (3:37)
5. Any Old Wind That Blows (2:44)
6. These Hands (2:35)
7. Here Comes That Rainbow Again (2:17)
8. Love Is The Way (2:00)
9. The Highwayman (with John Schneider) (2:43)
10. Big River (2:32)
11. I Guess Things Happen That Way (1:30)
12. Band Introductions (0:27)
13. Fairweather Friends (2:38)
14. Piano Solo (Earl 'Pool' Ball) (3:48)
15. One Piece At A Time (4:23)
16. Forty Shades Of Green (2:18)
17. Ghost Riders In The Sky (3:56)

CD#2 :
18. If I Were A Carpenter (with June) (2:04)
19. Jackson (with June) (2:22) Carter Family (June,
Helen, Anita):
20. June Carter Introduction (1:28)
21. Wabash Cannonball (June Carter) (1:52)
22. San Antonio Rose (June Carter) (1:04)
23. Elbow Room (Carter Family with Carlene Carter) (3:23)
24. I'll Be All Smiles Tonight (Anita) (3:28)
25. Foggy Mountain Top (Carter Family) (2:38)
26. Will The Circle Be Unbroken (Carter Family) (3:52)
27. Wildwood Flower jam (Johnny Cash Band) (0:21)
28. Wreck Of The Old '97 (with June) (2:52)
29. A Thing Called Love (2:21)
30. The Ballad Of Ira Hayes (3:02)
31. Were You There When They Crucified My Lord (3:26)
32. Daddy Sang Bass (with John Schneider) (2:12)
33. Outro (Johnny Cash Band) (0:37)
34. Casey Jones (1:25)
35. Orange Blossom Special (3:35)
36. I Walk The Line (2:07)

Nice Tribute. Here's a very nice tribute by a son to his forefathers in the military.

So many of us want to honor the Veterans -- It's not something we were raised with -- honoring Vets -- and it's a difficult thing to teach, it seems to me, if you're active duty military (not wanting to say "honor me.")

I do give honor to my father, Richard, and his father, Anthony, who both served ably and lived to tell about it. I also honor my mother's brothers who died in France in WWII, William and Robert.

Thank you.

Between Iraq and WWII. Viet Nam -- why was it fought? Would the Marines, soldiers, sailors and airmen do it again? Former Secretary of the Navy and Marine James Webb answers these questions.

It is a worthy piece for reflection on Veterans Day.

Happy Birthday, Marine! It's their 228th Birthday. If you're in Philly, stop by Tun Tavern and buy a "gyrene" a beer.

It's a day that I'll always remember my grandfather, part of the men who earned the sobriquet "teufel hunden" (not to mention the Fouragere the Fifth Marines are entitled to wear), and honor my father, a (lovable) Leatherneck.

MLK to American Christians. Today's third (and final) guest blogger is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The following are excerpts (due to copyright restrictions) from his sermon, "Paul's Letter to American Christians" (the entire sermon may be read by following the link):

I, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to you who are in America, Grace be unto you, and peace from God our Father, through our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

For many years I have longed to be able to come to see you. I have heard so much of you and of what you are doing. I have heard of the fascinating and astounding advances that you have made in the scientific realm. I have heard of your dashing subways and flashing airplanes. Through your scientific genius you have been able to dwarf distance and place time in chains. You have been able to carve highways through the stratosphere. So in your world you have made it possible to eat breakfast in New York City and dinner in Paris, France. I have also heard of your skyscraping buildings with their prodigious towers steeping heavenward. I have heard of your great medical advances, which have resulted in the curing of many dread plagues and diseases, and thereby prolonged your lives and made for greater security and physical well-being. All of that is marvelous. You can do so many things in your day that I could not do in the Greco-Roman world of my day. In your age you can travel distances in one day that took me three months to travel. That is wonderful. You have made tremendous strides in the area of scientific and technological development.

But America, as I look at you from afar, I wonder whether your moral and spiritual progress has been commensurate with your scientific progress. It seems to me that your moral progress lags behind your scientific progress. Your poet Thoreau used to talk about "improved means to an unimproved end." How often this is true. You have allowed the material means by which you live to outdistance the spiritual ends for which you live. You have allowed your mentality to outrun your morality. You have allowed your civilization to outdistance your culture. Through your scientific genius you have made of the world a neighborhood, but through your moral and spiritual genius you have failed to make of it a brotherhood. So America, I would urge you to keep your moral advances abreast with your scientific advances.

I am impelled to write you concerning the responsibilities laid upon you to live as Christians in the midst of an unChristian world. That is what I had to do. That is what every Christian has to do. But I understand that there are many Christians in America who give their ultimate allegiance to man-made systems and customs. They are afraid to be different. Their great concern is to be accepted socially. They live by some such principle as this: "everybody is doing it, so it must be alright." For so many of you Morality is merely group consensus. In your modern sociological lingo, the mores are accepted as the right ways. You have unconsciously come to believe that right is discovered by taking a sort of Gallup poll of the majority opinion. How many are giving their ultimate allegiance to this way.

But American Christians, I must say to you as I said to the Roman Christians years ago, "Be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind." Or, as I said to the Phillipian Christians, "Ye are a colony of heaven." This means that although you live in the colony of time, your ultimate allegiance is to the empire of eternity. You have a dual citizenry. You live both in time and eternity; both in heaven and earth. Therefore, your ultimate allegiance is not to the government, not to the state, not to nation, not to any man-made institution. The Christian owes his ultimate allegiance to God, and if any earthly institution conflicts with God's will it is your Christian duty to take a stand against it. You must never allow the transitory evanescent demands of man-made institutions to take precedence over the eternal demands of the Almighty God.

* * *

Let me rush on to say something about the church. Americans, I must remind you, as I have said to so many others, that the church is the Body of Christ. So when the church is true to its nature it knows neither division nor disunity. But I am disturbed about what you are doing to the Body of Christ. They tell me that in America you have within Protestantism more than two hundred and fifty six denominations. The tragedy is not so much that you have such a multiplicity of denominations, but that most of them are warring against each other with a claim to absolute truth. This narrow sectarianism is destroying the unity of the Body of Christ. You must come to see that God is neither a Baptist nor a Methodist; He is neither a Presbyterian nor a Episcopalian. God is bigger than all of our denominations. If you are to be true witnesses for Christ, you must come to see that America.

* * *

There is another thing that disturbs me to no end about the American church. You have a white church and you have a Negro church. You have allowed segregation to creep into the doors of the church. How can such a division exist in the true Body of Christ? You must face the tragic fact that when you stand at 11:00 on Sunday morning to sing "All Hail the Power of Jesus Name" and "Dear Lord and Father of all Mankind," you stand in the most segregated hour of Christian America. They tell me that there is more integration in the entertaining world and other secular agencies than there is in the Christian church. How appalling that is.

* * *

I understand that there are Christians among you who try to justify segregation on the basis of the Bible. They argue that the Negro is inferior by nature because of Noah's curse upon the children of Ham. Oh my friends, this is blasphemy. This is against everything that the Christian religion stands for. I must say to you as I have said to so many Christians before, that in Christ "there is neither Jew nor Gentile, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus." Moreover, I must reiterate the words that I uttered on Mars Hill: "God that made the world and all things therein . . . hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth."

So Americans I must urge you to get rid of every aspect of segregation. The broad universalism standing at the center of the gospel makes both the theory and practice of segregation morally unjustifiable. Segregation is a blatant denial of the unity which we all have in Christ. It substitutes an "I-it" relationship for the "I-thou" relationship. The segregator relegates the segregated to the status of a thing rather than elevate him to the status of a person. The underlying philosophy of Christianity is diametrically opposed to the underlying philosophy of segregation, and all the dialectics of the logicians cannot make them lie down together. . . .

This sermon was delivered at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery, Alabama, on November 4, 1956. As you can see, I've clipped a lot -- yet I believe that I've been faithful to what applies to us today.

Lewis on Paul. Today's guest blogger is C. S. Lewis responding to the revisionists who seek to denigrate St. Paul and say that he has strayed from the message of Jesus:

The Impeachment of St. Paul

A most astounding misconception has long dominated the modern mind on the subject of St. Paul. It is to this effect: that Jesus preached a kindly and simple religion (found in the gospels) and that St. Paul afterwards corrupted it into a cruel and complicated religion (found in the epistles). This is really quite untenable. All the most terrifying texts came from the mouth of our Lord: all the texts on which we can base such warrant as we have for hoping the texts on which we can base such warrant as we have for hoping that all men will be saved come from St. Paul. . . There is no real evidence for a pre-Pauline doctrine different from St. Paul’s. The epistles are, for the most part, the earliest Christian documents we possess. The gospels come later. They are not “the gospel,” the statement of Christian belief. They were written for those who had already been converted, who had already accepted “the gospel.” The leave out many of the “complications” (that is the theology) because they are intended for readers who have already been instructed in it. In that sense the epistles are more primitive and more central than the gospels – though not, of course, than the great events which the gospel recount. . . In the earlier history of every rebellion there is a stage at which you do not yet attack the King in person. You say: “The King is all right. It is his ministers who are wrong. They misrepresent him and corrupt all his plans – which, I’m sure, are good plans if only the ministers would let them take effect.” And the first victory consists in beheading a few ministers: only at the later stage do you go on and behead the King himself. In the same way, the nineteenth-century attack on St. Paul was really only a stage in the revolt against Christ. . . . It was unfortunate that [the attack] could not impress anyone who had really read the gospels and the epistles with attention: but apparently few people had, and so the first victory was won. St. Paul was impeached and banished and the world went on to the next step – the attack on the King himself.

Matrix 3 is worth the 6 bucks I spent at a matinee. It can't hold a candle to the original, but it's better than number 2.

More later. In the meantime, was the fight scene in the rain (no spoilers -- it's all over the trailer) -- was that inspired by Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai?

The strange thing for me, leaving the theater, there was a guy who came out from the row across from me -- an Asian guy dressed in a full black cassock and putting on his sunglasses. He looked just like Sing Ngai as Seraph. Then I remembered the Catholic seminary down the street.

The Scariest Thing About the Matrix... for me wasn't the harvesting of humans for energy. Coppertops. After all, you'd expect that from machines.

It was that there is only one religion, one temple. James Lileks calls it "the Temple of No Particular Deity"

Hmmm... so the Episcopal Church and the Unitarians finally unite in the future?

New Coins. The announcement of new nickels yesterday by the Mint got me thinking, impishly, about wouldn't it be fun to have a new dime. We could do a series on the development of the law -- say ten designs to reflect the value of ten for the dime. Do one on, the Constitution, of course, and the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights -- that ties in nicely with the theme of ten, since there were ten amendments to the Constitution set forth in the Bill of Rights. What else? The Decalogue, perhaps? Put Charlton Heston on the flip side and the collective ACLU will blow a gasket. heh-heh...

Yes, I am an imp.

Guest Blogger: Dorothy Sayers. Reading all the different essays and sermons, for and against, the ordination of VGR, there are still some more things I want to add. Maybe this weekend. One of the things I've seen is the disparagement of "dogma" by so many Robinson supporters -- even bishops and priests who should know better.

So I'm giving this space over to Ms. Dorothy Sayers for a rebuttal:

Official Christianity, of late years, has been having what is known as "a bad press." We are constantly assured that the churches are empty because preachers insist too much upon doctrine --"dull dogma," as people call it. The fact is the precise opposite. It is the neglect of dogma that makes for dullness. The Christian faith is the most exciting drama that ever staggered the imagination of man--and the dogma is the drama.

That drama is summarized quite dearly in the creeds of the Church, and if we think it dull it is because we either have never really read those amazing documents, or have recited them so often and so mechanically as to have lost all sense of their meaning. The plot pivots upon a single character, and the whole action is the answer to a single central problem: What think ye of Christ? Before we adopt any of the unofficial solutions (some of which are indeed excessively dull)--before we dismiss Christ as a myth, an idealist, a demagogue, a liar, or a lunatic--it will do no harm to find out what the creeds really say about Him. What does the Church think of Christ?

The Church's answer is categorical and uncompromising, and it is this: That Jesus Bar-Joseph, the carpenter of Nazareth, was in fact and in truth, and in the most exact and literal sense of the words, the God "by whom all things were made." His body and brain were those of a common man; his personality was the personality of God, so far as that personality could be expressed in human terms. He was not a kind of demon or fairy pretending to be human. He was in every respect a genuine living man. He was not merely a man so good as to be "like God"--he was God.

Now, this is not just a pious commonplace; it is not commonplace at all. For what it means is this, among other things: that for whatever reason God chose to make man as he is--limited and suffering and subject to sorrows and death-he [God] had the honesty and the courage to take his own medicine. Whatever game he is playing with his creation, he has kept his own rules and played fair. He can exact nothing from man that he has not exacted from himself. He has himself gone through the whole of human experience, from the trivial irritations of family life and the cramping restrictions of hard work and lack of money to the worst horrors -- of pain and humiliation, defeat, despair, and death. when he was a man, he played the man. He was born in poverty and died in disgrace and thought it well worthwhile.

Christianity is, of course, not the only religion that has found the best explanation of human life in the idea of an incarnate and suffering god. The Egyptian Osiris died and rose again; Aeschylus in his play, The Eumenides, reconciled man to God by the theory of a suffering Zeus. But in most theologies, the god is supposed to have suffered and died in some remote and mythical period of pre-history. The Christian story, on the other hand, starts off briskly in St. Matthew's account with a place and a date: "When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the King." St. Luke, still more practically and prosaically, pins the thing down by a reference to a piece of government finance. God, he says, was made man in the year when Caesar Augustus was taking a census in connection with a scheme of taxation. Similarly, we might date an event by saying that it took place in the year that Great Britain went off the gold standard. About thirty-three years later (we are informed) God was executed, for being a political nuisance, under Pontius Pilate"-much as we might say, "when Mr. Joynson-Hicks was Home Secretary." It is as definite and concrete as all that.

Possibly we might prefer not to take this tale too seriously --there are disquieting points about it. Here we had a man of Divine character walking and talking among us--and what did we find to do with him? The common people, indeed, "heard him gladly"; but our leading authorities in Church and State considered that he talked too much and uttered too many disconcerting truths. So we bribed one of his friends to hand him over quietly to the police, and we tried him on a rather vague charge of creating a disturbance, and had him publicly flogged and hanged on the common gallows, "thanking God we were rid of a knave." All this was not very creditable to us, even if he was (as many people thought and think) only a harmless crazy preacher. But if the Church is right about him, it was more discreditable still; for the man we hanged was God Almighty.

So that is the outline of the official story--the tale of the time when God was the underdog and got beaten, when he submitted to the conditions he had laid down and became a man like the men he had made, and the men he had made broke him and killed him. This is the dogma we find so dull--this terrifying drama of which God is the victim and hero.

If this is dull, then what, in Heaven's name, is worthy to be called exciting? The people who hanged Christ never, to do them justice, accused him of being a bore. On the contrary; they thought him too dynamic to be safe. It has been left for later generations to muffle up that shattering personality and surround him with an atmosphere of tedium. We have very efficiently pared the claws of the Lion of Judah, certified him "meek and mild," and recommended him as a fitting household pet for pale curates and pious old ladies. To those who knew him, however, he in no way suggested a milk-and-water person; they objected to him as a dangerous firebrand. True, he was tender to the unfortunate, patient with honest inquirers, and humble before Heaven; but he insulted respectable clergymen by calling them hypocrites; he referred to King Herod as "that fox"; he went to parties in disreputable company and was looked upon as a "gluttonous man and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners"; he assaulted indignant tradesmen and threw them and their belongings out of the Temple; he drove a coach-and-horses through a number of sacrosanct and hoary regulations; he cured diseases by any means that came handy, with a shocking casualness in the matter of other people's pigs and property; he showed no proper deference for wealth or social position; when con-fronted with neat dialectical traps, he displayed a paradoxical humor that affronted serious-minded people, and he retorted by asking disagreeably searching questions that could not be answered by rule of thumb. He was emphatically not a dull man in his human lifetime, and if he was God, there can be nothing dull about God either. But he had "a daily beauty in his life that made us ugly," and officialdom felt that the established order of things would be more secure without him. So they did away with God in the name of peace and quietness.

"And the third day He rose again"; what are we to make of that? One thing is certain: if he was God and nothing else, his immortality means nothing to us; if he was man and no more, his death is no more important than yours or mine. But if he really was both God and man, then when the man Jesus died, God died too, and when the God Jesus rose from the dead, man rose too, because they were one and the same person. The Church binds us to no theory about the exact composition of Christ¹s resurrection body. A body of some kind there had to be, since man cannot perceive the infinite otherwise than in terms of space and time. It may have been made from the same elements as the body that disappeared so strangely from the guarded tomb, but it was not that old, limited, mortal body, though it was recognizably like it. In any case, those who saw the risen Christ remained persuaded that life was worth living and death a triviality--an attitude curiously unlike that of the modern defeatist, who is firmly persuaded that life is a disaster and death (rather inconsistently) a major catastrophe.

Now, nobody is compelled to believe a single word of this remarkable story. God (says the Church) has created us perfectly free to disbelieve in him as much as we choose. If we do disbelieve, then he and we must take the consequences in a world ruled by cause and effect. The Church says further, that man did, in fact, disbelieve, and that God did, in fact, take the consequences. All the same, if we are going to disbelieve a thing, it seems on the whole to be desirable that we should first find out what, exactly, we are disbelieving. Very well, then: "The right faith is, that we believe that Jesus Christ is God and Man. Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Who although he be God and Man, yet is he not two, but one Christ." There is the essential doctrine, of which the whole elaborate structure of Christian faith and morals is only the logical consequence.

Now, we may call that doctrine exhilarating or we may call it devastating; we may call it revelation or we may call it rubbish; but if we call it dull, then words have no meaning at all. That God should play the tyrant over man is a dismal story of unrelieved oppression; that man should play the tyrant over man is the usual dreary record of human futility; but that man should play the tyrant over God and find him a better man than himself is an astonishing drama indeed. Any journalist, hearing of it for the first time, would recognize it as News; those who did hear it for the first time actually called it News, and good news at that; though we are apt to forget that the word Gospel ever meant anything so sensational.

Perhaps the drama is played out now, and Jesus is safely dead and buried. Perhaps. It is ironical and entertaining to consider that once at least in the world's history those words might have been spoken with complete conviction, and that was upon the eve of the resurrection.

-Dorothy L. Sayers "The Greatest Drama Ever Told" (1963).

Botched Operation: Jeff Jacoby learns from history.

Sportmanship. Here's a good column on sportsmanship and breaking records. The impetus for the column:

Nate Haasis got his little piece of history, too. But unlike Reaves or Sales or Strahan or James Wilder, if he had been successful, he gave it back. Haasis refused to accept the record for career passing yards in the Central State Eight Conference, of which his school, Springfield Southeast, is a member. Thanks, but no thanks.
He refused after he learned that both his coach and the opponent's coach had rigged things to not only let Haasis get a final opportunity but offer no resistance so he could complete the record-setting pass. Speaking for players "past and present," Haasis said he "felt disrespectful" to set the record that way and wanted no part of it. Then, in a letter to the conference, Haasis used such words as "integrity" and "sportsmanship."

[BTW, I agree with Joe Klecko's assessment of Michael Strahan at the end of the article.]

Here's more, more, and more.

I think the next generation(s) are going to blow the socks off the irrelevant Baby ("truth is relative") Boomers.

Matrix Regurgitated. Now for something other than VGR and the downfall of the Episcopal Church. (Yet, these can be related).

The Matrix Revolutions will hit the theaters tomorrow. I loved the first Matrix and hated strongly disliked the second. Why? It simply lacked internal consistency.

In "On Fairy-Stories," an essay by J. R. R. Tolkien, (first published in Essays Presented to Charles Williams, Oxford University Press, 1947) he explains:

Children are capable, of course, of literary belief, when the story-maker's art is good enough to produce it. That state of mind has been called “willing suspension of disbelief.” But this does not seem to me a good description of what happens. What really happens is that the story-maker proves a successful “sub-creator.” He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is “true”: it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World again, looking at the little abortive Secondary World from outside. If you are obliged, by kindliness or circumstance, to stay, then disbelief must be suspended (or stifled), otherwise listening and looking would become intolerable. But this suspension of disbelief is a substitute for the genuine thing, a subterfuge we use when condescending to games or make-believe, or when trying (more or less willingly) to find what virtue we can in the work of an art that has for us failed.

The Matrix, the first Matrix, sustained the spell; the second one broke it.

Yes, I'll probably see the third one sometime, but I find that I'm very unenthusiastic about it.

Impressive Clergymen. Thanks to Cap'n Yip, err, Jack White (via CANN), we have a list of bishops present at the coronation (I really have trouble calling it a consecration).

Also, there is no truth to the rumor that Peter Cook will be playing V. Gene Robinson in a made for TV movie.

Mainly because Peter Cook is dead.

WM Bishops. In all the pictures of the ordination of V. Gene Robinson, I have been struck by all the white male faces I'm seeing.

See for example, the pictures to the right and to the left showing the "laying on of hands" by the Episcopal Bishops. (BTW, does anyone know who was present for this abomination? Is there a list of the bishops? I know my Bishop, Peter James Lee, was busy doing his hair that day and couldn't be there, but apparently there were quite a few Bishops who wanted to publicly proclaim they were in favor of this.)

Where is all the celebrated Episcopal diversity I've been hearing about?

It's true, the Anglican communion is very diverse, geographically, ethnically, racially, culturally, and economic status. Yet, it's only the white male northern power structure that favors the disregard of the Scriptural norms in elevating Robinson to be a "bishop." The truly diverse portion of the Anglican communion which disagrees with this power structure has been ignored and marginalized.

"Strict Interpretation" A referral from the eminent Christopher S. Johnson leads to this article which states

An Episcopal rector has left the [Western North Carolina] Diocese, saying the church has strayed from strict interpretations of the Bible . . .

I feel compelled to note that one need not have a "strict interpretation[] of the Bible" to conclude the Robinson ordination was forbidden by the Scriptures. Kendall Harmon noted last week:

Walter Wink of Auburn Theological Seminary, who favors altering the church’s teaching in the area of sexual morality, [explained]: “Efforts to twist the text to mean what it clearly does not say are deplorable. Simply put, the Bible is negative toward same-sex behavior, and there is no getting around it.”

In fact, it takes a severely twisted reading of the Scriptures to conclude that it is permissible for a Bishop to have an ongoing sexual relationship outside of marriage.

The good... I'm trying to lead off with good news, because the bad news, below, has me feeling disturbed. At Truro Church yesterday, our Rector Martyn Minns was out -- he was in London for a regularly scheduled meeting of the Compass Rose Society. The good news was announced by one of the associate rectors, Marshall Brown: the prior week had been Stewardship Sunday and the number of initial pledges were only down by two families from last year. The good news is that the total pledges were up by over $220,000!

...the bad.... I've had three separate co-workers confront me this morning about VGR. Because this is a work situation, there's not a lot of discussion, but the jist of each was best summed up by the first (who, by the way is an African-American Howard Dean supporter, debunking the notion that only the far-right is opposed to this), who asked me "What Bible do they read in the Episcopal Church?"

Another replied to the text of Archbishop Peter J. Akinola's statement that I e-mailed:

To allow this schism in the church in order to satisfy his [Robinson] personal desires is an act of selfishness that is beyond description. I have read the statement from the archbishop and think it is an argument well and truly made. If I were an Episcopalian my continued membership with the church would depend on whether it adhered to Christian principles, or political correctness.

The third response was the most disturbing for me. A co-worker (originally from a third-world country) said he will not have anything to do with me, beyond the minimal work contacts we have, until I've assured him I've left the Episcopal Church.

...and the ugly. "Hello, Oakland Police Department? Yes, I'd like to report a kidnapping. I think some kids, probably a pre-school class, are holding the Raiders hostage. Even worse, they're dressing up like the team and trying to pass themselves off --"

"How long? Well, I thought it was a Halloween thing, but now that I think of it, the Raiders have been missing since mid-January..."

This Day. For many Episcopal Churches, today, being the Sunday that All Saints Day was observed, was a day of baptisms and celebration and rejoicing. It was thus at my church, Truro Church.

In the Diocese of New Hampshire, however, it was a day of apostasy and heresy and schism. A large number of priests, bishops and laity, gathered to consecrate a ministry that can not be consecrated. A Bishop in the Church of Christ is called to a higher standard. A person living in an open, notorious and rebellious sexual relationship, out side the bounds of holy matrimony, should not and must not be elevated to the episcopal office of Bishop.

Not only has the person who assumed this office, V. Gene Robinson, violated the standards of the Christian Church, but so have all of those who have done all in their power to consecrate Mr. Robinson.

This is an abomination.

There is a point in the service of Baptism in which six key questions are posed. The are:

Question Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God?
Answer I renounce them.
Question Do you renounce the evil powers of this world which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God?
Answer I renounce them.
Question Do you renounce all sinful desires that draw you from the love of God?
Answer I renounce them.
Question Do you turn to Jesus Christ and accept him as your Savior?
Answer I do.
Question Do you put your whole trust in his grace and love?
Answer I do.
Question Do you promise to follow and obey him as your Lord?
Answer I do.

Accordingly, it seems fitting that on this day, I articulate the following:

I renounce the faction of the Episcopal Church which has set itself in opposition to the Word of God.
I renounce the teachings of the world that have been brought into the Church of God, Episcopal and have corrupted and destroyed its teachings and are destroying its members.
I renounce those desires which are plainly sinful, yet some have falsely called blessed.
I renounce the Presiding Bishop of the ECUSA, T. Frank Griswold.
I renounce the apostate Bishop V. Gene Robinson.
I renounce the schismatic Bishop of the Diocese of Virginia, Peter James Lee.
I renounce all Bishops, Laity, and Ministers who have called evil good and good evil.
I renounce the Diocese of New Hampshire (yet I do not renounce those faithful Saints of God living in the Diocese -- you have my prayers).

Nevertheless, all those, even Peter Lee, even Gene Robinson, even Frank Griswold, as well as their followers, disciples and minions, are not beyond the saving power of Jesus Christ. Accordingly, I call upon them to repent and seek to be restored to full fellowship with Christ Jesus.

Moreover, I acknowledge my own sinfulness and declare that I am in need of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. I put my whole trust in His grace and love. I do promise to follow and obey him as my Lord.

Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me, a sinner.

I'm a Man. According to the Gender Genie, I write like a man:

Female Score: 507
Male Score: 1281

Too Late. According to this article in the Telegraph, "A Church of England spokesman said: 'One hopes . . . that no irrevocable steps are taken.'"

Umm, sorry Charlie, you're several months (years) too late. The ECUSA establishment officially made a mockery of the service of matrimony in Minneapolis, not to mention, blatently ignoring Scripture in selecting a clergyman living in a sexual relationship outside of marriage to be a bishop.

These were the irrevocable steps. What happens from here follows from those actions.

Anglican Essentials. I received a compact disc of Kendall Harmon's address to the AAC meeting in Texas. Unfortunately, there was a brief gap in the address near the end. The good news is that the full address was transcribed and the text placed on line here. Powerful address.

Tapes and discs may be ordered here.

Bunny Man. This WaPo article brings back memories of the Bunny Man, a much whispered story that circulated back when I was in 7th grade (too long ago).

Typical Suburban Witch. The WaPo has this article today about your typical suburban witch, which notes in passing that "20 years ago [she] rejected the Episcopal faith in favor of paganism..." Of course today the Episcopal Church is much more diverse and open. You can have your "alter [sic] to Titan, Anubis, Shira and the Lord of the Forest . . ." and still we'll welcome you. The article further notes:

They are witches who, noted Publisher's Weekly in a review, "tend to hold liberal views and be politically active, especially on environmental issues. . . They are broadly supportive of alternative lifestyles and sexualities, and tend to approve of group marriage, in theory if not in practice; but they split over the propriety of sex between spiritual teachers and students."

Yep, it sounds like the majority of those active at 815 and/or the majority of the House of Pancakes Bishops.

And let's not forget this blast from the past: Episcopal Church Appoints First Openly-Muslim Bishop.

Laugh At Satan Day. This is why I love All Hallow's Eve: we get to laugh at Satan. He has no power over us. An excerpt from this wonderful article:

Should the forces of evil be mocked? Should Satan be laughed at? He most certainly should be. At the beginning of The Screwtape Letters, C. S. Lewis includes two telling quotations, the first from Martin Luther: "The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to texts of Scripture, is to jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear scorn."

The second comes from Thomas More: "The devil … the proud spirit cannot endure to be mocked."

The one thing Satan cannot bear is to be a source of laughter. His pride is undermined by his own knowledge that his infernal rebellion against God is in reality an absurd farce. Hating laughter, he demands to be taken seriously. Indeed, I would say that those Christians who spend the night of October 31 filled with concern over what evils might be (and sometimes are) taking place are doing the very thing Lucifer wants them to do. By giving him this respect, such believers are giving his authority credence.

Solar Storm? We got a call from my brother-in-law saying you could see the Northern Lights tonight. We saw them once before, here in NoVa, but wasn't sure about it tonight. Basically, what we saw was an area of redness, but without the clear definition as before.

Some folks -- even devout Christians -- take these as signs. I'm not sure what to think. I mean they occur very frequently in the northern regions. Still they are pretty.

More. I see from the front page of the WaPo, that redness was the northern lights. I'm deep-linking the WaPo picture, to the right, above.

Still More. Here's the link to the NOAA satelite and here's one to the estimated planetary K-index.

Crackdown. Kudos to Kendall Harmon and others for breaking the news about the crackdown on orthodox priests in Puerto Rico.

What I am going to say is pure speculation [WARNING, WARNING], but looking over the clues, I believe that Bishop David Alvarez has either been pressured on this -- either directly or indirectly (his own perception? -- this appears to be most likely). The Diocese of Puerto Rico was just brought into ECUSA at GC2K3 and +Alvarez was placed on the committee to select the next Presiding Bishop.

Right Thing. Virginia Attorney General Jerry Kilgore did the right thing. I'm not sure why some conservative groups are criticizing him. No, I don't think these few conservative groups are anti-gay or homophobic, but they look that way. There are somethings that are outside the scope of a government agency that hires state workers -- sexual preferences or orientation is one of them.

This surprised me:

The more than 200 delegates meeting in St. George over the weekend in the 98th Convention of the Diocese of Utah approved a resolution supporting the national's convention's actions and affirming the votes of the Utah deputation at that convention.

I didn't know there were 200 Episcopalians in Utah.

The Members of the ABC's Commission:

Archbishop Robin Eames, Primate of All Ireland, Chairman,

The Revd Canon Alyson Barnett-Cowan, Director of Faith, Worship and Ministry, the Anglican Church of Canada,

Bishop David Beetge, Dean of the Church of the Province of Southern Africa,

Professor Norman Doe, Director of the Centre for Law and Religion, Cardiff University, Wales,

Bishop Mark Dyer, Director of Spiritual Formation, Virginia Theological Seminary, USA,

Archbishop Drexel Gomez, Primate of the West Indies,

Archbishop Josiah Iduwo-Fearon, Archbishop of Kaduna, the Anglican Church of Nigeria,

The Revd Dorothy Lau, Director of the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Welfare Council,

Ms Anne McGavin, Advocate, formerly Legal Adviser to the College of Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church,

Archbishop Bernard Malango, Primate of Central Africa,

Dr Esther Mombo, Academic Dean of St Paul's United Theological Seminary, Limuru, Kenya,

Archbishop Barry Morgan, Primate of Wales,
Chancellor Rubie Nottage, Chancellor of the West Indies,

Bishop John Paterson, Primate of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, and Chairman of the Anglican Consultative Council,

Dr Jenny Te Paa, Principal of College of Saint John the Evangelist, Auckland, New Zealand,

Bishop James Terom, Moderator, the Church of North India,

Bishop N. Thomas Wright, Bishop of Durham, the Church of England.

The Revd Canon John Rees, Legal Adviser to the Anglican Consultative Council, will act as Legal Consultant to the Commission.

The Revd Canon Gregory Cameron, Director of Ecumenical Affairs and Studies, Anglican Communion Office, will act as Secretary to the Commission.

I'm very pleased with several of these members. One I've mentioned recently -- N.T. Wright. Some might see him as a "conservative." And yes he is. But to see him as a partisan would be extremely wrong. If there were a "liberal" version of N.T.Wright, I would be extremely pleased to have him/her on the Commission. Wright has very high integrity and intellect.

Bishop (Ret'd) Dyer, of VTS has been named to the Commission. Some class notes, prepared by students, are available for review on the internet. Pay attention to the Feb. 7 notes where Dyer states "The #1 heresy is schism." (quote from Dianne Carroll notes).

The Mandate. As has been said elsewhere, this Commission is not yet another Commission to study "sexuality" (which seems to be the favorite of the ECUSA). The Commission will be looking at the deliberate tearing of the fabric of the Anglican Communion by the establishment of the ECUSA and the actions of one bishop in Canada.

The Archbishop of Canterbury requests the Commission:

1. To examine and report to him by 30th September 2004, in preparation for the ensuing meetings of the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council, on the legal and theological implications flowing from the decisions of the Episcopal Church (USA) to appoint a priest in a committed same sex relationship as one of its bishops, and of the Diocese of New Westminster to authorise services for use in connection with same sex unions, and specifically on the canonical understandings of communion, impaired and broken communion, and the ways in which provinces of the Anglican Communion may relate to one another in situations where the ecclesiastical authorities of one province feel unable to maintain the fullness of communion with another part of the Anglican Communion.

2. Within their report, to include practical recommendations (including reflection on emerging patterns of provision for episcopal oversight for those Anglicans within a particular jurisdiction, where full communion within a province is under threat) for maintaining the highest degree of communion that may be possible in the circumstances resulting from these decisions, both within and between the churches of the Anglican Communion.

3. Thereafter, as soon as practicable, and with particular reference to the issues raised in Section IV of the Report of the Lambeth Conference 1998, to make recommendations to the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council, as to the exceptional circumstances and conditions under which, and the means by which, it would be appropriate for the Archbishop of Canterbury to exercise an extraordinary ministry of episcope (pastoral oversight), support and reconciliation with regard to the internal affairs of a province other than his own for the sake of maintaining communion with the said province and between the said province and the rest of the Anglican Communion.

4. In its deliberations, to take due account of the work already undertaken on issues of communion by the Lambeth Conferences of 1988 and 1998, as well as the views expressed by the Primates of the Anglican Communion in the communiqués and pastoral letters arising from their meetings since 2000.

The Commission The ABC has announced the Mandate and Members of the Commission, promised in the Primates Joint Statement, October 2003. Both are important and need consideration and prayer.

Separation of Church and State? Thanks to poor, oppressed Rachel, we have a link to the latest attempt by the theological left -- bringing the full force of the federal government to bear on the AAC. In other words, they're seeking to have a full federal audit by the Internal Revenue Service.

It's too bad that Janet Reno isn't around. She knew how to deal with fundamentalists, right Rachel?

What’s Happens on November 3rd? The following is from Rev. Martyn Minns, Rector of Truro Church:

By all reports it looks as if the consecration of Canon Gene Robinson as Bishop Coadjutor in the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire will go ahead as planned on November 2. The room has been booked, the guests are on their way and the media is poised for a big event. The expressed mind of the leaders of the Anglican Communion and numerous personal entreaties to step back from this divisive action have not resulted in any change of plans—although all such services have the caveat “God willing” and we may still be surprised! But working with the assumption that it will go forward, what then? In many ways much of the world will breathe a sigh of relief. When compared with all of the crises that face the world this particular issue will quickly fade into insignificance. The Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire will have had its moment in the world spotlight and will then go back to its former status of a relatively small collection of congregations who are struggling to stay alive. However, something serious will have happened.

One part of the Anglican family will have told the rest that their heartfelt convictions don’t matter. A small group of Episcopalians will have declared that they no longer believe that something which has always been called sin is not sin and that the biblical teaching on marriage and family has been replaced by a vague appeal to inclusivity—the limits of which have neither been defined or explained. What happens next is that the Anglican family will begin to unravel. Or to use the language of the Primates “This will tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level.” Major parts of the Anglican Communion will separate themselves from the Diocese of New Hampshire and from the Episcopal Church. While the advocates for this action see it as a way to affirm and embrace those who consider themselves to be homosexuals one unintended consequence is that instead of offering a message of hope for transformation they will be celebrating brokenness and supporting rebellion. As in the aftermath of a divorce, people will be forced to take sides. It is already happening in churches around the world and we are already feeling the pain.

What about Truro? The actions of General Convention and the Bishop of Virginia have already had a profoundly negative impact upon us and a number of families have left. Because of their own sense of an aggrieved conscience a large number of our parishioners have asked to restrict their financial support so that no portion of their contribution can be used to support or encourage this departure from Christian teaching. We have withdrawn a request for a scheduled Fall confirmation visit from Bishop Lee. The Vestry is meeting to pray and seek direction about our future role within the Diocese of Virginia and the wider Episcopal Church. We have no desire to act precipitously but we have now been placed in a situation of conflicting loyalties and we must stand against this affront. Our integrity as a congregation committed to upholding Biblical truth and longstanding relationships with our Anglican partners around the world leaves us no choice. The Truro Vestry will meet for retreat on November 15 to pray and prepare a plan for a way forward. We are determined to stand firm for the life-transforming message of the Gospel as we renew our commitment to mission here at home and around the world. While the occasion is painful, I remain convinced that God can use this time for great blessing …
“We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." (Rom. 8:28)

Calif. Fires. The fires are all over the area my family is from -- so far it looks like everyone we know is okay. We're concerned for the others.

I had a note from my Mom saying that Dad told her that he knew one area where it was--he and his high school buddy Leo used to drink beer in that canyon: "Interesting enough Leo called shortly after that and told me they drank beer everywhere!"

Madame Chiang Kai-shek. I missed this in the paper yesterday: Soong Mei-ling, who married Chiang Kai-shek, passed away this week. She was arguably the most powerful woman to have lived in the 20th Century. Raised, in part, in the U.S., she was a member of the Soong family (think a less corrupt, but more powerful version of the Kennedys) and married the Nationalist Chinese leader, Chiang Kai-Shek. In 1943, she spoke to a joint session of Congess seeking aid for the Chinese in their fight against Japan. Through the 1960s she was known as one of the most admired women in the world.

She lived to be 105 years old.

Think about how different the world would be if the Nationalists prevailed in the struggle for China and the miracle of Taiwan took place on the Chinese mainland. Think what it would be like to have a world without Mao.

Amazing, huh?

(Also, as I have noted before, when I was a very young boy and my father was stationed in Taiwan as part of JFK's commitment to supporting Quemoy and Matsu, I was able to see Madame Chiang (I never saw her husband). )

Couldn't Have Said It Better. Consider this very apt, consise description of what happened at GC2K3:

a vocal minority claiming a privileged knowledge of the mind of God has placed itself in the seat of judgment, above the good order, canonical authority, civility and

. . . Scripture. Opps, that last word wasn't part of the statement, but, of course, should've been. Since that is the Word of God upon which the Church is built.

Unfortunately, the speaker doesn't really care much for Scripture. You see the speaker is John Bryson Chane, the Bishop of Washington, D.C. And he's not talking about the power play that was rammed through at GC2K3, but about the members of the confessing churches.

Praying. Debbie told me that the AAC was having a board meeting at Truro today. The room is booked off from 9 a.m. until 9 p.m. What is significant is there are two women posted outside the room, praying.

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.