The Archbishop of Canterbury to meet TEC House of Bishops in late September
Yesterday came word that the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams along with other Anglican leaders will meet with the Episcopal Church House of Bishops in September as the HOB decides formally how to respond to the Primates Tanzania Communiqué just before the September 30th deadline. The best summary of this news I’ve come across is here.
This sets us up for high drama, does it not? The Archbishop of Canterbury meets the TEC HOB with the September 30th deadline looming. As I’ve said before, who needs soap operas when you’ve got Anglicans?
As for whether this is a positive development, my opinion is . . . it depends. It depends on what +++Rowan and company will say to the bishops.
If they tell TEC bishops that this is the end of the line; they will either get on board with the rest of the Communion and disallow same-sex blessings and homosexual bishops as requested, or they will be left behind. That should TEC continue their course, there will be a split. The only question is who leaves or is pushed away. +++Rowan needs to make it clear that, if forced to choose, he would choose to give priority to the orthodox majority staying, not to the Episcopal Church. Therefore, should the HOB fail to meet fully the requests of the Tanzania Communiqué, it’s highly unlikely the Episcopal Church will be invited to Lambeth or in any significant way continue in the Anglican Communion for the foreseeable future.
If that is what is communicated, then the meeting would serve a good purpose of buttressing Tanzania and Windsor/Dromantine and of shattering any illusions that there is some other viable way for the HOB to proceed.
However, if +++Rowan and company in any way negotiate down or soften the requirements of the Tanzania Communiqué, that would be a terrible development. I don’t think I’m overstating matters though it may seem so. It would perhaps lead to a quick departure of several orthodox provinces from the Anglican Communion. Many orthodox have had enough. The Episcopal Church will have had four long years to stop walking apart. If +++Rowan acts in a way that enables instead of disciplines TEC, that prolongs matters yet again and allows all TEC bishops (save you-know-who) to be invited to Lambeth regardless of their intransigence, many orthodox will walk and for good reason. The current bleeding of conservatives from the Communion could easily become a torrent from which it would not recover.
Therefore, to keep the Anglican Communion somewhat intact and orthodox (not to mention it’s the right thing to do), +++Rowan must let the bishops know he is poised to back full discipline of the Episcopal Church and that very soon -- on October 1st, 2007.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Monday, April 16, 2007
The Risen Christ and Scripture
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day . . .
Luke 24:44
This was one of the passages I taught my Sunday School yesterday. It wasn’t until I was preparing the session that the import of these verses hit me, something very basic I’ve missed before.
This is from the Risen Christ’s first appearance to His disciples as a group (if I have the chronology right. Upon further study, it seems possible that Luke may be summarizing a lot here that occurred between the Resurrection and the Ascension. Any thoughts on that?). Yet he spends much of the time teaching the scriptures to them.
Think about that. Christ Himself is with them. It may be His first time with them after the Resurrection. And he doesn’t have long to be with them, the Ascension being no more than 40 days away. Yet he spends a lot of time digging into the scriptures with them.
That says volumes about the priority Jesus gave the scriptures and about the weight he placed on their authority.
People of all church backgrounds would do well to take note of this neglected aspect of Christ’s post-resurrection appearances (which can also be seen on the Road to Emmaus, a favorite passage of mine, in Luke 24:27).
Liberals insist Jesus is their Lord. Yet most of them don’t share His priority of the authority and teaching of scripture. That’s not right.
People of a more conservative bent likewise insist Jesus is their Lord and do believe the Bible is authoritative. Yet how many of them make the lamest excuses (to themselves mainly) to neglect reading the scriptures. That’s not right.
Yesterday, I taught on our response to the Resurrection. A big part of our response must be to place the same priority on the scriptures that Jesus did and to dig into them!
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day . . .
Luke 24:44
This was one of the passages I taught my Sunday School yesterday. It wasn’t until I was preparing the session that the import of these verses hit me, something very basic I’ve missed before.
This is from the Risen Christ’s first appearance to His disciples as a group (if I have the chronology right. Upon further study, it seems possible that Luke may be summarizing a lot here that occurred between the Resurrection and the Ascension. Any thoughts on that?). Yet he spends much of the time teaching the scriptures to them.
Think about that. Christ Himself is with them. It may be His first time with them after the Resurrection. And he doesn’t have long to be with them, the Ascension being no more than 40 days away. Yet he spends a lot of time digging into the scriptures with them.
That says volumes about the priority Jesus gave the scriptures and about the weight he placed on their authority.
People of all church backgrounds would do well to take note of this neglected aspect of Christ’s post-resurrection appearances (which can also be seen on the Road to Emmaus, a favorite passage of mine, in Luke 24:27).
Liberals insist Jesus is their Lord. Yet most of them don’t share His priority of the authority and teaching of scripture. That’s not right.
People of a more conservative bent likewise insist Jesus is their Lord and do believe the Bible is authoritative. Yet how many of them make the lamest excuses (to themselves mainly) to neglect reading the scriptures. That’s not right.
Yesterday, I taught on our response to the Resurrection. A big part of our response must be to place the same priority on the scriptures that Jesus did and to dig into them!
Friday, April 13, 2007
Straight Talk about “Women’s Studies” and Feminism
Duke began its Women’s Studies program around when I graduated. It was a big tip off to me that Duke might be going downhill.
I’ve long opposed Women’s Studies programs. They are nothing but feminist propaganda and have no place in a genuine university. Now propaganda of all sorts is part of the university atmosphere. That’s well and good. But you don’t give an ideological viewpoint its own department . . . if you have any backbone and common sense that is. Such departments only narrow the mind, not educate it.
But rarely do I hear anyone taking on these programs. So Jennifer Roback Morse’s voice is music to my ears.
By the way, her intro rings particularly relevant, in light of recent events:
I hesitate to proclaim the death of feminism, since it seems to be alive in the public square. Men are still being persecuted on trumped up rape charges. Fathers are still being kept out of their children's lives. The abortion lobby is still whining about crisis pregnancy centers. . . .
Before I came across her article, I was thinking how feminazis were in the forefront of the lynch mob to destroy the Duke Lacrosse Three, and how they have fought to rig the justice system against falsely accused men.
And if you’re offended by my use of “feminazi,” then you probably don’t get the harm they have shamelessly inflicted on society. May the tribe of Dr. Morse and others who tell it like it is about them increase.
Hat tip to Drell’s Descants.
Duke began its Women’s Studies program around when I graduated. It was a big tip off to me that Duke might be going downhill.
I’ve long opposed Women’s Studies programs. They are nothing but feminist propaganda and have no place in a genuine university. Now propaganda of all sorts is part of the university atmosphere. That’s well and good. But you don’t give an ideological viewpoint its own department . . . if you have any backbone and common sense that is. Such departments only narrow the mind, not educate it.
But rarely do I hear anyone taking on these programs. So Jennifer Roback Morse’s voice is music to my ears.
By the way, her intro rings particularly relevant, in light of recent events:
I hesitate to proclaim the death of feminism, since it seems to be alive in the public square. Men are still being persecuted on trumped up rape charges. Fathers are still being kept out of their children's lives. The abortion lobby is still whining about crisis pregnancy centers. . . .
Before I came across her article, I was thinking how feminazis were in the forefront of the lynch mob to destroy the Duke Lacrosse Three, and how they have fought to rig the justice system against falsely accused men.
And if you’re offended by my use of “feminazi,” then you probably don’t get the harm they have shamelessly inflicted on society. May the tribe of Dr. Morse and others who tell it like it is about them increase.
Hat tip to Drell’s Descants.
The Unlevel Playing Field of Name Disclosure
The Duke Lacrosse case shines more light on one of the injustices of how we do justice in America. The three accused were vilified for months while the accuser . . . well, we didn’t know who the accuser was until the past few days because, as is standard in rape cases, her name wasn’t revealed.
This policy of revealing the names of the accused in sex crime cases but concealing the names of accusers has got to go. It enables and encourages false accusations. Disclosing the names of accused does the dirty work of false accusers, dragging reputations through the mud while the accuser is protected by anonymity.
And there is less opportunity for people to come forward and say, “I know the accuser, and he/she is a liar. And here’s a previous time she lied.” Meanwhile, past alleged victims of the accused sometimes come forward once the accused’s name is out there. Most of these instances are surely legit. But I always wondered how many who come forward after the fact are simply opportunists who are piling on. When there’s money involved, as in the accusations against Catholic priests, I suspect more than we know.
In any case, it’s an unlevel playing field.
I’ve long felt that you either reveal the names of both the accuser and the accused in sex crime cases, or you reveal neither. I lean strongly toward revealing neither. One plus of that is that it may discourage some of the sensationalistic irresponsible news media coverage of sex cases. It would increase chances of a fair trial. And it wouldn’t discourage legitimate accusations from coming forward.
But the current standard of throwing the reputations of the accused to the wolves, even before indictment, while concealing the names of accusers is an outrage.
There are now calls for justice reform after the vindication of the Duke Lacrosse Three. Leveling name disclosure policies would be a good start.
The Duke Lacrosse case shines more light on one of the injustices of how we do justice in America. The three accused were vilified for months while the accuser . . . well, we didn’t know who the accuser was until the past few days because, as is standard in rape cases, her name wasn’t revealed.
This policy of revealing the names of the accused in sex crime cases but concealing the names of accusers has got to go. It enables and encourages false accusations. Disclosing the names of accused does the dirty work of false accusers, dragging reputations through the mud while the accuser is protected by anonymity.
And there is less opportunity for people to come forward and say, “I know the accuser, and he/she is a liar. And here’s a previous time she lied.” Meanwhile, past alleged victims of the accused sometimes come forward once the accused’s name is out there. Most of these instances are surely legit. But I always wondered how many who come forward after the fact are simply opportunists who are piling on. When there’s money involved, as in the accusations against Catholic priests, I suspect more than we know.
In any case, it’s an unlevel playing field.
I’ve long felt that you either reveal the names of both the accuser and the accused in sex crime cases, or you reveal neither. I lean strongly toward revealing neither. One plus of that is that it may discourage some of the sensationalistic irresponsible news media coverage of sex cases. It would increase chances of a fair trial. And it wouldn’t discourage legitimate accusations from coming forward.
But the current standard of throwing the reputations of the accused to the wolves, even before indictment, while concealing the names of accusers is an outrage.
There are now calls for justice reform after the vindication of the Duke Lacrosse Three. Leveling name disclosure policies would be a good start.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
A Message from the Duke Board of Trustees . . . and My Response
I received this e-mail overnight:
Dear Member of the Duke University Community,
I write to you on behalf of the Trustees of Duke University.
Today the North Carolina State Attorney General announced that all remaining
charges against David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann have been
dropped and should never have been brought. This announcement explicitly and
unequivocally establishes the innocence of David, Collin and Reade, who with
their families have suffered an unimaginable year of accusation and public
scrutiny. They deserve our respect for the honorable way they have conducted
themselves during this long legal ordeal that ends with their exoneration.
The Attorney General determined that there was no credible evidence to support
the charges that were brought, with so many statements of certainty, by the
Durham District Attorney last spring. Many have suffered from his actions,
these three students and their families most of all. The Attorney General's
investigation places responsibility for this miscarriage of justice with the
District Attorney, and we now look to the proceedings of the state bar to call
him to account before his peers.
Much as we wish that these three young men, their teammates and their families
and indeed the whole community of people who love Duke could have been spared
the agony of the past year, we believe that it was essential for the
University to defer to the criminal justice system. As imperfect and flawed as
it may be, it is that process that brings us today to this resolution.
Throughout the past year President Richard Brodhead consulted regularly with
the trustees and has had our continuing support. He made considered and
thoughtful decisions in a volatile and uncertain situation. Each step of the
way, the board agreed with the principles that he established and the actions
he took. As we look back and with the benefit of what we now know there is no
question that there are some things that might have been done differently.
However, anyone critical of President Brodhead should be similarly critical of
the entire board.
In closing, we express our relief for today's outcome and recognize the
character that our three students, their teammates and all of their families
have shown over the past year. Furthermore, we hope that the resolution of
this unfair, divisive and painful episode can serve to unite us all. There is
much to learn from the events that we have lived through, and we intend to put
this learning to use. Duke is a great university that steps up to challenges
and opportunities, and together we will use this moment to make our community
stronger.
Robert K. Steel, Chair, Duke University Board of Trustees
I e-mailed back this response:
Quote: Duke is a great university that steps up to challenges
and opportunities, and together we will use this moment to make our community
stronger.
Dear Chairman Steel,
May I suggest a needed measure to make the Duke community stronger. Each member of the Group of 88 should individually be asked either to publicly and completely apologize for their extremely prejudicial actions against the three students or to begin seeking employment elsewhere.
That will be more courtesy than those faculty members deserve. And it's the least that furthering a safe, welcoming, and just atmosphere for students demands.
Sincerely,
etc.
Background: The Group of 88 are 88 Duke faculty members who rushed to judgement and made statements highly prejudicial to the accused and adding to a lynch mob atmosphere, including signing a newspaper ad.
Durham-in-Wonderland, of course, has numerous posts on their shameful actions.
I received this e-mail overnight:
Dear Member of the Duke University Community,
I write to you on behalf of the Trustees of Duke University.
Today the North Carolina State Attorney General announced that all remaining
charges against David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann have been
dropped and should never have been brought. This announcement explicitly and
unequivocally establishes the innocence of David, Collin and Reade, who with
their families have suffered an unimaginable year of accusation and public
scrutiny. They deserve our respect for the honorable way they have conducted
themselves during this long legal ordeal that ends with their exoneration.
The Attorney General determined that there was no credible evidence to support
the charges that were brought, with so many statements of certainty, by the
Durham District Attorney last spring. Many have suffered from his actions,
these three students and their families most of all. The Attorney General's
investigation places responsibility for this miscarriage of justice with the
District Attorney, and we now look to the proceedings of the state bar to call
him to account before his peers.
Much as we wish that these three young men, their teammates and their families
and indeed the whole community of people who love Duke could have been spared
the agony of the past year, we believe that it was essential for the
University to defer to the criminal justice system. As imperfect and flawed as
it may be, it is that process that brings us today to this resolution.
Throughout the past year President Richard Brodhead consulted regularly with
the trustees and has had our continuing support. He made considered and
thoughtful decisions in a volatile and uncertain situation. Each step of the
way, the board agreed with the principles that he established and the actions
he took. As we look back and with the benefit of what we now know there is no
question that there are some things that might have been done differently.
However, anyone critical of President Brodhead should be similarly critical of
the entire board.
In closing, we express our relief for today's outcome and recognize the
character that our three students, their teammates and all of their families
have shown over the past year. Furthermore, we hope that the resolution of
this unfair, divisive and painful episode can serve to unite us all. There is
much to learn from the events that we have lived through, and we intend to put
this learning to use. Duke is a great university that steps up to challenges
and opportunities, and together we will use this moment to make our community
stronger.
Robert K. Steel, Chair, Duke University Board of Trustees
I e-mailed back this response:
Quote: Duke is a great university that steps up to challenges
and opportunities, and together we will use this moment to make our community
stronger.
Dear Chairman Steel,
May I suggest a needed measure to make the Duke community stronger. Each member of the Group of 88 should individually be asked either to publicly and completely apologize for their extremely prejudicial actions against the three students or to begin seeking employment elsewhere.
That will be more courtesy than those faculty members deserve. And it's the least that furthering a safe, welcoming, and just atmosphere for students demands.
Sincerely,
etc.
Background: The Group of 88 are 88 Duke faculty members who rushed to judgement and made statements highly prejudicial to the accused and adding to a lynch mob atmosphere, including signing a newspaper ad.
Durham-in-Wonderland, of course, has numerous posts on their shameful actions.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
BREAKING: Duke Lacrosse Three VINDICATED!
I may post more on this tomorrow, but I want to get out the good news to you now. The North Carolina Attorney General has completely vindicated the three Duke Lacrosse players falsely accused of and maliciously prosecuted for rape.
It sounds like the Attorney General did everything but hang the “rogue prosecutor” Nifong from the state Capitol flag pole . . . . And that may be coming.
There’s a live press conference on FOX News now. Kudos to FOX News and Durham-in-Wonderland for their coverage of this case.
I may post more on this tomorrow, but I want to get out the good news to you now. The North Carolina Attorney General has completely vindicated the three Duke Lacrosse players falsely accused of and maliciously prosecuted for rape.
It sounds like the Attorney General did everything but hang the “rogue prosecutor” Nifong from the state Capitol flag pole . . . . And that may be coming.
There’s a live press conference on FOX News now. Kudos to FOX News and Durham-in-Wonderland for their coverage of this case.
Has Newsweek No Shame?
I’ve never had a very high opinion of Newsweek or of its publisher, the Washington Post, but this rant from Susan Jacoby surprises even me.
I don’t have the temperament to go over it line by line without spontaneously combusting. But what she does in short is insist that anti-Catholicism is not significant in America today, all the while trotting out a multitude of stereotypes against conservative Catholics and conservative Christians as a whole.
She reminds of an idiot insisting there is no racism in America today while using every imaginable anti-Black stereotype and the N-word in doing so.
Newsweek or just about any national magazine would be called to the carpet if they ran such a racist piece. And they should be called to the carpet for running Susan Jacoby’s rant against conservative Catholics.
But they won’t, of course. Such are double standards in American liberal public life.
Hat tip to MCJ, which takes a slightly lighter approach to this.
Afterword: I was about to post this when I came across this comment at MCJ. It says it all so well, I’ll just conclude by quoting it:
The only proof one's needs of anti-Catholicism is the fact that this article has appeared in a major news magazine. Would Newsweek have *dared* to publish an opinion piece charging that there is no homophobia and that it's all a product of GLAAD? That anti-Semitism doesn't exist and that's all a product of the Anti-Defamation League? That racism doesn't exist and it's all a product of the NAACP? Of course not. It's only acceptable to publish this AT ALL because of the anti-Catholic bias she so virulently denies. Idiot.
I’ve never had a very high opinion of Newsweek or of its publisher, the Washington Post, but this rant from Susan Jacoby surprises even me.
I don’t have the temperament to go over it line by line without spontaneously combusting. But what she does in short is insist that anti-Catholicism is not significant in America today, all the while trotting out a multitude of stereotypes against conservative Catholics and conservative Christians as a whole.
She reminds of an idiot insisting there is no racism in America today while using every imaginable anti-Black stereotype and the N-word in doing so.
Newsweek or just about any national magazine would be called to the carpet if they ran such a racist piece. And they should be called to the carpet for running Susan Jacoby’s rant against conservative Catholics.
But they won’t, of course. Such are double standards in American liberal public life.
Hat tip to MCJ, which takes a slightly lighter approach to this.
Afterword: I was about to post this when I came across this comment at MCJ. It says it all so well, I’ll just conclude by quoting it:
The only proof one's needs of anti-Catholicism is the fact that this article has appeared in a major news magazine. Would Newsweek have *dared* to publish an opinion piece charging that there is no homophobia and that it's all a product of GLAAD? That anti-Semitism doesn't exist and that's all a product of the Anti-Defamation League? That racism doesn't exist and it's all a product of the NAACP? Of course not. It's only acceptable to publish this AT ALL because of the anti-Catholic bias she so virulently denies. Idiot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)