An Interesting Discussion on an Amicable Separation
Over at Stand Firm, there is a very interesting discussion on the possibility of an amicable separation in the Episcopal Church – now at 155 comments!
I won’t even attempt to rehash it, but I find two things of note. First, Jim Naughton, a dedicated revisionist, prompted the discussion and seems quite open to a negotiated separation and settlement.
Now, as he noted, he as speaking for himself, not 815. But I still find it encouraging that such a prominent revisionist is so willing to discuss an amicable separation with the reasserters (i.e. orthodox) on one of their sites no less.
Second, some of my orthodox brethren seem to want a whole package of Anglican realignment neatly handed to them in a bundle. There were a number of posts uninterested in an amicable separation unless it included discipline of the Episcopal Church.
Readers know I want the Episcopal Church disciplined. But it’s just not feasible for everything to be done at once. As Matt Kennedy commented, an amicable separation and discipline of the Episcopal Church are two separate matters. For while a separation would have to be hashed out in some way among American Episcopalians, discipline is to be decided by the worldwide Anglican Communion. The AC has little say other than persuasion in matters such as American church property disputes. And American Anglicans have only a partial say in AC disciplinary matters.
That’s a much messier way of doing things than that of our Roman brethren. But that’s the way it is. So by necessity, the question of an amicable separation can’t be bound together with that of discipline of the Episcopal Church.
There’s much more over at the Stand Firm discussion, which I commend to you.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
The Sacraments, the Church Fathers, and Bishop Beckwith
Some of you have noticed a bit of unhappiness between the Bishop of Springfield Peter Beckwith and a liberal parish, St. Andrews of Edwardsville, Illinois.
Part of the controversy is that he is no longer willing to confirm people at St. Andrews. For he has little to no confidence that candidates of the parish are able and willing to truly make the vows, the profession of faith involved given the lack of orthodox teaching there.
Some who are used to baptism and confirmation being used as glorified social promotion and to the Eucharist being indiscriminately distributed like candy at a parade think that’s just horrible. How uninclusive! The sacraments should be for everyone!
Well . . . I’ve actually been learning some things taking Liturgics from Cranmer House. One thing I’ve learned is that the church fathers were very careful about distributing the sacraments. Heck, if you weren’t a baptized Christian, you weren’t even allowed to attend the Eucharist. You could listen to the liturgy of the word but when it was time for the Lord’s Supper you were dismissed.
And baptism (from which confirmation is derived) was not given to just anyone who said “I believe!” and wanted it. You had to convince church leaders that you were for real. As early as 225 A.D., we see in Hippolytus’ Apostolic Tradition that involved a thorough examination, a long catechumenate (three years under Hippolytus!), and another examination at the end of that period. Only if you passed through all that were you then baptized and admitted to the Eucharist. Many catechumens were martyred first!
I’m not recommending we go back to that (although the reader may rightly ask, “Why not?”), but giving out confirmation and other sacraments with no regard to whether the faith of those receiving is for real is dead wrong.
And it can endanger the souls of those receiving. Paul wrote that those who receive sacraments unworthily can fall under judgement, even death. And how many people deceive themselves about their standing before God by holding on to their baptism and confirmation as some ticket to heaven even though they completely lack Christian faith?
The charitable thing for a bishop or priest to do when there is no reason to believe someone’s faith is for real and indeed Christian is to withhold the sacraments (of baptism and confirmation at least) and gently explain why. People will be upset. Some may walk. But that’s better than contributing to self-deception that leads to Hell. And perhaps it may serve as a wake-up call.
Indiscriminate confirmation instead calls to nothing but self-deceived complacency. Kudos to +Peter Beckwith for wanting no part in that.
Some of you have noticed a bit of unhappiness between the Bishop of Springfield Peter Beckwith and a liberal parish, St. Andrews of Edwardsville, Illinois.
Part of the controversy is that he is no longer willing to confirm people at St. Andrews. For he has little to no confidence that candidates of the parish are able and willing to truly make the vows, the profession of faith involved given the lack of orthodox teaching there.
Some who are used to baptism and confirmation being used as glorified social promotion and to the Eucharist being indiscriminately distributed like candy at a parade think that’s just horrible. How uninclusive! The sacraments should be for everyone!
Well . . . I’ve actually been learning some things taking Liturgics from Cranmer House. One thing I’ve learned is that the church fathers were very careful about distributing the sacraments. Heck, if you weren’t a baptized Christian, you weren’t even allowed to attend the Eucharist. You could listen to the liturgy of the word but when it was time for the Lord’s Supper you were dismissed.
And baptism (from which confirmation is derived) was not given to just anyone who said “I believe!” and wanted it. You had to convince church leaders that you were for real. As early as 225 A.D., we see in Hippolytus’ Apostolic Tradition that involved a thorough examination, a long catechumenate (three years under Hippolytus!), and another examination at the end of that period. Only if you passed through all that were you then baptized and admitted to the Eucharist. Many catechumens were martyred first!
I’m not recommending we go back to that (although the reader may rightly ask, “Why not?”), but giving out confirmation and other sacraments with no regard to whether the faith of those receiving is for real is dead wrong.
And it can endanger the souls of those receiving. Paul wrote that those who receive sacraments unworthily can fall under judgement, even death. And how many people deceive themselves about their standing before God by holding on to their baptism and confirmation as some ticket to heaven even though they completely lack Christian faith?
The charitable thing for a bishop or priest to do when there is no reason to believe someone’s faith is for real and indeed Christian is to withhold the sacraments (of baptism and confirmation at least) and gently explain why. People will be upset. Some may walk. But that’s better than contributing to self-deception that leads to Hell. And perhaps it may serve as a wake-up call.
Indiscriminate confirmation instead calls to nothing but self-deceived complacency. Kudos to +Peter Beckwith for wanting no part in that.
Monday, October 16, 2006
60 Minutes on the Duke Lacrosse Case
I rarely watch 60 Minutes. But I flipped over to see if football was still on, and I saw they were covering the Duke Lacrosse case.
And I NOT a fan of CBS News, but I have to credit them with an excellent report. They bring together the facts to show what we have here: an unethical District Attorney, Mike Nifong, who is more interested in making political hay out of this case than in justice.
The evidence shows that the three men indicted are innocent, but more than once, the authorities have shown themselves uninterested in the evidence.
And, on camera, Duke Law professor James Coleman pretty much accused Mr. Nifong of prosecutorial misconduct:
60 Minutes asked James Coleman, a prominent law professor at Duke University Law School who helped establish guidelines in North Carolina designed to protect against false identifications in police line-ups. He says this line-up broke one basic principle: there were no “filler” photos, no pictures of people not connected to the case. The accuser only saw photos of lacrosse players who police told her were at the party.
"If she’s told all of these people who were considered suspects were at the party, so you pick three and we’ll indict those three," Coleman says.
"So she can’t make a mistake," Bradley remarks.
"Can’t make a mistake," Coleman replies.
Professor Coleman says the line-up ordered by the D.A. for the Duke lacrosse case violated local, state and federal guidelines.
And later:
"I think that [Mike Nifong] pandered to the community by saying 'I'm gonna go out there and defend your interests in seeing that these hooligans who committed the crime are prosecuted. I'm not gonna let their fathers, with all of their money, buy you know big-time lawyers and get them off. I'm doing this for you.' You know, what are you to conclude about a prosecutor who says to you, 'I'll do whatever it takes to get this set of defendants?' What does it say about what he's willing to do to get poor black defendants," Coleman asks.
Asked if he thinks the D.A. committed prosecutorial misconduct, Coleman says, "Yes, I mean I think that’s the whole point. And if this case resulted in a conviction, I think there would be a basis to have the conviction overturned based on his conduct. I think in this case, it appears that this prosecutor has set out to develop whatever evidence he could to convict people he already concluded were guilty."
Read here for more. (And in the interests of disclosure, I’m a Duke alum.)
I think this case is part of a much larger problem. I’ve long been troubled by those prosecutors who are more interested in scalps than in justice. They have a lot of power to destroy people’s lives. And that unscrupulous men like Mike Nifong are all too willing to abuse that power – with little of no risk of punishment for their abuse of power – honestly scares me.
I wish I had great ideas for reform. I don’t. But perhaps District Attorney should not be an elected office. They often get elected on the basis of “I’m going to get those fill in the blank” campaigns. That’s certainly what has happened in Durham County.
I rarely watch 60 Minutes. But I flipped over to see if football was still on, and I saw they were covering the Duke Lacrosse case.
And I NOT a fan of CBS News, but I have to credit them with an excellent report. They bring together the facts to show what we have here: an unethical District Attorney, Mike Nifong, who is more interested in making political hay out of this case than in justice.
The evidence shows that the three men indicted are innocent, but more than once, the authorities have shown themselves uninterested in the evidence.
And, on camera, Duke Law professor James Coleman pretty much accused Mr. Nifong of prosecutorial misconduct:
60 Minutes asked James Coleman, a prominent law professor at Duke University Law School who helped establish guidelines in North Carolina designed to protect against false identifications in police line-ups. He says this line-up broke one basic principle: there were no “filler” photos, no pictures of people not connected to the case. The accuser only saw photos of lacrosse players who police told her were at the party.
"If she’s told all of these people who were considered suspects were at the party, so you pick three and we’ll indict those three," Coleman says.
"So she can’t make a mistake," Bradley remarks.
"Can’t make a mistake," Coleman replies.
Professor Coleman says the line-up ordered by the D.A. for the Duke lacrosse case violated local, state and federal guidelines.
And later:
"I think that [Mike Nifong] pandered to the community by saying 'I'm gonna go out there and defend your interests in seeing that these hooligans who committed the crime are prosecuted. I'm not gonna let their fathers, with all of their money, buy you know big-time lawyers and get them off. I'm doing this for you.' You know, what are you to conclude about a prosecutor who says to you, 'I'll do whatever it takes to get this set of defendants?' What does it say about what he's willing to do to get poor black defendants," Coleman asks.
Asked if he thinks the D.A. committed prosecutorial misconduct, Coleman says, "Yes, I mean I think that’s the whole point. And if this case resulted in a conviction, I think there would be a basis to have the conviction overturned based on his conduct. I think in this case, it appears that this prosecutor has set out to develop whatever evidence he could to convict people he already concluded were guilty."
Read here for more. (And in the interests of disclosure, I’m a Duke alum.)
I think this case is part of a much larger problem. I’ve long been troubled by those prosecutors who are more interested in scalps than in justice. They have a lot of power to destroy people’s lives. And that unscrupulous men like Mike Nifong are all too willing to abuse that power – with little of no risk of punishment for their abuse of power – honestly scares me.
I wish I had great ideas for reform. I don’t. But perhaps District Attorney should not be an elected office. They often get elected on the basis of “I’m going to get those fill in the blank” campaigns. That’s certainly what has happened in Durham County.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
No Safe Place: “Interpretation” and Trust (and the Archbishop of Wales)
Being at the mercy of people you cannot trust is no safe place to be.
Those who “interpret” everything to get their way regardless of the clear meaning of what is being “interpreted” cannot be trusted.
Those two statements cover a lot of ground. But in the interests of keeping this post short and readable, let’s take those as given. (Those who disagree are welcome to say so. Comments are welcome and desired, especially in this “No Safe Place” series.)
Liberal church authorities have time and time again shown themselves to be people who “interpret” not only scripture, but church constitutions, directives, and more to their own ends. I put “interpret” in quotes, because it’s really twisting or even ignoring.
It’s like an erstwhile teenage son. Dad tells him he has permission to drive the second car only to school and back. But Dad later notices the odometer on the said car has gone up 2000 miles in 10 days. He confronts the son, who then says, “You didn’t say what roads to take.”
That’s an interpretation problem . . . that is actually a trust problem.
When you have church leaders who act like that son, you really have a trust problem.
One such church leader is the Anglican Archbishop of Wales. His recent presidential address is the case in point. He served on the Windsor Commission and says the Episcopal Church is complying just fine with the Windsor Report:
As a member of that Commission, we did not have in mind a covenant that was prescriptive and detailed and intrusive. What we did have in mind was what ECUSA did at its convention in July when:
_ It re-affirmed its abiding commitment to the fellowship of churches that constitute the Anglican Communion and sought to live into the highest degree of communion possible.
_ It reaffirmed that it was in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer.
_ It went on to make a commitment to the vision of inter-dependent life in Christ, characterized by forbearance, trust, and respect, and commended the Windsor Report and process as a means of deepening understanding of that commitment.
I won’t do into details of Windsor, but ++Wale’s interpretation of it would be laughable if it weren’t a betrayal of the long suffering of those who have patiently allowed the Episcopal Church three long years to comply with the Windsor Report only to see the travesty of General Convention ’06. Further, his speech completely ignores the Primates’ application of the Windsor Report, namely the Dromantine Communique, as Matt Kennedy points out.
In short, the method here goes like this: TEC isn't in keeping with Windsor/Dromantine? Well, just ignore Dromantine and reinterpret Windsor and, voila!, TEC is complying just fine!
An all too familiar variant goes thus: Has the Communion clearly stated that your innovation and your persistence in it are unacceptable, out of line with the mind of scripture and of the Communion? Just go ahead anyway and interpret it as "conversation" that’s part of the “process” of “dialogue”. Oh, and say nice things about your supposed “commitment to the vision of inter-dependent life in Christ, characterized by forbearance, trust, and respect” and the like while you’re at it.
We shouldn’t be surprised at such “interpretations” that provoke distrust. At least not anymore. It’s like a bad movie that keeps showing up on cable. And the unpleasant, repetitive plot is this: if one acquires the habit of twisting God’s word, one will be soon be willing to twist and say just about anything.
At the risk of understating the obvious, it's very hard to trust church leaders who act in this fashion.
-------
And should you have the misfortune of having such church leaders in authority over you, you are in a precarious place. For if they wish to twist, say, a church canon to kick your congregation out on the street and take your property, they may well do just that if they can get away with it. And if they wish to ignore or reinterpret past church policies of tolerance toward orthodox views, they’ll do that, too.
I hope none of you are so foolish to entrust your car to a son who acts as above and has not repented. Why then entrust your congregation to church leaders who violate trust by using similar methods of “interpretation”?
Epilogue: Thanks be to God, the Archbishop of Wales’ viewpoint and methods of interpretation are unlikely to prevail in the Anglican Communion as we know it. So I am not saying the Communion is no safe place.
Also, I want to spell out that I’m not necessarily talking about willful dishonesty here. Postmodernism, deconstructionism and the rest have so clouded people’s ways of thinking and made truth so inaccessible that some could act in completely untruthful and untrustworthy ways without intending to. In short, some wouldn’t know the truth if it bit them on the mitre.
It’s not completely unlike the young child whose mind is so clouded by his weak, unformed grasp on truth that he believes his own lie. I remember telling my mom that a babysitter, not me, took a crayon to a white vinyl couch. And in a way, I believed it.
Nevertheless, statements such as the Archbishop of Wales’ engender distrust. And should leaders such as him gain control of a church, it becomes no safe place for the orthodox – as I’m sadly sure events will give me ample opportunity to illustrate in the future.
Being at the mercy of people you cannot trust is no safe place to be.
Those who “interpret” everything to get their way regardless of the clear meaning of what is being “interpreted” cannot be trusted.
Those two statements cover a lot of ground. But in the interests of keeping this post short and readable, let’s take those as given. (Those who disagree are welcome to say so. Comments are welcome and desired, especially in this “No Safe Place” series.)
Liberal church authorities have time and time again shown themselves to be people who “interpret” not only scripture, but church constitutions, directives, and more to their own ends. I put “interpret” in quotes, because it’s really twisting or even ignoring.
It’s like an erstwhile teenage son. Dad tells him he has permission to drive the second car only to school and back. But Dad later notices the odometer on the said car has gone up 2000 miles in 10 days. He confronts the son, who then says, “You didn’t say what roads to take.”
That’s an interpretation problem . . . that is actually a trust problem.
When you have church leaders who act like that son, you really have a trust problem.
One such church leader is the Anglican Archbishop of Wales. His recent presidential address is the case in point. He served on the Windsor Commission and says the Episcopal Church is complying just fine with the Windsor Report:
As a member of that Commission, we did not have in mind a covenant that was prescriptive and detailed and intrusive. What we did have in mind was what ECUSA did at its convention in July when:
_ It re-affirmed its abiding commitment to the fellowship of churches that constitute the Anglican Communion and sought to live into the highest degree of communion possible.
_ It reaffirmed that it was in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer.
_ It went on to make a commitment to the vision of inter-dependent life in Christ, characterized by forbearance, trust, and respect, and commended the Windsor Report and process as a means of deepening understanding of that commitment.
I won’t do into details of Windsor, but ++Wale’s interpretation of it would be laughable if it weren’t a betrayal of the long suffering of those who have patiently allowed the Episcopal Church three long years to comply with the Windsor Report only to see the travesty of General Convention ’06. Further, his speech completely ignores the Primates’ application of the Windsor Report, namely the Dromantine Communique, as Matt Kennedy points out.
In short, the method here goes like this: TEC isn't in keeping with Windsor/Dromantine? Well, just ignore Dromantine and reinterpret Windsor and, voila!, TEC is complying just fine!
An all too familiar variant goes thus: Has the Communion clearly stated that your innovation and your persistence in it are unacceptable, out of line with the mind of scripture and of the Communion? Just go ahead anyway and interpret it as "conversation" that’s part of the “process” of “dialogue”. Oh, and say nice things about your supposed “commitment to the vision of inter-dependent life in Christ, characterized by forbearance, trust, and respect” and the like while you’re at it.
We shouldn’t be surprised at such “interpretations” that provoke distrust. At least not anymore. It’s like a bad movie that keeps showing up on cable. And the unpleasant, repetitive plot is this: if one acquires the habit of twisting God’s word, one will be soon be willing to twist and say just about anything.
At the risk of understating the obvious, it's very hard to trust church leaders who act in this fashion.
-------
And should you have the misfortune of having such church leaders in authority over you, you are in a precarious place. For if they wish to twist, say, a church canon to kick your congregation out on the street and take your property, they may well do just that if they can get away with it. And if they wish to ignore or reinterpret past church policies of tolerance toward orthodox views, they’ll do that, too.
I hope none of you are so foolish to entrust your car to a son who acts as above and has not repented. Why then entrust your congregation to church leaders who violate trust by using similar methods of “interpretation”?
Epilogue: Thanks be to God, the Archbishop of Wales’ viewpoint and methods of interpretation are unlikely to prevail in the Anglican Communion as we know it. So I am not saying the Communion is no safe place.
Also, I want to spell out that I’m not necessarily talking about willful dishonesty here. Postmodernism, deconstructionism and the rest have so clouded people’s ways of thinking and made truth so inaccessible that some could act in completely untruthful and untrustworthy ways without intending to. In short, some wouldn’t know the truth if it bit them on the mitre.
It’s not completely unlike the young child whose mind is so clouded by his weak, unformed grasp on truth that he believes his own lie. I remember telling my mom that a babysitter, not me, took a crayon to a white vinyl couch. And in a way, I believed it.
Nevertheless, statements such as the Archbishop of Wales’ engender distrust. And should leaders such as him gain control of a church, it becomes no safe place for the orthodox – as I’m sadly sure events will give me ample opportunity to illustrate in the future.
Latin, as the Lord Intended
There’s been rumblings about this for some time. And it’s been allowed in at least some jurisdictions for years. But, according to Ruth Gledhill, Pope Benedict is about to expand the old Latin Tridentine Rite in a big way.
If so, this would answer the fervent prayers and desires of many. Note the headline on this blog. :)
There’s been rumblings about this for some time. And it’s been allowed in at least some jurisdictions for years. But, according to Ruth Gledhill, Pope Benedict is about to expand the old Latin Tridentine Rite in a big way.
If so, this would answer the fervent prayers and desires of many. Note the headline on this blog. :)
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Tinfoil Hat Alert: 42% think Bush is manipulating gas prices.
According to a new Gallup poll, 42% of respondents agreed with the statement that the Bush administration "deliberately manipulated the price of gasoline so that it would decrease before this fall's elections." Fifty-three percent of those surveyed did not believe the conspiracy theory; 5% said they had no opinion.
Yeah. And he’s behind 9-11, the Kennedy Assassination, the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa . . .
Wear a tinfoil hat and read more here.
According to a new Gallup poll, 42% of respondents agreed with the statement that the Bush administration "deliberately manipulated the price of gasoline so that it would decrease before this fall's elections." Fifty-three percent of those surveyed did not believe the conspiracy theory; 5% said they had no opinion.
Yeah. And he’s behind 9-11, the Kennedy Assassination, the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa . . .
Wear a tinfoil hat and read more here.
No Safe Place: Another Example of the New Orthodoxy and Your Sin
A week ago, I gave you an example of how the new liberal orthodoxy considers traditional moral views sins against people’s identities and therefore intolerable.
Here’s an example that’s even more textbook. Note this paragraph:
Christians are now using Biblical texts to deny lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people their full dignity as people created by God who share equal dignity with heterosexuals. Prejudice led gay men to be incarcerated alongside the Jewish people in the Nazi extermination camps. Prejudice is now being used to justify an inferior status for LGBT people in the Anglican Church.
It’s all there – the politicization of morals along the lines of identity and oppressed status and the demonization of traditionalists and their moral views. For the traditionalists allegedly continue oppression against people’s identities.
Once this crowd gains control, as they have in many parts of mainline churches, do you think they will accommodate those they consider in the same class as Nazis?
A week ago, I gave you an example of how the new liberal orthodoxy considers traditional moral views sins against people’s identities and therefore intolerable.
Here’s an example that’s even more textbook. Note this paragraph:
Christians are now using Biblical texts to deny lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people their full dignity as people created by God who share equal dignity with heterosexuals. Prejudice led gay men to be incarcerated alongside the Jewish people in the Nazi extermination camps. Prejudice is now being used to justify an inferior status for LGBT people in the Anglican Church.
It’s all there – the politicization of morals along the lines of identity and oppressed status and the demonization of traditionalists and their moral views. For the traditionalists allegedly continue oppression against people’s identities.
Once this crowd gains control, as they have in many parts of mainline churches, do you think they will accommodate those they consider in the same class as Nazis?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)