In Congress, July 4, 1776.

The UNANIMOUS DECLARATION of the THIRTEEN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Worthy of much pondering I think–read it all.

O! say can you see by the dawn’s early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming.
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming.
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
”˜Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps’ pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: ”˜In God is our trust.’
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

–Francis Scott Key (1779-1843)

Americans can be dangerous. Sometimes, in the exercise of their rights and freedoms, they can get carried away and lose all perspective.

In politics, for instance, the freedom to speak out does not constrain people like retired Gen. Wesley Clark from trying to diminish the military record of Sen. John McCain.

The freedom to espouse one’s religion allows a legislator like Daryl Metcalfe of Cranberry to be uncharitable in remarks about members of a faith that is not his own. (Last month he opposed a House resolution commending a Muslim group because they “do not recognize Jesus Christ as God.”)

The right to vote in a safe and open election remains a dream for millions of people in places like Zimbabwe and Myanmar, but too many Americans ignore Election Day and indulge in the cynicism that candidates are all alike. Anybody want to replay Nov. 7, 2000?

All of this says something important on the Fourth of July — that how we exercise our rights reveals as much about us as Americans as the mere fact that we have them. It also says, on this most patriotic of days, that there is more to consider than freedom and liberty.

Read it all.

“In Philadelphia, the same day as the British landing on Staten Island, July 2, 1776, the Continental Congress, in a momentous decision, voted to ‘dissolve the connection’ with Great Britain. The news reached New York four days later, on July 6, and at once spontaneous celebrations broke out. ‘The whole choir of our officers … went to a public house to testify our joy at the happy news of Independence. We spent the afternoon merrily,’ recorded Isaac Bangs.”

“A letter from John Hancock to Washington, as well as the complete text of the Declaration, followed two days later:

“‘That our affairs may take a more favorable turn,’ Hancock wrote, ‘the Congress have judged it necessary to dissolve the connection between Great Britain and the American colonies, and to declare them free and independent states; as you will perceive by the enclosed Declaration, which I am directed to transmit to you, and to request you will have it proclaimed at the head of the army in the way you shall think most proper.’ “Many, like Henry Knox, saw at once that with the enemy massing for battle so close at hand and independence at last declared by Congress, the war had entered an entirely new stage. The lines were drawn now as never before, the stakes far higher. ‘The eyes of all America are upon us,’ Knox wrote. ‘As we play our part posterity will bless or curse us.’

“By renouncing their allegiance to the King, the delegates at Philadelphia had committed treason and embarked on a course from which there could be no turning back.

“‘We are in the very midst of a revolution,’ wrote John Adams, ‘the most complete, unexpected and remarkable of any in the history of nations.’

“In a ringing preamble, drafted by Thomas Jefferson, the document declared it ‘self-evident’ that ‘all men are created equal,’ and were endowed with the ‘unalienable’ rights of ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ And to this noble end the delegates had pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.

“Such courage and high ideals were of little consequence, of course, the Declaration itself being no more than a declaration without military success against the most formidable force on Earth. John Dickinson of Pennsylvania, an eminent member of Congress who opposed the Declaration, had called it a ‘skiff made of paper.’ And as Nathanael Greene had warned, there were never any certainties about the fate of war.

“But from this point on, the citizen-soldiers of Washington’s army were no longer to be fighting only for the defense of their country, or for their rightful liberties as freeborn Englishmen, as they had at Lexington and Concord, Bunker Hill and through the long siege at Boston. It was now a proudly proclaimed, all-out war for an independent America, a new America, and thus a new day of freedom and equality.”

–David McCullough, 1776

“The First Amendment really does distinguish the U.S., not just from Canada but from the rest of the Western world,” says writer Mark Steyn, who’s learning it the hard way. Mr. Steyn and Maclean’s, the top-selling Canadian magazine, have faced human rights charges in British Columbia. Their alleged offense? Maclean’s published a Steyn essay critical of Islam, which prompted Muslim activists to file formal charges accusing the writer and the magazine of violating Canada’s hate-speech laws.

Last Friday, the national Human Rights Commission dismissed the charges, but they’re still pending in front of a provincial panel. The victory is less than what it appears. For one thing, defending against the charges cost the magazine hundreds of thousands of dollars. For another, it is frightening to think that a human rights panel has the right to decide what can and cannot be published in a free country.

Read the whole thing.

By almost any barometer, the United States remains the most fortunate country in the world. We continue to be the primary destination of immigrants, who risk their lives to have a chance at what we take for granted. Few in contrast are flocking to China, Russia, or India. The catalyst for immigration is primarily a phenomenon of word of mouth, of comparative talking among friends and families about the reality of modern-day living, not of scholarly perusal of social or economic statistics.

When one compares any yardstick of material wealth ”” the number of cars, the square footage of living space, the number of consumer appurtenances ”” Americans are the wealthiest people in the history of civilization. Why so? Others have more iron ore, as much farmland, greater populations, and far more oil reserves. But uniquely in America there remains a system of merit, under which we prosper or fail to a greater extent on the basis of talent, not tribal affiliations, petty bribes, or institutionalized insider help. More importantly still, we are impressed by those who advance rather than envious of their success. The lobster-barrel mentality is a human trait, but in the United States uniquely there is a culture of emulation rather than of resentment, which explains why neither Marxism nor aristocratic pretension ever became fully entrenched in America.

Our system of government remains the most stable and free. Consider the constitutional crises in Europe where national plebiscites continue to reject the European constitution that grows increasingly anti-democratic in order to force its vision of heaven-on-earth on its citizenry. There is no need to mention the politics of China, India, and Russia whose increasing affluence ensures a rendezvous with unionism, class concerns, suburban blues, minority rights, environmentalism ”” all long known and dealt with by the United States. Elsewhere the remedy for tribal and sectarian chaos in Africa or the Middle East is usually authoritarianism.

The current challenge of America is not starvation or loss of political rights ”” we have been far poorer and more unfree in our past, but the complacence that comes with continued success, to such a degree that we think of our bounty as a birthright rather than a rare gift that must be hourly maintained through commitment to the values that made us initially successful: high productivity, risk-taking, transparency, small government, personal freedom, concern for the public welfare, and a certain tragic rather than therapeutic view of the human experience.

In that regard, most of our present pathologies are self-created.

Read it all.

The Fourth of July is a day to celebrate the courage of the Founders and remind ourselves that Americans can continue to make a difference and put the country back on the right track — as they have done so many times before. They freed the slaves, gave women the vote and spread economic opportunity and liberty at home and abroad.

As French Prime Minister Nicolas Sarkozy told a joint session of Congress last year about U.S. soldiers in World War II: “The children of my generation understood that those young Americans, 20 years old, were true heroes to whom they owed the fact that they were free people and not slaves. France will never forget the sacrifice of your children.”

America will continue to have its problems. It does not have a monopoly on wisdom. But its 232-year track record remains an enviable one that gives hope for the future and is worth celebrating.

Read it all.

Let us hear your thoughts.

It is a good day to reflect on America–her history and founding, her calling and responsibility, her past and her future. Therefore I will keep the posts today exclusively on the Independence Day/America theme. This will help us not to fall into all Anglican all the time myopia–KSH.

The Declaration’s most famous, and uplifting, passage: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

That straightforward sentence’s timeless appeal remains, to borrow from it, self-evident. But Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration (with editing help from Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Roger Sherman and Robert Livingston), didn’t stop there.

While pointing out “that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes,” they affirmed that “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Thus, the Declaration’s signers ended their “patient sufferance” by daring to reject the British crown’s “absolute Tyranny over these States.”

Those were, and are, extraordinarily powerful words. Yet the Declaration of Independence was much more than a profound and well-written argument. It was a daring action fraught with grave peril for its 56 signatories.

Read the whole thing.

Raymond Matthews of Goose Creek and Erik Sheldon of Summerville don’t just fly the flag on the Fourth of July.

They fly it every day.

And with good reason. Their patriotism runs deep.

The soldiers, who fought in two different wars, know what sacrifices the country has made to guarantee everyone’s right to fly the flag, carry a gun or speak freely.

Matthews, 84, took part in the 1944 D-Day invasion of Normandy as an underwater explosives expert with the Navy.

Sheldon, 22, returned in June from America’s fight against terrorists in Afghanistan, where the Army National Guardsman protected American troops who were training Afghan police officers.

Generations apart, and experienced in different methods of combat, they share the experience of war that most Americans will never witness and the fight to guarantee freedoms most Americans take for granted.

Read it all from the front page of today’s Charleston, South Carolina, Post and Courier.

Watch it all.

My father was a quiet man who said little about the war. He did relate that once he lay all night in the snow, pinned down by machinegun fire. Another time, he told of going for medical attention and then returning to find that some of his friends had been killed. Of the photos he gave me, one is my favorite: My father is smiling as he exits a war zone poultry shed with an egg in his hand.

As the film saga of Private Ryan progressed, I thought about what war does to some of its participants. My father was nervous and negative about life, and I’ve wondered if he would have been that way despite the war. My uncle, his younger brother, says he “Wasn’t like that before he went overseas.”

My mother, now deceased, said the same. Growing up, I felt that he was distant, and I was often unsure of our relationship.

Read it all.

These days I see America identified more and more with material things, less and less with spiritual standards. These days I see America acting abroad as an arrogant, selfish, greedy nation interested only in guns and dollars, not in people and their hopes and aspirations. We need a faith that dedicates us to something bigger and more important than ourselves or our possessions. Only if we have that faith will we be able to guide the destiny of nations in this the most critical period of world history.

–William O. Douglas (1898-1980)

Long, too long America,
Traveling roads all even and peaceful you learn’d from joys and
prosperity only,
But now, ah now, to learn from crises of anguish, advancing,
grappling with direst fate and recoiling not,
And now to conceive and show to the world what your children
en-masse really are,
(For who except myself has yet conceiv’d what your children en-masse
really are?)

–Walt Whitman (1819-1892)

What was the Founders’ attitude toward religion in the country?

Public virtue was seen as necessary for a republic, and most believed that virtue was produced by religion. There was a strong view that religion was necessary to turn out good citizens.

Many of the Founders were well versed in religious and theological matters. How did this affect their work as architects of the republic?

They could quote Scripture. Jefferson and others were tutored by ministers. They were an extremely biblically literate generation. This certainly shaped their view of Providence. The extent to which they believed in Providence would be unimaginable today.

Adams and folks like that continually quoted [Jesus’] statement that a swallow cannot fall without God’s knowledge. Washington talks about the invisible hand of Providence. Their biblical knowledge convinced these people that there was an invisible hand of God, and that there was a moral government of the universe.

Read it all.

“Today we stand on an awful arena, where character which was the growth of centuries was tested and determined by the issues of a single day. We are compassed about by a cloud of witnesses; not alone the shadowy ranks of those who wrestled here, but the greater parties of the action–they for whom these things were done. Forms of thought rise before us, as in an amphitheatre, circle beyond circle, rank above rank; The State, The Union, The People. And these are One. Let us–from the arena, contemplate them–the spiritual spectators.

“There is an aspect in which the question at issue might seem to be of forms, and not of substance. It was, on its face, a question of government. There was a boastful pretence that each State held in its hands the death-warrant of the Nation; that any State had a right, without show of justification outside of its own caprice, to violate the covenants of the constitution, to break away from the Union, and set up its own little sovereignty as sufficient for all human purposes and ends; thus leaving it to the mere will or whim of any member of our political system to destroy the body and dissolve the soul of the Great People. This was the political question submitted to the arbitrament of arms. But the victory was of great politics over small. It was the right reason, the moral consciousness and solemn resolve of the people rectifying its wavering exterior lines according to the life-lines of its organic being.

“There is a phrase abroad which obscures the legal and moral questions involved in the issue,–indeed, which falsifies history: “The War between the States”. There are here no States outside of the Union. Resolving themselves out of it does not release them. Even were they successful in intrenching themselves in this attitude, they would only relapse into territories of the United States. Indeed several of the States so resolving were never in their own right either States or Colonies; but their territories were purchased by the common treasury of the Union. Underneath this phrase and title,–“The War between the States”–lies the false assumption that our Union is but a compact of States. Were it so, neither party to it could renounce it at his own mere will or caprice. Even on this theory the States remaining true to the terms of their treaty, and loyal to its intent, would have the right to resist force by force, to take up the gage of battle thrown down by the rebellious States, and compel them to return to their duty and their allegiance. The Law of Nations would have accorded the loyal States this right and remedy.

“But this was not our theory, nor our justification. The flag we bore into the field was not that of particular States, no matter how many nor how loyal, arrayed against other States. It was the flag of the Union, the flag of the people, vindicating the right and charged with the duty of preventing any factions, no matter how many nor under what pretence, from breaking up this common Country.

“It was the country of the South as well as of the North. The men who sought to dismember it, belonged to it. Its was a larger life, aloof from the dominance of self-surroundings; but in it their truest interests were interwoven. They suffered themselves to be drawn down from the spiritual ideal by influences of the physical world. There is in man that peril of the double nature. “But I see another law”, says St. Paul. “I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind.”

–Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain (1828-1914)

Lord God Almighty, in whose Name the founders of this country won liberty for themselves and for us, and lit the torch of freedom for nations then unborn: Grant, we beseech thee, that we and all the peoples of this land may have grace to maintain these liberties in righteousness and peace; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

Read it all.

Now to the GAFCON Communiqué: Most of it I can wholeheartedly support though I hardly have space in this ENewsletter to discuss it at length. Briefly let me say that The Jerusalem Declaration (the fourteen points in the document) affirms much of what I understand as basic Christianity as Anglicans have received it. As for the call for a North American Province to align the various judicatories of the Episcopalian diaspora, it is a noble and necessary endeavor, though it does not address any particular need that we in South Carolina have. That is, I rejoice that these brothers and sisters who have long looked for validation as “continuing” Anglicans are now recognized by important Provinces on the world stage when Canterbury, for various reasons, has been unable to do so. This recognition I can support even while I am grateful that we here in the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina remain in full communion with Canterbury, that most historic and prominent See of Anglicanism. In fact this next week at the invitation of Archbishop, Rowan Williams, I travel to England””first to Exeter for what is termed the “Hospitality Week”. It is especially fitting to be assigned there. You may remember that the Diocese of Exeter at its Synod stood in solidarity with us when the first consent process for my election was ruled null and void. Along with this the Dean of Exeter was in Charleston this past January and February, serving as cantor at the evensong service the night before my consecration and as part of the procession at the joyous event the next day. From Exeter Allison and I will go to Canterbury for the Lambeth Conference from July 16th””August 3rd.

I am participating in both GAFCON and Lambeth because I believe it will take both the outside and the inside tack to move the Anglican Communion towards its God-given purpose and mission in the 21st Century. I think it is fair to say that without the likes of both George Whitefield and Joseph Butler pushing their wares in a prior century Anglicanism would not only be pastorally the weaker, but ecclesiologically the smaller. Or to use another historical allusion, without The Confession of Augsburg there would have been no Council of Trent. Institutions do not usually correct or readily adapt their structures or missions without a great deal of leverage, and GAFCON””regardless of whatever else it is””is clearly leverage.

Read it all.

2) The meeting, set last week in Jerusalem, was a great outpouring of Anglican love and traditional teaching. Check out the “Jerusalem Document” on the CANA website or the ADV website. It is a concise document which spells out what you and I have always believed but was yanked away from us by radical professors and church leaders: Primacy of Scripture; Jesus as Incarnate and the only way to salvation; the Creeds said without crossing our fingers at certain phrases; regular use of the BCP & Ordinal (Apostolic Succession); holy living including financial and earth stewardship, reaching out with the Gospel message, and sexual behavior that honors God.

3) There were actually over 1,200 participants, including just over 300 bishops. Interestingly enough, the bishops from North America included CANA, Uganda, Kenya, Southern Cone, Rwanda, Reformed Episcopal Church, Anglican Province in America, some bishops of Continuing Anglican groups from USA and Canada, and sitting bishops of TEC (Love, McPherson, Beckwith, Ackerman, Iker, Jim Adams, Schofield, Lawrence, Scriven.) All were excited to be there and supportive of the Document.

Read it all.

But GAFCON is no limp compromise. The declaration rejected bishops and churches that proclaim a “false gospel” in which “all religions offer equal access to God” and “a variety of sexual preferences and immoral behavior” are treated as human rights. Because existing “instruments” that unite and lead Anglicanism have failed, GAFCON stated, the crisis requires “realignment.”

The new movement will be led by a council of the primates (bishops) who head conservative Anglican provinces, starting with Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda, West Africa, southernmost South America, and probably Tanzania, with hopes to enlist other nations. Australia’s large Sydney diocese is solidly on board. Right after GAFCON, nearly 800 Church of England clergy and laity met in London to discuss joining the movement, which is backed by England’s prominent, Pakistan-born Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali.

Dramatically ignoring Anglican tradition against overlapping jurisdictions, GAFCON hierarchs will jointly establish a new North American province to rally some 300 dissenting congregations that recently quit The Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada, plus hundreds more from earlier breakaways. These fellowships will include those who both allow and forbid women clergy.

The spiritual leader of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, personifies what GAFCON considers an outdated “colonial structure.” GAFCON acknowledged Canterbury as “an historic see” but added, “We do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury.”

Read it all.

So far, the help and order needed in this matter is coming from the southern hemisphere. Ironically, the very churches established by colonial Anglican missionaries have provided clarity and leadership. They understand that our present structures are unable to cope and that taking rose-coloured glasses to have tea with the Archbishop of Canterbury will not help either. Those who have stepped forward are primates, senior leaders of our denomination, with huge responsibilities in their own churches. They don’t need to do it, but they are prepared to do it for Western Christians who have lost the plot.

I can understand some in Australia will say, what has this to do with me? That has never been the way of the Anglican communion. We rejoice with those who rejoice, mourn with those who mourn and seek to restore those who have strayed. Our “broad” church should never encompass those who deny basic Christian teaching. I don’t expect any Australian church-goer to notice changes here because of Gafcon. These events are being played out on the world stage. But we too have our part to play in this Anglican renewal and the first step is to recognise the crisis and that Gafcon is part of the solution. The past two weeks have been among the most spiritually invigorating of my life. I have seen great generosity of spirit.

Americans, from a proud nation with a proud history, have been willing to genuinely reach out to their African, Asian and South American brothers and sisters and say: “Help.” No hint of paternalistic or racist attitudes. The “Church of England” has come full circle.

Read it all.

As the worldwide Anglican Communion prepares to meet at Canterbury, England, July 16-Aug. 3, the church finds itself in a terrible crisis on many sides. The Lambeth Conference, a once-a-decade gathering of bishops from the 38 provinces of the worldwide Anglican Communion, will meet behind closed doors this time to see if they can heal and mend the tattered fabric of their frayed unity. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the spiritual head of the Anglican Communion, has drawn up the guest list and guided the design for the meeting. He intentionally left off the guest list two Episcopal bishops from the United States, the bishop of New Hampshire, V. Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, now formally married to his male partner. Also off the list is Bishop Martyn Minns, an American Episcopal priest who was consecrated a bishop in the Church of Nigeria. They ordained him bishop without the permission of the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori, to minister to conservative Episcopalians who are threatening to leave the national church.

Read it all.