Today, the Bishop, the Standing Committee, and the Deans are having a meeting of real importance. This is a matter of public record and I take the call to pray for such meetings very seriously.

Here is a list of current Standing Committee members (Jeff Miller is the chairman). The current deans are John Barr, John Scott, Ed Kelaher, Peet Dickinson, Craige Borrett, Chuck Owens and John Burwell. I am quite sure Jim Lewis, our new Canon to the Ordinary, will be there and, yes, I have been asked to be present.

You all know we are not gathering to have tea and crumpets. There is no way we as a diocese can function in the way we have before. How to move forward–together–in a truthful, loving and godly way is the issue. This is a considerable challenge, but we worship the God who is able to do far more abundantly than anything we can ask or imagine (Ephesians) and God has brought us together now for such a time as this (Esther).

It would mean a lot to me if you could pray by name for the people in this meeting–KSH.

Here is the subtext: “In other words, +Katharine and Bonnie, your way leads to a federation of autonomous churches. I want no part of that. What I lead is a community of churches in the Anglican tradition, and I am not about to let you hijack it. See those words ‘the possibility of a global consensus among the Anglican churches’? A global consensus, ‘such as would continue to make sense of the shape and content of most of our ecumenical activity’? That is what is driving me. It is spelled ‘C – o – v – e – n – a – n – t.'”

Dr. Williams uses the word “ecumenical” no less than eight times in his response. That is no accident. Remember that he had a “friendly meeting” with the Pope in May 2008, and that he arranged for a deliberately strong ecumenical delegation at Lambeth later that summer, including the Vatican’s Cardinal Dias, whom he invited to speak to the assembled bishops. He has his eye on the main ecumenical prize — a greater unity between Canterbury and Rome (not a complete reversal of the Reformation, but a full recognition of Anglican orders would be a good start). The path of ECUSA leads emphatically away from this prize. (The Church of England itself threatens to derail it as well, if it approves women as bishops; but remember that Dr. Williams weighed against the measure in Synod, reminding everyone about the “heavy and serious ecumenical cost” of going forward.)

He not only says that the path of ECUSA is contra-ecumenical; he suggests that bishops of ECUSA will no longer be appropriate representatives for the Communion in ongoing ecumenical talks….

Read it all.

Still, he foresees a future “not in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication, but plainly as what they are: “two styles of being Anglican” pursuing their mission “with greater integrity and consistency,” even as they work out issues.

[Susan] Russell was untroubled by this idea. Ever since the Revolutionary War, when the U.S church broke with the Church of England, “American Anglicans are used to re-inventing structures in order to proclaim the Gospel and move forward,” she said.

And Duncan said Communion divisions already “outpace Williams. The speed at which the Archbishop of Canterbury has dealt with the crisis in the Anglican Communion is something faster than glacial ”” but it’s not too much faster. We’ll see where the whole Communion goes, but we are far more interested in doing the mission of the church in society than occupying ourselves with what the old structures will do.”

Read it all.

The archbishop attended the convention for two days and specifically asked delegates not to approve either of the two measures.

Now he is suggesting in “Communion, Covenant and Our Anglican Future,” that the Anglican Communion might move to a two-tiered structure under which certain of its members, including the Episcopal Church, could not participate in certain ecumenical meetings or official gatherings.

And in a nod to breakaway groups such as the roughly 100,000 former Episcopalians who have joined the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), he wrote that if a province — such as the Episcopal Church, though he did not specify in that paragraph — decides not to adhere to Anglican mores, “any elements within it” can sign on instead, he wrote.

He also criticized the Episcopal Church’s decision to nullify the Anglican Communion’s ban on gay bishops.

“Their chosen lifestyle is not one that the Church’s teaching sanctions,” he wrote, “and thus it is hard to see how they can act in the necessarily representative role that the ordained ministry, especially the episcopate, requires.”

Read it all.

The adoption of resolutions D025 and C056 by the 76th General Convention speaks to an unhealthy degree of theological ignorance and ecclesiastical incoherence at work within the higher councils of The Episcopal Church [TEC], Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said in a statement released July 27.

While the adoption of resolutions on rites for the blessing of same-sex unions and the consecration of gay clergy to the episcopate have not created a de facto schism, they do signal TEC’s likely removal to the periphery of the life and witness of the Anglican Communion through the creation of a two-tier communion of covenanting and non-covenanting provinces, Archbishop Rowan Williams wrote.

A spokesman for the archbishop said the statement titled “Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future” had been released via the Lambeth Palace website as a “reflection” on the actions of the General Convention.

Read it all.

Williams’ article drew a mixed response in the U.S.

The Rev. Susan Russell, president of Integrity, the Episcopal gay advocacy group, said she was disappointed that Williams portrayed the U.S. moves toward inclusion for gays and lesbians as “solely a political or rights-based position” when the Episcopal Church has cited a theological basis. But she welcomed keeping the communion together in a way that would not classify branches as superior or inferior.

“What the archbishop is really stating is the reality: that the structures that have served the Anglican Communion historically need some work,” Russell said. “The 21st century is different than the 16th century.”

Canon Kendall Harmon, a traditionalist leader in the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, said while there are positives in Williams’ latest attempt to hold the Communion together, the Anglican leader left unanswered key questions about how a two-tiered system would function.

“It’s going to increase the chaos in the province of the American church, and in the Anglican Communion,” Harmon said.

Read it all.

Williams, spiritual leader of the communion, spoke of a “two-tier” or “two-track” model — one path for those who remain part of the communion’s “covenantal structure,” and another with “fewer formal expectations” for those who value autonomy.

“It helps to be clear about these possible futures, however much we think them less than ideal, and to speak about them not in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication but plainly as what they are — two styles of being Anglican, whose mutual relation will certainly need working out,” Williams wrote.

Tensions between the U.S. church and global Anglicans have mounted since the 2003 consecration of an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire. That led to the departure of dozens of churches and four dioceses, including one in Central California.

Read it all

Despite the warning, Episcopalians overwhelmingly voted to lift a de facto ban on consecrating other gay bishops and approved a broad local option for bishops who wish to allow gay and lesbian couples to receive nuptial blessings from the church.

Episcopal leaders later sought to cut off criticism with a letter to Williams that described the measures as simply “descriptive” of a church ministering to a culture with rapidly changing understandings of homosexuality.

Williams responded Monday with a nuanced, five-page reflection that gently chided Episcopalians for overturning centuries of Christian understanding of marriage and homosexuality without wider consensus from other Anglicans.

“The doctrine that `what affects the communion of all should be decided by all’ is a venerable principle,” Williams said.

Read it all.

Read it all.

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori on July 27 notified the standing committee of the Diocese of Northern Michigan that the necessary consents to the ordination and consecration of the Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester as bishop were not received within the prescribed time period and therefore his election was “null and void.”

Read it all.

As far as sexuality is concerned, it all came down to two major Resolutions, which are now being interpreted in a variety of ways, but which I believe signal a clear intention on the part of The Episcopal Church to move even more boldly than it has thus far in the areas of same-sex blessings and the ordination of non-celibate gay and lesbian persons….

Interestingly, the morning after the Bishops voted on D025 the headline on The Episcopal Life Daily was “Bishops approve opening ordination to gays.”

(The editor of the Daily was apparently called on the carpet for publishing that interpretation of D025, and that afternoon she appeared before the House of Bishops to offer her abject apology for doing so; and the headline the next day was a much-subdued “Convention passes Resolution D025.”)

“Integrity,” the gay and lesbian advocacy organization, released a statement at the end of Convention that said, “We came to this Convention committed to moving the Church beyond B033 [the 2006 Resolution] and forward on”¦the blessing of same-sex unions ”“ and we”¦have realized both of these goals.”

I want to say to you that I am deeply saddened that these two Resolutions have been passed, though I am not at all surprised.

But, please hear me clearly: neither of them will have any direct effect on the Diocese of Central Florida.

Read it all.

The Anglican Church may have to accept a “two track” communion in which believers can hold different opinions about gay clergy and same-sex unions, the Archbishop of Canterbury said Monday in a bid to keep the church unified.

Rowan Williams outlined his thoughts on the future of the deeply divided church on his Web site a few days after the U.S. Episcopalian church authorized bishops to bless same-sex unions and research an official prayer for the ceremonies.

The move dismayed more traditional members of the Anglican Church, and Williams, the church’s spiritual leader, is now trying to keep the communion unified.

He wrote that “a blessing for a same-sex union cannot have the authority of the Church Catholic, or even of the Communion as a whole,” but suggested there may have to be a “two-track” model where the church allowed different viewpoints on certain issues.

Read it all.

The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion of which it is a part (at least for now) bear all the marks of dictionary-defined tradition. The Church of England is the oldest Protestant denomination in the English-speaking world, ancestor and antagonist of Methodists, English Baptists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Quakers. The Episcopal establishment in Virginia and surrounding colonies was every bit as old and firmly rooted as the Congregational establishment in New England. From stately signs out front to elegant windows behind the priest, countless Episcopal churches exude nobility, with the overtones of high ideals and high status intended. And yet the church is embroiled in an ugly, messy, knock-down drag-out fight. As MacIntyre would have it, this, too, is a hallmark of tradition.

If that is the case, if a living tradition not only must weather arguments but in fact is a sprawling argument, then who needs tradition? Haven’t Americans, with their penchant for leaving behind Old World identities, denominational ties, and boring hometowns chosen the wiser course? Not so fast. MacIntyre posits that traditions provide context and meaning for human practices while also identifying goals””goods””toward which to strive. These are things worth thinking about, and worth arguing about. People who shrink the circle of their connections until it is scarcely larger than themselves still have to find satisfying answers to these questions, but they have to do it alone.

I find it very useful to think of churches, institutions, and traditions of all sorts as historically extended, socially embodied arguments. I like any interpretive lens that incorporates history, of course, and I also like the way this formula embraces real people and their often angular opinions. I am not a theologian or a philosopher, and my brain doesn’t process abstractions well. But I certainly notice a brawl, on the evening news or in the archives of the periodicals I study, and I’m driven to figure out who is arguing what, and why, and what they believe is at stake. Conflict makes institutions flex muscles they would otherwise lose to atrophy, and it forces individuals to articulate beliefs that can turn to mush beneath presumed consensus. The saying goes, “It’s all over but the shouting,” but as I observe history unfolding, the shouting proves that “it,” the living tradition, has a ways to go.

Read it all.

But the fact is that there is a large group of conservatives within TEC who:

— have recognized for some years now that the Instruments of Unity have failed and will not provide relief or establish any sort of common order ever
— wish to “engage in strategic, thoughtful action within TEC,” not to “reform TEC” but to work within various local contexts for numerous possible goals and outcomes
— have no interest in “patient and enduring witness” only without massive differentiation and strategic action
— wish to be differentiated from the national structures of TEC in a more significant and apparent and compelling and communicative way than simply affirming the three Windsor moratoria
— do not believe that an “Anglican Covenant” based on the corrupt Joint Standing Committee and zero spelled-out consequences will be at all effective in reigning in future chaos and division
— do not believe that the Instruments of Communion are “the effective means of ordering the common life of the Communion” — they are not effective and they do not order anything at all, much less “common life of the Communion”
— recognize that the current Archbishop of Canterbury will not do what he needs to do in order to solve the chaos and disorder that is in the Anglican Communion — this necessarily means that action must take place within TEC and among traditional Episcopalians to differentiate and “bring about desired future states” through other arenas and channels

Read it all.

The Archbishop of Canterbury today tried to paper over the cracks as he acknowledged the Anglican church is in schism in all but name.

Dr Rowan Williams called for a “two-track” communion where the church is divided on the issue of homosexuality.

He asked the arrangement be seen not in “apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication” but rather as “two styles of being Anglican”. Faith bloggers have labelled the opposing factions the “Anglicans” and “Anglican’ts”.

In his response to the decisions earlier this month by The Episcopal Church of the US to go ahead with gay consecrations and same-sex blessings, Dr Williams refuses to accept what many believe to be the reality of schism.

Read it all.

The thing that has troubled me most as I have reflected on the Episcopal Church’s General Convention is the number of bishops who voted against D025 (electing gay bishops), but who were deluded enough to vote for C056 (same-sex blessings).

Consider the two operative clauses that these bishops would have had to overlook or misconstrue to vote for C056:

Resolved, That the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consulation with the House of Bishops, collect and develop theological, and liturgical resources and design liturgies and report to the 77th General Convention; for further action”¦

Bishops should not have been fooled by the fact that the words “ and design liturgies” were struck from the final form of this resolution.

Even if only the word “collect” had been used, it would have been sufficient to allow for the development of liturgies for same sex unions, because you can’t collect something that does not exist. But as it is, it says “collect and develop theological and liturgical resources”. How much of their own money would these gullible bishops be willing to bet that these “liturgical resources” won’t actually include some rites that can be (or have been!!!) used to bless same sex unions?

Read it all.

7. In the light of the way in which the Church has consistently read the Bible for the last two thousand years, it is clear that a positive answer to this question would have to be based on the most painstaking biblical exegesis and on a wide acceptance of the results within the Communion, with due account taken of the teachings of ecumenical partners also. A major change naturally needs a strong level of consensus and solid theological grounding.

8. This is not our situation in the Communion. Thus a blessing for a same-sex union cannot have the authority of the Church Catholic, or even of the Communion as a whole. And if this is the case, a person living in such a union is in the same case as a heterosexual person living in a sexual relationship outside the marriage bond; whatever the human respect and pastoral sensitivity such persons must be given, their chosen lifestyle is not one that the Church’s teaching sanctions, and thus it is hard to see how they can act in the necessarily representative role that the ordained ministry, especially the episcopate, requires.

9. In other words, the question is not a simple one of human rights or human dignity. It is that a certain choice of lifestyle has certain consequences. So long as the Church Catholic, or even the Communion as a whole does not bless same-sex unions, a person living in such a union cannot without serious incongruity have a representative function in a Church whose public teaching is at odds with their lifestyle. (There is also an unavoidable difficulty over whether someone belonging to a local church in which practice has been changed in respect of same-sex unions is able to represent the Communion’s voice and perspective in, for example, international ecumenical encounters.)

Read it all.

I honestly cannot remember a time in my life in the Episcopal Church where I have read more mistakes in less time than in the last two to three weeks. Please do not believe everything you read and make sure to fact check and research material, a point we have stressed time and again on this blog.

A case in point is this recent piece by Diana Butler Bass. I enjoyed Dr. Bass’ Standing Against the Whirlwind : Evangelical Episcopalians in Nineteenth-Century America which was well written and researched (and is quite relevant to our present time by the way), and so was baffled to see such a poorly written piece by her on Beliefnet.

The relevant section of her article for our purposes reads this way:

The Anglican Church of North America, the umbrella group for conservative Episcopalians who have left their denomination over women’s ordination and full inclusion of gay and lesbian persons, has long claimed over 100,000 members. Recently, they admitted that only 69,000 persons in 650 churches in the USA and Canada have joined their association. There are 2.2 million Episcopalians in the United States and approximately 1 million in Canada. Thus, the conservative group–the one that has garnered so much media attention in recent years is a very small percentage of the entire North American Anglican membership–some 2% of the total. And with their rigid opposition to women’s ordination, it is hard to imagine that this group will find much appeal with young North Americans.

Now for the record, I am not in ACNA. Certainly her description of the reason for the departure of ACNA is not one ACNA would agree with just for starters. It is over issues of Christology, marriage, the authority and interpretation of Scripture, the nature of the church, and the standards of Christian leadership that this controversy is fundamentally about.

According to ACNA’s own website, ACNA still claims 100, 000 members. That claim has not changed. The reference to the 69,000 number is for Average Sunday attendance: according to the ACNA site ACNA claims “average Sunday attendance of 69,197 (as of spring 2009)” [and there is a even more about ACNA numbers here]. So follow along. Dr. Bass suggests the claim of membership in ACNA has changed. It hasn’t. Then she suggests ACNA is claiming a number for membership which ACNA is claiming for average Sunday attendance. This is elementary category confusion. As anyone in parish ministry knows membership and Sunday morning attendance are very different.

Having made all these errors, Dr. Bass then compares the wrong category of numbers for ACNA and TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada:

There are 2.2 million Episcopalians in the United States and approximately 1 million in Canada. Thus, the conservative group–the one that has garnered so much media attention in recent years is a very small percentage of the entire North American Anglican membership–some 2% of the total.

Do you see how she got the 2% figure? She took the roughly 69,000 figure, which is for Average Sunday attendance, and compared it to the membership figures for TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada. But this is comparing apples to oranges. The Episcopal Church has not been using average Sunday attendance figures for all that long, but you may know that whereas in the 2004 tables TEC claimed ASA of 833,672, by the 2009 tables that number is down to 768,476.

The 1 million number Dr. Bass gives for the Anglican Church of Canada membership is way off. One of the recent numbers I found was 641,845, but of course, this is again membership not Sunday morning attendance. I would honestly be surprised if average Sunday attendance in the Anglican Church of Canada is more than 200,000 actually (many of you know I lived and worshipped in Canada for two years), but let’s use 300,000 for our purposes.

Now, if you use these figures, and compare apples to apples, the ASA of ACNA is approximately 6.5% of the ASA of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada combined, more than three times the percentage total Dr. Bass gives.

You would think given the large number of errors that I would be finished. But no. She continues:

And with their rigid opposition to women’s ordination, it is hard to imagine that this group will find much appeal with young North Americans.

Well, this would come as news to my friend Mary Hays, an ordained woman quite involved in ACNA, to pick just one example. ACNA is trying to protect two perspectives on women’s ordination, as anyone in the movement itself could have told Dr. Bass if she had asked.

What an embarrassing effort Dr. Bass has given us in this article. I sincerely hope she will improve in the future–and please, do not believe everything you read–KSH.

Home in Chicago for the first time since his election to head the Orthodox Church in America, Metropolitan Archbishop Jonah reminded the faithful at Holy Trinity Orthodox Cathedral on Sunday that American converts like himself form the core of the denomination.

Elected in December to lead the main branch of Orthodox Christianity in the U.S., the Chicago native became primate under a banner of reform after his predecessor retired amid financial scandal last year.

The Orthodox Church in America is part of a constellation of churches separate from the Roman Catholic Church since the 11th Century.

In his sermon Sunday, the metropolitan called for humility, responsibility and sacrifice on the part of church leaders to invigorate the church’s mission and asked parishioners to pray that bishops could live up to those expectations.

Read it all

Do Episcopal parishes teach the basics?

When I finished seminary in 1987 I came out with youthful idealism, energy, and too much arrogance, among many other things. I also believed I needed to be unapologetic about teaching and preaching on the most basic questions.

For example, I taught for two years through the Book of Acts. What was the gospel they were proclaiming I wanted to know. What was their understanding of mission? Who did they think Jesus was? What did they believe about the church?

After three years in the parish where I served my curacy, I left the parish (and the country) to pursue a doctorate. This allowed me the luxury of reflecting on many things, including my three year curacy.

My deepest conclusion: I had failed to be basic enough. I had made too many assumptions. I had used too much Christian vocabulary without defining terms. The bottom line was my instinct was right but my implementation left a lot to be desired.

When I asked myself why, my sense was it was partly out of fear. It takes a lot of courage to ask someone to describe the exact nature of the God he or she believes in, to wrestle with the doctrine of Original Sin, to probe the mystery of the Atonement and the Cross, to delve into the depths of what heaven really is and is not like.

So consider this question: if we look at the parish of which we are a part, and its preaching and teaching, how are we doing in terms of asking and answering the most basic of questions? Are we daring to look at the roots of the roots?

Jesus talked about God and the nature of his kingdom. It is hard to get more basic than that. Can we do any less?

–The Rev. Dr. Kendall Harmon is Canon Theologian of the Diocese of South Carolina and convenor of this blog

I would welcome it if you would consider being a subscriber if you are not at present, and to inquire if your parish is providing copies to its members. In any case, check out the most recent issue here.

[LUCKY] SEVERSON: Dr. Weinberg says the decisions about the ethics of distributive justice for society as a whole are often much more difficult when the doctor is meeting with a patient one-on-one.

DR. [GLORIA] WEINBERG: The health care dollars, an inordinate amount, go to taking care of people in the last 6 months of their lives. But how do you know when those last 6 months are? You have a person who has worked all their life, paid taxes, done very well, and now they are 80, and they have a heart attack. That may be the person who lives 10 or 15 more years. Are we going to say no just because of age? That’s a very, very slippery slope.

SEVERSON: There is a huge ethical discussion about who should make these end-of-life decisions””the patient, the family, doctors, the government? Brian Keeley says some decisions are easier to make. For instance, Medicare should only reimburse for treatments and drugs that are known to work.

KEELEY: It ought to be evidence-based. If something is proven not to work, I don’t think the federal government ought to be paying for it. I don’t think anybody ought to be paying for it, except for the private patient.

SEVERSON: Dr. Weinberg says too many patients receive expensive treatments and surgery in their final years that very likely won’t prolong their life.

Read it all.

A headline in the Thursday, May 7 Post and Courier has been followed by at least three additional articles since then about the legalization of what the media calls ”˜gay marriage’. The article on May 7 began, ”˜In a banner day in New England for advocates of gay marriage, Maine legalized the practice Wednesday, and the New Hampshire Legislature voted to do the same”¦ (New Hampshire) would be the sixth state overall”¦ to allow gay marriage.’

Meanwhile, Carrie Prejean, the former Miss California, continues to make the news as the contestant who has spoken out opposed to gay marriage. And, the every-three-year General Convention of the Episcopal Church, convening in less than a month, may have something to say about this, too. Since this issue seems to be gathering more and more momentum and headlines, I sense the need as a priest of Christ’s Church to say something regarding this.

The news articles are making reference to these states that are declaring that a same-sex relationship””a union between two men or two women”” are of the same character, order and quality of what the Christian faith, other world faiths, and world cultures have recognized for millennia as reserved for the special relationship between one man and one woman that we call marriage or in the church, Holy Matrimony. (Attempts in some cultures to make it a relationship of more than one man and one woman (polygamy) has never achieved positive acceptance.)

I am moved to ask, ”˜How can this be?’ I am sympathetic for those who identify themselves as gay or lesbian seeking to have the rights and privileges due any person anytime. I also understand an individual’s desire to have the legal right to bequeath or empower another individual, any one he or she chooses, to be an advocate for that individual’s rights, or a recipient or a beneficiary for that person. Our own baptismal covenant which asks us to respect the dignity of every human being and the Biblical call to love are certainly all the warrant one needs in terms of all of our relationships to be rooted in fairness and concern for others.

Nevertheless it astonishes me that the institution of marriage is now being re-defined ostensibly for the sake of legal rights. If marriage is defined as anything, any relationship, then marriage is no longer marriage as it has been known through the ages. The procreative role in the union of a man and a woman, in itself, make this relationship unlike any other kind of possible union. Further, there is the unique complementarity of a man and woman that the Biblical narrative in Genesis speaks of so powerfully. Mankind is made in the image of God, and as male and female, they most ideally represent the full image of our Creator God.

It seems to me that it is like this: there are some inherent realities that simply are what they are by their nature and their very essence. For example, no matter how much I as a man want the ”˜right’ to become pregnant, it will not happen. It does not matter what I think about the idea or what a court says about the idea or what law is passed. I cannot bear a child, whether I like it or not. Is it possible that there are some fundamental realities, like the institution of marriage, that carry the same inherent givenness? This is where some of us may disagree, but I believe marriage bears this sort of weight and truth. It is what it is””no more and no less.

For Anglicans, whether it is the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, the 1928 Book of Common Prayer or the Prayer Book of 1662, the service has begun with these or similar words, ”˜”¦We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony. The service continues with the collect that reads, ”˜O gracious and everliving God, you have created us male and female in your image”¦’ Our liturgy gives clear expression to whom the sacrament of marriage is available.

It is equally clearly defined in the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. There is currently no wiggle room here for this particular innovation of same gender relationships! Canon 18, Section 2b: Of the Solemnization of Holy Matrimony””Before solemnizing a marriage the Member of the Clergy shall have ascertained: That both parties understand that Holy Matrimony is a physical and spiritual union of a man and a woman”¦with intent that it be lifelong.

I am grieved that this particular agenda is being pressed so fervently by the GLBT (Gay-Lesbian-Bi-sexual-Transgender) lobby. Rick Warren, the pastor of Saddleback Valley Community Church in Orange County, California, spoke in the fall of 2008 in opposition to California’s Proposition 8 which had as its goal to universalize the institution of marriage. Spoken with compassion and sensitivity but also with clarity, his words are worth noting. Here are some excerpts from his comments last fall:
”¢ There are about 2% of Americans who are homosexual or gay and lesbian people. We should not let 2% of the population change the definition of marriage”¦
”¢ This is not even just a Christian issue. It is a no to gays using the term marriage for their relationship”¦.
”¢ While I believe the gay view of sexuality is contrary to God’s Word, I do believe that God gives us free choice and he gives us a choice to obey his word or to disobey it”¦.
”¢ Some people feel today that if you disagree with them, then that’s hate speech. If you disagree with them you either hate them or you’re afraid of them. I’m neither afraid of gays nor do I hate gays. In fact I love gays but I do disagree with some of their beliefs.

May our politics, our courts, our legislatures be moved to see the wrong path that is being taken when it universalizes the marriage sacrament for any and all. May the Church, all denominations, even other faiths, speak with one voice affirming that marriage, by its definition, is to remain as a relationship establishing the union of one man and one woman. May we find a better way forward that protects an individual’s civil rights without using the institution of marriage as the means to those civil rights. May those of us who have this same conviction speak our convictions with clarity; yet continue to respect the dignity of every human being.

In Christ’s love,

–The Rev. Michael Lumpkin is rector, Saint Paul’s, Summerville, South Carolina

Read it all.

The recent General Convention of the Episcopal Church in Anaheim, CA, held few surprises. As we expected, actions taken by the bishops and representatives of the remaining Episcopal dioceses continue to support teaching and morality that is contrary to Christian Scriptures and practice. The convention’s actions place them further outside the norms and fellowship of the Anglican Communion. We had hoped The Episcopal Church would listen to other Anglicans, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, and turn back. They have not.

Even the claim of Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts-Schori that a focus on individual salvation through a relationship with Jesus was “heresy” is not surprising, considering her past statements suggesting there are many ways to salvation apart from Jesus Christ.

What most concerns us are our friends in local churches who decided to stay in the Episcopal Church after our diocese realigned last fall. We know many of them object to the actions taken by their General Convention. We are saddened that those who tried to stand against the tide are now pushed further to the fringes of their own church. Our hope is that all faithful Anglicans in central Illinois will feel welcome in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) which our diocese helped found, and move forward together with us in local and world mission in the ACNA.

We invite all in our communities to visit our churches, learn more about the Anglican Communion, and join us in bringing the world to Christ.

The Standing Committee
The Diocese of Quincy, Anglican Province of the Southern Cone/ACNA

A robot that can open doors and find electrical outlets to recharge itself. Computer viruses that no one can stop. Predator drones, which, though still controlled remotely by humans, come close to a machine that can kill autonomously.

Impressed and alarmed by advances in artificial intelligence, a group of computer scientists is debating whether there should be limits on research that might lead to loss of human control over computer-based systems that carry a growing share of society’s workload, from waging war to chatting with customers on the phone.

Their concern is that further advances could create profound social disruptions and even have dangerous consequences.

Read it all.

I read “Israel Is Real” while preparing for my son’s bar mitzvah. By “preparing,” I mean talking to tent people and mailing invites. On the spiritual side, I’ve done my usual shirk: ducking services, doodling during sessions with the rabbi and dodging queries about my own bar mitzvah of wretched memory, celebrated in a gloomy temple filled with old men waiting for me to blunder.

I mention this as preface because Rich Cohen’s book accomplished the miraculous. It made a subject that has vexed me since early childhood into a riveting story. Not by breaking new ground or advancing a bold peace plan, but by narrating the oft-told saga of the Jews in a fresh and engaging fashion.

Read it all.

Read it all.

I found him to be amazingly joy-filled on numerous occasions when we overlapped at Kanuga. Read it all.