Moore on Tares. Jackson Moore, of North Carolina (if I remember correctly) writes in response to the question of the tares:

Are we to submit to the tares or flee them? Does the answer not depend upon whether the Episcopal Church is the only valid expression of Christianity in the United States?

In the ongoing dialogue between Dr. Ephraim Radner and Bishop FitzSimons Allison, Dr. Radner stated that unity required that clergy and laity remain within the Episcopal Church "as far as possible." Dr. Radner suggests that Holy Scripture requires this unity.

But is this the case?

As Christians we are not accountable to the sect known as the Episcopal Church, but to the Church universal, the head of which is Jesus Christ. (Eph. 5:23-26; Col. 1:18-24). When men fall into apostasy, Christians are commanded to humbly rebuke and urge repentance. (Matt. 18:15-17). If there is repentance Christians win them back in Jesus’ name. If there is no repentance, Christians must remove themselves from the sin, lest the sin poison the whole body. (Matt. 5:29-30; 18:6-11; Mark 9:42-48).

Much of the Anglican Communion has rebuked the leadership of the Episcopal Church and has urged repentance. However, unless as a body it repents and returns to the Lord, the Episcopal Church will be cut off from the Anglican Communion. It has already been separated from much of the rest of Christendom.

Consistent with these Biblical mandates, fleeing apostasy, and not submission to it, is well-recognized in Christian tradition. St. Paul warned Christians not to remain yoked with non-believers. (1 Cor. 10:21-22; 2 Cor. 6:14-18). He urged the people of God to flee from idolatry. (1 Cor. 10:14; 1 Tim. 6:11). In Matthew Jesus is recorded as warning the apostles to flee to another town when faced with persecution. (Matt. 10:23). St. Cyprian warned his colleagues that failing to break communion with an apostate bishop could make other bishops share in his sin. Cyprian also urged the laity to flee the ministry of an apostate bishop, should the bishop refuse to relinquish his office. And the first Council of Constantinople held:

They who separate themselves from communion with their bishop on account of any heresy condemned by the Holy Synods of the Fathers, while he evidently proclaims the heresy publicly, and teaches it with brave front in Church - such persons, in excluding themselves from communion with their so-called bishop before Synodical cognizance, not only shall not be subject to canonical censure, but shall be deemed worthy, by the Orthodox, of becoming honor; for they condemn as teachers, not bishops but pseudo-bishops; and they do not cut up the unity of the Church by schism, but hasten to deliver her from schisms and divisions.

Dr. Radner’s arguments do not seem to square with these principles. Staying and protesting does not remove the manifest sin from the Body.

I do agree with Dr. Radner when he states that “[o]ur souls are at stake in the way that we decide how to act in the face of, in this case, ECUSA’s rampant apostasy.” Many of us with young families are faced with a stark choice that transcends the academic nature of the debate between Dr. Radner and Dr. Alison: will we serve the Lord, or the gods of our forefathers? (Joshua 24:14-15).

We can follow Dr. Radner’s “stay and protest” strategy and remain within “ECUSA’s rampant apostasy,” as he describes it, or we can search for a Biblically sound, preferably Anglican alternative. For some, choosing Dr. Radner’s path results in the sacrifice of the Gospel for the sake of unity. And many of us lifelong Episcopalians who worry about raising our children in a Christian home will not, and should not, worship the Episcopal denomination, the “god of our forefathers”, simply to tolerate what is now an unholy and un-Christian unity.

Rather, we will follow the Lord where He leads us, even if it is outside of the Episcopal Church and to the AMiA, or to a continuing Anglican body, or to some non-Anglican expression of Christianity that actually comports with the Bible.

Programing. Busy at work, meaning overtime, busy at home. Blogging gets squeezed for awhile.

I am. . .


You are Pig Pen!


Which Peanuts Character are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

Die Frau, Die! From the LA Time's corrections:

Feb. 25, 2004:

Opera review -- A review of Los Angeles Opera's "Die Frau Ohne Schatten" in Tuesday's Calendar section incorrectly characterized the work as "anti-abortion." In fact, there is no issue of abortion in the opera, which extols procreation.

Feb. 26, 2004:

Opera review -- A correction in Wednesday's paper about the review of Los Angeles Opera's "Die Frau Ohne Schatten" incorrectly implied that it was the reviewer who characterized the work as "anti-abortion" in Tuesday's Calendar. As the correction should have made clear, the lead paragraph submitted by the reviewer was incorrectly changed to include the term "anti-abortion." There is no issue of abortion in the opera, which extols procreation.

(via Romenesko )

Stone Mel Gibson!

People are scared in this country [the US]; to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful - very powerful. Well, so what? For goodness sake, this is God's world! We live in a moral universe. The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust.

I can't believe Mel Gibson would say such a thing--

--oh, he didn't?

Who did?

Desmond Tutu?!?!?

Don't toss the paper! There's a full page advertisement in yesterday's USA Today for the upcoming Narnia movie, The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe.

Here's a link to an image of the advertisement.

(thanks to nephew Brian for the tip!)

D-I-V-O-R-C-E, Pt. 2, prelude 2. I said I'd finish writing about divorce and will get a round tuit someday. In the meantime, there's this from Jack Miles in the LA Times:

Were Jesus to return to Earth, he might be excused for guessing that the Defense of Marriage Act that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996 had something to do with the prohibition of divorce. Back in Galilee, Jesus had been fierce in his condemnation of divorce. "What God has joined together," he said, "let no man put asunder" (Mark 10:9). And he allowed for no exceptions to his rule. A man could divorce his wife if she committed adultery, but he could not remarry without committing adultery himself; nor could his ex-wife remarry without repeating her sin.

His disciples objected: "If that's the way it is, then it's better not to marry at all" (Matthew 19:10). But Jesus would not back down. He grounded his opposition not in law (what God said on Mt. Sinai) but in nature (what God did when he created the human race male and female). Thus, even though the Law of Moses permitted divorce, Jesus, arguing in a very Jewish way, trumped Exodus with Genesis to forbid it absolutely. He quoted Genesis 2:24: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh." In effect, he maintained that a man who divorced his wife after becoming "one flesh" with her would be committing an unnatural as well as an immoral act if he married another woman.

There's more and you can read it here. I don't agree with the spin he put on these things, especially reasoning from "silence" (I put this in scare quotes, because I do believe that Jesus was not as silent on the nature of marriage as Miles believes; see the Genesis verse Miles quotes), it's still an essay worth reading.

Wall? We hear a lot of the "Wall" imagery when it comes to church state issues. I've noted before, the metaphor originates from a Baptist minister who saw a wall necessary to protect the garden of the Church from the thorns of the state. The imagery was appropriated by the politician Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. The metaphor when dormant for a time and then reappeared in Reynolds v. United States (1879), the case that upheld a criminal conviction of polygamy. Justice Robert Jackson argued the Supremes "are likely to make the legal 'wall of separation between church and state' as winding as the famous serpentine wall designed by Mr. Jefferson for the University he founded."

Lately, see the Locke decision last week and yesterday's decision by the California supremes requiring the Catholic Church to provide contraceptives to its employees, I think we need a new wall image. It's not protection from thorns, nor is it serpentine, it's becoming a lot more like that wall in E.A.Poe's The Cask of Amontillado

For a good notes on the California decision, see Peter Sean Bradley.

Uproarious Laughter! Douglas LeBlanc proposes a new and improved form letter for the Presiding Bishop (to replace the one he's using).

In these days of shrinking church budgets, such an offering should be most welcome to the PB.

By just changing the closing, the revisionist diocesan bishops can use this as well.

----

N.B. (well, maybe not "n.b." -- this isn't something that requires "special attention"). If you told me that I'd ever have to learn to spell "diocesan," I'd have laughed and told you I would need to know the "Euler-Mascheroni constant" first.

Augustine on the Wheat and the Weeds. Yes, I should've published last night, and revised today. Based on my quick dip into Augustine, I was right that he does write of this passage, in fact, it seems pretty important to him. Yet, I was wrong in that Augustine applied it to the world at large -- in fact he applies it to the Church. See Book XX, Ch. 9 of The City of God, in particular. A long quote, but not the whole chapter, in which he does explore the wheat and the tares further:

As to the words following, "And if any have not worshipped the beast nor his image, nor have received his inscription on their forehead, or on their hand," we must take them of both the living and the dead. And what this beast is, though it requires a more careful investigation, yet it is not inconsistent with the true faith to understand it of the ungodly city itself, and the community of unbelievers set in opposition to the faithful people and the city of God. "His image" seems to me to mean his simulation, to wit, in those men who profess to believe, but live as unbelievers. For they pretend to be what they are not, and are called Christians, not from a true likeness but from a deceitful image. For to this beast belong not only the avowed enemies of the name of Christ and His most glorious city, but also the tares which are to be gathered out of His kingdom, the Church, in the end of the world. And who are they who do not worship the beast and his image, if not those who do what the apostle says, "Be not yoked with unbelievers?"(3) For such do not worship, i.e., do not consent, are not subjected; neither do they receive the inscription, the brand of crime, on their forehead by their profession, on their hand by their practice. They, then, who are free from these pollutions, whether they still live in this mortal flesh, or are dead, reign with Christ even now, through this whole interval which is indicated by the thousand years, in a fashion suited to this time.

Moreover, it seems that he has drawn on this passage for a great number of sermons and essays (or letters). For example in Letter 76 (A.D. 402) from Augustine to the Donatists, he writes in Section 2:

Your imagination that you are separating yourselves, before the time of the harvest, from the tares which are mixed with the wheat, proves that you are only tares. For if you were wheat, you would bear with the tares, and not separate yourselves from that which is growing in Christ's field. Of the tares, indeed, it has been said, "Because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold;" but of the wheat it is said, "He that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." What grounds have you for believing that the tares have increased and filled the world, and that the wheat has decreased, and is found now in Africa alone? You claim to be Christians, and you disclaim the authority of Christ. He said, "Let both grow together till the harvest;" He said not, "Let the wheat decrease, and let the tares multiply." He said, "The field is the world;" He said not, "The field is Africa." He said, "The harvest is the end of the world;" He said not, "The harvest is the time of Donatus." He said, "The reapers are the angels;" He said not, "The reapers are the captains of the Circumcelliones." But you, by charging the good wheat with being tares, have proved yourselves to be tares; and what is worse, you have prematurely separated yourselves from the wheat. For some of your predecessors, in whose impious schism you obstinately remain, delivered up to persecutors the sacred manuscripts and the vessels of the Church (as may be seen in municipal records); others of them passed over the fault which these men confessed, and remained in communion with them; and both parties having come together to Carthage as an infatuated faction, condemned others without a hearing, on the charge of that fault which they had agreed, so far as they themselves were concerned, to forgive, and then set up a bishop against the ordained bishop, and erected an altar against the altar already recognised. Afterwards they sent to the Emperor Constantine a letter begging that bishops of churches beyond the sea should be appointed to arbitrate between the bishops of Africa. When the judges whom they sought were granted, and at Rome had given their decision, they refused to submit to it, and complained to the Emperor or against the bishops as having judged unrighteously. From the sentence of another bench of bishops sent to Arles to try the case, they appealed to the Emperor himself. When he had heard them, and they had been proved guilty of calumny, they still persisted in their wickedness. Awake to the interest of your salvation! Love peace, and return to unity! Whenever you desire it, we are ready to recite in detail the events to which we have referred.

More pointedly, in his lectures on the Gospel of John, Augustine notes something he omitted in a prior lecture:

...but what I perhaps omitted to mention there, the Lord, by His own perturbation of spirit, thought proper to indicate this also, that it is necessary to bear with false brethren, and those tares that are among the wheat in the Lord's field until harvest-time, because that when we are compelled by urgent reasons to separate some of them even before the harvest, it cannot be done without disturbance to the Church. Such disturbance to His saints in the future, through schismatics and heretics, the Lord in a way foretold and prefigured in Himself, when, at the moment of that wicked man Judas' departure, and of his thereby bringing to an end, in a very open and decided way, his past intermingling with the wheat, in which he had long been tolerated, He was troubled, not in body, but in spirit. For it is not spitefulness, but charity, that troubles His spiritual members in scandals of this kind; test perchance, in separating some of the tares, any of the wheat should also be uprooted therewith.

I need to make clear, that these passages aren't troubling to me because they're from Augustine, whom I freely admit I rever. It's because he argues from Scripture, which is the authority left for the Church, that causes me to ponder these issues.

More

Please don't miss these additional comments by The Rev. Frederic D. Huntington.

Yokes, Wheat and the Church. Today, in our Sunday school class, Rev. Richard Crocker posed an interesting question, that I am still pondering. He directed us to the passage in 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 which begins, "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?" He next directed us to the parable of what is normally called the wheat and the tares (or "The Parable of the Weeds" NIV), Matthew 13:24-30, which Jesus explained just a few verses down at 13:36-43. Here is the heart of the explanation

He answered, "The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.
"As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. "

At issue then, is which of these two passages do we follow? Are we to shun those who are clearly apostate? Should we flee idolatry? Or do we remain in an apostate church, waiting for God's judgment in the end?

Rev. Crocker asked some more probing questions. Does the 2nd Cor. passage really apply to a denomination? Someone pointed out that our local fellowship has remained faithful and has taken steps to segregate from the apostasy. He also asked whether the parable of the weeds applies to the world broadly or the Church. I said that I seemed to recall St. Augustine basing City of God on this parable and that Augustine seemed to interpret it as the world broadly.*

My first tentative thought is that the two passages can be reconciled, the parable applies to the world broadly. We are to be in the world, not of it, and therefore cannot separate ourselves from the world (nor should we). On the other hand, the Church is called to purity and should not be involved in apostasy. Those who want to pursue apostasy should be confronted and separated.

But Rev. Crocker pointed out that in the parable Jesus does refer to the field as "the world" initially, yet at the end he indicates this applies to his kingdom.

Moreover, it is the angels who will do the weeding, not us.

This is all well to think of. Maybe I should refer it to the Department of Theology at University of Blogistan (where the faculty doesn't seem at all fearful of "publish or perish.")

Also, if you go with the notion that it's better to hang together, even if you're hanging with the wrong crowd, then. . .

Well, maybe it's like my initial reaction to Peter Lee's claim that schism was a more terrible sin than apostasy: "So why don't you go back to the Catholic Church?"

More later, I'm sure. Your ideas are welcome.

---------
*I am not sure about this and may hold off publishing this until later and I can resolve this issue.

Golden Glendon. Mary Ann Glendon's essay in the Wednesday WSJ is must reading. This is one of those essay's with no money 'graf. The whole thing is golden.

Two by Chesterton

The next great heresy, is going to be simply an attack on morality; and especially on sexual morality... I say that the man who cannot see this cannot see the signs of the times; cannot see the sky signs in the street that are the new sort of signs in heaven. The madness of to-morrow is not in Moscow but much more in Manhattan....” (G.K.’s Weekly, June 16, 1926)

Source: Catholic Insight, November 2003.

It has been left to the last Christians, or rather to the first Christians fully committed to blaspheming and denying Christianity, to invent a new kind of worship of Sex, which is not even a worship of Life. It has been left to the very latest Modernists to proclaim an erotic religion which at once exalts lust and forbids fertility.

--Gilbert Keith Chesterton
From "Sex and Property"

Locke'd out. This has been a day on the go -- which was not how I had wanted to spend Ash Wednesday. Maybe next year, I'll schedule a day off. I just opened my e-mail with the sylabi of the Supreme's latest abomination: Davey v. Locke. The Court cleared the way today for states to discriminate against the religious when awarding public benefits. [here's Scalia's dissent]

I am extremely dispondent -- I didn't think there was anyway this would happen.

It's Ash Wednesday -- a day that is holy for Christians everywhere, but I always associate it with the Catholic Church, probably because of the practice of attending early Mass or noon Mass and receiving ashes.

The statute in Washington was adopted in large part, if I remember correctly, as a result of anti-Catholic bigotry.

I guess CJ Rehnquist, a nominal Lutheran, is using his well-known wicked sense of humor to stick it to the Catholic in his own way.

But this is a loss for all religions and a loss for the republic.

But, what the hell, the Court doesn't give a fig about us anyway...

More

For substantive commentary, look to Prof. Bainbridge[scroll down] or Eugene Volokh. Eugene concludes:

The result, I think, genuinely is the discrimination against religion that people have complained about (sometimes wrongly, but here rightly) -- not just exclusion of either pro-religion or anti-religion messages from the government's own speech, but a regime where the government may discriminate against private religious institutions and programs, but may not discriminate in their favor. Now this is a wrong that is indeed worth amending the Constitution over.

Kreeft Audio On-line. Several talks by Peter Kreeft are on-line here in .mp3 format.

Fat Tuesday Housecleaning. I'm cleaning out stuff, getting ready for Ash Wednesday and a good season of Lent.

Did you ever see the film Chocolat? Here's how the studio describes it:

When a mysterious stranger and her child arrive in a tranquil French town in the winter of 1959, nobody can imagine the impact the striking Vianne Rocher and her spirited daughter will have on this old-fashioned, buttoned-up community. Within days, Vianne opens a very unusual chocolate shop, filled with mouthwatering confections. Her uncanny, almost magical ability to perceive her customers? private desires and satisfy them with just the right confection coaxes the villagers to abandon themselves to temptation and happiness.

What this short description misses is that this doesn't just take place in Winter -- it takes place during Lent, a time the Church catholic has designated as a time of prayer and fasting. A time to forsake the momentary pleasures that temptation offers, in return for an emphasis on the lasting peace and happiness.

But, I'm digressing*; I'm here to toss out a few things -- some of those momentary pleasures -- in preparation of Lent. Mind you, just because these are momentary pleasures, doesn't necessarily mean they're sinful. But they can be distracting. So, here's some housecleaning.

I've got the first season of Green Acres on DVD. Some other shows I'd like to own on DVD:

More of the Twilight Zone (I have one DVD).

Another season of The Simpsons (I have Season Three).

Moonlighting, seasons 1-4. In particular, I'd pick season 3 which had the "Atomic Shakespeare" episode.

Miami Vice, early seasons, 1 and 2. Nevertheless, there was this tremendous story arc that ran from "Forgive Us Our Debts" [Crockett works to free a man on Death Row] in season 3 through "Deliver Us From Evil" [No spoilers, but if you saw both, you'll remember this one] in season 4 that was tremendous.

The Decalogue, which was produced by Krzysztof Kieslowski. (I actually have this on order, thanks to a nice Christmas check.)

A few of the original Star Trek shows (especially Vol. 14, with City on the Edge of Forever) -- while I know them all by heart, these, like Green Acres are fun to watch with the kids.

Actually, popular culture can speak to us in the form of a parable, just as our Lord used to. For example, when I read what is coming out from the Episcopal Elites, such as Mr. Griswold or Peter Lee, the scene that goes through my mind is one from Terry Gilliam's Brazil. The main character and his mother and his mother's friend and her daughter are all having lunch together. This is how the script portrays it:

SHIRLEY
(to Sam, after attracting her mother's attention and receiving a nod) Salt?

They are just about to dip into their respective splodges when there is a terrific explosion - a huge hole is blasted out of the wall to the kitchen. Chaos erupts around the carnage as WAITERS try putting out the flames with extinguishers. PEOPLE, bloody and dying, are moaning. The DINERS not actually affected by the blast look up for a moment and then, with a few raised eyebrows, go back to their meals.

IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE EXPLOSION.

MOTHER What were we saying?

SAM (picking bomb debris out of his brown lump) This isn't rare!

MOTHER By the way, I saw a wonderful idea for Christmas presents at the chemists. Gift tokens. Medical gift tokens....

I'm not the only one who has seen this imagry. Rector John Yates of the Falls Church recently observed:

Repeatedly our own bishop and others in leadership at General Convention were told that if these unbiblical steps were taken, there would be a dramatic, worldwide Anglican response, and we would see accelerated movement towards division in this church. This would probably be the "tipping point" after two generations of steady movement away from our biblical Anglican Reformational roots. Our warnings were scorned but now that E.C.U.S.A. has more clearly than ever before rejected the authority of Scripture, and the long term direction of our denomination is more clearly set than it has been in many years, we are told that it is just a small matter and will eventually settle down. As someone commented, it's like a bomb going off and then being told, "Let's have a tea party together."

Yes, so very Episcopalian...

Lent is a good time for focusing on the eternal. I pray that I will be able to do that.

Also (since I'm meandering all over the place), I need to be mindful of those "PEOPLE, bloody and dying..." including the Peter Lees of the world.

Pray for us all.


-------------------------
* For a much better review of Chocolat, consider this by Frederica Mathewes-Green.

A Time To Pray. For those who are concerned about the future of the Anglican Communion, and who desire to see revival and a recommitment to Biblical truth in the Episcopal Church, USA and the Anglican Church of Canada and worldwide, please join with others around the world in united prayer and fasting this Lent. This site can be a place to start.

I ask for prayers from my brothers and sisters in Christ no matter what denomination you are in. Please pray for us.

D-I-V-O-R-C-E, Part Two, Preface. Here's the springboard to my second essay on Divorce and the Christian, taken from yesterday's San Antonio Express-News:

The Episcopal Diocese of West Texas passed a resolution Friday that reaffirmed Christian marriage as a lifelong covenant between a man and a woman . . .

The Rev. C. Don Baugh, interim rector of St. Margaret's Parish in San Antonio, said declaring marriage to one person for life the only standard of marriage also makes second-class citizens of everyone who's been divorced and remarried — including him.

"Many people here today either have been divorced and remarried or have family members who have been divorced and remarried," he later said. "Going by the literal wording of what they passed, my marriage is wrong.

"They're interpreting biblical teachings so they affect other people but not themselves," Baugh said.

More on the EDWT meeting here and here.

OT Death Penalty. Thanks to Dr. Byron, attention has been drawn to gutless pacifist's thoughts on the death penalty in the Old Testament.

Really, this is a quite simple issue. The OT contains three sets of rules: Moral, Civil, and Ceremonial; care must be taken to distinguish in applying. The Civil and Ceremonial laws are not applicable to those living outside of OT Israel. This includes the civil application, such as punishment, of the moral infractions. The moral law still applies. Thus, practicing witchcraft is immoral, but may not (as in might not) be punished by the civil authorities.

I like the way the Book of Common Prayer expresses it in Article VII (in relevant part):

Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.

Related to the Death Penalty...

It should be noted that there are those who believe that the Noahic covenant or commandment, see Gen. 9, mandates the death penalty for murder. This is not a command limited to Israel, but is a commandment for the whole human race.

Specifically, Gen. 9:5-6 provides

[5] And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.

[6] "Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.

At issue, really is whether this passage is prescriptive or predictive. I believe that it does not require the exercise of the death penalty, rather it recognizes that killing brings more killing. I believe the Lord is warning us of the consequences of killing.

(Note too, the chiastic structure of Genesis 9:6.)

My Daughter, the Blonde. I got a new watch by mail order and was showing it to my daughter, age 14, as we were driving to dance. She asked to see it and I took it off and handed it to her. She noted the stopwatch, the dual time (analog and digital) and then said,

"Oh look -- it even has a compass. It says that right now we're heading -- West-East."

"Yet Another Flashpoint" The Federalist Society has published a short paper on Gay Marriage and the Federal Judicial Confirmations Process. The authors, Brian J. Murray and David S. Petron note the bleed-over -- oh, heck, let's call it what it is -- usurpation of legislative powers by the (imperial) judiciary leads to a worsening of the advise and consent process: ". . .the process for creating new federal judges will become regrettably politicized, thereby threatening the independence of the federal judiciary. . ."

Can Protestants Vote? Here's a link to voting for best Catholic bloggers.

I'm very disappointed that Lex Communis wasn't up for anything. Pleased to see Summa Contra Mundum by Athanasius being considered.

(Yes, Mark Shea is running away with some of these)

AKA "a man". I have always been a retrosexual. Although this definition is lacking (never define something just by what it is not).

Marriage, California Style. When I see what's happening in San Francisco, with the clerk issuing thousands of fraudulent marriage licenses and collecting thousands in fees($82 for the license, $62 for the wedding), I think class action lawsuit, deceptive trade practices, treble damages, mandatory attorney fees. I don't know if this is an option in California, but that's my first thought as an attorney.

San Francisco is wide open in terms of liability exposure.

Think about it. In the book I'm reading, one of the characters says that in order to be brave, one must first be frightened.

Pompeii by Robert Harris.

A New Car! Earlier this month, Dr. Mark Byron wrote about Joel Osteen. I read his note with fresh interest because I had just watched the Joel Show for the first time. The family was sick and not able to go to church. My wife suggested watching this service that was broadcast on Sunday morning at 10, so we tuned in the Joel Show.

He preached this sermon about how he and his wife had just moved into a new house and were out lusting and coveting over a better house. Well, he didn't call it that. He said they were looking at this new house being built and how it was their dream house. He said that he and Victoria* had just scrimped and saved and maxed themselves out to buy their current house. But it wasn't like this house -- their dream house. He said that if it had been up to him, he would've said it just wasn't possible to have something better. But Victoria had vision and believed they should have that house and soon they had that house. His point was that if he had lived in the natural which was Joel's way of doing things, they would've been defeated by their own self-imposed limits. But Victoria had a vision and it came to pass. Joel said that we should each have that vision and not be limited and stuck inside the box. If we believe we can have beyond the box.

Well, when the sermon was over, I looked at my wife and told her that I had enough of driving the ten year old Civic to work. I wanted a New Car! Originally, I was wanting a S2000, but then I spied the Lotus Elise. It's actually less expensive than the S2000 and [SLAP!]

...my wife brought me out of my fever-induced delirium...

I say all this by way of preface, actually...

For Valentine's Day, Debbie gave me the new Daniel Amos Concert DVD in which they do a rousing rendition of New Car!

Contestant:
Well, I know what I want, I know what I need
I want a miracle, I know what I need
I know what I want, I know what I need, give me a
Johnny Jacobs: (A new car!)
Contestant: I know what I need, give me a
Johnny Jacobs: (A new car!)
Contestant: I'm one of the kings kids
Kings kids: (He wants a blessing)
Contestant: I'm one of the kings kids
Kings kids: (He wants a blessing)
Contestant: I do deserve the best
Kings kids: (Keep on confessing)
Contestant: The very, very, very, very
Kings Kids: (na-na-na-na-na)
Contestant: Very, very best, I'm one of the king's kids
I deserve the best, I want a
Johnny Jacobs: (A new car!)
Contestant: Well, make it a convertible
Game Show Girl: (Be more specific)
Contestant: Mag-wheels and tinted glass
Game Show Girl: (Uh-huh)
Contestant: Radio and air-co
Game Show Girl: (Woo-yeah)
Contestant: I know what I need, give me a
Johnny Jacobs: (A new station wagon!)
Contestant: I'm one of the kings kids
Kings Kids: (NA-NA-NA-NA-NA)
Contestant: I'm one of the kings kids
Kings Kids: (NA-NA-NA-NA-NA)
Contestant: I do deserve the best
Kings Kids: A ewna Arca {backward 'pig latin' masking}
Contestant: The very, very, very, very best,
I'm one of the king's kids, I deserve the best, I want a
Johnny Jacobs: (A new car!)

-----
*I swear I thought I heard him call his wife something like Lisa, but according to the Lakewood Church Website, his wife's name is Victoria.

Liturgical Child. For Christmas, my father gave my son, Joe, age 5, a Star Wars Light Saber. It's battery-powered, lights up, and talks. It has an Obi-Wan -like voice that says things like "Control, control, you must learn control!"

When Joe shuts it off, Obi-Wan says: "May the force be with you."

To which Joe always replies: "And also with you."

A Time To Pray. For those who are concerned about the future of the Anglican Communion, and who desire to see revival and a recommitment to Biblical truth in the Episcopal Church, USA and the Anglican Church of Canada and worldwide, please join with others around the world in united prayer and fasting this Lent. This site can be a place to start.

Black Listed? Although it is an industry and not a religion, Hollywood has always had some articles of faith. The scourge of Hollywood was the "McCarthy-era" red-baiting, the ultimate sin was the sin of black-listing.

Examples abound: The Hollywood Ten, the movies The Front and Guilty By Suspicion, the 50-year grudge against Elia Kazan. Just last year, these refrains were repeated with respect to Susan Sarandon and her boytoy (I can never remember his name -- Nuke LaLoosh), the Dixie Chicks and so on.

The cover story (subscribers only) in the current issue of Entertainment Weekly is "Can Mel Gibson Survive 'The Passion of the Christ'? And it looks to whether ''The Passion'' will "forever alienate the actor/director from Hollywood."

You mean Hollywood might maintain it's own blacklist?

That can't be true.

Can it?

Maddening. There was a front page article in the WaPo today about the Musgrave version of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Generally speaking, the article's not bad.

But...

What I find particularly maddening is the way the reporter chooses to identify Eugene Volokh. He is "a libertarian who has often sided with Christian conservatives in legal disputes..."

Arrgh. Yes, this is true. Maybe it's because the Christian conservatives are right, legally speaking, on those issues. It seems more relevant in terms of the article to identify him as "a libertarian who has expressed tentative support for same-sex marriage..." or as someone critical of the courts imposing same-sex marriage without a legal foundation.

I have long admired Volokh* -- long before he was blogging he was a fountain of ideas and he has a Frankfurter-like mind and sense of restraint and balance. Unlike a Stephen Reinhardt, Volokh stays consistent with his principles whether they fit his particular desired outcomes.

------
* I've been handing out Volokh's Eschew, Evade, and/or Eradicate Legaleseto new folks at work for nearly a decade now. This is something that is extremely hard for lawyers to overcome -- part of the reason I hand this out, I tell them, is that I need to be held accountable. I have to work to write at a fifth-grade level. That means being able to be read with understanding by a fifth-grader, not at a fifth-grade level of production. Eugene makes this look easy and it's not.

D-I-V-O-R-C-E. Amy Grant's fall from grace following her divorce from Gary Chapman is the subject of an article.

The writer notes that he placed a telephone call to--

Mercy Me lead singer Bart Millard to ask him about working with Grant. At age 31 and just stepping into the national spotlight himself, Millard said he's flat-out in awe of her. And, he's angry that the flak over her divorce hasn't entirely faded.

"It's mind-boggling to me," he said. "What good is the church, if we're going to eat our wounded?"

Good question. But not so simple.

I've mentioned Grant before -- perhaps too flippantly here, when I mentioned the "Grant Line" being akin to the Mendoza line.

I have to wonder -- do I judge Amy Grant too hard? Maybe so. I don't think I've bought an Amy Grant record since 1999 (her separation was announced at the end of 1998) -- yet, I still buy CDs from Larry Norman, who's been married three times by my last count (and has a very personal account of this here: Dark Passage [but who knows how accurate this is?] -- or Randy Stonehill, twice married.

Do I judge her more harshly because she's a woman or because she's Amy? Is this some weird variation of the "righteous fox" effect? (I doubt this -- I was happily 'attached' before I ever heard of Amy, and then engaged to the same girl, before Amy's engagement.*) I have to ask these questions in the interest of healthy self-examination; but I don't think this is the case.

So many of here earlier songs, especially from the unguarded period, reflect a struggle with relationships. Yet they always encourage the person to persevere -- especially important in a marriage. These songs have been both very personal and very encouraging. For example, in "I Love You" she writes:

Oh to stay your princess / If I only could
If you never saw the rotten / Only saw the good
You'd still be prince charming / But we would never know
How it's in the darkest times / True love finally grows
Come on true love grow

And in "Find A Way" she sings:

So you stand here an angry young woman
Taking all the pain to heart
I hear you saying you want to see changes
But you don't know how to start

Love will find a way (How do you know)
Love will find a way (How can you see)
I know it's hard to see the past and still believe
Love is gonna find a way

But did she take that advice to heart?

I think a lot of my judgment and my attitude goes back to the circumstances of here divorce, set forth in several articles, one is in this posting.

I'm going to quote extensively, because I want to be fair to Grant.

Throughout their marriage, Grant asserts she was committed to making the marriage work. But in August of 1998, after years of counseling, she made a different commitment, and she went to the pastors with whom she had been meeting and to Chapman. "I said, 'I believe and trust that I've been released from this [marriage]. And I say that knowing that even the Bible says the heart's deceitful.'

"And anybody could so easily say, 'You're completely deceived,'" Grant interjects. "I guess a part of being deceived would be that you wouldn't know it. But to the best of my level of peace, I had a very settled, unshakable feeling about the path that I was going to follow.

"We all met together and just said, 'You know, if the mercy of Jesus doesn't extend to a situation like this, then it doesn't go very far, does it?' So we started meeting to pray toward individual healing, to help mediate our lives, to try to pursue the most respectful path possible toward divorce. I think that there was a part of us that felt incredibly tender toward the other one all through the divorce."

* * *

If our God His Son not sparing
Came to rescue you
Is there any circumstance
That He can't see you through

* * *

Continuing from the article:

Grant pauses for an extended moment and continues.

"At some point you see the path ahead of you, and you say, 'I have to walk this path because I believe it's the path that I have to walk,' regardless of anybody's opinion."

"This [divorce] has been just unbelievably humbling. But it has been healing. It makes me incredibly thankful that God is a God of second chances."

Grant recalls something a counselor told her. "He said, 'Amy, God made marriage for people. He didn't make people for marriage. He didn't create this institution so He could just plug people into it. He provided this so that people could enjoy each other to the fullest.' I say, if you have two people that are not thriving healthily in a situation, I say remove the marriage. Let them heal."

* * *

Hey little girl running out so fast
Gotta stay put for love to last
Why you gotta say
That love has gone away
It's not like that
Everybody hurts when the feelings fade
If you want 'em back
You know you gotta stay
No running
Love's coming back
Like only love can do

* * *

Gary had a different perspective, according to Amy. "His feeling was that this is our life, this is our commitment, and being true to this standard and keeping this vow is the most important thing for us, for our children, for our spiritual wellness.

"Gary has the kind of valor toward ideals that would make people overthrow governments and run armies. I think we all have different gifts, and I think one of Gary's is that he is like a standard-bearer. And if I have a gift, it's compassion. And at some point those things are different. They're really different. That's kind of a positive way of looking at some dynamics that have a negative side as well."

* * *

I love you
Deeper than I ever dreamed of
I need you
Staying here 'til we can work it out
I want you
Knowing that through all the changes
I love you
Somehow I just had to tell you now

* * *

Throughout the middle part of this decade to the present, the subject of Grant's relationship with country singer Vince Gill has been grist for the mill of gossip, tabloid and Internet discussion groups.

Among the rumors? That Grant and Gill are more than friends; that they were having an affair; that they are secretly married; that they plan to be married. Amy denies having an affair and being secretly married or engaged, and she prefers not to waste time addressing rumors more specifically. "I didn't do many things right, but I didn't do a lot of things wrong that I was accused of."

She acknowledges she and Gill developed a friendship in the early '90s. "I was invited to do a Christmas TV special with Vince in 1993. And I said, 'I'll tell you what: I'll do your TV show if you will do this Nashville Christmas [concert] with me.' I didn't hardly know him, and I don't really like television stuff. But I was packing to leave, and Gary said, 'I know you're gonna have a blast with this. I don't know him very well, but I know him better than you do. And you guys are cut from the same cloth.'
* * *

Got myself in this situation
I'm not sure about
Climbing in where there's temptation
Can I get back out
I never can quite find the answer
The one I want to hear
The one that justifies my action
Says the coast is clear
something on the outside
Says to jump on in
Something on the inside
Is telling me again

Better wise up
Better think twice
Never leave room for compromise
You better wise up
Better get smart
And use your head to guard your heart
It's gonna get rough
So you better wise up

Take a look at your intentions
When you have to choose
Could it be that apprehension
Might be telling you
To back off now is better
So take your heart and run
But get your thoughts together
Before they come undone

* * *

"All I know to say is that I walked into that situation, and I felt like I had known [Vince] for a long time."

Since that time, the two have worked together in a number of professional settings, like when Gill sang on her 1994 project House of Love (Myrrh/A&M). More recently, they have appeared in charity golf outings and Gill sings on A Christmas to Remember.

* * *

Promises made to last
These are the hardest to find
Touch me now, let me know
Your love will always be mine
As the years go by
And the fire of my love surely grows
Baby you know

Whatever it takes baby I'm gonna be there
Whatever it takes baby you've got to know
Whatever it takes to be true to you
I'll love you to the end
Whatever it takes baby I'm gonna be there
Whatever it takes baby you've got to know
Whatever it takes to be true to you
Baby--somehow...

* * *


Grant continues, "I didn't get a divorce because I had a great marriage and then along came Vince Gill. Gary and I had a rocky road from day one. I think what was so hard -- and this is [what] one of our counselors said -- sometimes an innocent party can come into a situation, and they're like a big spotlight. What they do is reveal, by comparison, the painful dynamics that are already in existence.

"Through all of that process in my life, Vince was a friend of mine," she continues, "It's not adulterous, but it's just messy" because their friendship existed already.

Grant does acknowledge that she is now dating Gill [Šulik: they are now married], although she clarifies that he was not her boyfriend while she was married. She is also clear to say that she was not a confidant to him when he went through a divorce in 1997. "I have boundless respect for him, and he has always been so respectful of me....

"I think it happens that you meet somebody and you go, 'I feel like I have met a true complement.'"

Not that meeting such a person is a unique phenomena. What does Grant think happens when a married person meets a "soulmate" who is not their spouse?

"Well, I would say this -- I do know that when you have invested in something for a long time, sacrificed for it, nurtured it -- I'm talking about a relationship -- it has a value that no spur of the moment meeting can compare with."

She continues, "We create boundaries around things that are important to us; that's all out of protecting something that already means something to us. You just protect what's valuable to you. It's something that becomes more and more valuable."

After a long pause, Grant continues, "If somebody is unable to protect what they have at home, it's either because [she pauses] they don't know how to value a good thing or it's not a good thing," she says, her voice trailing off.

"If people say, 'She was leaning on a man emotionally that she wasn't married to; she developed a friendship that was inappropriate....' I want to go, 'You know, if you're gonna list my faults, let's get to the real meat. You ain't even scratched the surface with that stuff. Let's get real. Humanity is humanity. You want to know what my real black ugly stuff is? Go look in a mirror and everything that's black and ugly about you, it's the same about me.' That's what Jesus died for. This should not be a surprise to any of us."

Okay, fair enough. Jesus died to redeem us from our sin.

But then why didn't you take the advice that you yourself offered up to us. It's not that you were wrong in what you sang -- it's that you didn't listen to it and act on it.

And really, that's why I don't listen to these songs that much anymore. I know that for Amy Grant, although they purported to be personal and 'real,' it was all a fake, a fraud. You tell us one thing, but when someone comes along who's a little bit better, it's okay to bail. And how do we justify our sin? By saying that God made us this way and it's okay. He'll forgive us in the end.
------------------
*In fact, my fiancee (now my bride of 20+ years) and I were working on an independent Christian magazine on our campus back in the very early 1980s (it was distributed to colleges throughout Virginia). My fiancee did a telephone interview of Amy for the magazine, although we ran out of dollars to publish the magazine before that issue came out. Amy and I are the same age -- so our lives haveparalleledd -- she was at Furman with a friend of ours from high school, that's how my bride made contact with her. Marriage is there to serve us -- and if it doesn't meet my selfish, self-centered needs, I can boot it out, because God created it to serve me, not vice versa. (to hell with anyone else, like my spouse, or the kids, or the family who gets injured. i want what i want and god is here to serve me.)

Maybe Bart Millard is right -- maybe we do "eat our wounded." But actually, I think the reverse is true. I think we fail to hold each other accountable in any sense of the word.

I've gone on far too long already. I've got more to say -- a lot more -- but that will have to wait for another day.

Gephardt. If John Kerry's smart, he'll pick Dick Gephardt for his running mate. Gephardt, not Edwards, could be a tipping point.

As I see it--

GOP electoral votes (east to west): NH, VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, KY, TN, AL, IN, MS, LA, AR, OK, TX, KS, NE, SD, ND, CO, WY, MT, ID, UT, AZ, NV, AK. This equals 242 and you could see FL, KS, NH and/or CO going the other direction.

I assume Gephardt should bring Mo., so here are the DEM states: ME, MA, RI, VT, CT, NY, NJ, DE, MD, DC, MI, WI, IL, MN, IA, MO, NM, CA, OR, WA, HI. All this totals 250. DE, HI, IL and/or MI could go for Bush.

I'm leaving WV, PA, and OH as swing votes. Gephardt's midwest connections and union connections should pay off in these states.

If Ohio and West Virginia go Republican and Pennsylvania goes Democrat, that gives us a Kerry-Gephardt administration 271-267.

Here's an interactive map to play with (thanks to Peter Sean).

On the other hand, here are 21 reasons why Bush will be re-elected.

-----------------------------

I haven't decided who to vote for in the Virginia primary. If Lieberman is on the ballot, I'll probably vote for him.

And have you noticed how Dean has fallen apart since being endorsed by Gore?

CBS looks at the natives. Not being familiar with native customs or practices, CBS goes deep in to the heart of the Evangelical jungle and determines that they worship a tribal deity, and follow the writings of a witch doctor named LaHaye.

Central to evangelicals' faith is an event that can happen at any time called the Rapture, when God takes all true-believing Christians and children under 12 to a better place while all others suffer the tribulation and are damned.

Viewers are warned that these savages are easily alarmed and should not be approached, except with extreme caution.

Anglicans in Exile. Those of us who are called to follow Jesus here in the US, but are in exile in the Episcopal Church, have received this wonderful letter of encouragement from a number of the Primates from the Global South.

Here is the main of the letter, but please go to the link above for the full text, plus the signatories.

We, Primates of the Global South greet you in the name of our Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The actions of ECUSA in the election, confirmation, and consecration of Canon Gene Robinson have created a situation of grave concern for the entire Anglican Communion and beyond. Their actions are a direct repudiation of the clear teaching of the Holy Scriptures, historic faith and order of the church.

They also constitute a clear defiance of the Primates of the Communion, who warned at their October meeting:

If his consecration proceeds, we recognise that we have reached a crucial and critical point in the life of the Anglican Communion and we have had to conclude that the future of the Communion itself will be put in jeopardy. In this case, the ministry of this one bishop will not be recognised by most of the Anglican world, and many provinces are likely to consider themselves to be out of Communion with the Episcopal Church (USA). This will tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level, and may lead to further division on this and further issues as provinces have to decide in consequence whether they can remain in communion with provinces that choose not to break communion with the Episcopal Church (USA).

The world needs to know that the rebellious and erroneous actions of ECUSA are contrary to the teaching of the Anglican Communion and represent a departure from five thousand years of Judeo-Christian teaching and practice. By their actions, ECUSA has separated itself from the remainder of the Anglican Communion and the wider Christian family.

We appeal to all the faithful to be diligent in prayer and faith and call upon Anglicans across the communion to engage in loyal witness to the risen Christ and to resist and confront the false teaching undergirding these actions and which is leading people away from the redeeming love of Jesus into error and danger.

We ask you to join in our repentance for failing to be sufficiently forthright in adequately addressing this issue in the past, and we invite you to stand with us in a renewed struggle to uphold the received truth found in Jesus and His word.

We re-affirm our solidarity with faithful Bishops, clergy and church members in North America who remain committed the historic faith and order of the church and have rejected unbiblical innovation. We offer our support and the full weight of our ministries and offices to those who are gathering in a “Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes” now being organized in North America. We regard this network as a hopeful sign of a faithful Anglican future in North America. We invite those who are committed to the preservation of historic Biblical faith and order, to join that work and its essential commitment to the Gospel.

Finally, we appeal to you to sustain us in prayer, and to intercede especially for Anglicans in North America.

“Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.”
Eph 3:20-21

Aftermath. Martyn Minns statement in today's TFN on the Virginia Council held last weekend:

Council Aftermath
The 209th Annual Council of the Diocese of Virginia took place last weekend. It was a painful time for many of us. The Diocese is profoundly divided. The hostility and anger displayed by those in favor of the actions of General Convention was never far from the surface. No substantial actions were taken but I left enormously saddened by the experience. The divisions are deep and growing deeper.

Where does this leave Truro? First of all, I am very thankful for the faithful witness of our clergy and people. I was overwhelmed by the number of people
from around the Diocese who made a point of telling me how grateful they are for the stands that we have taken. Our witness to the transforming truth of the
Gospel has never been more important.
For many, we have become a lighthouse of hope.

Where do we go from here? We will continue to stand firm. We will stay engaged in mission. We will work on building up the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. In the next few days you will be hearing more about the role that the Network will play in the wider communion. Those provinces that have been dismayed and alienated by ECUSA are increasingly looking to the Network to be their Anglican partner in the USA.

We are also working on strengthening the life of the Network within the Diocese of Virginia. Detailed structural proposals have been developed and are being refined. Our goal is to find a way to function within the constitutional framework but exercise our mission and ministry without compromise. One of the positive developments at Council was the recognition that there are many more congregations who share our perspective and are anxious to walk with us.

One final comment about the Reconciliation Commission – I do believe that as Christians we have an obligation to work for reconciliation whenever and wherever we are given the opportunity. However, the defining issue for us is not one of unreconciled relationships but of two different understandings of Truth. This is a spiritual battle for the Church that will not be won in a Commission but only by prayer and the full armor of God.

Deference. I'm going to defer a couple of the things I've been working on, because some of these other things are more important.

Judicial Intolerance. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), chairman of the Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on the Constitution, made an important address on Friday. I'm afraid it might be overlooked just because it was made on a Friday -- reporters are more interested in weekend plans on that date. The Congressional Record for the 6th is not on-line yet, when it is, I'll link to it. For now, here is a link to a press release from the Senator's office. Nevertheless, this does not set forth the full import of the Senator's statement.

The statement briefly and succintly states why the Massachusetts ruling, the 4-3 ruling, is contrary to the rule of law. Moreover, it sets forth the problem of having an unchecked branch of government. It also demonstrates the fact that the 4 justices who voted that way are "intoleran[t of the] traditions we have recognized in this country..."

More. Here's the full statement in the Congressional Record.

Unusually Strong. Earthquake activity is always frequent and strong near Irian Jaya. However, in the past 36 hours it has been even more so. Most recently, a 7.1 tremor. This follows, a 7.0, a 6.0, two 5.1's, and a 5.6.

processing. I'm working on a couple of items. More later.

Hotchpot. I've been wiped out by a really bad cold in recent days.

The big news today, so far, is that the 4 justices on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court won't settle for anything less than full marriage for same-sex couples.

Meanwhile, Stanley Kurtz shows why this approach led to "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia."

I've been thinking a lot lately about genocide and the evil that we do. The Guardian has a review of S21: The Khmer Rouge Killing Machine. Did you know Pol Pot was a former Buddhist monk and school teacher? In today's WaPo, Anne Applebaum, writes of the "Auschwitz Under Our Nose[]" (or is it?) North Korea. And, recently, Rwanda, how we were bystanders to genocide (we just passed the 10th anniversary of the "Dallaire fax," which, if responded to, would've probably prevented the slaughter).

Of course, in the USA, we have our own slaughter of the innocents, under the banner of "choice." The Catholic Church has remained steadfast against this holocaust, yet those who excoriate it for opposing this slaughter, however mildly, also excoriate the Catholics for failing to stand up to the Holocaust. And we have Catholics for Dean.

I see that a lot of pixels, ink, and airtime are being spent on the Superbowl halftime show. I didn't see it. I was cleaning the kitchen. My wife knew it was going to be trash and cut the tv off. We missed the first 3 minutes of the second half, but nothing happened. The commercial that really bothered me hasn't gotten any ink -- it was the Van Hellsing one. We were watching the game with impressionable a 7, 5 and 2 year old. Horse gas and monkey business goes over their heads, that one with it's non-stop horrifying imagery didn't.

I'll be back.

Augustine on Heresy and Schism. Please see the note here.

Discussion Group Apostasy Down. I received this note this morning:

Just wanted to let you know the Yahoo Apostasy Group has been down for about 15 hours now.

None of us moderators can do anything to fix it. Would appreciate prayers that this gets resolved soon. And perhaps if you blog today you could alert your readers? The State Connections groups ARE working...

Thank you Karen B.

BTW, I checked it when getting the link and it's still down -- so make that about 19 hours now.

Update -- 4:40 EST -- still down.

It's back now.

Boomer's In. I'm very happy for Bob "Boomer" Brown -- one of the truly great offensive linemen, who was finally recognized and voted into the NFL Hall of Fame.

Art Monk should've made the cut as well.

Resolutions. Here is the status of the resolutions from the Episcopal Diocese of Va after the committees finished their work. Essentially, they are establishing a "Reconciliation Commission" the members of which will be appointed by Bp. Lee, so there will be no dissent (or only submissive token dissent).

More. Here's the link to the Sunday WaPo article and here's what the WaTi had to say. Last, the Richmond-Times Dispatch.

Rank hearsay is that Rev. Minns believes he was misquoted in at least one of the articles over the weekend.

News Stories on Peter Lee's announcement that heresy is better than schism. The WaTi put the story on the front page. The WaPo had nothing today. They did have this story yesterday.

Do I need to point out the obvious? Peter Lee has chosen both heresy and schism. In rejecting the Scriptures as the authority for the Church, he and the other revisionists have consciously split from the Anglican communion and the Church Catholic to embrace heresy.

Two Views

One

To Obey Is Better Than Sacrifice
-1 Samuel 15:22

Two

To Stay Together is Better than to Obey the Lord
-Peter James Lee, 30 Jan. 2004

The 209th Annual Council of the Diocese of Virginia starts tonight. Will it be the last? No -- but next year will see a vastly different Diocese.

Here is the agenda of the council and here are the proposals. This is a link for the main page. With respect to the agenda, it's kind of humorous at points:

12:18 p.m. Noonday Hymn, "Now Holy Spirit, ever One"
12:20 p.m. Chaplain’s Meditation & Noonday Prayers

Can you imagine a Pentacostal looking at this? "Two minutes for singing?"

Below are the major proposals, as I see it.

First the proposals by the revisionist and other totalitarians. There is one proposed revision to the canons. Currently, delegates are apportioned according to communicants. The totalitarians want to base delegates on the degree of financial support of the ECUSA. Accordingly, they are seeking to have this clause inserted: "...and from which a minimum pledge to the diocesan budget of five percent of its annual projected operating income has both been received for the current year and fulfilled in the previous year..." This proposal must be rejected. Frankly, I would think Bp. Lee, with all his talk of using giving as a weapon would want to de-escalate. In the alternative, I say abolish the practice of one delegate for every 300 communicants -- make it one delegate for every 50 communicants.

R-666, um, excuse me, R-6 is the key proposal for the revisionists -- it is a call for the DoV to support those parishes that want to "bless" same-sex unions. There is no chance of this resolution passing. These folks are just building up a list of friends and enemies.

R-10 is another example of the truth of Karl Marx's aphorism about the greater concern for 1/39th of the income of the church as opposed to the fidelity to the 39 Articles of Relgion. This is a resolution ostensibly aimed at "stewardship" but if fails to realize that the vestries at the confessing churches are acting out of great Biblical conviction to refuse to turn over even the smallest earring to the apostate idolatry with is the modern ECUSA. The drafters of this resolution see Christian giving solely as "a means of protest." This should be soundly rejected.

Because of R-2, discussed below. R-13, styled "A Way Forward on Human Sexuality Issues" falls into the category of "fellow travelers" with the revisionists. This advocates doing nothing but talking about these issues, while the ECUSA burns to the ground. The fact is, this would've been a heck of a lot more relevant last year -- but now that Pandora's box has been open, this is no time to slam the lid shut.

R-15 is the boot-in-the-face totalitarian resolution. It calls on the Bishop to "discipline" all members of the confessing network. These folks would love the inquisition.

R-16 is a much gentler version of R-15 -- which is scary, because set against this monolith that is R-15, it has a possiblity of passing. It would prevent any church from rejecting the authority of an apostate bishop, such as Peter Lee. He's not laying hands on my kids.

Proposals by the confessing members and their kindred spirits, in order. R-2 calls for a reaffirmation of the Lambeth Statement on Sexuality which was passed by an overwhelming number of Bishops (including a majority of Bishops from the ECUSA), but then repudiated by implication at GC2K3. Peter Lee has never explained how he could vote for it and then consider it meaningless. For some people their word means something -- not for Lee. What the DoV does on this is more of a belweather -- are we in agreement with the Anglican communion or do we reject them?

R-14 is, without doubt, my favorite of them all. Allow me to quote it in the entirety:

Whereas, the voting clergy and lay deputies of the Diocese of Virginia at the General Convention
of the Episcopal Church in 2003 (with the exception of The Rev. Jeffrey Cerar and Mr. Russell Randle) voted to approve the consecration of The Rev. Gene Robinson to become the Bishop of New Hampshire, and

Whereas, the voting clergy and lay deputies (with the exceptions of the Rev. Jeffrey Cerar and Mr.
Russell Randle) voted to approve resolution C051 which stated: “local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions;” and

Whereas, those votes are:
1) Contrary to the plain sense and historic understanding of Holy Scripture,
2) In violation of the Constitution and the Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church,
3) In defiance of resolutions of the Lambeth Conference,
4) Contrary to the policies adopted in 1991 by the Diocese of Virginia, and

Whereas, those votes have:
1) Resulted in condemnation from many Provinces of the Anglican Communion,
2) Caused Primates representing the majority of the members of the Anglican Communion to issue a call to repentance for those actions,
3) Gravely wounded our ecumenical relationships,
4) Scandalized many faithful Episcopalians,
5) Resulted in turmoil and distress within many dioceses and parishes of the Episcopal Church, as well as within many congregations in our diocese; now therefore be it

Resolved, that this 209th Annual Council of the Diocese of Virginia expresses profound regret for
those votes, and repudiates them, and be it further

Resolved, that the Annual Council of the Diocese of Virginia instructs the Secretary to send this
resolution to every Bishop and Standing Committee in the Episcopal Church, the Secretary of the General Convention, and to every Primate of the Anglican Communion.

Submitted by
The Rev. Frederick Wright
The Falls Church, Episcopal
The Vestry of The Church of the Epiphany, Herndon
The Vestry of the Church of the Messiah, Chancellor
The Vestry of All Saint’s, Dale City
The Rev. Phil Ashey
The Rev. George Beaven
The Rev. Jack Grubbs
The Rev. John Guernsey
The Rev. Valentine Han
The Rev. Huey Sevier
The Rev. Valerie Whitcombe

Yes, you will note that it is with deep sadness and regret that my own Church, Truro Church, has not joined this resolution. I know not why.

R-18, unlike R-14 above, is offered by one delgate. It establishes a formal mechanism for having a flying bishop enter the diocese. As I see it, the revisionist will reject this outright. But for the confessing members, I also see a problem in that it provides "that notice be provided to the office of the Bishop of Virginia at least two months prior to any visit by bishops associated with the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes of the intention to perform episcopal acts within the Diocese of Virginia." As a notice requirement, it does not need Bp. Lee's approval or consent. Nevertheless, the two month minimum is troubling. If our Lord can create the earth in 6 days, I would think a seven day notice period would be sufficient.

The most interesting resolution in my opinion is R-3 because it doesn't come from the confessing members* or the revisionists, yet it seeks what the confessing members have been seeking:

Resolved, that it is the intention of the 209th Council of the Diocese of Virginia to stay in full communion with the See of Canterbury and the other Churches and Provinces in the worldwide Anglican Communion; and be it further

Resolved, that this 209th Council requests that the Bishop and Standing Committee of the Diocese
take such necessary steps as to continue and maintain full communion with the See of Canterbury and the other Churches and Provinces of the Anglican Communion.

Does this mean that the DoV may need to separate itself from ECUSA to stay in communion with Nigeria, Uganda, Southern Cone, etc.? I think it might. This is the vote to watch, in my opinion.

Other resolutions R-1 calling for civility. This is excellent. I would love to see it applied in all discussions. But then, you can't really legislate civility -- how sad.

R-12 is a call to the State of Virginia to increase funding for Mental Health within the State. I support this and would like to see the State of Virginia do more in this area. I believe, however, that the DoV moral authority to speak in areas such as this has been completely undermined by the actions taken by a majority of our Bishops and the Deputies at GC2K3. In short, the Church is rendering itself irrelevant.

In a spirit of Charity, I'm placing the Bishop Lee brown-nose proposal, R-17, in the non-aligned category. If I were a voting member, I would re-classify this as CR-6, which is where it originally was, then would vote "present." Which is how Bp. Lee voted when it came to reaffirming the fundamental doctrines of the ECUSA at GC2K3.

Sadly, two very important resolutions fall to the bottom of this mess -- this is something all sides should agree on. R- 19 and R-20 both deal with our brothers and sisters in Sudan. R-19 seeking "prayer and tangible support."

R-21, the last resolution has some good language, yet it's merely talking about shutting the barn doors eighteen months too late. This should've passed in about 1999.

As far as nominees to the Committees -- watch to see if The Rev. Penelope M. Bridges is selected for the Standing Committee -- this is an extremely dangerous candidate, in my opinion, and is a stalking horse of the revisionists.
____________
* That is, as far as I can see, none of the proponents are active in the AAC or related confessing members.

Books. Jack notes the challenge to read and blog 50 books in a year. That's probably how many books I read a year. (Unless you include those pictured on the right, one of Em's favorites. "The sun has set, not long ago, now everybody goes below. To take a bath in one big tub, with soap all over, scrub, scrub, scrub...)

I finished Philip Jenkins' Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way and am now reading another Jenkins book: The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice. I give Hidden Gospels a thumbs up -- it's one that anyone reading books like The Five Gospels, Lost Scriptures, or anything by Elaine Pagels, should read. Nevertheless, I enjoyed Luke Timothy Johnson's The Real Jesus even more -- it's a withering polemic -- a devasting fisking of those who try to remake Jesus in their own image.

By my bedside is Václav Havel's Open Letters, which I've been dipping into from time to time. This is one of those books I am sure I will be re-reading all my life.

In the car, I'm "reading" the Bangkok 8 audio book, read by B.D. Wong.

Next up are Pompeii by Robert Harris (I loved Fatherland and Enigma, but Archangel was only so-so), Stephen King's The Dark Tower I: The Gunslinger, and John Paul the Great by Peggy Noonan (if it ever gets published).

The trouble with this list is that everything here is "new." As Kendall Harmon pointed out recently, ". . . C.S. Lewis said he read three old books for every new one." I really need to go back and read some old books. Can I count Lewis? Chesterton? I think I'll go back and re-read The City of God.

The Trouble with Congress. When I type that title I hear the King (Longshanks) in Braveheart completing the sentence with "...is that it's full of Scots..."

Anyway, since this is PoliSci night, check out Mark Byron's rejection of someone's notion of expanding the House of Representatives so that each Rep. represents 100,000.

I flirted with this idea -- expanding Congress -- a few years back. I think many of us have tried to figure out how to make Congress -- in particular, the Reps -- more responsible to the folks back home.

Accordingly, the idea that I've been mulling for at least 10 years now* is to abolish the Capitol building. Or, at least the House side. Specifically, instead of having our representatives assemble in Congress to work and vote, have them work in the district and submit their votes electronically from there.

This is the 21st Century. It's the age of telecommuting and videoconferencing. Let the representative stay home with the voters. No more expense of maintaining home and DC offices -- or home and DC homes. Wipe out K Street. Let the people on main street do the lobbying.

And even better -- and this has always been a major attraction to my idea -- have the big votes take place in a high school auditorium. Let the folks come in and have a rally, if they like. Have the representative stand before the people and explain why s/he is going to vote the way s/he will. Of the Rep. can structure the voting anyway that suits him -- but this will be one component the voters will weigh.

With such a system, even minor votes could be interesting. The rep. could take these "minor" votes on the road to the elementary schools.

The one thing I would stress is that the vote has to be made in the District. I don't want a Congressman representing the folks in Peoria voting from New Hampshire -- or Tahiti.

-------------------------
*I know it dates back to when Bob Kerrey was the swing vote on a tax hike and he spent the afternoon in a movie theater at Union Station before the vote.

Interesting Analysis. From Tony Quinn in the L.A. Times (reg.req.):

With Democrats getting down to the serious business of choosing an opponent to Bush, they face a basic issue: Can they reverse the cultural alienation that has cost them so many of their former core supporters? Watching their candidates pander to every socially liberal interest group suggests they cannot — indeed do not — even acknowledge their predicament.

* * *

A cultural conservatism grounded in religion and traditional values is imbedded in the South and its border states and is now more important to their voters than economic issues. Among the best measures of how people voted in 2000 was church attendance. People who attended church regularly overwhelmingly supported Bush; those who didn't went for Gore.

The Democrats' problem goes beyond simply being irreligious. There's an undercurrent of hostility toward religion in the highest ranks of the party. The Democrats' dismissal of Bush's "faith-based initiative" is just one example of their hostility. Even on an issue like abortion rights, on which Democrats are with the majority of the public, intolerance of any dissent has alienated a mainstay of the New Deal coalition, Roman Catholics.

This really rings true for me. For at least the last 20 years, I've been a natural "Democrat" on most issues, but during that same time, "hostility toward religion" and the religious person has increased. And to even raise a question about reasonable limitations on, say, even abortions during the 4th month of a pregnancy (when the fetus -- baby -- is viable outside the womb) is unthinkable.

When Quinn writes "People who attended church regularly overwhelmingly supported Bush; those who didn't went for Gore" he doesn't set forth the numbers. If I remember correctly, it's something like 2 to 1.

Dear Stalker. You can't shut me up. Even the people who strongly disagree with me defend my right to write. And I defend their right to associate and work for groups that are strongly abhorent to me. It's what makes America. Freedom of speech, press, association, assembly, worship, right to petition for redress of grievances. All those things we teach in elementary school and which you apparently forgot in law school.

You can't shut me up.

Communion and Choice. Consider the following editorial from the Capital Times (Madison, WI):

Bishop Raymond Burke of the La Crosse Catholic Diocese took an extraordinary step earlier this month of instructing priests in his diocese to refuse Communion to politicians who support the decisions made by the government at the Wannsee Conference. His move has provoked controversy and criticism, and not just in western Wisconsin but nationally.

Now Bishop Robert Morlino of the Madison Catholic Diocese has said that he is in "complete agreement" with Burke, who will soon leave La Crosse to become the archbishop of St. Louis.

Morlino's statement could position him to carry on the politically charged crusade that was begun by Burke. But Morlino does not have to imitate the La Crosse bishop. Indeed, he would be wise to choose a different course.

There is no question that Morlino has a right to his opinions with regard to the jewish issue. Nor is there any question that, as a bishop, he has the power to act decisively on those opinions. However, those who know Madison and south central Wisconsin will, hopefully, counsel Morlino to choose the course of education and quiet persuasion over that of political posturing.

There is no evidence to suggest that Burke's position has advanced the anti-government cause in western Wisconsin, or elsewhere. In fact, the politicians targeted by the La Crosse bishop have reacted with thoughtful defenses of the separation of church and state that have resonated well with the people of Wisconsin.

Morlino has intimated that, while he agrees with Burke's ideas, he may not choose to follow the precise course adopted by the La Crosse bishop. The Madison bishop says that he will not take any action immediately - having only been installed in his current position in August, he acknowledges that he has not been in the community long enough to come to conclusions regarding officials elected from districts within the Madison Catholic Diocese.

Morlino notes that each individual bishop is responsible for his own diocese and for making decisions about how best to uphold Catholic teaching in distinct settings. Creating the sort of controversy that would follow an order to refuse Communion to Catholic officeholders in a region where support for the government's final solution is widespread would do little to advance Catholic teachings, and much to isolate Morlino from the community he seeks to serve.

Godwin's law, you may scream in protest. Not so, I reply. It is necessary to understand, when you see the press chiding the Church for failing to support the prevailing regime, that the Church is not responsible to the press. In the words of the old Hebrew National commercial, it answers to a Higher Power.

In the case of legalized abortion on demand, the Church of Rome sees this as being the moral equivalent of the holocaust. One of the few creeds or tenents of the current secular post-modern faiths is that all truths are relative and that we need to stand in someone's shoes and see things from their perspective. If that's the case, come with me, editor, and stand in the Bishop's shoes.

By not giving Holy Eucharist to avowed sinners in a state of mortal sin, the bishop is not withholding a blessing, he is actually reducing the weight of judgment on the sinner. As I understand Catholic teaching, a sinner who knowingly receives communion while in a state of mortal sin (i.e. without the Sacrament of Reconciliation [or Penance as it used to be called] and repentance) commits a further mortal sin. This is not merely an aggrevating factor, it is a separate and distinct crime which is extremely heinious and grave. Therefore, standing in the shoes of the Bishop, withholding the Blessed Sacrament is not a "punishment" (or in the editor's word's "political posturing"), but a blessing to the straying sinner; the pro-abortion politician.

Finally, the editor of this newspaper may think the Roman Catholic church should just shut up and mind its own business, but then what business does a secular newspaper have in telling the Church how to operate?

Well I've Never Been to Spain... But I have been to China -- except this place calls it Taiwan. Here are the countries (in red) I've been to:



create your own visited country map

I've never been to Europe or Africa or South America.

My Country These are the states I've visited (thanks to Kev, for the referral):



create your own visited states map
or write about it on the open travel guide.

I was able to visit Oregon, Montana, and Wisconsin for the first time in 2003.

Programming Note. I am being cyber-stalked. Someone who I correspond with in my work has decided to track me down and harass me. Included in this is excerpting selected portions of some of my comments here and then e-mailing them to my co-workers. What is actually pretty galling to me is that he has taken some essays posted by Mark Byron and Christopher Johnson and attributed them to me. (no offense to you guys)

His stated goal is to get me fired.

The really ironic thing, especially in light of my extended commentary from last week on my political/religious pilgrimage is that he taken to calling me a "right-wing. . . sexist Reaganite."

More irony -- the position he is advocating and wants me to take is directly contrary to the so-called "liberal" position. By way of analogy -- if I were supporing federal funding of Planned Parenthood, he'd be seeking it's termination. And for this, I am a "Reaganite."

I'm not sure what impact, if any, this will have on this blog. I have taken care to do this on my own time and to not comment about my work.

As always, prayers appreciated.

Update. Everything's cool. However, since I took leave yesterday due to snow, I'm working thru lunch and probably late today (leave never means an absence of work).

Thanks for prayers.