The Bus to Cleveland, A Parable

A very interesting parable emerged among the comments over at Stand Firm yesterday. Paul B started it:

Okay, you get on a bus. You’ve bought a ticket to go to Cleveland.

In the middle of the trip, you change drivers. The new driver wants to go to New York City instead. He/She takes a vote, and a vocal minority (the only people he/she hears) vote to go to New York City. A minor riot ensues, the police are called, and the people complaining that they bought a ticket for Cleveland are threatened with jail if they don’t shut up and be quiet on the way to New York City.

Are the people complaining they didn’t want to go to NYC in the wrong?

SpongJohn SquarePantheist played along andtook the progressives position:

Only if when deciding to change buses they expect to take their luggage with them or a refund on the ticket.

And Marty the Baptist joined in:

Only an idiot would board a bus for Cleveland… NYC is where the action is. Trust us.

One Day Closer was playing it straight, almost like she was doing a Gracey Allen imitation. But she summed up the unfairness quite well:

SpongJohn SquarePantheist,
If your post was sarcasim my apologies, however, the people that paid for the ticket to Cleveland bought it fully expecting to get what they paid for. A destination to Cleveland!!! The luggage and what is in it was bought and paid for with their hard earned money by them not the bus driver nor the changers of the destination of the bus.

Marty replied:

ODC, the “holy spirit” is doing a new thing—you’re gonna love NYC!!! Trust us… only the truly backwards go to cleveland…

And no—you cannot leave the bus. Or, if you must, you can jump off while we’re moving. But your luggage stays with us. We’ll sell it at a flea-market in NYC… but only to people who solemnly swear that they have never been to, nor will ever go to, Cleveland.

Time for a New Paradigm?

I've been looking at the news stories out today about the rate of genital herpes, Herpes Simplex 2, in the population of New York City, here and here and here. The stories say that the New York City health officials are urging condom use and getting testing for the the virus.

Genital herpes is not curable and can cause painful sores. While the overall infection rate in New York City is 26%, using this figure masks significant differences in population subgroups.

The biggest difference is racial with 49% of blacks have this and 14% of whites. The second biggest difference is gender -- 36% of women have this and 19% of men. However, among men, 32% of men who have sex with men have this and 18% of men who don't have sex with men.

A person with this virus is twice as likely to contract HIV when exposed to it.

The study was performed by the New York Public Health Department and published in the journal Sexually Transmitted Diseases. The national rate, which has declined in recent years, is 19%.

eflux media reports:

The health department urges the population to consistently use condoms and says that STD clinics offer free, confidential herpes testing.

In an attempt to prevent sexually transmitted diseases from spreading, The Health Department has distributed more than 48 million NYC condoms since 2007 and continues to give more than 3 million free condoms a month at various locations, such as health clinics or bars.

Maybe instead of urging condom use and testing, the New York City health officials should open their minds to a new paragigm. Maybe they should try urging sexual chastity -- abstinence outside of marriage and fidelity within marriage.

H/T Mike Bertaut at Stand Firm

Baby Blue Compliments +John Howe

Baby Blue made a very interesting comment over at Stand Firm today. She says that the laity have the real power, the power of the purse, and so the laity can change the situation if they understand the structures of power and the theological issues:

The laity hold the purse. I remember my current bishop telling me that this is a truth most bishops don’t want us to know. But even now, in the Episcopal Church, the laity hold the purse. A laity that is equipped and knowledgeable about theological issues and ecclesiastical structures can be a mighty sword for Jesus. But pulling the wool over our eyes is just a tactic of wolves in sheep’s clothing. Stay alert, don’t become complacent or ambivalent, pray without ceasing, and hold your bishops and clergy accountable.

Ironically, it was John’s devotion to equipping the laity for ministry that laid the foundation at Truro for our parish votes. We read the scriptures in small group Bible studies and attended his indepth courses on books and themes of the Bible. We collected his tape series and teachings and even now, after twenty years, his work remains in the foundation of our parish life and witness. We have not forgotten.

A biblically equipped and structurally knowledgeable laity is the best defense against heretical power, like a crew ready for battle. We are not fooled. The bishop no longer pleads, but leads.

As we are all ready in the battle, it would be good to have a Captain who would resist hunkering down below decks, but instead return to the bridge and command the fleet to fight for our own Aslan.

The Uses and Abuses of the Religious

There is a great column in the the Wall Street Journal today, Too Much Faith by Alan Jacobs on how naive journalists are in trusting the claims of religious leaders that the actions they are taking are religiously motivated:

Card-carrying members of the intelligentsia like Mr. Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris would surely be doubtful, even incredulous, if a politician who had illegally seized power claimed that his motives for doing so were purely patriotic; or if a CEO of a drug company explained a sudden drop in prices by professing her undying compassion for those unable to afford her company's products. Discerning a difference between people's professed aims and their real aims is just what intellectuals do.

Yet when someone does something nasty and claims to have done it in the name of religion, our leading atheists suddenly become paragons of credulity: If Osama bin Laden claims to be carrying out his program of terrorism in the name of Allah and for the cause of Islam, then what grounds have we to doubt him? It's not like anyone would lie about something like that as a strategy for justifying the unjustifiable, is it?

I have been thinking about some recent criticism I saw of some of my favorite conservative Anglican blogs. And I am thinking that an appropriate response to the criticism is that they are serving the purpose of discerning the difference between Anglican leaders professed aims and their real aims.

H/T to TitusOneNine

How to Protect Your Church From Our Mistakes

Greg Griffith has a good thought experiment for conservatvie Anglicans:

Let’s say you were a consultant, hired by a mainline denomination, and you were asked to create a bullet point list outlining your strategy to keep what has happened in the Episcopal Church from happening in your client’s church. Keep the number bullets to 10 or fewer, and keep each bullet to a sentence or two.

Here are the series of shots I recommend to inoculate other church bodies from the false theology virus that took over the Episcopal Church:

1) Teach John 8:1-11 and emphasize that its ending "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin." means that Jesus doesn't condemn her to death, not that he finds no sin in her. Rather he commands her to leave her life of sin.

2) Teach Acts 15, and emphasize that it clearly distinguishes between the laws of the Old Testament that do not carry forward and those that do, and includes sexual immorality in those laws of the Old Testament that carry forward.

3) Teach Article VII of the 39 Articles, because it explains that the Gospel does not free us from the commands of the Old Testament called moral.

4) Teach Article XV because it explains that Christ only is free of sin.

5) Teach the biblical understanding of male and female using Galatians 3:28 because as Peter Ould explains, this is how he came to understand his own sexual identity in Christ.

6) Teach Romans

7) Teach 1st and 2nd Corinthians

8) Teach Jude

9) Balance, always balance, these teaching with teachings of compassionate love

10) Only allow people who clearly understand 1) thru 9) to participate in church leadership positions.
*
*
*

The Episcopal Church No Longer Recognizes the Universality of Anglican Holy Orders

This letter from Bishop Adams explaining the Ecclesiology of the TEC depositions is so sad. As Craig Goodrich wrote in a comment at Stand Firm, "+Adams understands—and emphasizes—that individual discernment and calling from the Holy Spirit may lead an Anglican clergyman to become a Baptist, a Roman, or anything in between, and—rightly—sees the “abandonment” Canon as a charitable concession to such situations. (This, rather than moral laxity, is really what constitutes Anglican comprehensiveness—or wolliness, if you prefer.)"

A canon that was created as a charitable concession has been twisted to be used for ... revenge. And the result is that The Episcopal Church is making the public statement that it no longer recognizes the universality of Anglican Holy Orders.

Why some may say that the Episcopal Church is no longer a member of the Anglican Communion.

A very interesting and disturbing phenomenon has occurred due to a reinterpretation of the Canons of the Episcopal Church. The decision was made to use a Canon formed to ease the transition for a priest to leave the Anglican Church (of which The Episcopal Church is a part) and go to another Apostolic faith community without trail or expenses, non-necessary paperwork and meetings, which a regular renunciation would have required. A good Canon constructed to work as Christians together in one faith: when spiritual disciplines change and new callings and discernment lead us apart.

But now that same Canon has been reinterpreted to mean that a bishop may depose a priest when they disagree or when that clergyperson sees that they can no longer remain in the Episcopal Church, but she/he may be called to another Anglican entity (Province, Church, Ministry) which shares, supposedly, the same faith and Holy Orders. It has been used nearly 300 times in the past six years. The words have been reinterpreted to speak to a Bishop and his/her clergy instead of a Holy Order within the whole of the Anglican Communion. The interpretation now leans to saying that people are ordained to this Church (TEC) and not to the worldwide Communion. This has been extended to bishops for the first time and now all pretence of investigation, trail, evidence and Anglican identity can be ignored to solve problems that should be dealt with pastorally.

In fact, some few bishops have said they will never depose a clergyperson under these circumstances and have actually sat down with clergy and churches (which they refuse to litigate against) and have worked out pastoral solutions to very difficult and challenging issues. No one has been deposed. Fiscal responsibilities have been satisfied, and even though all arrangements do not satisfy everyone, the Church does not sue its own and cast aside faithful, loving clergy who just can not belong to a Church which has so changed from when they took their vows, that some no longer recognize the Church where many first came to Christ. I actually have a dear friend and priest who was deposed from his office. How many times did he meet with his Bishop? How many people advised him of the gravity of the situation? How many questions were asked of him as to why he was doing what he was doing and believed as he did? Absolutely none. He received a letter one day saying he could no longer be a clergyman in the Episcopal Church. No reason asked. No reason given.

When I was ordained a priest 28 years ago I could go to any Anglican Church in the world and as a recognized Anglican in Holy Orders of the Anglican Communion, I could be invited to celebrate, preach or otherwise minister with summary permission from ecclesiastical authorities. Today, I would stand in judgment of my beliefs and practices in many of the world’s Anglican Provinces. Why? Because the Episcopal Church no longer validates Anglican Orders but only those conferred by bishops within The Episcopal Church (also named TEC). In years past, if I was given a call to another Province, I could go and serve, never being deposed whether I came back or not. What has changed? The Episcopal Church’s understanding seems to be that their orders only extend within the ecclesiastical package of what was known as ECUSA, PECUSA and ultimately the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society and applies to TEC only. The Episcopal Church has declared that it is indeed a church apart from the Anglican Communion.

And this has not occurred because of sexuality, women’s ordination, differences in doctrine, nor polity. It has happened because The Episcopal Church no longer recognizes the universality of Anglican Holy Orders and truly is no longer a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church most of us were ordained into. How far will the separation go? I fear it will eventually be complete and Episcopalians can throw away all the books which claim it is an Anglican Church because it will have divorced itself from its past and become something apart. Maybe that is what the majority want. Then those who have trouble with the historic Creeds of the Church can cut those out of the liturgies and declare a universal salvation at no cost or sacrifice. And it will be worth what people are willing to give for it. As little as possible.

The Rt. Rev. James M. Adams
Bishop of Western Kansas

Obama's Faith: Unitarian, but not exactly Universalist

Barack Obama has been telling the national mainstream media that he has a "conventional Christian faith" and the national mainstream media do not question it. Is this because neither Obama or the national mainstream know what a "conventional Christian faith" is?

Reading "Obama’s latest pastor problems" by Mollie Z at Get Religion and following the links she provides, I found a link to an interview with Obama about his faith from long before he was running for President. The article was linked to "Obama's Latest Pastor Disaster" by Jacques Berlinerblau in the Washington Post.

In "Obama: I have a deep faith" from the Chicago Sun Times from April 5, 2004, Cathleen Falsani interviewed Obama about his actual beliefs about the unique Lordship of Jesus Christ and the existence of Hell. From the quotes Falsani provides, Obama's faith is not "conventional Christian" but rather ... Unitarian, while not exactly Universalist.

We can get the Universalist part from here:

"So, I have a deep faith," Obama continues. "I'm rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.

"That there are values that transcend race or culture, that move us forward, and there's an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived."

It's perhaps an unlikely theological position for someone who places his faith squarely at the feet of Jesus to take, saying essentially that all people of faith -- Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone -- know the same God.

That depends, Obama says, on how a particular verse from the Gospel of John, where Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me," is heard.

Obama's theological point of view was shaped by his uniquely multicultural upbringing...

And here right towards the end of the story, I find the not exactly Universalist part:

"The difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and proselytize. There's the belief, certainly in some quarters, that if people haven't embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior, they're going to hell."

Obama doesn't believe he, or anyone else, will go to hell.

But he's not sure if he'll be going to heaven, either...