From Tim Challie's blog: Tetzel is back with us

As I drove the 16(ish) hours from Toronto to Atlanta, I had a lot of time to think. Not only did I plan out what may just be my next book, but I also thought a lot about this whole global warming controversy. The day before I had read a book about the Reformation and I realized a stark similarity between the conditions prior to the Reformation and contemporary environmentalism. Now I'm sure I'm not the first person to draw this comparison. But indulge me.

In 1517 Pope Leo X made a Dominican monk named Johann Tetzel commissioner of indulgences for all Germany. The Vatican was in dire need of money to pay for its extravagant building and art projects. Tetzel soon toured around the country selling papal indulgences to the masses. He created a little rhyme which translates as "When a coin in coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs." Tetzel is famous (or infamous) for having even created a chart documenting how much it would cost to receive an indulgence for various sins, and even boasted that the indulgences he sold could secure forgiveness for the heinous sin of violating the Virgin Mary. An indulgence is simply a pardon of the temporal punishment due for sins committed. In other words, a person who purchased an indulgence would supposedly escape the punishment merited by his sin.

Fast forward to 2007 and we are in the midst of a controversy about global warming. Some people claim that humans are responsible for an increase in the world's temperature with the prime culprit being carbon dioxide emissions. Some scientists dispute this, but most people in our society are convinced that humans are causing global warming and that we need to radically alter our behavior if we are to save this planet. Leading this charge is Al Gore whose slideshow/film just won an Academy Award and who is currently the golden boy of the Hollywood crowd.

Just a couple of weeks ago it came out in the news that Gore, who tours North America trying to convince people they need to reduce the amount of energy they use, has a home that consumes twenty times the national average. The average household consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours per year. In 2006, the Gore home consumed nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours. In the world of environmentalists, this has to be the rough equivalent of raping the Virgin Mary. Thankfully, Gore has found his Tetzel and has purchased indulgences. Gore's spokesman says that he and Tipper "purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero."

According to the David Suzuki Foundation (David Suzuki is Canada's answer to Al Gore) "A 'carbon offset' is an emission reduction credit from another organization's project that results in less carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than would otherwise occur. Carbon offsets are typically measured in tons of CO2-equivalents (or 'CO2e') and are bought and sold through a number of international brokers, online retailers, and trading platforms."

Gore buys his carbon offsets from Generation Investment Management LLP, which is "an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 and with offices in London and Washington, D.C.," that, for a fee, will invest your money in "high-quality companies at attractive prices that will deliver superior long-term investment returns." Gore just happens to be the Chairman and founding partner of this tax-exempt company. So Gore is his own Tetzel. When a coin in the coffer rings, an oxygen molecule to the atmosphere springs. And Gore pats himself on the back. I found it interesting to hear that the gift bags given to participants in the Academy Awards contained carbon offsets sufficient to offset a year's worth of emissions. Clearly these Hollywood types are very interested in atoning for their environmental sins.

Carbon offsets don't really do anything. Most people don't even pretend that they do anything more than raise awareness for environmental issues. And, of course, they pad the pockets of people selling them. According to Canada's Free Press they "(1) demonstrate commitment to taking action on climate change; (2) add an economic component to climate change; (3) help engage and educate the public; and (4) may provide local social and environmental benefits that help to encourage the use of low-carbon technologies...The real design behind offsetting, then, is to impact the public debate, not to avert the dreaded global warming. "

They are much like indulgences in that way, aren't they? The papacy promised that indulgences would cause those purchasing them to avoid the punishment their sins deserved. But this is a promise that can never be fulfilled. If the people purchasing indulgences were true believers, they should have know that Christ had already taken the full punishment for their sin. If they were not true believers, nothing will reduce the just sentence for their crime. They will suffer horribly and will suffer eternally despite the piece of paper given to them. Their indulgences will not offset their crimes.

I was amazed, as I thought about this, how humans are so eager to rely on their own actions instead of grace. Indulgences bypass grace through action, through human merit. Carbon offsets do the same, relying on self-punishment (purchasing "forgiveness" for crimes committed) to assuage guilt. By purchasing an indulgence a person neither needs to regret nor change his behavior. He can simply buy forgiveness in the form of a piece of paper. The same is true with carbon offsets. A person can continue to drive his SUV and fly around the world in a private jet, but have his conscience clear because he has offset his guilt with the offsets he purchases. If we ever reach the point where we are forced by the government to purchase carbon offsets, it is the poor who will suffer and the rich who will benefit. There will be no equality.

Indulgences and carbon offsets showed me something. Somewhere in the human heart is something that demands justice, but demands a perverted justice. It demands a justice that is so human, so flawed. It demands a justice that does not rely on grace.

Why Do Have only 29 Books in the New Testament.

Here is a good article on this.

God is reshaping the Anglican Communion along the fault line of Biblical truth: the Primates meeting, the calling of the orthodox Primates and our calling

Read On...

There he goes!

Update: Peter wins the race and sets a new course record!

1 Peter Basinger 2/27 7:40pm A new course record is set!

Peter on his way to McGrath in the amazing 350 mile bike/ski or foot race.

Liberalism

"A God without wrath, led men without sin, into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross."

H. Richard Neibuhr

Back to Something Positive!

From C. FitzSimons Allison's The Cruelty of Heresy

"The fact that orthodoxy has been at times badly represented ought not to obscure the larger fact that the essence of Christianity is resisted by a human desire for a religious justification of our self-centeredness, on the one hand, and for a religious encouragement of escape from life, on the other. The good news of Christ frees us from the prison of self-centeredness with the gift of an eternal Center and from an escape into death by the promise of abundant life." p. 178

1 Corinthians 6:9-12
⁹ Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, ¹⁰ nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹ And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

This passage shows that homosexual behavior is not a matter of indifference in the New Testament. It is not like the issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols in Romans 14 or 1 Cor. 8 where Paul urges 'strong' Christians to refrain from eating such meat (even though an idol, he says is nothing) if it might weaken the resolve of 'weak' Christians.

Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori, using the issue of the strong and weak Christians as an analogy to the issue of homosexual practice, suggests that it might be appropriate to meet the conditions of the Windsor Report and the Primates Communique so as not to cause our (weaker) brethren to stumble.

Thus, homosexual practice and eating meat dedicated to idols are equivalent moral concerns.

Is there something wrong here?

Here is what Bishop Jefferts Schori said:

A parallel to this situation in our tradition might be seen in the controversy over eating meat in early Christian communities, mentioned both in the letter to the Romans and the first letter to the Corinthians. In those early communities, the meat available for purchase in the public market was often part of an animal that had been offered (in whole or in part) in sacrifice in various pagan religious rites. The troubling question in the Christian community was whether or not it was appropriate to eat such meat - was it tainted by its involvement in pagan religion? Did one participate in that religion (and thus commit apostasy) by eating it? Paul encourages the Christians in Rome and Corinth to recall that, while there may be no specific prohibition about eating such meat, the sensitive in the community might refrain if others would be offended. The needs of the weaker members, and the real possibility that their faith may be injured, are an important consideration in making the dietary decision.

The key word is "parallel." Meat offered to idols is parallel to homosexual practice.

From Sarah Hey

Here is here response to bloggers hoping against hope that there was something positive in the subcommittee report given to the primates at Dara es Salaam.

"The analogy they articulate is similar to this one. You are the general of an army, and you have surrounded the enemy with superior ground troops and firepower. You have sent terms to the general of the opposing army, asking that they surrender their arms, release their prisoners, and advance to the center of the field under a white flag of peace where the treaty will be signed. The opposing general sends back a communique with something along these lines:

"We receive and embrace your invitation to engage in a process of healing and reconciliation; we call upon all infantrymen in our army to exercise restraint in the use of their firearms. We express our regret for inviting certain members of the opposing army, discovered while on patrol last night, to participate in our underground living quarters, and partake of our meals of hard bread and cold water. As we have no white flag -- nor have we ever even seen or used a white flag in the past -- we find ourselves unable to respond to your request of a white flag until such time as we are able to grow and harvest the cotton, weave the cotton strands together, and form them into an appropriate white flag suitable for display."

You, the general of the "victorious" army send back a rather lengthy communique, surrounded by a number of rhetorical flourishes, frills, furbelows, and bowings and scrapings, which essentially says "We accept your surrender. We will be arriving to collect your surrendered arms and the former prisoners this afternoon at 3. With regards to the little matter of the white flag, we will bring you one ourself to present to us at the center of the field. See you there."

Another from Bishop Jefferts Schori

From a USA Today article:

She sees two strands of faith: One is "most concerned with atonement, that Jesus died for our sins and our most important task is to repent." But the other is "the more gracious strand," says the bishop who dresses like a sunrise.

Hmm

Acts 11:18
¹⁸ When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life."

Repentance that leads to life is given to us through the death and resurrection of Jesus. What she suggests as one strand is the gospel.

A Troubling and Insightful Article

The Liturgical Sermon in TLC, February 5 edition is a very sad, yet revealing article about the state of preaching the Episcopal Church today.

He asserts that the sermon 'fulfills an essential function as a bridge uniting other elements in the liturgy." Sermons, he suggests, play an important (damning by feint praise) but subordinate role to the Eucharist by connecting the liturgy of the word with the Eucharist itself.

He even says, "nothing prevents the preacher from doing exegetical justice to scripture..." Can you imagine?

I have heard and believe that the greatest enemy of biblical preaching is plausible preaching - the kind suggested by Mr. Hoffacker.

Is there no wonder there is a famine of hearing the word of the gospel, despite the spate of readings in our church.

Some Christians in the Cambridge Christian Union, fearful that one of their preachers would try to over intellectualize the sermon to curry favor with the Cambridge dons, wrote a note to their preacher which said, "Ram the red hot gospel down their throats." But, of course, that might not tie the liturgy together.

815

There are all sorts of symbolic and mysterious numbers in the Book of Revelation - notably, 666 - the mark of the beast. I wondered about 815 (the number of TEC headquarters).

But, there isn't. 815 doesn't mean anything at all.

Hmm?

The 'H' Word

It's driving me crazy. Please, please, just say it! - or rather 'he', or 'him,' or 'his' or 'himself'!

From our PC PB - "Christianity in its breadth says that God became human in Jesus, that God revealed God's full self (my emphasis) in Jesus," Jefferts Schori said in an interview with the News Sentinel. "It does not overtly say that God has never been present anywhere else, and I think that's what irritates people.

God revealed HIMSELF. There, I feel so much better.

Romans 1:16-17
¹⁶ For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. ¹⁷ For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."

Romans 1:16-17
¹⁶ Οὐ γὰρ ἐπαισχύνομαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον δύναμις γὰρ θεοῦ ἐστιν εἰς σωτηρίαν παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνι ¹⁷ δικαιοσύνη γὰρ θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ ἀποκαλύπτεται ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν καθὼς γέγραπται Ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται

The righteousness of God (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ) has been given several meanings. Luther considered the righteousness of God the gift from God to all who believe. Others think of the righteousness of God as his saving activity. One emphasis is a new status; the other transformation of character due to God's activity.

A solution - why not both? God's gift of a new relationship with him through Christ, a gift which transforms the character and will of the believer.

Should We Tolerate Error?

Revelation 2:20
²⁰ But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.

The Christians at Pergamum are criticized for 'tolerating' false teaching which lead to sexual immorality. So, there are some things we are not to tolerate (as any parent knows!).

Yet, in the church and in society tolerance is now the king of virtues.

From Scott Clark's blog: (He is professor at Westminster Seminary in California.)

"Read the history of the PCUSA in the early 20th century. The greatest threat to orthodoxy in the PCUSA (Presbyterian Church in the USA) in the early 20th century was not the liberals. They were identifiably wrong. The greatest threat was those who refused to see the liberals and their theology for what they were, another religion. Those who tolerate error do as much damage as the proponents of error because in the same way indulgent parents are as blameworthy as naughty children."

What is Anglicanism - Part Two
from an article by the Revd George Curry, published in the Church of England Newspaper, January, 07.

Next week the Bishops of the Church of England meet together. No doubt, high on their agenda will be the forthcoming meeting in February 2007 of the Primates of the Anglican Communion. It would be surprising, though, if at least a little time was not given also to a discussion on the recently published Covenant for the Church of England (CCE).

Anglicanism, at home and abroad is in a mess. In one respect Archbishop Rowan Williams and his colleagues have an unenviable task. However, the complexities of the breakdown of the relationship between the Episcopal Church of America (TEC) and the churches of the Global South, for example, should neither obscure nor deflect our leaders from the responsibility incumbent upon them. There are two strands to it. Positively, they are to contend earnestly for the faith once and for all delivered to the saints. Negatively, they are to drive away all erroneous belief and behavior. Sadly, our bishops - speaking collectively and not individually - do not have a good track record at doing either.

To illustrate the point, consider this question: When did you last engage with a bishop who would unashamedly describe himself as Protestant and Reformed? An increasing number of the House of Bishops, we are told, style themselves as ‘evangelical’. But what does that mean? When you discover that some who own that title advocate stable same-sex relationships you have to wonder whether the nightmare scenario of a Humpty Dumpty world in which words are invested with our own particular meaning is really upon us.

Be that as it may, what the powers-that-be in church and state appear not to see is that those who may legitimately be described as having the title deeds of the Church of England in their back pockets are scarcely represented in the House of Bishops. At the last count, it was reported that there is only one conservative evangelical bishop in the Church of England, and that he is a suffragan and not a diocesan. If that is so, it means we are in serious trouble. It should not surprise, therefore, that some have singed the CCE document. They are loyal Anglicans who do not want to see the Church of England continue its gradual evolution into a liberal sect.

What is the Church of England? If the Coronation Oath our monarchs swear is anything to go by, it is meant to be that body which guards and propagates within England the Protestant Reformed faith by law established. Historically, Protestants were those who united against the opponents of the reforming movement which began to sweep across Europe in the early 16th century. Fairly quickly the term was used for Lutherans, whilst the term Reformed described Calvinists. Soon, though, the term took on an inclusive meaning to describe those who hold certain specific beliefs. These people came from Lutheran, Zwinglian, Calvinist and Anglican groups. The reformed Church of England of Cranmer and the Elizabethan Settlement was clearly defined as Protestant as opposed to Roman.

What beliefs do Protestants share? For convenience, we shall limit ourselves to three:

[1] the acceptance of the sixty-sin canonical books of the Bible as the sole source of revealed truth and thus the decisive authority in all matters of faith and conduct;

[2] the conviction that the only way an individual sinner may find acceptance with God is by the sovereign grace of God alone, through faith alone, and in Jesus Christ alone; and

[3] the belief that all believers enjoy, as a consequence of their adoption in Christ, immediate access to God and are called and empowered by the Holy Spirit to serve him in the church and world. These are fundamental gospel beliefs.

Scripture teaches, and church history illustrates, that attacks upon and challenges to Scriptural truth emerge in every generation. Sometimes the attacks are from without and may properly be described as persecution. Often such attacks are subtle and insidious. On other occasions they are full frontal assaults. The attacks we face today are probably of the former kind. Certainly, the ravages created by evolutionism and political correctness have advanced incrementally. The innovation of Civil Partnerships and the proposed Sexual Orientation Regulations represent further steps along the way of undermining the God-given order for sexual relations.

Sadly, some attacks on Christian truth arise within the church. It has been said that most, if not all, heresies have their origins in the subtle distortion or reinterpretation of received doctrine. Now we readily acknowledge that there is something provisional about our understanding and articulation of Scriptural truth. After all we are not the source of truth: God is. Moreover, our intellects are not untouched by sin. We also accept that we have a responsibility to check that our understanding and interpretation of Scripture is true to Scripture. That being so, it does not mean that we should, as some do, simplistically assert that everything is just a matter of interpretation.

The concept of Via Media, popularized by Newman in the 19th century, is often invoked in today. Newman used the term to describe Anglicanism as a middle way between Popery and Dissent. As a result he enjoyed a degree of success in seeing the Church of England embrace some devotionally and doctrinally destructive tendencies. Today, it appears, the term is used in a way that resonates with an approach adopted by Hegel. He argued that there is a constant dialectic between a thesis and its antithesis which in time leads to the emergence of a synthesis. This then becomes the new thesis. An example of this sort of approach occurred recently when an overseas bishop argued that, on the one hand, we have a traditional understanding of sexual ethics whilst on the other we have new liberal views. We Anglicans, he said, are to take a middle course between the two. One bishop present was heard to utter an expletive in reaction to such muddled thinking!

In case you think this all extreme, consider an argument recently put forward by the spin doctors of Lambeth Palace. An invitation has been given to Dr Schori of TEC to attend the forthcoming meeting of Anglican Provincial leaders. The reason given to justify the invitation is that it would be inappropriate not to do so bearing in mind that the processes established by the Windsor Report are still being pursued. Furthermore, it would be premature to foreclose the debate. The argument sounds reasonable. Of course, it is if you follow a Hegelian approach. But Christians do not. They constantly check all that is taught and done against the Divine standard and rule of Scripture.

It is a cardinal rule of interpretation that the Bible is to be interpreted in its grammatical, historical, and theological sense. In other words, we start with the plain sense of terms used. We recognize the import of them in their immediate context, both grammatical and historical. We also see how they fit into the theological context of Scripture as a whole. It is also a cardinal rule of interpretation that our interpretation of the Bible must be deemed inadequate or wrong if we make Scripture say the opposite to what it actually says.

Whether we like it or not there are two issues that are being fought out amongst professing Christians today. Both will be before those who attend the Primates’ meeting in February. One concerns leadership; the other the context in which sexual activity with another person is legitimate. Sadly, there has been a collective failure of leadership by the bishops of the Church of England on both topics.

As Richard Holloway, one time Bishop of Edinburgh, rightly said on Radio 4 in the mid 1990s, “You will not find the ordination of women in the Bible”. By that, we take it he meant you will not find the Bible endorses the ordination of women to positions of leadership over men in churches. We say the assessment is correct for, if the plain words of Scripture mean anything, they teach that the apostolic practice was for the office of elder to be filled by men only. In fact, Paul indicates he knew of no other practice. He challenged those who thought otherwise to recognize that they did so contrary to the revealed Word of God (1 Corinthians 14.33ff). He also taught leadership by men is a God-given pattern established at Creation and substantiated in history (1 Timothy 2.12ff). It is for this reason that some members of TEC, as well as leaders within the wider Anglican Communion, disagree with the appointment of and the invitation issued to the Presiding Bishop of that wayward denomination.

We recognize that many disagree with the conservative understanding of leadership roles within the church. However, we respectfully point out two things. First, the substantive arguments for male presbyters put forward by evangelicals have never been refuted. In fact, we know of one senior cleric who was somewhat surprised when he was reminded of the teaching of 1 Timothy. It is somewhat bizarre that, before he had held a Bible study with conservatives on this topic, as he said he would, he publicly called for the church to proceed towards the appointment of women as bishops! It is also bizarre that there appears to be a reluctance to define what is meant by the term ‘reception’. There also appears to be a failure to recognize that, in the 1990s, the Church of England broke with Scripture and tradition. She created an entirely new type of priest; namely one not eligible for appointment as a bishop.

Now, the revisionists want the church to say what God says is immoral is to be deemed ‘moral’. The Scripture states that those who engage in sexual activity with a person other than their spouse (being a person of the opposite sex) commit sin. The Bible also teaches that this is not a secondary matter. It says those who persist in an immoral lifestyle shall not enter the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6.9-11).

Sadly, we are living with the consequences of a collective failure of leadership. In 1991 the House of Bishops issued a statement which has been interpreted as endorsing one rule for the laity and another for the clergy. Whether that is a fair assessment of Issues in Human Sexuality is hotly debated. What seems incontrovertible, though, is that some bishops have been exceedingly slow to follow through parts of their report. They have failed to discipline those who practice or teach a sexual ethic which does not cohere with Scripture or the Christian tradition. This failure is further seen in the flawed and defective advice on civil partnerships issued in 2006.

We wholeheartedly concur with the bishops when they condemn acts of aggression towards those who understand these matters in another way. However, we also recognize that we are under a God-given obligation, in love, to inform people what the Scriptures teach. It is our privilege to invite them most earnestly to forsake what God condemns and to seek from him the forgiveness he freely offers all who repent and believe.

The task of Christians, then, is to proclaim Christ. We are not to preach a christ or gospel of our own making. Nor are we to twist the Scriptures to justify what we want or do. Rather, our responsibility is to hear and heed God’s written Word. Out of love for him, we are to obey his commands. An individual who does otherwise can justifiably be called unfaithful. There is no future for a church which acts contrary to the plain teaching of the Bible. We pray the primates will contend earnestly for the faith. We pray they drive away error. In particular, we pray the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues will unashamedly uphold Anglicanism as Protestant and Reformed.

George Curry, Vicar of Elswick, Newcastle upon Tyne
Chairman of Church Society, “the senior evangelical body of the Church of England” (The Times)

What's an Anglican? (That's Thomas Cranmer on the left, not me)

A Christian, of course.

But, we are a reformed, catholic church. The Anglican Church is reformed in our emphasis on the Bible, in our 39 Articles of Religion, and in our Biblically centered worship. We are catholic in that we retain the common heritage of the Christendom, in a biblical form. We understand that the church has a role in interpreting the Bible correctly (Article 20), and we use the ancient catholic creeds as examples of such true interpretation.

Broom Ball at the Asays!

LOCKED OUT! Again!

All Saints' Anchorage AK on a sunny January afternoon.

John Yates and Os Guiness tell why the Falls Church left the Episcopal Church

Bishop Schori's Latest: Read and, well, weep.

Or you can read it here.

From Zechariah

Preaching on the Book of Zechariah

Rather than simply making comments on the lectionary, I am going to use this column to share with you the titles and main points of a Sermon Series that I have done. While I do follow the lectionary, I also often choose to make my own way through different portions of the Bible, believing as I do that the “lectionary was made for man, not man for the lectionary.”

For instance, for the first Sunday in Advent, we had Zechariah 14:4-9 as the Old Testament reading. That passage is about the second advent of Christ, and while it fits the theme of Advent, it made me wonder about the book of Zechariah itself. Who was he? Why did he say this? Why did he say it this way?

Well, I’m not sure I succeeded in answering all these questions; however, I will let you know what I did.

First, I spent the four weeks of Advent on Zechariah.

Week one: Zechariah 1:1-7

I looked at chapter 1.1-7 with special attention to 1:3 which I took to be the theme of the book…³ Therefore say to them, Thus declares the Lord of hosts: Return to me, says the Lord of hosts, and I will return to you, says the Lord of hosts. (Zechariah 1.3)

The prophets, Haggai and Zechariah, encouraged the returning exiles to rebuild the Temple. They were harassed by the local residents and were forced to end suspend their building projects.

Zechariah, however, along with Haggai, sees this issue as something more than a bricks and mortar affair.

Zechariah 1.3 says, “Return to me…and I will return to you.” Well, of course, they had returned from Babylon to Jerusalem, yet the prophet insists they needed more than simply a geographical return. They needed to return, in faith, to the Lord of all the earth. The evidence of their returning would be the bricks and mortar of the temple going forward.

Their response is indicated in the 1.3a, but the 1.3b actually is a summary of the rest of the book. The Lord will return to them in a variety of ways.

Week 2: How Can We Go on with the Work – Zechariah 3

There are 8 visions, beginning in 1.8. They are all quite different; however, in differing ways they are encouragements to a very discouraged group to continue in their work because the Lord was ‘returning’ to them in blessing and restoration. The middle section of the visions concerns two key men; Joshua, the priest, and Zerubbabel, the governor. I chose to spend two weeks on these two visions.

The leadership of the people of God was, of course, central to their success. But, how can guilty people and guilty leaders possibly curry favor with God? Of course, they can’t; but God can grant them forgiveness. That seems to underlie this section. In fact, how can anyone serve the Lord? Aren’t we all compromised to a certain degree?

The vision is a courtroom scene with the angel of the Lord as the judge; Satan as the prosecutor and Joshua in the dock, albeit with dirty clothes (unimaginable for priest). He stands convicted without Satan having to say a word.

I made two major points. The first was that only a person who is clean or forgiven can serve the Lord, and this scene from the courtroom shows that the Lord unilaterally forgives. This is demonstrated by the Lord’s word to Joshua that he take off his dirty clothes and put on splendid robes. “I have taken your guilt from you.”

The second point concerns justice. How can God forgive a guilty man? It is the same dilemma Paul speaks of in Romans. God can’t forgive a guilty person; but he does. But isn’t he the judge of the universe. This appears to be a travesty of justice! But, wait. The basis of forgiveness is a promise to be fulfilled in the future. “I am about to bring My servant, the Branch…” (Zechariah 3.8) There is the answer.

God’s forgiveness meets the canons of justice, while also expressing God’s love for sinners. Joshua can and does live in light of the future promise of God to send his servant, the branch to be the means by which God can forgive a guilty man; and further, why he can forgive a guilty people.

Week Three: Zechariah 4: The Golden Lampstand

Where the question raised in week two concerned forgiveness from guilt resulting in freedom to serve the Lord, this vision of a lampstand raises yet another question. How can God’s people continue in the work he has given them? Won’t they just poop out? To answer that, we now have a vision of a lampstand, the likes of which we have not seen in the Old or New Testaments.

Attention is now paid to Zerubbabel, the political leader. He is a very able man as presented in both this letter and that of Haggai. The point of the vision seems to be the continuing supply of oil which comes from the Olive Trees via conduits to the lampstand.

How then can the people of God keep on going? The answer is given in verse 6.

Zechariah 4:6 (ESV)
⁶ Then he said to me, "This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel: Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord of hosts.

That, I think, is what the lampstand represents. Not might, not right, but God’s Spirit which is given to Zerubbabel, and his people day by day.

You can see how this leads into the New Testament realization of what is pointed to in Zechariah.

Ephesians 5:18 (ESV)
¹⁸ And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,

We are so concerned with being wise, dynamic and smart. But what we really need is God’s Spirit to enable us to continue in what he has started in us.

We so easily burst into project after project; but the ones that are needful in the kingdom of God takes God’s power, given to us in the Spirit through the Son, to get it done.

Week Four: Christmas Eve Morning: Zechariah 8:1-7

With 4 weeks for 14 chapters, one obviously has to make some choices about which parts of Zechariah to preach on. I chose to finish on this passage, since it picks up one of the great themes of Advent, as well as advancing the point of Zechariah 1.3 that God will return to his people. In this chapter, the return spoken of is the 2^nd coming of the Lord, which Zechariah tells in a very unique way.

When we do think of Christ’s 2^nd coming, we rightly think of power, clouds and glory. Then we think of the heavenly Jerusalem - sparkling with crystal, with a river flowing from the throne of God.

But the images in Zechariah, while complementary, are different. We have a picture of a park with elderly people sitting peacefully, untroubled by illness and young children running around without a hint of fear. Then the chapter ends with a great festival, and with people from many lands coming to Jerusalem.

I used chapter 8, because it casts its light on the future, but as Barry Webb – (The Message of Zechariah – The Bible Speaks Today Series) says the final reality is always viewed, in the Old Testament, as a light that casts its reflection backwards to motivate and guide life in the present.” “It is the goal the people of God are longing for, and every advance towards it is a cause for celebration.”

I highly recommend Barry’s wonderful commentary.

Just to Focus on One Thing from the English Covenant:

We can no longer associate with teaching that is contrary to the clear teaching of the Scriptures either doctrinally (for example, on the supremacy and uniqueness of Christ) or morally (for example, on issues of gender, sex and marriage), or church leadership which advocates such teaching.

A proposal from our English Evangelical brethren:

A Covenant for the Church of England

The following Covenant was drawn up by representatives of a number of evangelical groups within the Church of England including Church Society and was endorsed by the Council of the Society. It represented an attempt by people to work together in propagation the gospel, growing churches and opposing error within the Church of England.

A COVENANT FOR THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

At this time in the life of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion, faced with a faulty view of revelation, false teaching and indiscipline, we believe that it is necessary to set out where we as orthodox Anglicans stand, and to invite others to join us.

OUR IDENTITY

We are members of the Church of England, part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, who share with others throughout the world a commitment to the biblical truths on which the Anglican Communion is based. This is what guarantees our fellowship with Anglicans historically and globally. We pledge ourselves to strengthen this fellowship.

The love and grace of God in the gospel saves and converts individuals to a relationship with God, introduces people to life in the Spirit, and draws members into the Body of Christ. It produces holiness of life, unity in the Spirit and life-giving and life-transforming mission. Therefore in dependence on God, we are committed to spreading the unchanging gospel of Jesus Christ, to making disciples who make disciples of Christ, and to reviving existing and planting new churches. We wait for heaven to belong to a pure and perfect church – indeed, we confess our own guilty part in the church’s present failings. Nonetheless the gospel challenges the church to faithful obedience.

We are committed to faithful biblical orthodoxy as defined by the classic formularies of our tradition. Canon A5 states: “The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal”. The Preface to the Declaration of Assent declares that the Church of England professes “the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds.” This is what the Church of England confesses and true unity belongs in this common confession. It is departure from this common faith that is responsible for causing schism.

Commitment to the gospel has the following implications for action at this time.

OUR ACTION

Mission: Jesus’ Great Commission to “Go into all the world and make disciples” has renewed force for us in our post-Christian society. As is being increasingly recognised, the historic focus on the traditional patterns of parishes, clergy and ecclesiastical buildings is now inadequate by itself to meet this great challenge and must be transformed by one that is dynamically evangelistic, committed to using every available means to reach the unchurched. “Existing ecclesiastical legal boundaries should be seen as permeable”. This means there cannot be any no-go areas for gospel growth and church planting. Best practice will always involve appropriate consultation, including with non-Anglicans. We will support mission-shaped expressions of church through prayer, finance and personnel, even when official permission is unreasonably withheld.

Appointments: The local congregation is the initial and key seed-bed for recognising, authorising, raising up and releasing new leaders. We affirm the need for the wider recognition and authorisation for leaders. We recognise the vital importance of biblically orthodox training both regionally and nationally. But many parishes have lost confidence in the institutional centre to discern and train suitable ministers, and fund and deploy them in sufficient numbers and appropriate contexts. Local churches must in future also play a major role in the selection, training, funding and appointment of ministers. This means that we can no longer be constrained by an over-centralised and increasingly ineffective control that is stifling the natural development of ministry. If the local Bishop unreasonably withholds authorisation, we will pay for, train and commission the ministers that are needed, and seek official Anglican recognition for them.

Fellowship: Fellowship is based on the faith “once delivered to the saints”. Global Anglicans observe that the Church of England is increasingly polarizing into two churches: the one submitting to God’s revelation, Gospel-focused, Christ-centred, cross-shaped and Spirit-empowered; the other holding a progressive view of revelation, giving priority to human reason over Scripture, shaped primarily by western secular culture, and focused on church structures. We reaffirm the Church of England as a confessing church, built supremely not on administrative or human structures but on biblical authority, belief and behaviour. This means that we can no longer associate with teaching that is contrary to the clear teaching of the Scriptures either doctrinally (for example, on the supremacy and uniqueness of Christ) or morally (for example, on issues of gender, sex and marriage), or church leadership which advocates such teaching. We will therefore encourage new informal networks of fellowship, augmenting where necessary the institutional geographical groupings, and will respect and support those who cannot in good conscience maintain Christian fellowship with neighbouring Anglicans who do not uphold the authority of Scripture.

Money: Money is an aspect of gospel partnership in the New Testament. It is entrusted to church leaders by church members who generously and sacrificially give to Christian ministry. Under charity law there is a responsibility that those who handle the church’s money steward those resources with integrity. Funds are expected to be directed towards the churches and causes in line with the beliefs and expectations of those who give. To direct the church’s giving elsewhere is a dereliction of duty for which leaders will be held accountable by God. This means that we can no longer support ministries or structures increasingly marked by the doctrinal and ethical heterodoxy outlined above. Our congregations will seek actively to become self-sustaining when and where we can, to donate a reasonable yet modest amount to support the administrative centre, to be part of mutually accountable financial partnerships, and to give generously to gospel ministries, at home and abroad, that share the same values.

Oversight: Christian leaders are servant leaders, servants of the gospel. As Anglicans, we affirm Episcopal oversight for the sake of God’s mission. But it must be ordered for the church’s well-being. This means having biblically orthodox oversight that will teach the apostolic faith, refute error and discipline the wayward. We can, therefore, no longer accept churches being denied such oversight. Ensuring that such biblically orthodox oversight is available for the health and well-being of the church is more important than arguments about jurisdiction. The immediate crisis is over the fundamentals of revealed truth. We are aware of those who justifiably consider that their communion with their bishops is impaired, and will support and help them to find alternative oversight.

We are committed, as authentic Anglicans, to praying, believing and working for a restored, reformed and renewed Church of England, holding its traditional convictions: confidence in the truth of God in his Word, in the sacrificial death of his Son for his world, and in the power of God’s Spirit to fulfil his mission.

UGH! Aggies 10, California 45.

Since hope srings eternal, we will have to wait til next year for the blooming of the A&M football team as a major power! But, it was a good year.

From Hugh Fitzgerald: A fantastic war (Jihad Watch)

"In the future,” many have predicted, “the Iraqis will blame their civil war on the US."

Well, of course they will. They already do. They do in Man-on-the-street interviews, in which those men on the street explain how “everyone got along” until the bad old Americans came. In a poof, the persecution and mass-murder of the Kurds is forgotten by all the Arabs. In a poof, the persecution and mass-murder of the Shi'a by the Sunnis (the regime of Saddam Hussein being merely a disguised Sunni despotism) is forgotten -- certainly by almost all the Sunnis, but also by some Shi'a when they want to blame, as they do want to blame, the Infidels for everything. Everything was wonderful.

In Pakistan Sipaha-e-Sahaba never attacked the Shi'a. In Afghanistan the Taliban never tried to wipe out every last Shi'a Hazara. In Lebanon, the Shi'a have never suffered or ever wanted to get back at the Sunnis. In Bahrain, the Shi'a who constitute 75% of the population are ruled benignly by a Sunni Arab about whom they have nothing to complain. And as for the past 1300 years of Sunni-Shi'a relations, let's just say it has been roses, roses, roses all the way.

Of course the Americans are to blame, in Muslim eyes. Always will be.

But here's the amusing part. The Bush Administration cannot admit to itself that the Sunni-Shi'a divide pre-dated the invasion of Iraq by some 1300 years, and that the fissures between them would inevitably widen once the iron grip of Saddam Hussein had been removed. Because to admit that this was all inevitable, would be to raise the question: if it was all inevitable, why did we not see it? For it if was inevitable, and we hadn't -- and still refuse to have -- the slightest idea of its inevitability, then there must be something wrong with us. But we can't admit that. Nor can all the commentators, for and against the war, who failed to immediately identify this inevitable outcome, and who either remained Bush loyalists, or opposed the war for all the wrong, appeasing reasons. Or they advocated some halfway measure, such as that "put in a strongman" -- without, of course, asking themselves whether that "strongman" would be Sunni, in which case the Shi'a would never accept him, or Shi'a, in which case the Sunnis would never accept him.

No, those who were wrong, being unable to admit it, will persist in their obstinacy. And that obstinacy requires them to deny the depth and duration of the Sunni-Shi'a split, and thus to support the view that the "Americans caused it."

A fantastic war, this Iraq war. Undertaken for one stated reason, continued long after for quite another, crazily messianic and polypragmonic reason. Supported by those who simply mechanically rallied around the Bush-Republican-conservative wagons, without considering what was actually going on. And even today most are still unable to see the folly of the Bush and now Gates definition of "victory," which is the very opposite of what should be desired.

When Gates says failure to obtain "victory" -- by which he means ending the Sunni-Shi'a violence and forcing the Kurds to permanently acquiesce in remaining within Arab-ruled Iraq, he has it all backwards. He speaks of "catastrophe." But the real "catastrophe" would be if the Americans, after having squandered 3,000 lives and 22,000 wounded and a half-trillion dollars in sunk or committed future expenses, and after having done great damage to both the materiel and the morale of the armed services (not cheap to repair in one case and not easily recovered in the other), were to continue to squander men, money, and materiel in order to achieve the opposite of what would constitute a kind of victory, which would come through dividing and demoralizing and thereby weakening the Camp of Islam. Well, this would be the greatest self-inflicted defeat in American history. And it would have been entirely avoidable if Bush and Co. had had the right understanding of the instruments and full scope of the menace of Jihad.

But Jihad is not understood. Not by Bush. Not by Cheney. Not by Rice. Not by Gates. Not by the idiotic Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group. Not by The New Duranty Times. Not by The Bandar Beacon. Not by the bright-eyed "insurgency experts" who keep making plans to win hearts and minds in Iraq, and who speak confidently and irrelevantly about how insurgencies "last on average ten years." They do not consider that this "insurgency" is Islam-based. As long as Islam is there, the Infidels will always be fought, and as long as Islam is there, the ethnic and sectarian divisions within Islam will never be overcome, because the spirit of compromise, especially peaceful compromise, is contradicted by the tenets and attitudes of the belief-system of Islam.

How long will it take this learning-curve to begin to take off, as it still strains and strains and strains for lift-off?

Chuck Collins: Can’t We Just avoid the National Church Controversy and Get on with Local Ministry?

Why not leave it to the bishops to solve the problem, ignore the mess in the national church, and get on with our own mission and ministry at Christ Church? After all, our Presiding Bishop is not making us believe her wild theology, and the Episcopal Church is not forcing us to do things against our conscience.

I’ve heard this criticism about Christ Church and about how we responded to the crisis caused by General Conventions of the Episcopal Church in 2003 and 2006. “The rector and vestry overstepped their bounds and allowed national church matters to cloud their judgment,” they say. They go on to say that a better response would have been to trust our bishops to fight the good fight for us, and reinvest in what we do best: Sunday worship and the day-to-day ministries of our parish. I’m sure this is also how our bishops hoped we would respond and how most churches in the diocese have. Not speaking for our vestry, but only for myself, the reason I can’t surrender this to some notion that the Episcopal Church’s impasse with the Anglican Communion will somehow take care of itself is because it affects me deeply and directly. The crisis has reached my life and ministry in a very personal way.

Steve Vrana, as many of you know, is the son of one of our vestry members. He died several months ago of AIDS. His ashes are in our columbarium. The year before he died Steve and I had several long conversations at La Fonda in which he told me he was hearing mixed messages from his church, the Episcopal Church. On one hand he was hearing that we are all sinners and the answer to the problem of sin is repentance, forgiveness and amendment of life. On the other hand, he was very aware that the national church’s official position supports homosexual relationships. Steve’s funeral was on the day it was reported in the news that yet another bishop (Maze of Arkansas) allows the practice of blessing same-sex couples in his diocese. Now a large number of bishops and a growing number of dioceses officially or unofficially approve this practice. This includes our new Presiding Bishop who was one of the first to permit clergy in her home diocese (Nevada) to preside over same-sex blessings.

If you say the crisis in the Episcopal Church hasn’t affected us at Christ Church, I couldn’t disagree more! Because of the mixed messages, at least this one young man felt that he had permission on some level for the gay life he was living, which eventually led him to be infected with HIV, which finally killed him. I understand that it’s a huge leap to blame Bishop Maze, the House of Bishops or the General Convention for Steve’s death, but I do blame them. At least partially. To call “sin” something else, and to deprive sinners of God’s remedy for their condition, is the worse kind of injustice. And to say this is the most compassionate response just amplifies the injustice. This is what Bishop Allison calls “the cruelty of heresy.” It’s what Jeremiah says of the false prophets, “They say continually to those who despise the word of the Lord, ‘It shall be well with you…’” (23:16, 17).

The second reason the Episcopal Church mess has become very personal is because being “Episcopalian” has become a theological statement supporting certain things that I don’t believe. When the head of our church (new Presiding Bishop) told interviewers from Time Magazine and National Public Radio that she doesn’t believe in the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and that Christianity doesn’t have anything more to offer than the religions of the world, that’s when it became personal. I not only do not buy her Unitarian “anything goes” belief system, but having the leader of our church promote such beliefs mars my witness as a Christian and hurts my ability to share the gospel. Isn’t this true for everyone who is serious about what the Bible says about Jesus and is still in the Episcopal Church? “You say that Jesus is the answer, but even your own Presiding Bishop doesn’t believe that!” For awhile it was OK to explain to people that I don’t accept the official positions of my denomination and that Christ Church is a different kind of church from other Episcopal churches. But, patiently waiting for the national church to see the error of its ways has not turned it in the least towards the Anglican family that we left (as prescribed by The Windsor Report). In fact, every indication is that the Episcopal Church is bound and determined to stay the revisionist “anything goes” course, no matter what.

Now deceased Presiding Bishop John Allen, when he addressed the House of Bishops for the last time, asked for forgiveness for loving the church more than he loved the Lord of the church. I too was born and raised in this church, and as an adult I loved the Episcopal Church. But I love God more. Last week I signed welcome letters for three families who visited the previous Sunday. Every week God sends newcomers through our doors who are looking for God and for God’s solution to the discontent in their hearts. What we have to offer them is simple: Jesus Christ (and the community of followers of the Man who changed our lives). To take this away, is to take the gospel away, is to take my church away.

It should be clear to everyone that yesterday’s problem (homosexuality) is pretty inconsequential compared to today’s problem (the person of Jesus Christ and the salvation he has won for us). We shouldn’t be surprised when a church that blinks at the biblical teaching on smaller matters eventually blinks at the core doctrines of biblical Christianity. When orthodoxy is held up as optional, the door is wide open for the “anything goes” theology that describes the Episcopal Church today. I’ve said all along that this is not a crisis about sexuality, but about authority and whether or not we accept the Bible as God’s revelation.

So, you ask, why can’t I just ignore the national church, the House of Bishops and our Presiding Bishop? Why not just mind our own business? Because the controversies of the national church and the General Conventions have come to San Antonio in a big way. They directly affect the lives of such people as Steve Vrana and everyone who loved Steve. Because the deepest longing of every newcomer who visits is for the God of the Bible. Has Christ Church been diverted from its purpose and mission? I think it’s just the opposite; I believe we have been exceedingly faithful to our calling. I know there are some who would have us do nothing, but anyone who comes on Sunday mornings and who is involved in our parish life knows that while the vestry, clergy and I have made a strong stand for historic, biblical Anglicanism, we also have not skipped a beat in providing the worship, ministry, and care we are known for.

–The Rev. Chuck Collins is rector, Christ Church, San Antonio, Texas

Episcopal Dhimmitude

Dhimmi is an Islamic term which means 'protected.' It refers to the status of Jews and Christians in an Islamic state. They were permitted to live and keep their own faith, in return for payment of the jizya and adherence to various demeaning regulations.

Episcopal dhimmitude, particularly as revealed in the correspondence between Bps Jefferts Schori and Schofield, is an apt term, I think, to describe the relationship between 'orthodox' and the 'progressives.' Clearly, the 'progressives' as exemplified in Katherine Jefferts Schori, are in control of the institutional Episcopal Church.

Bishop Jefferts Schori reminded Schofield: "You have, however, taken vows three times over that period to uphold the "doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church."

In response, Bishop Schofield agreed, then added, "In 2003, the General Convention committed itself to a theological path that is irreconcilable with the Anglican faith this Church has received and has torn the fabric of the entire Communion."

It is the word 'doctrine' which is at issue. It can be easily shown that the Episcopal Church no longer consistently holds to catholic doctrine, therefore, in order to uphold it, one must move in a different direction from the national church.

All Bp Jefferts Schori can do is threaten because she is unable to argue from any orthodox doctrinal framework which she does not hold.

The result of this seems to be that it is okay for evangelicals and anglo-catholics, the only ones who seem committed to orthodox catholic doctrine, to do as they want, but they must not do anything to weaken the fortress at 815. People like Bishop Schofield, who find that to to uphold the doctrine, disciple and worship as the church has received it, they must move in a new direction, are now the subjects of threats, and verbal abuse from the rulers of 815.

Bible believing Episcopalians, of whatever variety, are treated like the dhimmi in Muslim ruled lands. They must pay the jiyza tax, be treated with contempt, and then are allowed to be part of dar al episcopus.

I don't think so.

Chesterton once again...

"Joy, which was the small publicity of the pagan, is the gigantic secret of the Christian"—Orthodoxy

From Orthodoxy - G. K. Chesterton

"But what we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert - himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt - the Divine Reason. Huxley preached a humility content to learn from Nature. But the new sceptic is so humble that he doubts if he can even learn. Thus we should be wrong if we had said hastily that there is no humility typical of our time. The truth is that there is a real humility typical of our time; but it so happens that it is practically a more poisonous humility than the wildest prostrations of the ascetic. The old humility was a spur that prevented a man from stopping; not a nail in his boot that prevented him from going on. For the old humility made a man doubtful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which will make hims stop working all altogether."

A Gigantic Secret

I will never forget an editorial in NY Times years ago in which the author could think of few reasons why we should be joyful given world conditions of the time. After all, despite the promises offered at Christmas, there was no peace and further, no prospect for world peace. That was years ago in a different world situation. The great powers, and the great rulers come and go, yet the world seems in about the same condition. I’m sure there will be many editorials lamenting the absence of peace, despite the promise of King of Peace whose birth we celebrate this month.

However, what the editorial writer did not comprehend was another war that began with the fall of Adam and Eve, and which picked up steam with the coming of Jesus, and which continues to rage until the end of time. If you want a description of that war, try reading Revelation 6 for starters. It is the conflict between rebellious humanity which aims to displace God as ruler of the world. It underlies all other conflicts – which of course are horrendous and real in themselves, and which we pray and work to end (Blessed are the peacemakers…)

The difference between these 2 battles going on simultaneously is that there is a solution to one of them; that is also the solution to the other. That same book of Revelation, mentioned earlier, speaks of a lion that ‘was victorious.’ Yet that same lion is also described as a ‘lamb standing as though it had been slain.’ Salvation comes, not through military or political might, but through the sacrifice offered ‘once for all’ on the cross.

It is the victory through the ‘defeat’ of Jesus on the cross which is the answer to all other conflicts, because it has ended the primordial conflict between humanity and God which began in the Garden of Eden. That victory is what we as Christians remember each time we gather together, and especially so at Christmas. It is this good news which we offer to the world so that people might embrace and follow the Prince of Peace.

So, yes, there is tremendous conflict going on in the world; and there is the war that has been won by the lion who triumphed who also is the lamb that was slain. This is the gigantic secret revealed to all humanity and for this precious gift of our God, we rejoice and sing his praises now and throughout all eternity.

From Bishop John David Schofield to Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts-Schori
The Episcopal Church Center
815 Second Ave.
New York, NY 10017

Dear Bishop Schori:

Greetings in the name of our Lord and only Savior Jesus Christ.

I am in receipt of your letter to me and wish to make clear from the outset that I have always remained faithful to my vows as an ordained bishop in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. At my consecration, I vowed to "guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church of God." I was charged by my chief consecrator to "Feed the flock of Christ committed to [my] charge, guard and defend them in his truth, and be a faithful steward of his holy Word and Sacraments." I carry out my vow by defending and propagating "the historic Faith and Order" which The Episcopal Church commits to upholding in the preamble of its own Constitution.

In 2003, the General Convention committed itself to a theological path that is irreconcilable with the Anglican faith this Church has received and has torn the fabric of the entire Communion. The Primates repeated calls for repentance have not been heeded. More than half of the Primates and Provinces of the Anglican Communion have declared themselves to be in impaired or broken communion with The Episcopal Church. Beyond our Anglican Communion, relations throughout Christendom have been profoundly strained. With obvious reference to innovations and novelties introduced by The Episcopal Church, last week Pope Benedict XVI publically stated to Archbishop Rowan Williams that recent developments, "especially concerning ordained ministry and certain moral teachings," have affected not only the internal relations within the Anglican Communion but also relations between the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church.

The Episcopal Church, as an institution, is walking a path of apostasy and those faithful to God's Word are forced to make painful choices.

At a diocesan level, the choice is between continuing membership in an unrepentant, apostate institution or following Holy Scripture and the Anglican faith. Whether or not the Diocese of San Joaquin will continue its institutional membership in The Episcopal Church is a choice that will be made by the people and the clergy and not by me. They will express their collective will as provided in the diocesan governing documents which were approved by the General Convention when the diocese was first admitted to membership.

It is important to point out that the vote at the Diocesan Convention in December 2006 is neither final nor irrevocable. Should the Constitutional amendments being proposed pass the "first reading," then the diocese will simply have positioned itself to make a final decision at a second consecutive Annual Convention in 2007 if that proves God's call.

Under our diocesan constitution, the second and final reading is automatically scheduled for October 2007. The setting of the exact date may be advanced or delayed by the bishop. There are some significant factors that would influence such a decision.

First, at the meeting with the leading Primates of the Global South in Virginia, November 15-17 this year, the Global South Primates Steering Committee encouraged us by supporting our faithful stand and commitment to Christ, and they expressed a desire to be of help to us to relieve our untenable position. They have promised assistance, the form of which they will bring to the entire Primates meeting scheduled for Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, in February 2007. In the meantime, in keeping with the goals of the Windsor Report and positioning ourselves to accept the Primates' help, we are responding to the Primates who called upon us to remain flexible until the details are worked out.

An additional consideration was your letter to me. I believe you have shown wisdom and restraint by not issuing an ultimatum. Instead, you have invited further discussion which could possibly lead to some degree of reconciliation. In recognition of what you have proposed, I, too, will exercise restraint by not advancing the date of what could be an historic and final act. However, should proceedings be instituted against me as threatened in your letter, I would not feel obliged to exercise restraint. My prayer is that neither of us takes action which upsets the delicate balance which now exists until the Primates have given us direction at their February 2007 meeting. Until then, powerful forces will be at work that will ultimately shape the future.

I pray that God's will be revealed to us all.

You may be assured of my prayers for the Holy Spirit's wisdom and guidance.

In Christ,

The Rt. Rev. John-David M. Schofield, SSC
Bishop of San Joaquin

Holiday Bowl - Here We Come!

Zechariah

- that is the OT prophet, not John the Baptist's father, who lived in the early 6th century BC after the return of the exiles to Jerusalem. I'm going to offer some thoughts on this book which I hope to preach on this Advent. (Better figure this out pretty quick since Advent is upon us.)

Zechariah 1:2 in the ESV is this:
² "The Lord was very angry with your fathers.

The Hebrew is 5 words, and two of them are the word angry. Thus, it could be rendered "Angry was the Lord with your forefathers with anger." (New Bible Commentary).

The Lord was angry with Zechariah's forefathers, but why is he angry with Zechariah's contemporaries?

Stay tuned!

We outscored em!

A&M 12 tu 7

Who is going to win? I'm not speaking about A&M and tu either. It is the showdown between Presiding Bishop, Katherine Jefferts Schori and Bishop John-David Schofield of the diocese of San Joaquin. Bp. Katherine is not going to tolerate Bp Schofield's faithfulness to the Bible and his desire to see his diocese in line with its teaching and the teaching of the catholic church.

No, by george. He must bow down to corporate episcopalianism, or he must be banished.

I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I wouldn't want to bet against John-David.

Deer Bishup Shorey,

I see from the news that you have sed that Episcopaliums are smarter than us catholics because you don’t have so many babies as we do. I guess that must be true. I have never thought of it like that before. Gee you are smart! Do you not have more babies becuz you don’t like babies or becuz you believe abortion is okay so you kill them before they are born or is it just becuz many of your peepul are homosexuals and they can’t have babies? Or maybe the numbers of Episcopaliums are dropping off becauze they are fed up and voting with there feet.

Anyway, thanks for putting me straight on that!

From Bishop John-David Schofield...

The Spiritual Crisis In The Episcopal Church. Much has been said and written about the controversy over the revisionist teachings of TEC. The truth is that TEC (1) denies the unique divinity of Jesus Christ and (2) takes a position on human sexuality which undercuts marriage and is destructive to the family unit designed by God and revealed in Scripture. These are not positions and teachings which are merely "revisionist" or "liberal." These are positions of those who have abandoned the Christian faith.

Jesus says in the Bible that "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." ( John 14:6) This is a cornerstone of the Christian faith and Anglican worship. It is what we believe in the Diocese of San Joaquin. It is our mission, and that of the Church, to bring all people into a relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

TEC at GC 2006 refused to pass a resolution endorsing John 14:6. By extension, TEC questions the validity and authority of Holy Scripture. According to the leadership of TEC, Jesus simply represents one of many ways of coming to a relationship with the Father. According to the leadership of TEC, the mission of the Church is "social justice" and "world peace" and not the Great Commission as set forth in Matthew 28.

TEC's unrepentant adherence to these heresies has wrought havoc within the American Church and throughout the world-wide Communion. At least 22 of the 38 provinces of the Anglican Communion have declared impaired or broken communion with TEC. Vast numbers of faithful Anglicans have left and continue to leave TEC on a daily basis. Major parishes across the country have left and continue to leave in record numbers. (We are not immune in this Diocese having lost one parish already.) The statistics are staggering and clearly demonstrate that TEC is disintegrating. This is not surprising given that TEC has chosen to walk apart from the Christian faith.

Does This Spiritual Crisis Really Affect Us? You already know the answer to this question: it's "YES". Heresy is insidious by nature and, over time, the victim becomes desensitized to its effects. There are four recognizable stages from prolonged exposure. Initially, there is condemnation of the heresy; then it is tolerated; then it is accepted; and, finally, it is practiced. TEC is currently preaching and practicing heresy and the majority of TEC's leadership will not repent as evidenced by, among other things, TEC's refusal to comply with the Windsor Report.
Continuing in communion with TEC poses a clear and present danger to the spiritual health of the Diocese and its parishioners. TEC's continued membership in the Anglican Communion is tenuous and excommunication or isolation is a reality which, in turn, threatens the Diocese's place in the Anglican Communion. We must remember, we are Anglicans first and Episcopalians second.

What Does Scripture Tell Us To Do? When faced with unrepentant and public false teaching, Scripture is very, very clear. Christians are called to withdraw from Eucharistic fellowship. There are many biblical references directly on point, among them: "If anyone comes to you bringing a different doctrine, you must not receive him in your house or even give him a greeting. To greet him would make you a partner in his wicked work."(I1 John, 10-1 1. Also Mt. 8: 17, I Cor. 5:11-13, Gal. 1:8, 2 Thes. 3:6, Rev. 2:20; BCP, p. 409.)

+John-David

Simul Justus et peccator - at once righteous and a sinner.

We have Luther to thank for this expression!

Since the believer is justified by grace through faith, and not works, and since justification is not a infusion of righteousness that makes a sinner righteous 'in and of himself,' the sinner is both righteous in God's sight because of Christ and a sinner measured according to his own merits.
(Thanks to Richard A Muller - Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, p 283.)

So close, yet so far...A&M 27, Nebraska 28

So, what's Pelagius got to do with me?

Pelagianism: The theology stemming from the thought of Pelagius, which emphasizes human ability and free will rather than depravity and sinfulness. In the view of mostd Pelagians, it is possible to live without sin. The effect of Adam's sin upon his descendants was simply that of a bad example. From Millard Erickson, Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology, p126

Semi-Pelagianism: Rather than Adam simply providing a bad example, this position sees humanity as inheriting a certain weakness of volition from Adam. Although divine grace is indespensible for salvation, it does not necessarily need to precede a free human choice, because, despite the weakness of human choice, the will is able to take the initiative toward God.

Ephesians 2:1-3, however, says And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked...

Pelagianism and semi-pelagianism lead to moralism which comes in a variety of flavors, conservative and biblical; or liberal and secular. Moralism precedes on the assumption that the will is able to meet whatever is commanded, whether these commands spring from the Bible or from the post-modern culture.

"Something more is wanted than merely to din into men's ears what they ought to be, and what they ought to do. Something is wanted more effectually to renovate the heart and move the springs of action. The water is nought, and if you make it flow it is bitter. You want an ingredient to be cast into it that will heal its poison springs, and make them sweet and clear."

What a wonderful and apt quotation from C.H. Spurgeon, posted on Pyromaiacs.

Moralism leads to immorality! We see that in spades in the Episcopal Church where we have more rules than ever before guiding the behavior of clergy, but absent the gospel, we have more immorality as well!

We won the half-time once again! But, we were outscored by OU Boomer Sooners, 16-17 in what appears to have been a defensive struggle, once we survived the 1st quarter OU blitz.

Looks like the Aggies are one season away from being on the same level as TU, but so far so good!
The Ags have lots of talent. They need a little more seasoning!

A&M vs OU at Kyle

Gig-em Aggies. Big, big game against OU. Alas, here in Alaska, ABC will be airing UCLA vs California! Who care about the left coast anyway. One more hardship living in AK.

A great read about our next Presiding bishop.

"Christians understand that Jesus is the route to God. That is not to say that Muslim's or Sikhs or Jains come to God in a radically different way. They come to God through human experience -- through human experience of the divine. Christians talk about that in terms of Jesus." (Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori, in an interview with Robin Young on "Here and Now", October 18, 2006)

Gary L'Hommedieu, canon for Pastoral Care at Cathedral Church of St. Luke in Orlando, Florida give an insightful view of our soon to be 'invested' PB.

Gary says, "As the interview demonstrates, the ascending Primate of the Episcopal Church is a politician of rare polish. By comparison her predecessors are a dim bulb (in the case of Edmond Browning) and a clownish dancing bear (in the case of Frank Griswold). Schori is probably the only member of the HOB with gravitas and (in a word) star power." (The interview can be heard here.)

"Soft-spoken, articulate, urbane, she hits all the buttons that excite the liberal mainstream of the new Episcopal religion: she validates the righteous-rebellion ethos of the Baby Boomer generation that only minutes ago was reported to be on life support."

Gary goes on to show that what Jefferts-Schori is offering is a new gospel. When she says gospel and grace, she doesn't mean what the Bible or even the 39 Articles of Religion (has she read them?) say, for instance in Article 11 Justification, "that we are accounted righteous before GOd solely on account of the merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ through faith and not on account of our own good works."

No, "We are saved rather through our own experience, through craning our necks toward the Divine, and being "graciously" drawn in by Him/Her/It, AS IF BY NATURE. Here "salvation" (which, on account of its "terrorizing" associations ought only to be placed in quotes) is not really "necessary", but certainly it "helps"."

Grace helps, but it is not necessary.