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!