Archive for September, 2008

Listening to Bp Gene Robinson … again

Tuesday, September 9th, 2008

Listening to Bp Gene Robinson … again

Hat tip:  Gauthier’s:
Without even leaving the Diocese of New Hampshire, Bp. Gene Robinson hits the campaign trail for Barack Obama:
Okay, it’s time to get serious. As LGBT voters, it’s time to put our differences and disappointments aside, and get behind the one candidate who has our interests at heart.
If you’re still stinging over the unsuccessful bid for nomination by Hillary Clinton, it’s time to look forward, even if the disappointment still hurts. We are faced with the most stark choice in recent memory, with ramifications for our community like no other. If nothing else convinces you to vote for Barack Obama, surely the likelihood of the next president appointing one, two, or possibly even three Supreme Court justices should do it.
With John McCain, we will see the conservative near-majority on the Court shift to a solid majority – with devastating results when the “full faith and credit clause” of the Constitution is challenged in the recognition of gay marriages. With Barack Obama, we have someone who is utterly sympathetic to our full and equal rights as citizens. I know, he won’t say he’s for equal marriage rights (neither did Hillary), but he still is the most LGBT-friendly president we will have ever had. I know from my own private conversations with him that he is totally in our court. I believe him, and I trust him, not to throw us under the bus when the election is over….

But now it’s time to get serious. It is no longer enough to make a decision to vote for Barack Obama. The polls – unbelievably and frighteningly – are close. The election of a LGBT-friendly candidate is not a foregone conclusion. We now have to WORK for his election. That means calling your parents, your siblings, your friends from college; it means talking to your co-workers at the water cooler and your next door neighbors – about why this election is important to you as a gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender person, and how it will make a difference to you and your family who inhabits the White House. It’s time to tell them that a vote for the Republican nominee is a vote against YOU, against YOUR rights, YOUR family. And if they don’t understand how that could be true, be ready to tell them.

More………….

Tearfund and Archbishop Tutu

Monday, September 8th, 2008


September 7th, 2008 Posted in From Lisa’s Lookout10 Homosexuality | No Comments »

Some of us may be wondering what exactly is happening here.  According to Tearfund’s site, AB Desmond Tutu (with Tearfund Director, Matthew Frost, left) gave a stirring speech which encouraged radical Christian commitment and care for the poor, the suffering, the dispossessed, those close to God’s heart.  Sounds impressive, doesn’t it?  That is not all the good bishop said, however. According to BBC’s account, Desmond Tutu reiterated what has become one of his classic lectures on the evils of homophobia in the church and how issues of human sexuality are not that important in the Big Picture.

Of course, all this really says is that along with other ‘progressive’ Christians in the Anglican Communion, Tutu has abandoned the biblical claim that certain moral behaviours actively embraced will cause one to forfeit one’s eternal salvation.  He no longer believes such is the case and admonishes others to join him. In matter of fact, the entire sexual realm would appear to be unimportant - certainly not a cause for concern! - and what people get up to sexually - and the soaring cost of these behaviours in terms of the individual, marriage and the family, the community and the nation - are matters which are downplayed or ignored entirely.

I have no doubt but that Tutu’s concern for the Have Nots is very close to the heart of God. However, I have huge doubt that he is correct in his sexual ethic and its impact on church and culture or in his evaluation of the present Anglican crisis.

But that is only the first part of the saga.  Given the fact that Tutu is one of the most vocal and popular advocates for gay rights now on the planet, why did the Tearfund organizers invite him to speak?  Did they not realise what they were letting themselves in for?  Or is Tearfund shifting, ever so slowly, ever so incrementally, from its mooring in a strong, compassionate evangelical heritage which embraces both grace and truth?  If not, then perhaps the organization might wish to distance itself from Tutu’s sexual ethic.

If you would care to contrast the BBC’s account with what is on Tearfund’s site, the addresses are here.  And if you wish to contact Tearfund directly, its details are here as well.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7602498.stm

http://www.tearfund.org/News/World+news/Tutu+conference+news.htm

Email: enquiries@tearfund.org Tel: 0845 355 8355

MODERN LIBERALISM — RELIGION WITH POLITICS AS SACRAMENT

Sunday, September 7th, 2008

– by Gary L’Hommedieu

Commentary

By Canon Gary L’Hommedieu
www.virtueonline.org
9/03/08

I guess I’m just not that interested in the Church Wars these days. Observing Lambeth was like spending three weeks watching paint dry and then at the end wondering if it had. The conference, blessedly, had a distinct end. One was left wondering about the paint.

GAFCON is an exciting development. But is it a movement of the Spirit or a spiritually charged moment — the next chapter in the unfolding Reformation drama or the latest evidence of the Reformation schism?

It will take a long time for that paint to dry.

Not much surprises me about the Episcopal Church. When I was ordained by Paul Moore in 1979, the TEC trajectory was clear. The contrived glass ceilings that have punctuated the Church’s life since then have not revealed anything new. Maybe things have gone hi-TEC since 2003, but since the 60s the Episcopal Church has been relevant mainly as a study in the evolving consciousness of the wider American culture.

The American liberal denominations, along with every American (and perhaps every Western) institution, have become utterly politicized. I don’t just mean institutions have become “too political”, devoting too much time and resources to influencing the political process. I mean the people themselves have become self-conscious about the political implications of the most mundane human interactions to the point that they have, in effect, become politicians.

Read Full Article

Liberal Western Anglican Bishops Say Lambeth Conference Failed ……….

Sunday, September 7th, 2008

News Analysis

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
9/4/2008

The recently concluded Lambeth Conference which calls for diversity and inclusivity by ultra-liberal Western bishops will not heal the wounds in the Anglican Communion, and will do nothing to stop the inevitable schism they have caused. In a pointed editorial entitled “The Turning Point That Wasn’t”, John Bryson Chane, the Bishop of Washington described the once-in-a-decade gathering of bishops from around the Anglican Communion in two words, “optimistic and troublesome.”

“This Lambeth Conference could have been a positive turning point for the Anglican Communion, but instead the powers that be chose to seek a middle way that is neither ‘the middle’ nor ‘the way.’ It will therefore be up to bishops from around the Communion who have continuing partner and companion relationships to work toward a more holistic view of the church.”

Chane ripped the Archbishop of Canterbury saying Dr. Williams sought what he believed was a middle way that unfortunately continues to marginalize the Canadian and American churches. “Once again, more emphasis was placed on the sexuality issue as being the ‘line drawn in the sand’ that threatens Anglican unity, with little attention paid to the invasion of primates and bishops from other provinces who continue to wreak havoc in some dioceses within the Episcopal Church.”

Chane failed to say that the sexual innovations he and his ilk are forcing on the Anglican Communion is the actual cause of the slow moving schism.

Wrote Chane, “The Archbishop of Canterbury has called for sacrifices to be made to keep the garment of the Communion together. And for the American and Canadian churches, that clearly means sacrificing once again the full participation of gay and lesbian persons in the life of our church. I for one will not ask for any more sacrifices to be made by persons in our church who have been made outcasts because of their sexual orientation.”

His views were shared by the revisionist Bishop of Massachusetts, Tom Shaw who told “The Boston Globe” that he will continue to ordain gays which he called “pastorally important” and will also consult on same-sex weddings. He said that local priests will continue to bless same-sex marriages, although Shaw said that those priests are doing so on their own and that he hadn’t authorized anybody to do anything.

As for whether he would follow up on his earlier intention to push for ending the moratorium on gay bishops and allowing church recognition of same-sex marriage when the Episcopal Church meets at its General Convention next year, Shaw said he would now wait until he meets with all the American bishops next month to decide how he will proceed.

Read Full Article

Dr. Deborah Pitt’s response to Bishop Tom Wright.

Friday, September 5th, 2008

Dr. Deborah Pitt’s response to Bishop Tom Wright.

Filed under: Anglican Angst, Christianity — David @ 2:00 pm
Tags:

Published with Dr. Pitt’s permission:

Dear Bishop

I was very interested to read the letter published in yesterday’s Times from you and your co-signatories. (I read the online version also) I am glad for your clarifying of the points in Dr. Williams’ letters. To be honest I found the front-page headline rather crass as well as inaccurate. I agree entirely with you about Ms Sieghart’s comments about the church. I have written to the Times about her article and I include a copy of that letter. I was glad to read the synopsis of the conclusions of the Lambeth Conference also.

You raised the issue of my motives in releasing the private correspondence. Believe me I did not do this lightly. So please allow me to give you some background.

I was extremely worried at some of the content of Dr. Williams’ letters. I did not feel I could trust him. I believed that he probably had other liberal views which  would be incompatible with my evangelical faith. I stopped attending the Church in Wales. I believed things would get worse and frankly I was dismayed at his appointment to be Archbishop of Canterbury. Since then my disquiet has grown.

To better outline my concerns at Dr. Williams views on homosexuality I will send you a copy of the letter I sent him some months after receiving his first one (see below). It is long but I hope it presents a coherent picture of someone who cares passionately about the Gospel and the Christian witness to the nation and who wrestles as best possible with the ethical struggles of living as a Christian in a post-Christian society. I hope you will at least read some of it!

I have tried to keep up with what is happening in the churches,  and certain events recently engaged my attention. One was the ECUSA convention in New Orleans and its outcome. Another was the homosexual ‘marriage’ in St. Bartholomew’s church. Then I heard about GAFCon and followed that, all the time getting more worried that there would be a disastrous outcome to the integrity of the Anglican communion, about which I care very much, even though I am no longer a practising member.

Read the whole article here

Trusting God at GAFCON

Friday, September 5th, 2008

By Archbishop Peter Jensen, Sydney Anglicans

Let me be personal. The Global Anglican Future Conference in Jerusalem was one of the highlights of my life.

Primarily it was a spiritual conference and a spiritual experience. As one of the organisers, I was in a position to see how the Lord answered prayer again and again. To organise a conference of this nature in the time available was simply extraordinary and I must testify to you the Lord’s continual faithfulness. I know that many people all round the world were praying for us during the whole time, not to mention that the conference itself was much given to intercession.

There was a sense of seeking the Lord’s will. I will illustrate. My natural personality prefers to have things organised well in advance. I was therefore giving a great deal of thought in the run-up to the conference about what the conference should say and do. The chairman Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria asked us all to stop doing this. To him, it was very important that we sought the mind of the Lord in listening to God’s word and listening to each other. I found this decision a difficult one, as I was conscious of how little time there was to achieve our purposes, the sheer variety of people attending and the complexity of the issues facing us. It meant a new level of trust in the Lord.

We followed the chairman’s wisdom. The result was the Jerusalem Declaration, a document which in my opinion is going to be regarded as one of the most significant statements in the unfolding history of the Anglican Communion. I have to say that as I heard the final version read out by Archbishop Orombi, I was in tears. In part this was because of the content, which meant so much to the people who had shared their painful stories with us. But it was also because I had seen the Lord do something in our midst which I could not have anticipated.

Read the rest of this entry »

In the name of God(lessness)

Tuesday, September 2nd, 2008
In the Name of God(lessness)

By Dennis Prager
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, August 19, 2008

We are constantly reminded about the destructive consequences of religion — intolerance, hatred, division, inquisitions, persecutions of “heretics,” holy wars. Though far from the whole story, they are, nevertheless, true. There have been many awful consequences of religion.

What one almost never hears described are the deleterious consequences of secularism — the terrible developments that have accompanied the breakdown of traditional religion and belief in God. For every thousand students who learn about the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials, maybe two learn to associate Gulag, Auschwitz, The Cultural Revolution, and the Cambodian genocide with secular regimes and ideologies.

For all the problems associated with belief in God, the death of God leads to far more of them.

So, while it is not possible to prove (or disprove) God’s existence, what is provable is what happens when people stop believing in God.

1. Without God there is no good and evil; there are only subjective opinions that we then label “good” and “evil.” This does not mean that an atheist cannot be a good person. Nor does it mean that all those who believe in God are good; there are good atheists and there are bad believers in God. It simply means that unless there is a moral authority that transcends humans from which emanates an objective right and wrong, “right” and “wrong” no more objectively exist than do “beautiful” and “ugly.”

2. Without God, there is no objective meaning to life. We are all merely random creations of natural selection whose existence has no more intrinsic purpose or meaning than that of a pebble equally randomly produced.

3. Life is ultimately a tragic fare if there is no God. We live, we suffer, we die — some horrifically, many prematurely — and there is only oblivion afterward.

4. Human beings need instruction manuals. This is as true for acting morally and wisely as it is for properly flying an airplane. One’s heart is often no better a guide to what is right and wrong than it is to the right and wrong way to fly an airplane. The post-religious secular world claims to need no manual; the heart and reason are sufficient guides to leading a good life and to making a good world.

5. If there is no God, the kindest and most innocent victims of torture and murder have no better a fate after death than do the most cruel torturers and mass murderers. Only if there is a good God do Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler have different fates.

6. With the death of Judeo-Christian values in the West, many Westerners believe in little. That is why secular Western Europe has been unwilling and therefore unable to confront evil, whether it was Communism during the Cold War or Islamic totalitarians in its midst today.

7. Without God, people in the West often become less, not more, rational. It was largely the secular, not the religious, who believed in the utterly irrational doctrine of Marxism. It was largely the secular, not the religious, who believed that men’s and women’s natures are basically the same, that perceived differences between the sexes are all socially induced. Religious people in Judeo-Christian countries largely confine their irrational beliefs to religious beliefs (theology), while the secular, without religion to enable the non-rational to express itself, end up applying their irrational beliefs to society, where such irrationalities do immense harm.

8. If there is no God, the human being has no free will. He is a robot, whose every action is dictated by genes and environment. Only if one posits human creation by a Creator that transcends genes and environment who implanted the ability to transcend genes and environment can humans have free will.

9. If there is no God, humans and “other” animals are of equal value. Only if one posits that humans, not animals, are created in the image of God do humans have any greater intrinsic sanctity than baboons. This explains the movement among the secularized elite to equate humans and animals.

10. Without God, there is little to inspire people to create inspiring art. That is why contemporary art galleries and museums are filled with “art” that celebrates the scatological, the ugly and the shocking. Compare this art to Michelangelo’s art in the Sistine chapel. The latter elevates the viewer — because Michelangelo believed in something higher than himself and higher than all men.

11. Without God nothing is holy. This is definitional. Holiness emanates from a belief in the holy. This explains, for example, the far more widespread acceptance of public cursing in secular society than in religious society. To the religious, there is holy speech and profane speech. In much of secular society the very notion of profane speech is mocked.

12. Without God, humanist hubris is almost inevitable. If there is nothing higher than man, no Supreme Being, man becomes the supreme being.

13. Without God, there are no inalienable human rights. Evolution confers no rights. Molecules confer no rights. Energy has no moral concerns. That is why America’s Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed “by our Creator” with certain inalienable rights. Rights depend upon a moral source, a rights giver.

14. “Without God,” Dostoevsky famously wrote, “all is permitted.” There has been plenty of evil committed by believers in God, but the widespread cruelties and the sheer number of innocents murdered by secular regimes — specifically Nazi, Fascist and Communist regimes — dwarfs the evil done in the name of religion.

As noted at the beginning, none of this proves, or even necessarily argues for, God’s existence. It makes the case for the necessity, not the existence, of God. “Which God?” the secularist will ask. The God of Israel, the God of America’s founders, “the Holy God who is made holy by justice” (Isaiah), the God of the Ten Commandments, the God who demands love of neighbor, the God who endows all human beings with certain inalienable rights, the God who is cited on the Liberty Bell because he is the author of liberty. That is the God being referred to here, without whom we will be vanquished by those who believe in less noble gods, both secular and divine.