John Robison

Since I can't get on FB here at work, I'll post here .....

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:00:31 GMT

I am amazed at how so many people will privilege an a-historical reading of the Establishment clause to abrogate the other 4 clauses of the First Amendment.

You Are More Than Your Brain: A Revolutionary Theory of Consciousness

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:37:47 GMT

Out of Our Heads: Why You Are Not Your Brain, and Other Lessons from the Biology of Consciousness
by Alva Noë
(Hill & Wang, 2009)

Alva Noë is a cognitive scientist and philosopher at the University of California, Berkeley, who has spent the last 15 years working with researchers studying consciousness and how it works. His new mind-altering book, Out of Our Heads: Why You Are Not Your Brain, and Other Lessons from the Biology of Consciousness, addresses a philosophical mystery: how do we know that we are who we think we are? How do we really know that other people are conscious? And if there is such a thing as consciousness, what is it, where is it, and how does it happen?

A fundamental assumption among neuroscientists is that consciousness is a strictly neuroscientific phenomenon. Noë quotes Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the double helix, who nicely sums up the orthodox scientific view:

“You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules... This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people alive today that it can truly be called astonishing.”

Except that such a claim is hardly astonishing at all. In his First Meditation, seventeenth-century philosopher René Descartes observed that there’s no concrete way of determining what we experience is not a dream, because the objective methods we use to make such determinations (like pinching ourselves) might also be a dream. Descartes then looked beyond the senses to justify the world; to understand what we think and feel and see from a detached perspective. He concluded we are a reflection of some kind of immaterial “thinking thing” that somehow yields consciousness.

For Crick and other brain researchers, this “thinking thing” is the actual physical human brain. And it’s here and only here, Noë writes, that the orthodox scientific view of the mind breaks significantly from the philosophical tradition. The truly astonishing thing to say, he writes forcefully, is that consciousness is not in the brain.

Which leads us to Noë’s thesis.

Scientists know two things for sure. One is that consciousness requires a nervous system. The other is that mammals have a nervous system. Everything else, despite all advances in technology, including brain scans, has proved nothing as decisive as Crick & Co. would have you believe. Noë goes a step further to argue that neuroscience is moving forward on faulty assumptions, namely that the mind is in the brain.

Read the rest here.

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:01:30 GMT

Almighty and most gracious God, have mercy on N and N, and on all that bear evil to me, and wish me harm; and by every such easy, tender, and merciful means as Thine infinite goodness best can devise, vouchsafe to amend and redress them: and make us saved souls together in heaven, where we may ever live and love together with Thee and Thy blessed saints, This grant, O sacred and glorious Trinity, for the bitter passion of our sweet Lord and Saviour Christ. Amen.

-Sir Thomas More (1478-1535), Sir Thomas More: a Selection From His Works, ed. William Joseph Walter, Baltimore: F. Lucas, 1841, p. 305

The Episcopal "Reform of the Reform"

Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:01:45 GMT

"The Episcopal Church is passing through a watershed era. I believe that as the Baby Boomers begin to fade out and Generations X and Y begin asserting our voices, yet more changes remain on the horizon. As these changes are coupled with the growth of information technology, emerging/evolving soical media, and widespread social changes, I think we’re only at the start of a larger, more complicated, more convoluted process than we may suspect."

Read the rest, here.

Read my further thoughts here.

Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:58:19 GMT

http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/bishops/thew_forrester_election_report.html

The Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester cannot receive enough votes from standing committees in the Episcopal Church to be consecrated as bishop of Northern Michigan according to a tally kept by an Arkansas reporter who has been in contact with all of the Church's 110 dioceses as well as the Convocation in Europe.

The Diocese of Bethlehem's standing committee voted not to consent to Thew Forrester's election tonight, becoming the 56th diocese to withhold consent according to the reporting of Frank Lockwood of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, who also reports online at Bible Belt Blogger. If his count is correct, Thew Forrester can only be confirmed if some standing committee's change their votes.

Fifty-six standing committees have withheld consent. Twenty-nine have given consent. Twenty-six have either not voted or not reported on their vote, according to Lockwood.

The Church does not announce the outcome of confirmation balloting until after the 120-day period in which consents may be received. Thew Forrester's consent period ends in late July.

Comprehensiveness for the Sake of Truth

Mon, 04 May 2009 15:56:18 GMT

While I am not exactly sure of who wrote it, I commend to the attention of the about 6 or so of you who read this little corner of the internets the following sight: Comprehensiveness for the Sake of Truth. In particular, I suggest that you ponder this explanation of and expansion upon the Lambeth Quadrilateral and consider adding your signature to it, as I, and many people who I respect from several theological categories, have.

If we do, indeed, have a core doctrine, then we must make some effort of defining it. This is as good a start as any. Is this the end of the process? No, but this is a good starting point.
,

From the "If this Were Satire no One Would Find It Funny" Department:

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:56:12 GMT

Israel renames unkosher swine flu

Israeli Health Minister Yakov Litzman has been updating a nervous public on the swine flu epidemic - and he started by renaming it for religious reasons.

"We will call it Mexican flu. We won't call it swine flu," said Mr Litzman, who belongs to the ultra-religious United Torah Judaism party.

Pigs are considered unclean under Jewish dietary laws. Muslims also do not eat pork for similar reasons.

Israel has yet to confirm a case of the flu which has claimed 100 lives.

Mr Litzman said there was no indication the virus had reached Israel, but precautionary measures and monitoring wwer required because of the heavy air traffic between Israel and the US, which has a number of confirmed cases.

Read the rest here.

Specter says he's switching from GOP to Dems

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:32:43 GMT

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent David Espo, Ap Special Correspondent – 21 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Veteran Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania disclosed plans Tuesday to switch parties, a move intended to boost his chances of winning re-election next year that also will push Democrats within one seat of a 60-vote filibuster-resistant majority.

"I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans," Specter said in a statement posted on a Web site devoted to Pennsylvania politics and confirmed by his office. Several Senate officials said a formal announcement was expected later in the day or Wednesday.

President Barack Obama called Specter almost immediately after he was informed of the decision to say the Democratic Party was "thrilled to have you," according to a White House official. Spurned Republicans said his defection was motivated by ambition, not principle.

Read the rest here.

Bother, Bother, Bother, BOTHER!

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:49:35 GMT

I'm in a classroom with no AC. Well there si AC, but not that much. It is always as hot as Hades in here in this section of the buiulding because it gets sun all day and the heat seems to be on from mid-October to mid May. there are rumers that they switched on the AC back here, but I'm unconvinced.

Gonna be a LONG day.

Sun, 26 Apr 2009 18:30:18 GMT

Requiescat in pace

Pearcy Dearmer on the Prayerbook:

Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:18:33 GMT

Loyalty to the Prayer Book.

THERE was once a man who wanted to escape from a certain prison: he tried to loosen the window-bars, he tried to work out the stones of the wall, he tried the chimney, and he tried the floor. Then suddenly a happy thought struck him. He opened the door and walked out.

I think the historian of the future will say: There was once a Church that wanted to escape from a great mess. Somehow or other this Church had failed to retain her hold upon her members: the people of the country had for centuries been drifting away from her; half the religious folk had formed themselves into other denominations; the great majority of the people somehow had given up going to church at all; those who remained faithful were, in spite of a great Revival, still in singular ignorance as to the principles of their own religion: as a consequence, many of these were so sluggish as to be a source of weakness rather than strength; others were zealous, but their zeal was a source of division rather than of the unity which maketh force. So her enemies raged against her; her own children rushed hither and thither and were not satisfied; while the nation, through its Parliamentary representatives, became insolent, and proposed to refurbish the rusty weapons of religious persecution for the disciplining of her clergy.

[4] This Church was, in fact, in a mess. She had tried so many ways of escape! She had tried Geneva; she had tried Rome; she had essayed a mixture of the two in varying proportions, which was called Moderate; she had tried laissez faire, by which each man did what he found easy and thought nice; she had even tried (heroic and marvellous as it may seem) to establish a Cathedral type of Service in every village church. The one thing that she had never tried to do was to carry out her own laws, and to apply her own principles.

Then one day she had a happy thought. She would be true to her own self, to her own laws. She opened the door, and walked out.

We do not realize the extent of our failure. With everything human in our favour--learning, position, wealth, lofty traditions, the possession of the church buildings, the schools, the universities--we have gradually let our people slip away from us. Goodly was our heritage: if we had but kept what our forefathers had won for us, the whole Anglo-Saxon race would to-day be united in one Church, devotedly attached to it, and most diligent in worship as our ancestors were 1,000 years ago, as they were 400 years ago, as, indeed, a great majority still were, in spite of many losses, 200 years ago.

Read the rest here.

Bishop Little of the Dio of Northern Indiana Also Dose Not Give Consent:

Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:32:57 GMT

Dear brothers and sisters,

Many of you have asked me about the election of the Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester as Bishop of Northern Michigan, and in particular about whether I gave consent for his consecration. I did not; nor did the Standing Committee, which had its own in-depth conversation on this important matter.

Several issues have been raised concerning Fr. Thew Forrester in the months since his election. First, he has undergone “lay ordination” in the Zen Buddhist tradition. Is this simply an acknowledgement that he engages in meditation practices with Buddhist roots? Or does it indicate a more dangerous mingling of Christian and Buddhist teaching, a hazardous syncretism? I do not have a clear answer to that question, though his articulation of the Christian faith seems to blend spiritual categories in a disquieting way. Second, the election process in the Diocese of Northern Michigan, while not uncanonical, gives the appearance of a closed system. The nominating committee presented only one candidate to the electing convention, and thus the election seems like the ratification of a decision already made. Third, the website of Fr. Thew Forrester’s parish – St. Paul’s, Marquette – indicates that he has written his own Eucharistic prayers and even made significant modifications to the baptismal liturgy. The Book of Common Prayer, on the other hand, is part of the constitution of the Church; its use is not optional, and clergy are not free to modify its texts. The Prayer Book is our doctrinal anchor, rooted in Scripture and summarizing the essential teachings of the Christian faith. Fourth, Fr. Thew Forrester’s sermons – also posted on the parish website – indicate a disturbing weakness in his understanding (and embrace) of basic Christian doctrines: the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the atoning work of Christ on the cross. As I’ve pondered Fr. Thew Forrester’s election, this is the most troubling dimension of all, and in the end it is what led me to withhold consent.

In the Christian Church, bishops are not “private citizens”. They are called “to be one with the apostles in proclaiming Christ’s resurrection and interpreting the Gospel, and to testify to Christ’s sovereignty as Lord of lords and King of kings . . . [and] to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church” (BCP, p. 517). These are solemn obligations, and inherent to the ministry of bishop in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. St. Paul himself lays this charge upon his successor, Timothy: “Hold to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard the good treasure entrusted to you, with the help of the Holy Spirit living in us” (2 Timothy 1:13-14).

A bishop’s teaching ministry must never be idiosyncratic. We have no message other than the one that has been given to us. The task of bishops is to pass on that message as faithfully as we can; to proclaim Jesus Christ – crucified, risen, coming again; clearly and winsomely to present his person and his work; and to offer the world a Gospel that challenges, heals, and restores us to a relationship with the Father. With the information I have at hand, I am not convinced that Fr. Thew Forrester would be able to discharge this essential obligation of episcopal office.

I cast my No vote without joy; indeed, with sorrow in my heart. If the Church denies consent for Fr. Thew Forrester to be consecrated as Bishop of Northern Michigan, it will be a tragic development for the diocese, and for Fr. Thew Forrester himself. He is, from all reports, a beloved and respected priest, passionate about ministry and committed to his people. Please join me in praying for him, and for the diocese, that in the midst of a most difficult time Jesus will be experienced more and more deeply, and ultimately his kingdom extended and his people with encouraged. With all blessings I am

Yours in Christ,
+Ed

Bishop Rickel on Thew Forrester+

Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:11:57 GMT

Dear Ones,

I write to you regarding my decision not to consent to the election of the Rev. Kevin Thew Forester as Bishop-elect of Northern Michigan. Some of you have been eagerly awaiting this, and I am sorry for the delay. I wanted to allow time to discuss this with our Standing Committee, not to persuade but simply to make sure they heard the following directly from me, which they have. I also wanted to converse directly with Kevin Thew Forrester, which I have done, and I am most grateful to him for that offering.

The Examination within "The Ordination of a Bishop" in our Book of Common Prayer reads as follows:

"My brother, the people have chosen you and have affirmed
their trust in you by acclaiming your election. A bishop in
God's holy Church is called to be one with the apostles in
proclaiming Christ's resurrection and interpreting the Gospel,
and to testify to Christ's sovereignty as Lord of lords and
King of kings.

You are called to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the
Church; to celebrate and to provide for the administration of
the sacraments of the New Covenant; to ordain priests and
deacons and to join in ordaining bishops; and to be in all
things a faithful pastor and wholesome example for the
entire flock of Christ.

With your fellow bishops you will share in the leadership of
the Church throughout the world. Your heritage is the faith
of patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, and those of
every generation who have looked to God in hope. Your joy
will be to follow him who came, not to be served, but to
serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Are you persuaded that God has called you to the office of
bishop?
Answer: I am so persuaded.

Bishop: Will you accept this call and fulfill this trust in
obedience to Christ?
Answer: I will obey Christ, and will serve in his name.

Bishop: Will you be faithful in prayer, and in the study of
Holy Scripture, that you may have the mind of
Christ?
Answer: I will, for he is my help.

Bishop: Will you boldly proclaim and interpret the Gospel of
Christ, enlightening the minds and stirring up the
conscience of your people?
Answer: I will, in the power of the Spirit.

Bishop: As a chief priest and pastor, will you encourage and
support all baptized people in their gifts and
ministries, nourish them from the riches of God's
grace, pray for them without ceasing, and celebrate
with them the sacraments of our redemption?
Answer: I will, in the name of Christ, the Shepherd and
Bishop of our souls.

Bishop: Will you guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the
Church of God?
Answer: I will, for the love of God.

Bishop: Will you share with your fellow bishops in the
government of the whole Church; will you sustain
your fellow presbyters and take counsel with them;
will you guide and strengthen the deacons and all
others who minister in the Church?
Answer: I will, by the grace given me.

Bishop: Will you be merciful to all, show compassion to the
poor and strangers, and defend those who have no
helper?
Answer: I will, for the sake of Christ Jesus."

Often when called upon in this vocation to make difficult decisions, I reread these words. On the day of my own examination, these words fell heavy upon me, and with very good reason.

One of the duties of bishops in the Episcopal Church is to consent to diocesan elections taking place within the greater church, and to the results of those elections. This consent process is part of the checks and balances within the church, and, perhaps more importantly, a very real part of the discernment of the Body of Christ-the whole Church.

It has been said that the role of the bishop is to be a bridge, interpreting the universal to the local and the local to the universal. This particular role is often very difficult; however, our history and polity are clear: we do not operate in a vacuum, alone, in our local situations and contexts. We work within a larger context-the Anglican Communion and the rest of the global community-with many more to consider than just those who we see within our midst.

The process in Northern Michigan has many complexities and issues; which issue is most important and serious varies from person to person. Below are the major issues I have considered. After I present each as I understand them, I will address each one from my perspective. The issues are:

1. The election in Northern Michigan included only one candidate: the Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester. Standing committees and bishops were asked to consent to an "election." Although the gathered convention of Northern Michigan did in fact vote on this one candidate, some have questioned whether an election took place in this case, since an election typically includes at least one other candidate and some process of voting.

2. Thew Forrester's practice of Buddhism and especially his "lay ordination" in that belief system (My Christian Faith & the Practice of Zen Buddhist Meditation, Kevin Thew Forrester, 26 February 2009and Letter to the House of Bishops, Kevin Thew Forrester, March 11, 2009).

3. Thew Forrester's rewriting of the approved liturgies from the Book of Common Prayer, including the Baptismal Liturgy. (Baptismal Liturgy, Season after Pentecost, St. Paul's Church, Marquette, Mich. and Letter on Liturgy of Baptism, Kevin Thew Forrester, March 27, 2009)

I want to be clear that my decision is in no way a criticism of Total Common Ministry (TCM) or the work the Diocese of Northern Michigan has done in this area. Just over a year ago, I had the great fortune to sit with a group of people from the Diocese of Northern Michigan at the Living Stones Conference in Des Moines, Iowa. I have always been deeply intrigued and inspired by the work of this diocese since the time of Bishop Tom Ray and continued under the inspiring leadership of the late Bishop Jim Kelsey. Their exploration and advocacy of ministry, rooted in our baptismal vows, has been a tremendous gift to the Body of Christ. Kevin Thew Forrester has been an integral part of that work, which I recognize.

During that meeting in Des Moines, this very process of Northern Michigan's selection of a bishop was the topic of our case study. While inspired by their approach and discernment, I and some of the other bishops present, cautioned that the newness and innovation in their approach would most likely require much more education and explanation to the whole church if it were to go forward. The process itself is not nearly the concern for me that it is for many, and in and of itself would not necessarily be a reason to withhold consent. Some have read my decision as proof that I do not support TCM. I emphatically disagree. I believe and have often stated that TCM is part of the emerging church, and one I want to engage, support, grow and learn from. In fact, I continue to urge the planning group of the House of Bishops to bring into our midst representatives of the emerging church and Living Stones. I strongly believe in TCM and at the same time, no emerging system exists outside the collective discernment and the shared authority and oversight which our tradition has always upheld. It is built into our system that the local does not decide such matters alone.

2. Thew Forrester's adherence or learning of meditation practices through the Buddhist belief system does not, in and of itself, trouble me. In my first parish, I invited and participated in a Buddhist-Christian dialogue, which was deeply enriching to me. However, what we discovered in our time together was the fact that though many of our meditation practices were quite similar, what we were attempting and to whom we were connecting in the meditation was quite different. In one document (My Christian Faith and the Practice of Zen Buddhist Meditation, February 26, 2009), Thew Forrester states that his lay ordination in the Zen Buddhist tradition included a welcoming ceremony that included "a resolve to use the practice of meditation as a path to awakening to the truth of the reality of human suffering." In the same document he states, "It embodies a pragmatic philosophy and a focus on human suffering rather than a unique theology of God." This to me is quite different from our resolve in Christianity: that at the heart of our faith and our baptismal covenant are the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In this same document, he states that his ceremony "included no oaths" although in a letter dated March 11, 2009 and distributed to the House of Bishops he provides more details including the "one vow I took and the precepts I affirmed." While he quite succinctly interprets what he intended to do with these vows and affirmations in relation to his Christian faith, to take the step of any type of ordination and "naming" within another belief system seems to me to be a deeper step and one I would take very seriously in relation to the vows taken in our Christian ordination. To this end, the lay ordination does cause me pause.

3. Finally, what troubles me the most about this situation is Thew Forrester's revision of liturgical texts, most especially the Baptismal Liturgy, the very core vow and liturgy of our faith. In a document circulated for the House of Bishops from Thew Forrester, he states that he and his congregation have "explored" the Baptismal liturgy, removing the reference to "Satan" and "accepting [Christ] as the way of Life and Hope." This action was to "complement the BCP"( Liturgy and Community, The Diocese of Northern Michigan, Kevin Thew Forrester, Lent 2009). In the same document, he states that he uses the Book of Common Prayer as a "primary resource." This brought me full circle. The very basis of Total Common Ministry and our very call to life as a Christian-the baptismal vow and liturgy-was being revised, and this is a concern.

I am faced with a situation where any one of these alone might be something that could be worked through; however, the panoply of these made me very uncomfortable and unready to move forward with consent.

This is one of the most, if not the most, difficult decisions I have had to make in my time as bishop. I want very much to honor those in Northern Michigan who have discerned this person and this outcome, but at this time, with the information I have, I cannot. I know and I have heard from many who do not agree with me and are greatly disappointed in my decision. I hold your opinions and feelings with great care and know them to be equally heartfelt. I hold in my prayers Kevin Thew Forrester, the Diocese of Northern Michigan, our diocese and this Church. I pray for the Holy Spirit to continue to enlighten us and I trust what should happen will, regardless of my role. This is my burden to carry. I do it on your behalf and I do not do it lightly, even when we disagree.

Faithfully,

The Rt. Rev. Gregory Rickel
Bishop of Olympia

(italics added by yours truly to try and bring attention to the core of Bishop Rickel's reason to vote against consent.

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 02:10:34 GMT

I am a terrible cynic.
I'll admit it. I'm crabby and irritable and not given to liking things on principal. I don't get moved easily.
I'm awkward to the point of being backwards some days. I spend a good deal of my life in a state of agitation and disdain. These are my good qualities.

I got am email from a friend in Britan that I "had to SEE this."
Yea. Right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-KiGva9dV4

Watch the whole thing.

One of my Favorite TV Rants Ever!

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:28:21 GMT

Yelling, Screaming, Rolling and Crawling Church

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:19:25 GMT

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:44:25 GMT

I was just awoken by the Police shouting, "He's on the ROOF!" Turns out that a guy in a stolen car crashed into a car across the street from us, going the wrong way. He then HID OUT on the flat roofs across the alley.

Wes, of course, has slept through all of this.

I'm going to pray and then go back to bed.

Bishop Paul Marshal on NMI:

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 05:37:12 GMT

The Church, as it ponders scripture, tradition, in the light to the
best reason it can muster, is itself the judge of the Church's
latitude in doctrine and practice.. It defines that latitude from time
to time, seeking to welcome the broadest possible expression of the
basics of the faith. Core doctrines are maintained most notably by
unambiguous reference in liturgy and catechism. Thus when Bishop
Righter was tried for allegedly violating the Church's doctrine in
accepting certain persons for ordination, the court was able to say
that while the question was a theological question, it was not a
matter of core doctrine and was not addressed in our central
documents. Unpublished documents from the right wing opine that they
subsequently think they would have more likely gotten a conviction if
they had charged Righter with violating the discipline (operating
rules) rather than the doctrine of the Church.

When Bishop Robinson was elected, there was again a question of
doctrine, but no core doctrine in prayer book and canon to which
appeal could made. (Attempts to apply to documents from the UK still
cause me to wonder.) When a multiply-divorced man was elected in
Northern California, at least a majority in both houses believed that
the New Testament teaches about divorce, and particularly its
prohibition of remarried bishops did not form an absolute barrier.
Although I did not agree, this made a kind of sense, the question of
moral modeling aside, because the Church is in fact now more open to
remarriage. Beyond that, both Bishops Pike and Righter had contracted
serial marriages, not to mention many priests.

In the case of the bishop-elect of Northern Michigan, perhaps we can
get our ducks in the correct rows. His Buddhist practices are
sensational but not the point. In sermons and other writings
(including eucharistic prayers which I fear were used outside Rite III
settings, giving us a question of discipline as well as doctrine), the
bishop-elect makes it clear that the doctrine of the Trinity as
confessed in the Creed and explained in the Catechism is not what he
holds. He will use base-three theological language, but never in
service to the proposition that in Jesus of Nazareth God became fully
human. Similarly, his understanding of the atonement is not
conformable with the liturgy or catechism, but appears to be something
like gnostic enlightenment. His writings represent a very shaky
understanding of the Second Person of the Trinity, God incarnate,
severely weakening his gospel.

Apart from his sense of freedom from the seeming minutiae of rubric
and liturgical text, in which he is by no means alone, Fr. Thew
Forrester seems to have been an exemplary priest, a saintly pastor and
an enviably fine human being. That is not the point. The point is that
there has been no time like the one we inhabit for bishops to proclaim
unambiguously the gospel of Christ in all its fullness.

In a cardinal church in the west the creed is never used, and a
eucharistic prayer from around the world is used each week, along with
other ritual freehand before and after the gathering. I couldn't tell
what I had just attended or what the church actually celebrated.

As a Church we are increasingly a laughing-stock. Not because we
welcome lesbian and gay people, and carry on social ministries that
enact the sacrifice of Christ on a corporate basis, and certainly not
because of our latitude and the conversation it engenders. We are a
laughing stock because we do not consistently proclaim a solid core,
words as simple as "all have sinned and come short of the glory of
God," yet "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself."

Increasingly it seems that the Cross has become foolishness _in_ the
Church, and our former hallmark teaching of the Incarnation is seldom
heard, and less seldom heard to matter. If our embarrassment is going
to end, the voices of bishops as clear, traditional, and powerful
evangelists to be raised in the churches and in the market place.
Many bishops find a number of techniques that come from the social
sciences useful in their ministries, and have significant investment
in Eastern meditation--their qualification to be bishops, however, is
that, as the chief confessors of the creeds and presidents at the
sacraments. The are to be unambiguously ambassadors for Christ, God
making his appeal through them.

For these reasons I believe the present election cannot go forward and
hope that it will not.

Paul Marshall

Bishop Breidenthal's response to the Northern Michigan election

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:51:36 GMT

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

I am writing to inform you of my decision not to consent to the consecration of Kevin Thew Forrester as Bishop of Northern Michigan. I did not want to make a public statement before I shared my concerns with the Standing Committee. I was able to do this at their meeting last Friday, March 27.

Two subjects have arisen as matters of concern in the wider discussion of consent for this Bishop-elect. I want to be clear that these matters have not contributed to my refusal of consent.

First, the internal process which led to Bishop-elect Thew Forrester's election. In my view, it violated no canons, and, although I have questions about it, these have not entered into my decision to withhold consent. Second, some have voiced concern that Bishop-elect Thew Forrester has been recognized by the Zen Buddhist community as one who practices Zen Buddhist meditation in an exemplary fashion and accepts the basic ethical principles of Buddhism. I have no problem with this. Many Christians have deepened their own faith through Buddhist prayer practices, and in my view the moral framework of Buddhism is largely consonant with that of Judaism and Christianity.

But obviously I do have concerns. These concerns lie closer to home. My own reading of Bishop-elect Thew Forrester's sermons over the last year (these sermons were available on the website of his parish church, St. Paul's, Marquette, Michigan, as of March 16, but are no longer posted) reveals an understanding of the Christian narrative that is troubling to me. I have spoken about this with the Bishop-elect on the phone, and he has followed up with e-mails, but I remain troubled.

According to Thew Forrester, Jesus revealed in his own person the way that any of us can be at one with God, if only we can overcome the blindness that prevents us from recognizing our essential unity with God. The problem here is that the death of Jesus as an atonement for our sins is completely absent, and purposely so. As I read Thew Forrester, nothing stands between us and God but our own ignorance of our closeness to God. When our eyes are opened, atonement (not for our sins, but understood as a realization of our essential unity with God) is achieved. Thew Forrester's rejection of salvation understood as an atonement for sins we cannot procure for ourselves is not an idea he is merely exploring. In a very consistent manner, he is developing this idea. In materials he submitted to the House of Bishops earlier this month, he has shared with us his own revision of the Prayer Book rite for Holy Baptism, in which references to salvation are replaced with references to union with God.

Why is Thew Forrester's teaching troubling to me? Because it flies in the face of what I take to be the conviction at the heart of our faith tradition, namely, that we are in bondage to sin and cannot get free without the rescue God has offered us in Jesus, who shouldered our sins on the cross. Our tradition certainly declares God's closeness to us and God's love for us, but insists that this is solely due to God's gracious initiative, made known to us in Jesus. In other words, Jesus in his singular closeness to God is as much a reminder of our alienation from God and from God's ways as he is God's word to us that we are loved despite our collective wrongdoings.

I would not worry about this so much if Thew Forrester were merely speculating about alternative ways of understanding the Christian faith. I would not even worry so much if it were simply a matter of the content of a number of sermons (although I think we should expect to be accountable for what we preach). But, as his revision of the Baptismal rite makes clear, he appears to be settled in his conviction that our relation to Christ is not about salvation from a condition of objective alienation from God, but about a more realized union with God.

Some may say, "So what?" Should the Episcopal Church not allow as much latitude as possible when it comes to theological reflection on the meaning of Jesus in our lives? Yes, of course. We are a church that values a broad range of opinion on practically every subject. Yet our (unrevised) Baptismal liturgy (Book of Common Prayer, beginning at p. 299) is extremely clear about what it means to be a follower of Jesus: we are to turn to him - the same Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified and rose again and continues to invite us into a personal relationship with him - and accept him as Savior. Whatever else we have to say about Jesus follows from that (even though different people may end up saying quite different things).

I cannot emphasize enough that clarity about our relationship to Jesus through our baptism is especially important as we move on from the Lambeth Conference, where the bishops of the Episcopal Church pointed repeatedly to our Baptismal rite as evidence of our commitment to Jesus as Lord.

I write this with a heavy heart. Kevin Thew Forrester served as an assistant in the parish where some years earlier I was ordained a priest and served as an assistant. He has been raised up by a sister diocese in our own Province V, and I know how highly he is regarded there and what a blow it would be to the people of Northern Michigan if he were not to receive the requisite consents to be consecrated. But I also know that the Episcopal Church needs at this crucial juncture in the life of the Anglican Communion to be clear that all our hope is founded in the cross.

Faithfully,

+Tom Breidenthal
Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Southern Ohio

Guess ...

Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:41:37 GMT

... just Guess what this is:

vavma' Qun qo'Daq SoHtaHbogh
quvjaj ponglIj.
ghoSjaj wo'lIj 'ej qo'vamDaq,
bIQapqang'chu'jaj; Qun qo'Daq rur.
jaj Soj ghonob 'ej
quvHa'ghachmeymajvo' ghonobHa';
quvHa'ghachmeyvo' manobchuqHa' rur.
tlhu'ghachDaq ghoDevQo'
'ach mIghvo' ghotoD

Grunt

Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:49:54 GMT

I just had to explain the Thirteenth Amendment.
No, not the one about slavery, the so-called Titles and Nobility Amendment.
To an adault.
Who votes.
Who teaches Social studies.

Archbishop: God is not a safety net

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:06:15 GMT

We can't depend on God to save the world from the environmental depredations of humanity says Archbishop of Canterbury

Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

The Archbishop of Canterbury said last night that God cannot be trusted to save the world from the environmental depredations of humanity.

Dr Rowan Williams did not say there was no God. But he said that God is not a “safety net that guarantees a happy ending in this world.”

He warned that the pillaging of the world’s resources meant it was facing a “whole range of doomsday prospects” that went far beyond the consequences of global warming.

Humanity faced being “choked, drowned or starved” by its own stupidity, he said.

And he compared those who challenged the reality of climate change to the courtiers who flattered England’s Viking King Canute, until the King proved he could not command the waves by going down to the seashore and trying to do so.

“Rhetoric, as King Canute demonstrated, does not turn back rising waters,” said Dr Williams.

The Archbishop said it was “unchristian and unbiblical” to suggest that God would protect humanity from the results of what we are doing to the environment.

Failure to start acting more responsibly could have “disastrous consequences”, especially for the poor and most vulnerable, he warned.

Dr Williams was delivering the Ebor Lecture in York Minster.

“There is no way of manipulating our environment that is without cost or consequence … we are inextricably bound up with the destiny of our world,” he said.

He said that any who regarded the powers of nature as “a threat to be overcome” were simply illustrating the fallen nature of humanity.

An unintelligent approach to the environment meant that the extinction of species, the end of fossil fuels and other catastrophes were just some of the consequences that awaited us.

“There is no guarantee that the world we live in will tolerate us indefinitely if we prove ourselves unable to live within its constraints,” he said, warning that God will not intervene to protect us from “the corporate folly of our practices.”

“This is not a creation in which there are no real risks,” he said. “Our faith has always held that the inexhaustible love of God cannot compel justice or virtue. We are capable of doing immeasurable damage to ourselves as individuals, and it seems clear that we have the same terrible freedom as a human race.”

It was still possible to turn things around.

“If we can change things so appallingly for the worse, it is possible to change them for the better also.”

But this needed a “conversion” to intelligence and good judgement.

“The ecological crisis challenges us to be reasonable,” he said.
</lj-cut>
What Christianity brings to the debate is that we are not and do not have to be God.

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:48:02 GMT

Following upon the Rev. Tobias Haller's set of Anglican maladies I did a bit of field research. I think I have stumbled upon a new form of an older condition generally called Dermatological Fadism. It is fairly pernicious and quite difficult to treat. I give you my own contribution to the diagnosis of Ecclesial medicine: Presbyopic Emergantism.

Presbyopic Emergantism: Related to Dermatological Fadism and Spastic Demographitus and may have come about through horizontal gene transfer due to constant contact of the two conditions in the hot house environment of Conventions and Conferences. This is born out by all sufferers of this condition suffer from one or the other of these. Occasionally referred to as a Relevancy Tickle, it manifests as a fixation on one set of phenomena to the exclusion of others. Seriousness of disorder may cause a reaction to contrary or different data ranging from dismissal to outright anger. Other symptoms include denim clergy shirts, guitars and an unusual ability to talk about mystics and religious one has never read. Treatments include enforced BCP and H82 use, as well as deeper reading lists and field trips

Am I wrong but...

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 01:08:01 GMT

... is there nothing worse than an illiberal Liberal?

5 words thing

Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:46:01 GMT

Leave a comment and I'll tell you five things I associate with you. And then you post about those five things, and invite others to have you tell them what you associate with them!

Here's what sensational associated with me:

Religion: Yep. It is what I am trained in, and spend most of my time thinking and writing about. Not that I feel like the church I am trianed to serve wants me or my skills, and knowledge but I have them.

knowing stuff without being annoying: I had to laugh at this. I was just told the other day that I was a pedantic bore.

teaching: Again, it's sort of what I do. I hope that I'll get hired on as an instructor at a local community College soon though.

magic users: This is what I normaly play in an RPG. I mean, why play something ordinary? Fighters are dull as hell. Mages and Clerics (follwed by Pallies) are the ONLY way to go.

philosophy: The history of ideas and epistemology fascinate me. Some of this is because I have to spend so much time trying to pick around other peoples words to figure out what they are saying, so I started analyzing peoples ideas bit by bit.