Don't think this isn't where we are headed, folks....

The ELCA is in full communion with the ECUSA (the Episcopal Church). I have heard it said that when the Episcopal Church sneezes, the ELCA gets a cold. What is happening over there is very much the path of the ELCA.

Here is what The Rev. Johnathan Millard said to the annual convention of the Diocese of Pittsburgh about the direction of their national church, making the case for the Diocese of Pittsburgh leaving the ECUSA.

1. There is confusion concerning who God is:

Over the past 40 years there has been a drift away from orthodox ways of speaking about God. In some places in TEC instead of God being referred to as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, He is addressed only by function as creator, redeemer and sustainer, and not in personal ways. The problem with this approach is that it makes God more remote and the fact is God has revealed himself to us through the Scriptures not just by function, but in personal terms as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Another example is when the name LORD is replaced with "God." So instead of the Liturgical greeting:

"The Lord be with you" you may encounter in some parts of TEC "God be with you" or even "God is in you" with the response: "and also in you." The word LORD apparently is perceived as too male, and too authoritarian. The earliest creedal statement was simply "Jesus is Lord." And yes, it was meant to be authoritarian. I was very sad when I attended the Interfaith service at Calvary last week, to see precisely such a change had been made to the liturgy. When it came to share the Peace, the wording was not: "The peace of the Lord", but rather "The Peace of God."

2. There is a lack of clear teaching about the divinity of Christ:

In answer to a question referencing the divinity of Jesus, in an article published earlier this year, the Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Shori, said this: "If you begin to explore the literary context of the first century and the couple of hundred years on either side, the way that someone told a story about a great figure was to say 'this one was born of the gods.' That is what we're saying. This carpenter from Nazareth or Bethlehem - and there are different stories about where he came from - shows us what a godly human being looks like, shows us God coming among us."

At best that is ambiguous or confusing, and at worst it is false teaching. Jesus was much more than someone who "shows us what a godly human being looks like." And the Church does not say that he was "born of the gods." The biblical witness and the faith of the church is that Jesus is the Son of God: fully God and fully man. The Word became flesh (John 1). We proclaim this truth weekly in the Nicene Creed.

3. There is a lack of clear teaching about Salvation and Sin:

Questioned about selfishness and falleness, the Presiding Bishop said this:·"The human journey is about encouraging our own selves to move up into higher consciousness, into being able to be present in a violent situation without responding with violence ... " and in the same interview she went on to say: "The question is always how can we get beyond our own narrow self-interest and see that our salvation lies in attending to the needs of other people."

This is not the Gospel story of sin and redemption. The Scriptures teach that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Rom. 3:23). The Scriptures teach that salvation is not through our works, or our efforts to move up to a higher consciousness, or even through attending to the needs of others. Our salvation lies in Jesus, "who while we were still sinners, died for us." (Rom. 5:8); and all who believe in the LORD and call upon his name will be saved. (Rom. 10:13)

4. There is a drift towards universalism:

The Presiding Bishop says of Jesus: "we who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box" (Time Magazine: July 17,2006). Jesus said: I am the way the truth and the life no one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6).

When, some years ago, I first heard Bishop Duncan speak of us living in a time of Reformation of the Church throughout the world, I confess I wondered if that was a little grandiose. I now believe, without a doubt, that he was right. This was illustrated for me, once again, just last week. I was deeply saddened to hear Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu deny the particularity of the Christian Faith, mocking the idea that Jesus could possibly be the only way to God, and declaring that all religions are worshipping the same God, just by different names. The archbishop is a great man who has done wonderful work for reconciliation and peace. I salute him for all the good he has done, but I am sad and troubled that he would be so dismissive of the supreme work of love and salvation that our Lord Jesus Christ did for us on the cross.

5. There is a loss of confidence in the Gospel as Good News for all:

The official teaching of the Anglican Church on the issue of human sexuality is that which has been set out by the Lambeth Conference in 1998 (Resolution 1:10). But here's the key point concerning the Gospel that I want to make:

[The Conference] "recognises that there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation. Many of these are members of the Church and are seeking the pastoral care, moral direction of the Church, and God's transforming power for the living of their lives and the ordering of relationships." [emphasis added]. It is that confidence in the transforming power of God that the actions of TEC now challenge. So instead of welcoming and loving all into the church so that they might experience
transformation, TEC simply welcomes and affirms people just as they are - denying them the healing and hope and transforming power of God.

6. There is erroneous teaching and practice regarding human sexuality

Over the past couple of decades there has been a serious rejection of the clear teaching of the Bible and the Church on human sexuality and marriage. The clear teaching of Scripture and tradition and of the one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church is that sex is for marriage. The only sexually intimate relationships that are good and holy according to Scripture and tradition are those between a man and a woman, within an intended life long, faithful covenant of marriage. That means that pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, gay sex, any sex outside of marriage is all contrary to God's will. This is the clear teaching of the Bible and of Jesus.

7. There is a seemingly 'social justice only' view of the mission of the church

I have struggled to find any clear statements from the Presiding Bishop about the basics of the faith. From her inaugural sermon through to all kinds of talks and sermons and interviews that I've seen or heard extracts from she seems to be concerned primarily with a political and social gospel. She seems to be concerned principally about the United Nations' Millennium Development Goals. There is much to be commended about these goals and much to challenge us - but they are by no means the same thing as the message of salvation for those who are perishing. (John 3: 16). If the Millennium Goals are our gospel message it falls seriously short of the message of proclaiming "Christ and him crucified." (1 Corinthians 2:1-5).

8. There is contempt for the Authority of the Bible

Bishop Bennison has said: "The church wrote the Bible, and the church can rewrite the Bible." No, that is a serious error.

9. There is failure by Bishops to defend the faith

The role of a bishop in the words of the 1662 ordinal is: ''to banish and drive away from the church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to the Word of God." - Here in the States, the very opposite is true. Rather than drive away false teaching many of the bishops of TEC embrace it, celebrate it and declare to be good and holy that which God declares to wrong. To ordain an openly gay, non-celibate man - when the rest of the world urged TEC not to do this - is not only contrary to Scripture but is also an arrogant display of American intransigence.

10. There is a lack of respect for truth or unity

There seems to be a cavalier spirit among many in TEC that disregards the mandate for unity with the one holy, catholic and apostolic church. Claims are made by 'progressives' that they are putting truth ahead of unity. However the 'truth' they claim is that it's a matter of social justice and Christian virtue to bless same sex unions and permit practicing gay and lesbian people to hold any office within the church. This is, of course, is contrary to the truth as revealed in Holy Scripture. And the only unity they secure is among a tiny minority of the church worldwide.

----
I have heard much of what is written above from ELCA pastors in Chicago and in Central Florida. This is not a good thing! If you are in the ELCA you should be concerned about what is being passed off as Christianity by your national church.

Click on the title to visit Stand Firm, a reform website for Episcopalians.

---Katie
(Hat tip to shrimp over at the Shellfish blog.)

The Politics of Planting

Click on the title to watch a clever You Tube clip of the CNN debate that was supposed to have an audience made up of undecided voters. Watch it and decide for yourself if CNN actually went out and found a bunch of undecided, uninvolved average Joes and Janes for the audience for this debate, or if they....did something else. It's rather humorous.

---Katie

More ELCA silliness

Take a look at this article over on Shellfish. Clam has information on an event that was held at Ebenezer/herchurch.org that makes me glad that I am leaving the ELCA. What is really interesting are the comments from a participant in that event, so make sure that you take a look at the comments. What stunned me was her claim that women staffers from churchwide took part. Wow.

Here is a sample:

Wisdom’s Urgent Cry
A Faith and Feminism
Womanist/Mujerista Conference

hosted by Ebenezer/herchurch Lutheran
and co-sponsored by San Francisco ELCA Conference

A gathering for feminist (men and women) faith seekers, church leaders, Interfaith leaders to experience and discuss the urgent implications of God/dess imagery and gender issues which transform the church, the world and our daily lives so that together we seek and speak justice.

And some of the presenters:

Mara Lynn Keller, ritualist of the Eleusinian Mysteries of Demeter and Persephone

Judith Lavender Dancer, dancer, healer and movement educator. Her work incorporates teachings from both Western and Eastern modalities, including Feldenkrais, Chi Qong, clowning, Bioenergetics, belly dancing, improvisation, meditation, and stilt dancing.

Arisika Razak, educator in the field of Women's Studies/Women's Spirituality. Arisika's work integrates the disciplines of Women's Studies/ Women's Spirituality, and Women's Health and Spiritual Dance, through the incorporation of the teachings of earth based spiritual traditions, women's spirituality, and women's health into the language of movement and dance.


I guess I am just inflexible or old fashioned or something, but you just cannot tell me these folks have not abandoned the faith passed down to us from the apostles.

---Katie

Thomas Jefferson Would Prefer Bloggers over Mainstream Media

Mainstream reporters and writers are quick to point out the importance of media and freedom of the press, after all, Thomas Jefferson said “were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” But today's media might not be exactly what TJ had in mind...he might actually have been thinking of something a lot like modern day blogging.

Check out this article on Pajamas Media:

Thomas Jefferson Wouldn't Think Much of Modern Journalism. Blogging - That's Another Story...
November 21, 2007 1:00 AM
Would he read the NY Times?

Though journalism as we know it didn’t exist when the First Amendment was written, today’s reporters don’t hesitate to make the case for their importance by citing a famous Thomas Jefferson quote. Steve Boriss contends that mainstream news is the opposite of what the third president thought it should be.


By Steve Boriss

Many journalists are fond of telling us how central they are to our democracy. Some cite Thomas Jefferson’s quote, “were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” These self-important boasts by journalists deserve to be challenged. Modern journalism is not only different from what Jefferson intended, it is almost completely the opposite in three fundamental ways: the role of the press, the voices that matter, and the importance of opinions.

1. The role of the press — Jefferson’s vision for the role of the press was completely integrated with his vision for the country. He believed that each of us is born with God-given rights that must not be taken away — life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The potential thief he had in mind was government. Accordingly, he thought that the single most important role for newspapers was to serve as a “fence” to prevent government from encroaching on individual rights.

But modern journalism has hopped this fence by tending to side with the government establishment, often protecting it from people and corporations. Jon Ham notes that newspapers typically feature government as an enlightened class and make use of a “standard journalism template that the private sector has questionable motives, i.e., profit, whereas the public sector’s motives are pure, i.e., altruistic.” PBS’ Bill Moyers now tours the country lashing out against the dangers of too much corporate control over the news media, while singing the virtues of government-controlled NPR and PBS. This anti-corporate attitude has its roots in Marxist, not Jeffersonian thought. As ABC’s John Stossel points out, corporations do not have nearly the same power as government entities, which are “coercive monopolies that spend other people’s money taken by force.”

Click on the title for the rest. It is quite good!

---Katie

When the Pilgrims Rejected Communism, Prosperity Followed

From the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

When the Pilgrims rejected communism, prosperity followed.

As our modern gladiators chase a pigskin down the field in Dallas, Detroit and Atlanta, we settle into our living rooms, loosen our belts and remind the little ones this is the day we echo the thanks of the Pilgrims, who gathered in the autumn of 1621 to celebrate the first bountiful harvest in a new land.

The Pilgrims' first winter in the New World had been a harsh one. The wheat the Pilgrims had brought with them to plant would not grow in the rocky New England soil. Nearly half the colonists died.

But the survivors were hard-working and tenacious, and -- with the help of an English-speaking Wampanoag named Tisquantum (starting a long tradition of refusing to learn three-syllable words, the Pilgrims dubbed him "Squanto") -- they learned how to cultivate corn by using fish for fertilizer, how to dig and cook clams, how to tap the maples for sap. And so they were able to thank the Creator for an abundant harvest that second autumn in a new land.

The only problem with the tale, unfortunately, is that it's not true.

Yes, the Indians did graciously show the new settlers how to raise beans and corn. But in a November 1985 article in The Free Market, a monthly publication of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, author and historian Richard J. Marbury pointed out: "This official story is ... a fairy tale, a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths which divert attention away from Thanksgiving's real meaning."

In his "History of Plymouth Plantation," the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years because they refused to work in the fields, preferring to steal. Gov. Bradford recalled for posterity that the colony was riddled with "corruption and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."

Although in the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622 "all had their hungry bellies filled," that relief was short-lived, and deaths from illness because of malnutrition continued.

Then, Mr. Marbury points out, "something changed." By harvest time, 1623, Gov. Bradford was reporting that, "Instead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God." Why, by 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists actually began exporting corn.

What on earth had transpired?

In 1623 Gov. Bradford simply "gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit."

Previously, the Mayflower Compact had required that "all profits and benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, "all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock."

A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed -- a concept so attractive on its surface that it would be adopted as the equally disastrous ruling philosophy for all of Eastern Europe some 300 years later.

"A form of communism was practiced at Plymouth in 1621 and 1622," agrees Tom Bethell of the Hoover Institution in his book "The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity through the Ages."

"Under the arrangement of communal property one might reasonably suspect that any additional effort might merely substitute for the lack of industry of others," Mr. Bethell notes. But once private ownership was substituted, "Knowing that the fruits of his labor would benefit his own family and dependents, the head of each household was given an incentive to work harder."

They say those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Yes, America is a bounteous land, but the source of that bounty lies not primarily in the fertility of our soil or the frequency of the rains. There is hardly a more fertile breadbasket on the face of the earth than the Ukraine, where for decades crops rotted in the fields under a Soviet administration that allowed no farmer a private profit incentive to hire enough help to get the turnips picked.

No, the source of our bounty is the discovery made by the Pilgrims in 1623, that when individuals are allowed to hold their own land as private property, to eat what they raise and keep the profits from any surplus they sell, hard work is rewarded and thus encouraged, and the entire community enjoys prosperity and plenty.

And so it is that on this Thanksgiving Day we ask God's continued blessing on America -- a land blessed most of all by our inherited concept of private property rights, the system that allows each to keep the profit of his sweat and toil -- and for this reason the land of peace and plenty, the envy of mankind, the land of the free.

A version of this editorial first appeared on this page in 1999.

Does God Exist?

Of course, I know you know how I would answer that question, but it remains a topic of debate amongst philosophers and intellectual elites. Atheism is very in these days with a number of books being written and prominent atheists being hailed for their wisdom and their boldness in rejecting theism. Of course you don't hear much about Anthony Flew, once the darling of those promoting the "truth" of atheism:

Now, in his early eighties, Flew has rejected atheism and said he believes that God exists. He does not espouse the Christian God, but calls himself a Deist. He says he has a lifelong commitment to following the evidence where it leads, and that new advances in the sciences have shown him that materialism and Darwinism simply cannot account for the world as it is and life as it is. Examining the fine-tuning of the universe and the mind-boggling complexity of the cell (a complexity that evolution presumes but cannot explain), Flew now believes that the design of the universe requires a designer. He gives his reasons in a new book There Is a God which is co-authored with Roy Abraham Varghese.

----
Click on the title. It's pretty interesting.

---Katie

SJWPFriends

If you are a member or former member of my church, check out the bottom of the side bar. I have started a yahoo group to help people keep up with each other, whether they have changed churches in the area or moved away. Want to hear what your old friends and/or acquaintances are up to? Click and join! (I do have to approve your membership.)

---Katie

Does the Gospel Excuse Sin?

From Pastor Paul McCain's blog:

As readers of this blog site know, a topic that has had my attention for quite some time is the problem of an aversion to sanctification that has taken hold in certain quarters in Confessional Lutheranism. It is a subset of Gospel reductionism, and a sad legacy of those years in our Synod when there was active and open denial of the third use of the law. Under that influence there developed unfortunate views of Christian sanctification. Also there are those who appear to think that the best antidote to legalism is a certain kind of antinomianism. I've noticed for many years that there are those who go so far as to think that since Pietism is a problem, a demonstration of impiety is the solution: coarse language, crude humor, making fun of people, drinking to excess, etc.

Click on the title to read the rest of this excellent article.

---Katie

Thank God for Faithful Pastors!

Found this over at Shrimp's blog. Click on the title.

Earlier this week, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church sent the following message to the Bishop of Pittsburgh, who is (in the words of the Episcopal News Service) "actively seeking to withdraw his diocese from the Episcopal Church":

The Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan
Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA

Dear Bob,

There have been numerous public references in recent weeks regarding resolutions to be introduced at your forthcoming diocesan convention. Those resolutions, if adopted, would amend several of your diocesan canons and begin the process of amending one or more provisions of your diocesan Constitution. I have reviewed a number of these proposed resolutions, and it is evident to me that they would violate the Constitutional requirement that the Diocese conform to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church. It is apparent from your pre-convention report that you endorse these proposed changes. I am also aware of other of your statements and actions in recent months that demonstrate an intention to lead your diocese into a position that would purportedly permit it to depart from The Episcopal Church. All these efforts, in my view, display a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between The Episcopal Church and its dioceses. Our Constitution explicitly provides that a diocese must accede to the Constitution and Canons of the Church.

I call upon you to recede from this direction and to lead your diocese on a new course that recognizes the interdependent and hierarchical relationship between the national Church and its dioceses and parishes. That relationship is at the heart of our mission, as expressed in our polity. Specifically, I sincerely hope that you will change your position and urge your diocese at its forthcoming convention not to adopt the resolutions that you have until now supported.

If your course does not change, I shall regrettably be compelled to see that appropriate canonical steps are promptly taken to consider whether you have abandoned the Communion of this Church -- by actions and substantive statements, however they may be phrased -- and whether you have committed canonical offences that warrant disciplinary action.

It grieves me that any bishop of this Church would seek to lead any of its members out of it. I would remind you of my open offer of an Episcopal Visitor if you wish to receive pastoral care from another bishop. I continue to pray for reconciliation of this situation, and I remain

Your servant in Christ,

Katharine Jefferts Schori

Bishop Duncan's reply is most elegant:

1st November, A.D. 2007
The Feast of All Saints

The Most Revd Katharine Jefferts Schori
Episcopal Church Center
New York, New York

Dear Katharine,

Here I stand. I can do no other. I will neither compromise the Faith once delivered to the saints, nor will I abandon the sheep who elected me to protect them.

Pax et bonum in Christ Jesus our Lord,

+Bob Pittsburgh

It looks even better on the Diocese's website.

----
Click on the title to read Shrimp's comparison with General Anthony Clement McAuliffe's "nuts" response to the Germans.

Good stuff. I'm glad to see people willing to stand up to bullies. Wish we had a few more of those in my church (as in local church - there are several I can think of in the greater church.)

---Katie