Dear People of Trinity Cathedral,

Over the past several weeks, since my decision to inhibit Dean Linder from the exercise of ordained ministry, I’ve had several conversations with the Dean and his representatives concerning next steps in his ministry as an ordained person in the Church. The inhibition was necessary to prevent division and discord from being spread within the Cathedral community following the Dean’s violation of my pastoral direction to him of July 13th. In my judgment, his violation of that direction risked injury to the health of the Cathedral and your witness to the gospel. It could not be ignored.

His continuing choices not to respond by deadlines mutually agreed upon have caused me to prayerfully consider the most appropriate path forward for the Dean and for Trinity. Several paths have been considered. All of them have ultimately, in my pastoral judgment, led me to the conclusion that the Dean’s status is a pastoral matter between me as the Diocesan Bishop and the Dean as one of my clergy.

Here is where we are today:

- I’ve determined, for the time being, that filing formal disciplinary charges against Dean Linder for violating my earlier Pastoral Direction would not benefit my work with the Dean or further the Cathedral’s ability to move forward in its life and witness to the gospel.

- I have thus removed the inhibition that, effective July 14th, had put this situation into the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Court. Removing the inhibition now allows the vestry to formally act on the call to dissolve the Cathedral’s pastoral relationship with Philip Linder.

- I have issued a new Pastoral Direction, effective August 27th, under which the Dean is still constrained in his priestly ministry and relationship to the Cathedral staff and membership until further notice.

- Charles Davis, Jr., remains Acting Dean of the Cathedral.

These actions will allow me to work directly with the Dean on pastoral issues and will also free the Cathedral vestry to decide what course it will take.

I know that this has been a challenging time for all of you, and yet I am deeply grateful to God for the life that is springing forth among you and for the maturity and wisdom with which you have as a community met these challenges. I ask your continued prayers for the Dean and for his family, acknowledging the strong personal relationships that many of you have with him, formed over the course of his ten years of ministry among you. I remain grateful for the good things that have come from his ministry. I also ask your prayers for the Trinity Vestry and for me as we address the issues before us. As we walk through these challenging times together, I am especially grateful to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, for his guiding presence with all of us. He alone is our hope and refuge.

Your brother in Christ,
The Rt. Rev. W. Andrew Waldo, Bishop
The Episcopal Diocese of Upper South Carolina
]]> tag:standfirminfaith.com,2010:/1.26547 2010-09-02T12:31:01Z 2010-09-02T11:42:02Z Matt Kennedy http://www.binghamtongoodshepherd.com property theft continues...

"We have some properties that we thought we'd be willing to hand over, properties with income," Nelson said. "We didn't think we owed them anything, but we thought, for the sake of peace, we'd be willing to pay them something and move on. But we didn't even get to sit down and talk about it.

"They're filing for all the property, all the bank accounts and everything in the church, without any caveat at all," he said. "They want the paper clips and everything."

Lamb acknowledged that the Episcopal diocese is only interested in the return of the church's property — all of it, including the business sites.

"We'll negotiate with anybody about how we can retrieve our property," Lamb said. "The bottom line is, it's our intention to return the property to the Episcopal Church."...more

"Negotiate" = you tell us how and when you will let us steal everything you own.

My favorite part is when a revisionist or an "orthodox" collaborator toddles over to defend stuff like this by appealing to legality. "The law says that we can take your stuff so it must be right." Confiscating serf property and turning it into a collective government farm--forced collectivization--was "legal" under the Bolsheviks. The Nuremberg Laws made all sorts of things "legal". "Legality" is a pitiful rationale for taking things that don't belong to you. It might pass the bar of human judgment but God is not mocked. ]]> tag:standfirminfaith.com,2010:/1.26546 2010-09-01T23:49:25Z 2010-09-01T22:52:26Z Matt Kennedy http://www.binghamtongoodshepherd.com here

...While the Diocese of Sydney asserts that its position is based on a Gospel imperative,” it does not actually or convincingly demonstrate how that is so. There is also a tendency in the Sydney position to attribute too much to the bogeyman of Anglo-Catholicism and a supposed sacerdotal conception of the priesthood, when all we are really talking about is Church order as it has been traditionally understood by Anglicans and as reflected in the 1552 and 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

...more

]]> tag:standfirminfaith.com,2010:/1.26545 2010-09-01T13:55:35Z 2010-09-01T14:01:36Z Matt Kennedy http://www.binghamtongoodshepherd.com
As such, the two principles to be weighed are “liberty” on the one hand and “charity” on the other. Christians must not allow the liberty of the gospel won by the blood of Christ to die the death of a thousand traditions while at the same time we must not think of our freedom as a licence to trample on the consciences of fellow believers.

The problem from Sydney’s perspective (as I understand it) is that Anglo Catholics do not believe that the sacerdotal priesthood is adiaphora. Regular participation in a validly celebrated Eucharist with validly consecrated elements is necessary, Anglo Catholics believe, for the salvation of souls.

Those writing from the Sydney Anglican perspective on Stand Firm have suggested that the present Communion-wide standard in which only ordained presbyters may celebrate the Eucharist, if left unchallenged, implicitly supports an Anglo Catholic or sacerdotal understanding of the priesthood and thus directly undermines gospel liberty.

Article 20 of the 39 Articles reads:

The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

The Communion standard, from Sydney’s perspective (again, as I understand it), to the extent that it reflects an Anglo Catholic sacerdotal understanding of the priesthood forces a “thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation” that is contrary to God’s Word written.

The calculus, then, from Sydney’s perspective seems to be that the cause of gospel liberty in this case outweighs the call of charity.

I disagree for three reasons:

First: There are many Anglicans, and I am one of them, who reject the Anglo Catholic understanding of the priesthood while recognizing that presiding over the Eucharist is an act of headship and as such ought to be reserved for the ordained leadership of a local congregation. I will not argue that case here but I want simply to point out that the Communion standard is no more an implicit endorsement of the Anglo Catholic sacerdotal position than it is an endorsement of the evangelical headship argument. The reason the Communion standard has survived so long is precisely because it can be legitimately embraced by both evangelicals and Anglo Catholics in very good conscience.

Second: Because that is true, what Sydney may perceive to be a grand act against sacerdotalism also stands as a divisive act against fellow evangelicals.

Third: Sydney’s stance toward Anglo Catholicism as represented by the move toward lay or diaconal and lay presidency is the kind of stance generally taken toward an enemies rather than friends.

In the early 80’s Libyan dictator Mohamar Quadafi drew what he called the “Line of Death” across the Gulf of Sidra. The line cut directly through what the United States understood to be international waters. And so the US, correctly I think, instigated a conflict by floating some navy warships right over the “Line of Death” and in the ensuing conflict humbled Quadifi and reopened international sea routes. This was a very good thing. Quadafi was a hostile enemy. It was necessary to confront him and to assert international law.

Anglo Catholics may be wrong, I think they are, but they are not hostile and they are not our enemies nor are they enemies of the gospel. They are friends. And what is more, they are friends who do not insist that evangelicals accept their understanding of the priesthood. The very last thing evangelical Anglicans ought to do at this point is send our warships over their lines. But that is essentially what Sydney proposes to do.

I certainly agree that resolving question of the nature of salvation and the nature of the priesthood/presbyteriat is a vital and necessary task for orthodox Anglicans. And I pray that my Anglo Catholic brothers and sisters may one day be won over to the evangelical position. But since they are friends and not enemies we should not force this thing down their throats.

If I have misunderstood or misrepresented the Sydney position in any way, and I actually hope that I have, please, Sydney readers, correct me. But as it stands I see no reasonable basis for this action. It is not an assertion of Christian liberty over and against modern day Judiazers but an unnecessary and divisive act with the potential to turn friends into enemies. ]]> tag:standfirminfaith.com,2010:/1.26542 2010-08-31T19:34:33Z 2010-08-30T04:38:34Z Sarah
From the Washington Times, where there is more detail:

A group opposed to ending the ban on openly gay troops in the military has released a national survey that challenges earlier independent polls asserting that a wide percentage of Americans favor repealing the ban.

The Military Culture Coalition hopes the survey by a Republican pollster will help persuade moderate to conservative Democrats to oppose President Obama's campaign promise to lift the ban as final votes in Congress loom.

The question is, is the poll too late? The House as well as the Senate Armed Services Committee have passed repeal legislation. That leaves the full Senate vote, a House-Senate conference bill, and then Mr. Obama's signature to end the 1993 law that states that open homosexuality is a threat to combat readiness.

Here is a summary of the key results from the Center for Military Readiness, which is doing yeoman's work on this an other issues. CMR helpfully notes this in a recent email newsletter:

Just before the August recess, Senate Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) blocked an attempt by SASC Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-IL) to require a vote on the defense authorization bill, which contains legislation to repeal the 1993 law. . . .

Sen. McCain Blocks First Attempt to File Cloture on Bill Turning Military Into Social Experiment
LGBT activist rights groups are pressuring Congress to take up the bill quickly—before the Pentagon’s review and survey of the troops are complete. The main reason is political—they want legislative action before the mid-term elections, while Democrats still have majorities. This is an irresponsible way to make policy affecting our military men and women, who deserve better. Sen. McCain will need 41 votes to continue blocking efforts by Senators Harry Reid and Carl Levin to bring the defense policy (not appropriations) bill to the floor. Information on how to reach your state’s U.S. senators during the August recess is here:

Senators of the 111th Congress

]]> tag:standfirminfaith.com,2010:/1.26544 2010-08-31T14:46:38Z 2010-08-31T14:48:39Z Sarah
I've bumped a couple of helpful posts on the Sydney issues from 2008. The comments on both are instructive. Note in particular the exchanges between David Ould, Boring Bloke, William, and To All The World [Robert Munday]. The comments in both of those posts make for a good education. ]]> tag:standfirminfaith.com,2010:/1.17979 2010-08-31T14:46:30Z 2010-08-31T14:52:31Z David Ould http://www.davidould.net

7.2 Lay and diaconal administration

Synod –

(a) accepts the report concerning legal barriers to lay and diaconal administration of the Lord’s Supper which was submitted to the 3rd session of the 47th Synod, and

(b) affirms again its conviction that lay and diaconal administration of the Lord’s Supper is consistent with the teaching of Scripture, and

(c) affirms that the Lord’s Supper in this diocese may be administered by persons other than presbyters,

and requests the Diocesan Secretary to send a copy of The Lord’s Supper in Human Hands to all bishops who attended the GAFCON.

and was passed overwhelmingly. Subsequently the Archbishop made it clear that he would not consider licensing laity to administer communion, out of respect to those that objected. Thus we are now at the position where the Diocese of Sydney approves of Diaconal Administration.

Almost as soon as the news got out there were strong responses. Perhaps the most concerned were GAFCON partners who saw the move as a serious breach in Anglican order. A clear example would be the following from Peter Toon of the Prayer Book Society of the USA:

...what the Diocese of Sydney has recently re-affirmed and confirmed as its public doctrine stands in total opposition to the doctrinal and public stance of GAFCON.

This is, quite clearly, an issue where Anglicans are divided - and divided where, previously, they had stood together.

So what has moved the Synod of Sydney to take this decision, knowing that it would upset and even offend many of their global partners - partners that only months earlier they had work so hard to win over? How should orthodox Anglicans all over the Communion understand these actions? What are the convictions that drive the motion and how can it be that evangelicals at Sydney should, in good conscience, pass such a resolution without considering it to be in any way a contradiction of their dearly-held Anglican identity?

This piece is not an apologetic for that decision, although the reader should not be ignorant of the fact that I am broadly in favour of Synod's position - which places me somewhat at odds with my blogging colleagues at Stand Firm. As things stand I am an ordained Deacon in the Diocese and I wait, after the Rector has canvassed the opinion of church members, for my Church Council's approval for me to administer Communion. I am, myself, an object of the current controversy and I realise that even that simple fact causes distress to some of our readers.

Nevertheless, I wanted to spend the time working hard at helping our more "Catholic"-minded friends understand how Sydney had reached this point. I won't pretend to be neutral, rather I intend to set out (to the best of my ability) how we have ended up in this place. Along the way we will tap into some of the deeper debates that have been had in this place and others about the nature of Anglican identity. That cannot be avoided. As John Richardson observed in his recent address to the Lincoln branch of Forward in Faith in the UK,

the ‘farmer’ of Anglo-Catholicism and the ‘cowman’ of Conservative Evangelicalism can, indeed, be friends

while, in the same speech laying out a great number of areas of challenge to his audience. I would suggest that our shared convictions (or, at least our claim to share convictions) should make us eager to listen to each other, particularly on areas of deeper disagreement.

Defining the Issue

What is indicated by the term "Lay Administration"? Are we talking about assistance at Communion, what others may call "distribution"? More than that is intended. When one reads over the legion documents produced in Sydney over this issue, it immediately becomes apparent that presidency at the Lord's Supper is indicated. This terminology is consistent with the 1662 BCP so, for example, in the prayers at Communion you have this:

Give grace, O heavenly Father, to all Bishops and Curates, that they may both by their life and doctrine set forth thy true and lively Word, and rightly and duly administer thy holy Sacraments.

and in the next notice:

EARLY beloved, on ----- day next I purpose, through God's assistance, to administer to all such as shall be religiously and devoutly disposed the most comfortable Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; to be by them received in remembrance of his meritorious Cross and Passion;

Presidency, including consecration, is obviously in view. Indeed, the service is properly titled "The Order of the Administration of the Lord's Supper".

Legal/Canonical Objections

The question of a legal or canonical objection is not something that can be simply ringfenced from other areas. For our Anglo-Catholic friends church order, including the matter of canons, overlaps heavily with theology. It is not simply a question of whether something is legally or canonically permitted that makes something be in good order. The endorsement of the election of Gene Robinson, for example, did not make the action any more valid.

With this in mind, we must still consider the question of legal objections. This issue was dealt with by the Standing Committe of Sydney's synod back in 1993. The report can be found here. (A number of other relevant reports, going back over 20 years, may be found here. Such a provenance of this position should indicate to the reader a high degree of conservatism, rather than an impulsive rush, in the area of legislating for controversial changes). The report notes that the 1985 General Synod of the Church in Australia passed a canon on the ordination of Deacons. I will let the report make it's own argument:

5. Two notable changes occur in the service. First, the restriction upon the deacon, who could previously only baptise infants in the absence of the priest,[6] is removed so that the deacon may baptise a candidate of any age and do so, if appropriate, in the presence of the priest. Second, the authority to preach, which was previously dependent upon the bishop’s permission is replaced with the bishop’s instruction: “to preach the word of God in the place to which you are licensed.” In other words, the licence to preach, which was not inherent in the BCP service, is now constitutive of the order of deacon.[7]

6. Under the 1985 canon, both of these changes are highlighted in the words of the bishop when he gives the deacon a copy of the New Testament: “Receive this sign of your authority to proclaim God’s word and to assist in the administration of the sacraments.”

7. These changes have been universally recognised as an authorisation of the deacon to preach God’s word and to administer baptism to candidates of any age. In many ways this represented a liturgical catch up as many deacons had baptised candidates other than infants, and the recognition that there are occasions when it is appropriate for a deacon to baptise, notwithstanding the presence of a priest. However, what is curious about the wording of the 1985 service is the explicit inclusion of the holy communion in the deacon’s responsibilities. On three occasions the term “administration” of the sacraments is used in the service, whereas the word “baptism” does not occur at all.

...

11. What pertains to the authority to administer baptism pertains to the authority to administer holy communion. There is no differentiation in the service between the deacon’s authority to administer either sacrament. In both cases the deacon is assisting the priest, whether it be in administering baptism or in administering holy communion.

If Deacons are to assist the Priest in baptism by performing baptisms, argued the report, then surely the same should be accepted for communion - the ordination canon made no distinction between the too. (Remember, at this point we are speaking only to the legal objections). The legal position is founded upon the premise that the Deacon's role has been raised in all areas to that of the Priest by leglislation.

Theological Objections

The Report cited above contains an Appendix, the contents of which are a report by the Doctrine Commission of the Diocese. Again, it would be best to allow them to speak for themselves:

2. Theological Assumptions

2.1 The Doctrine Commission accepts the finding of the 1983 report that the arguments against lay presidency at the Lord's Supper, such as those expressed in the General Synod Doctrine Commission Report Towards a Theology of Ordination, are incorrect, and that "there is no Scriptural or doctrinal barrier to lay presidency".

2.2 Moreover there do exist positive reasons, theological, historical and practical, for allowing lay presidency at the Lord's Supper.

(a) The welcome development of lay preaching ministry over many years has resulted in a distortion of our Anglican order which has, in effect, elevated the Sacrament above the Word in that those authorised to preach are not necessarily authorised to preside (note the words "vice versa" in the 1985 report quoted above). To preserve the balance of Anglican order there is a need for lay ministry of the Sacrament to develop in a way corresponding to lay ministry of the Word.

(b) On the grounds that Jesus Christ alone was the proper sacramentum given us by God (1 Tim 2:3-7; 3: 14-1 6), the 16th century Reformers worked to heal the split between Word and Sacrament endemic to medieval theology and practice. Anglican writers of the period when the formularies were being composed "regarded the ministry of the word and that of the two sacraments as closely bound up together, and were, generally speaking, entirely free from those sacerdotal conceptions which put the ministry of the eucharist in a class by itself" (i) While the question of lay presidency at the Lord's Supper hardly arose in this period, this was because lay ministry was generally only envisaged in cases of necessity or "highly remote theory".[ii] Normally a layman could neither preach nor administer the sacraments. Where opposition to lay presidency was expressed, it was in terms of the general argument propounded by Calvin, which was based on the concept of those "called and authorised" to each and administer the sacraments."[iii] The main stream of Anglican writers did not apply Calvin's argument narrowly, as can be seen in their views of lay baptism, and, at least theoretically, of lay preaching. The development of Anglican lay ministry generally in more recent times has likewise not accepted a restricted application of Calvin's principles of order to modern church life. We have recognised that lay people too may be "called and authorised" for various ministries. However the separation we now see between preaching and sacraments was inconceivable to the Reformers. This separation has developed in the climate created in Anglicanism by the theology of the 19th century Tractarian movement which reverted to pre-Reformation views of Church and ministry.[iv]

(c) It follows that the role of presiding at the Lord's Supper should not be elevated above the role of presiding when the congregation of God's people gathers for prayer and the hearing of God's Word. This is not a diminution of the importance of the Lord's Supper: it is, rather, a recognition of the importance of every gathering of God's household. At the centre of every such assembly must be the word of Christ, the gospel of Jesus Christ and him crucified. We have rightly recognised that the headship of Christ over his household allows for any suitably mature and gifted member of the congregation to be authorised to preside at Morning and Evening Prayer (see the conclusion to the 1983 Doctrine Commission Report, 1.1 above). It follows that the prohibition of lay presidency at the Lord's Supper is today a serious inconsistency, which has distorted Anglican order as envisaged in our formularies (see (d) below).

(d) The anomaly of churches, schools, colleges which have regular Anglican ministry, but must bring in an outside priest on certain occasions in order to conduct the Lord's Supper suggests the "Mass priest" concept rightly rejected by our forebears.

(e) When lay people are permitted to share in every form of ministry except one in the regular meetings of the congregation, except one, the impression can be given that the prohibited thing is the essence of ordained ministry. A sacerdotal view of the priesthood is difficult to avoid. Again this is a distortion of Anglican order due to the welcome developments in lay ministry which have not however been matched in the ministry of the Sacraments.

It has been suggested to me that it is worth considering the original intent of much of the order put in place durning the 16^th Century Reformation. Why, for example, were only some Priests licensed to preach their own sermons whereas all were licensed to preside at Communion? The answer, of course, is that Cranmer had provided the words for Communion, whereas sermons came from the Priest's own pen. Hence the need for homilies.
This action was not to raise the Sacrament over the Word and its preaching but, rather, to protect what Cranmer clearly saw as of first importance - the preaching of the word of God. He was obviously no sacerdotalist.

Of course, we now have (particularly in Sydney) a situation where not only the clergy but much of the laity are theologically literate and competent. We are, rightly, licensing many men to preach. We have ended up with a situation where what was previously prioritised and reserved (the preaching of the word) no longer needs to be whereas that which could not be so readily abused and was previously not so constrained (the sacrament) is now more restricted. This is, surely, contrary to Cranmer's original intention. His original change was gospel-minded, prioritising and protecting the word of God. Perhaps, some in Sydney are suggesting, another like-minded change is required?

The current Dean of Sydney, Philip Jensen, puts it more simply in his recent piece "Traditions Old and New":

There is no reason to retain or to dispense with some custom just because it is old - anymore than there is any reason to embrace something because it is new. What pleases God is that we put forward the Gospel of Jesus clearly so that His people can understand His ways and respond in obedient faith.

The move from Sydney must be recognised as coming from a sincere (although some may argue incorrectly focussed) gospel imperative.

Anglican Identity

The question of Cranmer's original intent, outlined above, and his understanding of the gospel strike to the very heart of current discussions over the nature of Anglican Identity. Sydney Anglicans would see themselves firmly in the line of those Reformers of the 1500's, who they understand to have be unfeignedly protestant.

This is, of course, where the real fault-line lies. Conservative evangelicals, such as those typically found in Sydney, do not see themselves as bound to tradition as their High Church friends. Indeed, they are more than happy to reject Tradition if they understand it to be contrary to the Scriptures, as they understand Cranmer and his peers felt impelled to do. It is no surprise that Sydney is a place that, while having a very low rate of usage of the Prayer Book, has a very high allegiance to the 39 Articles and the theology of the Prayer Book. It is a strange combination, but perhaps more understandable with reference to Article 34:

XXXIV. Of the Traditions of the Church.
IT is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one or utterly alike; for at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's word. Whosoever through his private judgement willingly and purposely doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church which be not repugnant to the word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly that other may fear to do the like, as he that offendeth against common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the magistrate, and woundeth the conscience of the weak brethren.
Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying.

Many here would look to that Article and see in it a mandate to change traditions and ceremonies so that the gospel be most clearly communicated to the culture in which we find ourselves.

It is not a mystery that much of the opposition to Lay Presidency from those who would be more generally included in the "orthodox" camp comes from the "Higher" church Anglo-Catholics - those who look not to Cranmer but Laud, Pusey and, of course, Newman for their identity. This, of course, is an issue we have discussed in this place before. Readers will be under no illusions as to where I stand on the matter but perhaps I might quote again from Richardson. His words may be better received as "wounds from a friend", or at least serve to outline the nature of the evangelical objection:

...the Anglo-Catholic must face the fact that many things precious to the tradition are, in fact, at odds with the formal position of the denomination. The onus is, therefore, on the innovator to justify their position.

Above all the Anglo-Catholic must, if progress is to be made, demonstrate the coherence of his own position within Anglicanism.

As I have stated, this is a place where the 39 Articles are taken seriously. The consitution of the Australian Church sets the Articles as the standard of doctrine and in Sydney oaths to uphold that doctrine are said and believed.

Drawing Lines?

I do not think it would be too much to state that a frank response from many in Sydney who accuse them of innovation with their move to Lay Presidency would include a challenge to consider who the real innovators were. That is not to say that in Sydney there is great antipathy amongst the leadership to Anglo-Catholicism. On the contrary. Peter Jensen worked hard at GAFCON to build as many bridges as possible. Back here in Australia he joined with Anglo-Catholics in forming the "Association for Apostolic Ministry" in response to the consecration of women bishops.

Nevertheless, the move to widen the administration of the Lord's Supper is bound to increase, not decrease, pre-existing divisions in the Communion. What for Sydney is an imperative of the gospel is seen by others as close to a denial of it. Still, if we are to have this discussion it is better to have it as well-informed as possible as to what it is exactly that our opponent believes. I trust this article will work towards that end. ]]> tag:standfirminfaith.com,2010:/1.17283 2010-08-31T14:45:49Z 2010-08-31T14:45:50Z Matt Kennedy http://www.binghamtongoodshepherd.com from here

...The motion was passed un­amended, and, the Sydney diocesan website reported, “overwhelmingly”. It read:

Synod —

(a) accepts the report concerning legal barriers to lay and diaconal administration of the Lord’s Supper which was submitted to the 3rd session of the 47th Synod, and

(b) affirms again its conviction that lay and diaconal administration of the Lord’s Supper is consistent with the teaching of Scripture, and

(c) affirms that the Lord’s Supper in this diocese may be administered by persons other than presbyters, and requests the Diocesan Secretary to send a copy of The Lord’s Supper in Human Hands to all bishops who attended the GAFCON.

...more

Personally, while I understand the biblical arguments and grant that they have merit (though I do not entirely agree), I think this is a disastrous decision. How can we criticize TEC for taking steps beyond agreed upon standards when we turn and do the same? ]]> tag:standfirminfaith.com,2010:/1.26540 2010-08-31T13:10:32Z 2010-08-30T03:13:33Z Sarah
Just putting it on the record -- for the future. ; > )

A few weeks ao, Canon Allison, sub-dean of the Cathedral of St. Paul in San Diego CA, made the wonderful announcement from the pulpit that the bishop had now given the Cathedral the go-ahead to celebrate same-sex marriages/blessings. She preached a grand sermon, using a few of the ideas you just raised. I would suggest contacting her and asking for a copy of the sermon to be emailed!

]]> tag:standfirminfaith.com,2010:/1.26539 2010-08-30T00:42:51Z 2010-08-30T00:58:52Z Sarah


Find the text of the program here. ]]> tag:standfirminfaith.com,2010:/1.26537 2010-08-29T19:31:40Z 2010-08-29T19:37:41Z Sarah


This is a quite amazing and harrowing thing -- I don't know how the dog knew to get the other dog out of the road. Not something I would have thought them capable of figuring out.



This is still one of my favorite Husky Singing videos, in part because one can almost see the baby thinking "wait -- horrors! -- somebody else has stolen my thunder!!"


]]> tag:standfirminfaith.com,2010:/1.26521 2010-08-28T15:33:53Z 2010-08-23T17:39:55Z Sarah
A very good piece from American Thinker, where there is more:

On September 11, 2001, extremists hijacked four American airliners, crashing them into New York City's World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. The tragedy resulted in 3,000 Americans dying.

Does the above paragraph sound strange, deliberately vague, misleading (i.e., "politically correct") -- like a misrepresentation of what actually happened on that fateful Tuesday morning? If so, then for the last nine years, America -- from presidents and other politicians to Pentagon officials -- has been engaged in an exercise of obfuscation and verbal gymnastics. And, of course, the leftist establishment media (aka the "mainstream media") have willingly gone along with the above deception. Now consider the politically incorrect truth:

On September 11, 2001, nineteen Islamist terrorists from the Middle East -- fifteen from Saudi Arabia -- hijacked four American airliners, crashing them into New York City's World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. This atrocity resulted in 3,000 innocent Americans being deliberately murdered. Many Muslims wildly erupted in joy in Arab and other Muslim countries, carrying pictures of Osama bin Laden, whose terrorist group, al-Qaeda, took credit for the attacks.

To any person with a modicum of intelligence and reasoning skill, the italicizing and boldfacing of certain words, phrases, and sentences are not needed to realize just how different the narrative -- and truth -- sound from each other. For most Americans, the latter paragraph explains concisely what happened on that horrible day, but due to political correctness, such explicit statements have hardly been written or uttered. Indeed, to speak or write of anything with the words "Islam," "Muslim," or "Middle Eastern" in the same sentence with the word "terrorism" was -- and still is -- verboten. Sad to say, the muzzling of the truth comes not only from liberals and Democrats, but from some conservatives and Republicans as well.

Tragically, the cue for the Orwellian doublespeak came from none other than President George W. Bush himself. Just six days after the most deadly attacks ever on American soil, Mr. Bush appeared on September 17, 2001 -- flanked by members of the "moderate" Muslim group CAIR -- at the Washington Islamic Center, where he boldly proclaimed for the first (but certainly not the last) time that Islam is a "religion of peace." President Bush had already been vilified and excoriated by the media and the Muslim world when he borrowed a word from General Eisenhower's speech to his troops on the eve of D-Day. The unforgivable word, and therefore the unforgivable sin, on the part of the president? He used the word "crusade." The fact that General Eisenhower had used the word in regard to the war against Nazi Germany had no effect on Bush's critics. "Islamophiliacs" came out of the woodwork to condemn Bush's "insensitivity." How, pondered these "experts" on Islam, could he use such a word when it had such negative connotations in the Muslim world?

]]> tag:standfirminfaith.com,2010:/1.26536 2010-08-28T14:25:08Z 2010-08-28T13:28:09Z Matt Kennedy http://www.binghamtongoodshepherd.com CAPA Apologizes to the Church of Uganda for Financial Scandal

In a 27th August letter to Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi, Archbishop of the Church of Uganda, the Most Rev. Ian Earnest, Chairman of CAPA (Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa), apologized for “embarrassing” the Church of Uganda when CAPA received a $25,000 grant from Trinity Grants (USA) for the All Africa Bishops Conference taking place in Uganda. (Letter is attached.)

In 2003, the Church of Uganda broke communion with the Episcopal Church (TEC) over their unbiblical theology and immoral actions that violated historic and Biblical Anglicanism and tore the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level. At the same time, the Church of Uganda resolved to not receive any funds from TEC.

The 2nd All Africa Bishops Conference was hosted by the Church of Uganda, but the programme and speakers were chosen by CAPA. The Church of Uganda received no outside funding for its role in hosting the 400 Bishops and other participants in the week-long conference. All funds were raised locally within Uganda.

Archbishop Henry thanked Archbishop Ian for acknowledging the awkward position CAPA had put the Church of Uganda in and appreciated his humility and generous spirit in writing.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Communications Department
Church of Uganda
P.O. Box 14123
KAMPALA