I Have Moved: Please Note

I have moved to another location:

http://adeoetrege.ancient-future.net

Please update your links accordingly. All old posts have been exported to the new site.

Mystery Shopper Worshipper I worked a summer as a sales associate at a local Super KMart.  In order to keep us on our toes they would bring in a "mystery shopper" every now and then.  A person, posing as a shopper, was really coming to evaluate how well we followed the company guidelines for customer service.  The idea was to instill a sense of fear, but also to make us treat every customer like he was a mystery shopper (i.e. according to the guidelines).  The good folks at Ship of Fools have created a new concept, that of a Mystery Worshipper. This incognito worshipper, visiting a new church, evaluates it on certain criteria.  That person then fills out a questionaire giving answers that may be relevant to others who want to visit the particular church.  The questions are related to several topics, but they mainly deal with how welcoming and hospitable the congregation is to visitors.  These are then posted for the rest of the world to see.  They visit all kinds of churches, although the bulk looked to me like Episcopal/Anglican. In spite of some obvious drawbacks, I actually like this idea.  First, some of the drawbacks.  I don't think it's fair to evaluate a church based on one visit (fortunately many reviewers make this same admission).  I also think the idea of a traveling 'church critic' is a tad bit arrogant, especially since some of the reviewers are clearly snobs in certain areas (like music).  I am a liturgical snob, but recognize that my tastes would probably cause the average person to lose interest. In spite of these drawbacks, I think the concept of a mystery worshipper is very healthy for churches and a great idea overall.  This would not be to 'test' a church, but to allow a church to see how it is perceived by an outsider.  Since we are in a post-Christian age, we have to start caring about evangelism and this especially applies to making visitors feel welcome.  This is not about some namby pamby greeter program, but about helping people feel at home as they enter, providing non-members with an idea of how to follow the service, and some sort of after church followup by the priest or a parishoner. Most churches get so insulated they have no idea how to reach out to visitors.  They also have no idea how to make visitors feel the least bit welcome.  Sometimes even when we think we are welcoming, we fail miserably.  A little outside constructive criticism could be helpful.  I have been in the situation many reviewers describe: standing alone at the church coffee hour being totally ignored, being completely lost in the service, and wanting to talk to a priest/minister and having none in sight.  Believe me, it's not a feeling that makes a person want to come back.  And if we do not practice sufficient hospitality to our visitors to make them want to come back, how will they ever hear the saving message of the Gospel and know the true Faith?

Rome Sweet Home    I remember when I first read the Church Fathers, the excitement I felt.  They opened up a whole new world to me, a whole new way of understanding my faith.  Prior to this I had been experiencing a profound spiritual dryness and an overall lack of direction.  I was being taught a do-it-yourself form of Christianity that left me feeling alone.  The Church fathers and my study of Church history showed me, above all, that Christianity was not only about "me and God," but was about "us and God," the Church.  The Church was more than a local community, but all of the saints past and present, including those I was then reading.  This laid the foundation for my current journey to Catholicism. I converted to Anglicanism in 2000 and found this to be a good home on the journey.  I met many people to whom I will be forever grateful and indebted.  I see going to Rome however in a sense as going home, as Rome really is the spiritual ancestor of all the Western Protestant Churches.  I have loved and cherished the traditions of the Church for a long time now.  I finally want to formally submit to them, which I see also as a submission to Jesus who founded the Church.  After much prayer and study, I'm happy to announce that I am going to be received into the Catholic Church on the Eve of the Assumption (August 14th).

DaPraying the Rosary   I remember the first time I seriously engaged the concept of the rosary.  I always felt the pull to the rosary itself, but was rather afraid of the content.  As a Protestant my head was filled to the brim with preconceived notions: it was vain repetition, Mary worship, a sly form of idolatry (why would anyone need beads to pray?), etc.   Of course I knew absolutely nothing about the rosary itself! The word 'rosary' means crown of roses and comes from the concept that whenever we pray we are giving Mary a bouquet of roses.  The first clear reference to the rosary comes from St. Dominic.  Catholics believe that Mary, in several appearances, has decreed the rosary as a way to combat sin and evil.   As a devotion the rosary is unique in that it is supposed to keep the one praying from distraction.  It gives us something to occupy the body (beads), our speech (the prayers), the imaginitive mind (the Mysteries), the emotional heart (the awareness that we're praying with Mary), and the depths of our soul (consciousness of God's presence).  The change of mystery after 10 Hail Marys helps to keep it fresh because all minds wander even a little. (taken from the excellent book Pardon and Peace: A Sinner's Guide to Confession by Fr. Francis Randolph).   In the rosary we meditate on the life and work of Jesus Christ.  Catholics do not worship Mary or pray to her.   We ask Mary to pray for us, as the Hail Mary says.  The rosary is joining our voices with the prayers of Mary, who is in the presence of her Risen Son.  God is the God of the living, not the dead, so we truly believe that all who die in the peace of Christ are with him.   My personal experience with the rosary has been incredibly positive.  It's been a huge blessing in my life.  I find that as I meditate on the mysteries I get new insights not only into the life of Christ, but how his life speaks to me today.  In the joyful mysteries I feel the joy Mary felt; in the sorrowful mysteries I feel the pain of losing a son and the incredible sacrifice he made for sinners like me.  The luminous mysteries bring out Jesus' true light and glory, a glory we experience in the Eucharist.  And meditating upon the glorious mysteries makes them more than just faraway history and written Church doctrines, but living events for all of us today.  That is of course what they are!   The rosary helps me to get closer to Jesus in amazing ways.  That may sound strange to Protestant ears, but remember, the Catholic Church teaches that all devotion to Mary must lead to greater love for and glorification of her Son.   For more information on the rosary please visit: www.rosary-center.org/howto.htm

A Few Changes   I've made a few changes to this blog that I want to note.  First, I've gotten rid of blogger's commenting system (too burdensome since it requires commenters to be blogger members).  I've added new commenting by haloscan.  This should make it easier to (respectfully) give your opinions.  Remember, however, that haloscan doesn't allow previews.  I've also added a few more links.  God bless those who happen upon this blog!

Evangelical Catholicism   Every now and then I read something that I think has the potential to completely revolutionize the way we practice and spread our faith.  The principles outlined in Evangelical Catholicism (by Father Jay Scott Newman) have that potential.  They uncompromisingly proclaim the one ancient Faith once delivered while reconizing the need for this faith to be living.  Every Catholic (or Christian) should read what Fr. Newman has to say and make it his or her own.  America is a country of revivals and is now ripe for a revival.  Let's make this the first mass Catholic 'revival' on these shores.  Equipped with knowledge of the ancient Faith, a living relationship with Jesus, and with God's grace, anything can happen!  Thanks to Pontificator and Charles for pointing me to this article.

A "Constitutionally Protected" Abomination   How can anyone justify the killing of a human being, especially the most vulnerable and powerless among us?  How especially can anyone, in a civilized, let alone supposedly Christian nation, justify a procedure like this (warning: graphic drawings)?  Apparently large numbers of senators, representatives, judges, and activists can.  They may call it a "fetus" but to any rational person it's a baby.  And the fact that many leaders of the mainline churches can support this abomination known as partial birth abortion is nothing sort of demonic.  Lord, have mercy!

What the Hell Are They Thinking? I fly alot and reading an article like this one doesn't exactly inspire confidence!  In fact, it is downright terrifying!  Political correctness has already killed our biggest Protestant churches and now it seems to be killing our government as well.  Scary stuff.

Australian Religion (A Few Generalizations) At left is a photo I took of beautiful St. Mary's Cathedral (Catholic), Syndey, NSW, Australia. It looms large over Australia's largest and most well-known city. Although the actual building is imposing on the Sydney skyline, how much does the Catholic Faith, or general Christianity for that matter, influence Australia? In the interest of disclosure I haven't studied Australian religious trends in depth. This article is just based on my personal observations after three trips to Australia, incidentally a country I admire and love very much. According to adherents.com Australia, at least in 1996, was 70% Christian. That statistic isn't too bad. The second place "religion" was surprisingly not Islam (1.12%) or Judaism (.45%), but Non-religious at 16.48%. This includes diehard athiests, agnostics, rationalists, and the vast majority, not surprising in post-modernism: no religion. Other surprises: Australia had 7,615 witches/neopagans and 8,140 spiritualists. Another site, reporting 2001 census trends, describes 73% of Australians affiliating with a religion (any religion). This contrasts to the pre-1971 rate of around 90% and the 1976 rate of 80%. That's an amazing drop in only 30 years. Another interesting Australian statistic is that only 23% of adults surveyed had participated in a church/religious service within the three months prior to the interview. So, not only is Australia less religious in general now only 23% can be found in a formal religious setting on a given sunday throughout a three month period. During my time in Australia, I took notice of this lack of interest in Christianity. One area this manifested itself was in everyday life. I noticed while having coffee at Starbucks the books the Aussies were reading. I saw several people reading New Age type books and one reading the DaVinci code. At nearly every bookstore I visited (and I enjoy visiting many), the New Age section was much larger, often by several shelves, than the Christianity one. At one bookstore, Christianity got half a shelf while the Dalai Lama's works alone took up one full shelf. These are not indicative of anything in and of themselves, but are consistent with Australian religious trends. As mentioned in an earlier post, I enjoy visiting churches. There was a steady stream of people at many of the churches, but most of them (by their accents and cameras) were tourists. I attended a eucharist service at St. Paul's Cathedral (Anglican), Melbourne, VIC. While the staff was friendly and the congregation was diverse (old, young, poor, rich), it was pretty empty for a cathedral. It was obvious 2004 wasn't their zenith. With only 23% of Aussies in church, this situation is pretty typical. It sounds like the major draw from the churches in Australia isn't some strange cult, but rather people just staying home to sleep in or watch TV. It does seem that seeking Australians are looking to more unorthodox religious expressions like New Age, Buddhism, and even Wicca. I don't intend this as a criticism of Australian Christianity. The same problems plague the USA and Europe (the latter even more so). I think it shows that Western society is generally becoming post-Christian and all of us who espouse the Faith need to think of ways to evangelize and reach out in this new environment. It doesn't mean altering the ancient message, rather it means proclaiming it in a way that reaches the new generation. We should not dumb down or give in to secular trends, but recognize that we are no longer in a setting where everyone is a Christian because he is an Australian (or American). We need to learn how to evangelize in a skeptical and often hostile society at large. This isn't a new problem, but an old one. The earliest Church Fathers and Mothers were in the exact same situation. They can be our guides. Given the changing nature of our world, these are issues the Church must confront if we wish to truly fulfill the Great Commission. Outside of St. Mary's, the open courtyard is often full of skateboarders (in spite of a carefully placed sign prohibiting it). I often thought that if we could reach them we could reach anyone in the post-Christian generation.

Non-Western Catholicism The Sacred Heart Cathedral of Port Vila, Vanuatu reminded me more of poor downtown Church than the stately seat of the bishop. However, this reflects my Western bias, namely that a cathedral has to be in the Gothic style with lots of ornate carvings and a high altar. In many ways the Sacred Heart Cathedral reflected the local culture (as it well should!): simple (not in a bad way), dignified, and sacred. It had all of the statues of Jesus, the Saints, etc. but with local flavor. For example, the Saint to the right has the string of flowers around his neck, a very island touch (if anyone can identify him for me, please leave a comment). The holy water containers were large shells and one of the crosses had more traditional images from the Vanuatu culture. I like to see these kinds of things. Are they for me? Not really. Give me a Gothic cathedral any day. But, I'm a Western American. I don't want them pushing their style on me, but I won't push mine on them. The One True Faith is not completely joined at the hip with Western Culture. In fact, it is now thriving outside of Western culture, especially as Western culture becomes more secular and immoral. The Good News of Jesus and the Catholic faith can and must exist within the local culture. I saw a good example of that at Sacred Heart Cathedral in Vila, Vanuatu.

God's Beautiful Earth While visiting the tropical islands on my recent trip, I was simply taken by the incredible beauty of the places. The white sandy beaches, the clear water, the colorful coral and fishes, and the diversity of the plant life all enchanted me. They reinforce the Christian idea that God's existence is revealed through nature. These sights declare his wonderful handiwork about as much as any! The photo on the left is the Isle of Pines, a part of New Caledonia. I took this photo while visiting, so if you want to use it, please get my permission first. Also, I'm going to start adding photos to this blog; it looks nicer that way!

A Cultural Exchange (of sorts) During my time in Australia, many things impressed me and I thought how we in the USA could make a few changes. I also thought how much I missed certain things while I was there. So, the Aussies could learn a few things from the Americans too. Here's a somewhat tongue in cheek look at ways we can have a cultural exchange: 10 Things we could learn from the Aussies (in no particular order): 1. Tim Tams- a wonderful cookie 2. Public Transportation- at least in Melbourne, it’s on time, safe, clean, and cheap 3.Shortening of words- why say breakfast, afternoon, cup of tea/coffee, biscuit, chocolate, football and Good day, mate when you could say breckie, arvo, cuppa, bickie, chockie, footy, and G’day mate? 4.Pumpkin Soup- a dish that should be on every American menu in the winter 5.Non-Commercial Patriotism- you can love your country without having it on your person or your car 6.The British Commonwealth- it’s not necessarily a bad thing to be connected to something older and more universal than yourself 7.More Old things in Latin- In the USA we don’t have nearly enough signs, seals, etc. written in Latin. This is probably related to #6 8.Crumpets- I love these things, but have yet to find them in the USA 9.Judges in wigs- it’s cool in a weird sort of way 10.Cities can be livable- they can be clean and relatively crime free. Australia had 5 cities in the world’s top ten list of most livable cities list. The US didn’t even rate in the top ten. 10 Things the Aussies could learn from us (in no particular order) 1.Drink ‘real’ coffee with variety- in America we understand that real is better than instant and that variety is the spice of life. Don’t expect to find double chocolate cake flavored coffee in Oz 2.Gas station superstores- Why not be able to buy everything when you get gasoline? 3.Lemonade/iced tea- Good old fashioned lemonade (in Oz ‘sprite’ type drinks are called lemonade) and iced tea would be refreshing in the hot Australian summer 4.Half and half- Milk in your coffee doesn’t cut it. I want my coffee white, not brown, thanks! 5.Pumpkin pie- the Aussies have the soup part down: now try the pie. 6.Chili soup- Let’s have an exchange of recipes; we’ll get pumpkin soup and they’ll get chili. 7.Halloween/Thanksgiving- The Aussies could really use an excuse to dress up and a few weeks later pig out 8.Four Seasons- A person really misses out not having beautiful springs and colorful autumns 9.Cable TV- everyone should have hundreds of channels and only watch a handful 10.Interstates- A 4 lane (or more) highway that bypasses traffic lights is sorely needed in Australia. It would greatly speed up travel time

The Green, Green Grass of Home I've made it back from my trip and will resume blogging. The trip was wonderful, but as always it's incredibly sad to leave behind my girlfriend. The 'leaving' part of long distance relationships is really hard. For those of you who are getting postcards, be patient since I was a little late in getting them sent out. If I don't know you, go here and send yourself one. The blog is going to be updated frequently in the next few days as I write about various topics related to the trip. Some upcoming themes to look for: American traveling etiquette (or lack thereof), What we can learn from the Aussies (and vice versa), a movie review (or two), indigenous island Catholicism, the state of Christianity in Australia, and anything else I may be able to think of. Stay tuned!

No Worries, blokes I'm getting ready to depart for Australia whence I'll go to New Caledonia and Vanuatu and back to Australia. I'll be in Sydney, Melbourne, and the more rural area of Mildura. My girlfriend is Australian and we do the long distance thing right now. So, this is a chance to see her! I'm very excited! :) My trips to Australia in the past have been quite nerdy. But that's the way I like it! We always visit places like museums, galleries, historical sites, and other unique attractions. Above all, we visit churches. I've always been fascinated by churches, especially the different architecture and interior designs, and the way they operate liturgically. Usually, we visit Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches because they're often the most prominent (and unlike many others, they're usually unlocked, at least in the cities during the day). We have seen some wonderful ones, like St. Paul's (Anglican), St. Patrick's (Catholic), and St. Peter's (Anglican), all Melbourne and St. Mary's (Catholic), St. James (Anglican), and Holy Trinity (aka the Garrison Church, Anglican), all Sydney. Visiting these churches as I explore where God is calling me to serve him will no doubt give them even more meaning. I hate the term "church shopping" but I am looking for a church where I can best live the catholic faith I've held for over four years now. I'm completely sure it's not in the Episcopal Church and I'm pretty sure it's not in Anglicanism. I feel God still is calling me more and more to Roman Catholicism. I'm hoping and praying that on my trip God will give me even more clarity. Sometimes when we get outside our local worlds it's easier to see things more clearly. I've been hoping for some clear cut indications where God wants me, but God doesn't always work that way. Usually I find it's more about tuning out our human distractions (and sinful behavior) than about needing God to speak louder. I'm hoping on this trip I can tune out some of those distractions. This blog won't be updated as much while I'm gone, but I do hope to update it occasionally. I want to leave you with a beautiful travel prayer from Durandus of Mende (13th century) taken from the New St. Joseph People's Prayer Book (pg. 397): O God, You called Abraham Your servant our of Ur and kept him safe and sound in all his wanderings. If it is Your Will, protect your servants. Be for us a support when setting out, friendship along the way, a little shade from the sun, a mantle against cold and rain, a crutch on slippery paths, and a haven in shipwreck. Bear us up in fatigue, and defend us under attack. Under Your protection, let us fulfill the purpose for our trip and return safe and sound to our home. Amen

A Critic of the Almighty? Then the LORD said to Job: Will we have arguing with the Almighty by the critic? Let him who would correct God give answer! (Job 40:1-2, NAB). Reading this verse in the Office really struck a chord with me, so much that I stopped in my tracks and reflected on it (of course I should do that with all Scripture). How many times have people of all churches and theologies been critics of the Almighty? I wish I had a quarter for everyone who said they could never find a perfect church, i.e. a church that totally agreed with them. At one point people submitted to the Church, but an unhappy result of the Protestant Reformation (an unintended one to be sure) is that no one submits to anything anymore, with the possible exception of his or her ego. Before anyone thinks I'm idealizing Rome, it's worth mentioning that large majorities of Catholics openly disagree with their Church on important matters too. It's not a Protestant problem, just a problem. Especially, on the left critics of the Almighty are numerous. The liberals at least admit that God has changed his God's mind. Or rather, we have changed God's mind for him God. Liberals have given us every form of criticism under the sun. God may have revealed it one way, but we know what he God would have said if he God had the benefit of being a 21st century person. Of course then, God would also have the "sense" to reveal himself Godself without a male pronoun! Of course liberals are more than happy to point out the "flaws" in God's revelation. The result is that we now have whole organizations devoted to telling us what God or Jesus really meant to say. Usually the results are predicatable: God and Jesus said very little about morality, the miraculous, or doctrine, but talked alot of vauge social liberalism. Darn it, I knew if we could just get past the dogma and miraculous Jesus would be a socialist before socialism! I'm not a liberal, but I'm guilty of this attitude too. Many conservative, mainstream Christians are too. Look even at Protestant conservatives and their willingness to correct the Almighty. Jesus said divorce is prohibited, but most evangelicals have higher divorce rates than non Christians. On the issue of women in the church, most evangelicals ignore some of the clear statements in the Pastoral Epistles. In a couple generations, will these same groups that used to believe divorce was wrong, embrace gay marriage if/when it becomes culturally mainstream? After all, 50 years ago, you'd be hard pressed to find an evangelical who apporoved of divorce. Although less brazen, even conservative Christians are more than willing to correct the Almighty. So, it goes across all churches and the whole theological spectrum. Maybe it's an American thing. Our rugged individualism has served us well in our secular history, but in our religious experience it's been a disaster. With 30,000+ denominations, we should be scandalized. Jesus prayed we would all be one as he and the Father are one, not be 30,000 as he and the Father are one. Our spirit that impelled us to separate from England should not be license to have daily revolutions in our churches to create more and more denominations. I think if Luther could foresee what has become of Protestantism, he probably would've taken a different path to reform. But then again, he couldn't have anticipated American post-modernism!

The Memorial of St. Justin Martyr St. Justin's feast day in the Church is a very special one for me, primarily because he had such an impact in my life. As a strongly Protestant evangelical, I had always assumed that we did everything the "biblical way." I also assumed that the doctrines we learned were ancient ones that everyone had always believed. When I decided to read the Church Fathers my world would turn upside down. The first Father I ever read was St. Justin. Justin amazed me because his style of writing, his vocabulary and his manner of debate seemed so foreign. Yet, he also seemed to me to be sincere and thoughtful. Plus, since he was writing so close to the time of Christ, I figured he represented the ancient doctrines. On the issue of worship and the Sacraments, Justin's writings stood in judgment of my prejudices. I had always believed that baptism was an empty symbol, something to be done because the Bible advised it. Yet Justin referred to it as regenerating us. Worship for me had been something akin to a party: free, contemporary, and a plain good time. Justin's description of early Christian worship was one of Scripture reading, liturgy, dignity, meaning, and weekly Eucharist. I remember asking myself, "why don't we do things like this?" On the topic of the Eucharist, I had never been taught much. However, I "knew" that it couldn't have been anything important, just a symbolic meal. Yet, Justin referred to the Eucharist in terms of change, that the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ. This blew me away! I did not realize the full implications of Justin's writings (or that all the Church Fathers affirm in some way or another his basic insights on worship and the sacraments) until later, but the seed was planted. I remember asking myself what authority Justin had. After all, I too was able to interpret the Scriptures for myself. Other than antiquity (which I did value), he had his "fruit." He had given his life for his Lord. That was a very strong argument for his authority in my mind. Because God led me to pick up St. Justin 5 years ago, I am an Anglican today, probably soon to be Roman Catholic. I have entered into the mystery of the worship of the Church and her Sacraments. Thank you St. Justin, for your sacrifice and your writings.

Happy Pentecost! Pentecost is one day and then we begin ordinary time. Why am I focusing so little on Pentecost and moving right to ordinary time? Because Pentecost should actually be a reminder that ordinary time is anything but ordinary. Rather it is living out the promise of Pentecost and the continuing of the Holy Spirit's work. God has now poured out his Spirit on all peoples. The Lord and his plan of salvation are not just for Jews anymore, but for the whole world, at least those who believe in his Son Jesus Christ. What a miraculous day when God invites all types of people to repent, be saved, and enter his Church. And not only that, but he doesn't leave us orphans, but sends his Holy Spirit to be among us, to guide us to all Truth. That same Spirit empowers us to go out into the world and preach the Good News of God in Jesus Christ. This is not just for Pentecost, but for every day and for all times. Pentecost is the beginning, not an end. As "ordinary time" begins in the Church year we often need a reminder that there is nothing ordinary about the working of the Spirit in God's Church. The feast of Pentecost is that reminder. May we have a Blessed Pentecost and more importantly a Blessed Ordinary time. And by God's grace and Holy Spirit, may it be extraordinary.

The Holy Scriptures I think it was St. Jerome who once said "ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ." The conventional wisdom among many evangelicals I know is that Roman Catholics don't believe the Bible or that they hold the Bible in low repute. However, hearing a reading from the Roman catechism on the Scriptures planted a seed in my heart to explore Catholicism. My love and high view of Scripture may have started my journey to Rome. What an ironic twist on conventional wisdom! I want to share some of those readings from the catechism now. Even if you have no inclination to become Roman Catholic, I still think these passages will bless you. On meeting God in the Scriptures: In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, "but as what it really is, the word of God". "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them." On the inspiration of the Bible: The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." On the Word of God: Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book". Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, "not a written and mute word, but incarnate and living". If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures." On the role of Scriptures in the Church: "And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigour, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life." Hence "access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful." That last part is particularly telling. There is no Roman Catholic plot to keep the Scriptures out of the hands of the laity. In fact, I can't think of any document I've ever read, Protestant or otherwise, that spells out the role of the Bible in our lives more cogently or sublimely. As a good friend put it, the catechism is a "masterpiece."

Our True Priorities I've been reading Surprised by Truth: 11 Converts Give the Biblical and Historical Reasons for Becoming Catholic compiled by Patrick Madrid. These are the stories I'm interested in, human experiences. Apologetics are important, but I've been so immersed in them, I know every argument. Besides, how many of us really make decisions with only cold logic? C.S. Lewis knew all the arguments, but he was converted by joy. John Wesley was a learned priest, but it was his heart that was strangely warmed at Aldersgate. Already the book is paying off. The first story is about a Protestant who converted based on church history and also about the steadfastness of the Roman Catholic witness in secular society. One thing in his work really spoke to me personally. When a friend with a terminal illness asked the author what the author would do if he were dying, the author responded he'd join the Catholic Church. I've had that same conversation with myself and gave the same answer. I think that situation tends to bring out our true priorities. When I think of marriage and raising kids, I also would like to be in a Church that stands for Truth and not merely blowing each and every way the secular winds dictate. Maybe we could call them "push" questions, because they push the situational envelope a little bit. As a 26 year old, healthy single male, I'm content to remain mainline Protestant. Yet, if my time is nearly up or I'm making decisions that imperil the souls of others, I don't want to take any chances. The journey continues...

A Journey Begins... I remember hearing an Episcopal priest friend of mine compare the Episcopal catechism's definition of the role of Scripture with the Roman Catholic catechism. The Episcopal one was an exercise in minimalism, hedging and accomodation; the Roman catechism was filled with depth, beauty, and quite frankly, to a hungry soul, sustenance. As the crisis in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican communion grows daily, I've begun to examine where I belong in the vast expanse of denominationalism. I believe in an ancient-future vision of the Church. Now it's just a matter of where God is calling me to use that vision. I'm not committed to leaving Anglicanism or becoming Roman Catholic (or anything else), but am going to spend the next several months in prayer, deep thought, and study, to determine exactly where God is calling me. I want to chronicle this journey online, on this blog. It's not going to be spiritual voyeurism, but will be an honest look at my questions, struggles, and discoveries. There will still be my comments on the church year, my usual sarcasm and cynicism towards the mainlines, and my general grandstanding. But for the next few months most of the posts will relate to this journey, my wandering. As Tolkien noted: "all who wander are not lost." Indeed, I view this as a huge step in being found. As a catholic, liturgical, and sacramental Christian with a love for (and Master's degree in) Church history, I consider Roman Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, or a continued place in Anglicanism to be my chief "options." Yet, I'm not going to prejudice the work of the Spirit. He will lead me, I believe, where he wants me to be. I'm going to start by reading the whole Roman Catholic catechism, a big goal to be sure. But, if I go to Rome, I want to be sure I know what it means to be Roman. To that end I'm going to visit Roman Catholic churches over the summer. I'm also going to read about the stories of others who have made the journey to Rome or elsewhere. I'm not really interested in apologetics; I have heard every argument for being Roman Catholic, Baptist, etc. that is out there. I'm interested in stories, stories of changed hearts, changed lives, and changed souls. To that end, I've added a comments section. If you wish to share about any topic I've brought up, please feel welcome. I have also changed the blog template to a lighthouse. That symbolically reflects the path this blog (and myself!) will be taking in the next few months. Thanks to all who read this blog and for those following this journey, I ask, above all for your prayers.

Now I Lay Me Down to...Die As Chesterton observed: we need not a church that is right when the world is right, but a Church that is right when the world is wrong. For right or for wrong, the Churches of the Reformation have been wedded to Western culture. When John Locke decided Christianity needed to be more "rational," the Reformation Churches obliged him by making it less mystical and sacramental. When the enlightenment decided even that was too "superstitious," the Reformation churches decided all that "superstition" stuff was optional. When the modernist West decided man was too good to be damned, the Reformation churches said: "hell, what hell?" When Western culture decided that divorce was liberating, the Reformation churches gladly tore asunder those whom God had joined together. When the Western feminist movement said women should do anything men do, the Reformation churches went out of their way to accomodate the feminists, even against 3000 years of Judeo-Christian tradition. When the Western cultural elites decided that no modern person could believe this whole Christianity thing, the mainline Reformation churches gutted the faith so that one or two elitists would stay in the pews. When the West suddenly decided homosexuality was not sinful but something to be embraced and blessed, the Reformation churches feigned a backbone, but gave secular society every demand. Sure, the Reformation churches haven't officially embraced homosexuality yet, but does anyone think the current leadership of any mainline churches will say no to the constant badgering of gay activists? I wouldn't bet on it. Something curious has happened in the last 30 years, however. Through lack of children, a culture of death, and a willful policy of euthanasia by many in the academic elite, Western culture is slowly dying. I can tell you from firsthand experience that many seminary professors use the freedom and tolerance Western culture provides to denounce the same culture as repressive and intolerant. Yet there is a great irony in the Reformation churches seeking the death of Western culture. The mainlines --like the siamese twin who kills his brother only to come to the horrific realization he cannot live separately-- will have to face up to the fact that unless something dramatically changes they too will die with Western modern culture. Since the Reformation churches have dutifully followed every Western cultural trend, they will ultimately follow its current trend toward oblivion. Those in seminaries who seek to destroy Western culture are unwittingly and ironically committing ecclesiacide. In 2017 we will celebrate the 500th anniversary of the Reformation. If trends continue, by then the Reformation may be a quaint memory in the West's many retirement homes or on plaques in buildings formerly housing vibrant congregations that will then be either rotting or selling vague, spiritualist New Age paraphernalia. It gives William Inge's quote--"whoever marries the spirit of this age will find himself a widower in the next"-- an eerily literal quality. I was raised in a Reformation Church. I am currently fighting for the survival of a Reformation Church. The Eames Commission is meeting now to decide the future of the Anglican Church. I am anxiously waiting its results. I believe this is Anglicanism's last chance to assert its catholic identity or to be forever (in the West anyway) a dying, "has been" institution. It is the last chance the Anglican Church has to turn down the amorous advances of the spirit of the age and assert its timeless place in the Church Catholic. If the Anglican Church, the Reformation Church with the strongest claim to catholicity, cannot break the trend of capitulation to Western culture, the Reformation tradition as a current Christian phenonmenon will be dead. I am exploring Roman Catholicism while praying for the Commission. More of the same won't cut it this time. If the Commission cannot stand up for the eternal truths--to be right when the world is wrong-- and wishes to die, I don't wish to die with it. This is a theme I'll explore from time to time in this blog as I struggle with my calling to faithfully serve God.

Happy Ascension Day! A bit of a forgotten holiday in the American Church Calendar (but isn't everything except Christmas and Easter?), Ascension Day has great theological importance. In many ways, it was the culmination of Christ's earthly work and where he truly opened for us the way into God's presence (where he sits at the right hand of God). The (later) West has tended to look at the fruits of the Ascension in terms of bringing Christ back down. During the Eucharistic debates of the early Reformation, some of the more radical reformers argued against the Real Presence because Christ was "stuck" at the right hand of God. That radical view surely limits the work of Jesus Christ. The East has tended (with the early Church) to view us as being brought to God in the Eucharist. The "Lift Up Your Hearts" in the liturgy is more than just a metaphorical call to focus on God. It is a recognition that in the sacred mystery of the Eucharist God takes us, in a real way, to heaven, where he lives and reigns with his ascended Son. Thanks be to God for that!

Thou Shalt Not Make Unto Thee Any Graven Image: ECUSA Idolatry After Gene Robinson’s consecration, I solemnly took down the Episcopal shield sticker from my car window. Once a source of pride, it had become a source of embarrassment and shame. As I look back on that incident, I recall former Presiding Bishop John Allin’s words that he loved the Episcopal Church more than he loved her Lord. Alas, I must make that confession too. I had been so enthralled with the Episcopal Church, I had been willing to make all too many compromises. The Episcopal Church had become an idol to me. As I reflect on the current situation in ECUSA and the mainlines in general, idolatry is the one word that comes to mind. No, they aren’t running around with little goddess statues (ok some probably are!). Remember, anything can be an idol: money, relationships, and even those little wooden goddess statues. Even those things sanctioned and blessed by God can turn into idols if God or his grace is somehow removed from them. This is the current state of the Episcopal Church in the USA and the Anglican Church in Canada. It is also, in my view, the current state of many of the USA “mainlines.” In the Episcopal Church we have all the necessary elements of catholic faith and order: the creeds, the liturgy, the sacraments, the Scriptures, the three church orders, the historical episcopate, etc. We even have those lesser things that complement the catholic faith: vestments, ornate buildings, smells and bells, seminaries, etc. ECUSA has a valid claim to catholicity based on the externals. In other words, from a catholic perspective we look good on paper. But, what lies behind the externals? In many quarters in the Episcopal Church that right now is very little. We’ve fallen into idolatry. First, take the creeds. The creeds are summaries of the catholic faith and their belief is required for catholicity. We have clergy and bishops who openly deny tenets of the creeds and many attack the creeds themselves. Yet, these people continue to say the creed at services they lead. They say: “we believe” and “I believe” about truths they don’t really believe and even mock. Would the majority of the church, if polled, be able to honestly affirm the creed? Without crossing their fingers? Probably not. And this is also reflective of the belief of the leaders. Would a leader who doesn’t believe in the creed instill a genuine belief in it to her parishioners? Answer: she won’t. Yet, the creed is recited every week in every Episcopal Church (in theory anyway). The true intent of the creed as a statement about God, as a marker of the bounds of orthodoxy is gone; it has become an idol, a Marcus Borg like historical document. We might as well read from the Constitution of the USA on Sunday morning. In ECUSA, we have the liturgy and a beautiful one at that. I personally like the 1979 Prayer Book (although would be more than willing to relegate it to an ASB), finding it more dignified and sublime than most other denominational prayer books. Yet, the liturgy often falls victim to the same problems as the creed. Although the prayers of the 1979 BCP are generally orthodox, there are many clergy who say them and lead them while actively teaching contrary to the beliefs of the Prayer Book. The liturgy becomes not a life changing expression of praise from our hearts to the living God, but instead is simply a literary masterpiece, a collection of beautiful English, no more life changing or theologically important than watching a Shakespeare play. And many leaders no more believe in the substance of the liturgy than they do the creed. Reciting “Christ is Risen” while openly denying the resurrection in the adult forum after the service turns the liturgy into an idol. Even beautiful things can be idols; in fact, they make the most alluring idols. The Episcopal Church, in my opinion, does have validly ordained ministers and thus valid sacraments. In regards to the Eucharist, many of our churches have beautiful tabernacles holding the host of Christ. But, in many of these same churches, heretical views of Christology are taught. How can one have a tabernacle, which implicitly affirms the Real Presence of Christ, and yet deny that Christ was divine or that he was bodily resurrected? Perhaps it’s because a tabernacle looks nice; it’s pretty. We like pretty things in the Episcopal Church. We have baptism with water in the name of the Trinity, but many clergy don’t even believe in the Trinity or don’t think that there even is a need for regeneration. Also, we are fast losing the ancient connection of baptism and Eucharist since large groups of ECUSA clergy are rabidly pushing for open communion of the unbaptized. We require people get wet and confess faith in Jesus before partaking of our holiest mysteries. That is hardly oppressive, yet open communion advocates will never be placated with anything short of Unitarian Universalism. We have the Scriptures and until recently our church has been faithful in keeping those Scriptures as the foundation of our theological life. This has changed in the past 20 years. And it’s not just on the issue of homosexuality. We have priests and bishops who openly deny the bodily resurrection, the divinity of Christ, the miracles of Christ, and many other issues in the Bible that are very clearly taught. Many mock the Scriptures, especially the works of St. Paul, while downplaying or abandoning the authority of the Bible. We also have crypto-Marcionites in the church, who feel they can pick and choose as to what is the “real” word of God. The bishop of Pennsylvania even said the Church could change the canon of the Bible because it gave us the canon. Perhaps that is true in theory of the Church as a whole, but when attempted by a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of American Christians, it is nothing short of arrogance. We have the historic episcopate and apostolic succession, but it has become little more than a purple club. Bishops are supposed to be in charge of defending and guarding the catholic faith. In ECUSA, we have bishops like Spong, Bennison, and Chane who not only do not defend the Faith, they openly deride and attack it. They have never been censored by the House of Bishops or forced to conform to catholic Christianity because the chief virtue in ECUSA has become “niceness,” not upholding the Gospel. By contrast, in many dioceses, so-called successors of the apostles have pressured orthodox parishes and priests into toeing an heretical line to the extent of closing parishes and defrocking priests as punishment. In New Westminster, Michael Ingham violated the canons by doing same sex blessings, yet the bishops pursued Bishop Terry Buckle of the Yukon for violating the canons by intervening on behalf of the orthodox. The house of bishops is really “swell:” getting together, dressing up, discussing issues, drinking fine wine and eating really well. But the substance is gone; they have abandoned their duties when people like Spong and Bennison can remain bishops. It is no surprise that the canons are not enforced or selectively enforced: like defending the catholic faith, they too are optional and invoked only when harassing orthodox believers. We have some gorgeous churches, beautiful vestments, and shiny gold chalices and crosses. I’ve heard it said that the Episcopal Church has “style.” That we do! But unfortunately we lack much of the substance behind the style. Take the Washington National Cathedral for example. That church is beautiful beyond words. One of my favorite areas is the Resurrection chapel. It is ironic that the bishop of that diocese does not even believe in the orthodox understanding of the resurrection. Our stain glass windows have scenes from the life of Christ that in our reductionist thinking couldn’t have even happened and are occasionally derided as absurd. We in ECUSA do “pretty” very well, but we lack the True, the Good, and the Beautiful. I have often heard orthodox believers defend the Episcopal Church in its social justice ministries, an area, admittedly where conservatives are often weaker. There was a T-shirt available in an Episcopal Women’s publication that said (not an exact quote): “Social Justice is Orthodox.” Not entirely true. Saying “orthodox Christianity must always have a social justice component” would be more correct. Just doing “social justice” isn’t always orthodox. I want to emphasize again the importance of social justice because the early Christians always worked to literally fulfill Christ’s commandments regarding peace, the homeless, the poor, the naked, etc. But today, much social justice is done, not on the basis of one’s faith, but out of a spirit of activism. Consequently, liberal causes are assumed to be God’s causes (in fairness, many conservatives do the same thing, like thinking God wants lower taxes for Fortune 500 CEOs.). The early Church followed Christ literally because they believed he was the resurrected Son of God, whose words and deeds were vindicated by the Father. I don’t want to malign those who are doing good work in the Episcopal Church, but too often we don’t have the social Gospel, we just have social work. The Gospel is divorced from the equation and the church functions more like a government aid institution. Many Episcopal and mainline ministries do not even allow the sharing of the Gospel in their social ministries. Once again, we have something that is a good service, but the Christian substance is gone. Our greatest idol over the years in the American Anglican and Episcopal Churches has been our unity. Yes, even unity has been an idol. We have been so concerned with keeping everyone happy and everyone together, that we have abandoned biblical and catholic Christianity except on paper (and sometimes not even there). Christian unity has never been about simply staying together for the sake of peace without real substantial unity. True Christian unity is a unity of both the catholic faith and mission. At the most recent General Convention, the Episcopal Church voted on a motion to affirm some of the most basic teachings of Anglicanism (and even Christianity!). It failed 84-66. If these bishops cannot affirm the most basic elements of our faith, then we have no real unity in faith with them. Some bishops have endorsed the view that the Church should not try to evangelize people of other faiths, while others hold to beliefs that all ways lead to God. How can this be reconciled with those Episcopalians who believe in the Great Commission and seriously follow it? Thus, we have no basic unity in mission either. Some of the newest calls for unity from more liberal leaders base this unity on “diversity” and “inclusion.” This approach is not classically Anglican and certainly not catholic and it will never lead to true unity, just an empty, hollow shell that the revisionists can praise in the name of diversity. However, for catholics, evangelicals, and charismatics it can be nothing but an idol. I must confess my personal role in the current crisis. I, like many orthodox Episcopalians, have been content to sit on the sidelines, promoting “niceness” and “politeness” while our leaders have been gutting the Church of its substance. Many conservatives, myself included have been the real latitudinarians, while the liberals have been promoting their unified vision for the Church. Not wanting to make waves or rock the boat, we have stayed on the sidelines while ECUSA has been transformed in a non-catholic, barely Christian institution. Many of my friends ask (correctly): why the furor over Gene Robinson? After all, what about Spong and Bennison and Pike and other rogue bishops? Robinson, unfortunately for him, has become the symbol of all the frustration of orthodox believers over the years. His consecration is not an isolated incident that a few reactionaries are steaming over. Rather, it is the last straw for many faithful people who have stuck it out over the years in a Church where they no longer can find a home. I am one of those people. I joined the Episcopal Church in 2000 because I was attracted to the Anglican faith. I loved CS Lewis and the Church Fathers, and in my estimation, the Anglican Church was the best example of their faith in practice. But instead, in ECUSA, I got the faith of Bennison, Spong, and others, cloaked in the ceremonial. I fell in love with Episcopal Church in 2000 and it seemed like a great home. But it was not the Church I thought it was (barely even Anglican) and all my rationalizations (like there is a silent orthodox majority that will rise up) were just vain attempts to cover up the truth. I was always fond of telling my “story” of becoming an Episcopalian, but no more. Upon examination, it is with great sadness that I must confess: I was in love with an idol.

Facing Up to Reality Imagine if a group within the Sierra Club no longer wanted to fight for the preservation of the environment. Imagine instead that this group, while maintaining to be the Sierra Club, actually lobbied against environmental protection. Naturally the Sierra Club would be completely ineffective in anything it does. This is the mainline situation. There are two churches in nearly every mainline. Now a group of Methodists wants to recognize this and move on. As bad a split would be, it would be even worse to stay on. It's not that the mainlines contain a differing of opinion on some issues. No, rather, they contain two groups within them that have totally different, completely opposed, un-reconciliable worldviews. This goes way beyond diversity of opinion and into the heart of the institution. Two totally opposed worldviews can co-exist in a record club or quilting circle, but not in a Church or any other organization that wants to effectively reach out and change the world. The Methodists make a good point about their recent "victory" at their annual convention: it will never be a final one. I would bet everything in my possession that the revisionists will bring up their agenda at each successive convention ad infinitum (and nauseum). In other words, the orthodox Methodist worldview of making disciples of all nations and converting them to personal holiness will never reach fruition because the revisionists will always be pushing to change the Methodist Church. How can the Methodists or any Church move forward if every Convention they are forced to revisit the past and debate the same issues? This is why I totally support the Anglican Network being formed in North American. The National Episcopal Church and its official gatherings represent a worldview at odds with the Scriptures and tradition. That worldview and mine can never be reconciled, period. It would be great to be in a Church where we don't have to revisit heresy every time we gather as a body. I'd love to be among a group of American Anglicans and know when someone says the creed it is said without the crossing of fingers or intellectual gymnastics. If we don't have to keep arguing about the basics, maybe we could actually move forward in our mission. If you keep trying to re-invent the wheel, you pretty much stay put. The orthodox Anglicans in the Network get it and now it seems the evangelical Methodists do too.

You Are Not Alone I remember what struck me most about my first experience with Anglicanism and the catholic faith and liturgy. It wasn't the beautiful language, the sacraments, or the sense of awe and mystery (although these affected me greatly!). Rather, it was something more simplistic and common: the use of "we" and "our" in the liturgy. As an evangelical (my upbringing until age 22), I had always lamented the lack of community and togetherness. I don't mean some sort of mushy touchy feely stuff, but a real spiritual kinship and community of support. Sure, we had the mixer type activities, but spiritually everyone was so far over the place I never felt I had any connection to anyone else's spiritual life except maybe that we were in the same building on Sunday morning and prayed to the same God. Perhaps this is an inherent weakness in dictionary definition evangelicalism. I heard so many times that Christianity is a personal relationship with Jesus that I was led to believe (even if the person hadn't intended it) that spiritually nothing else mattered. "Quiet Times," or for the non-initiated, daily private prayer and devotion time, took center stage, even over church and other spiritual activities. I was never once questioned about missing church, but consistently asked about the quality and frequency of my quality time. Not only was a bodily support network not important (and consequently not present), a heavenly support network was non-existent. The Communion of the Saints was either ignored, denied, or changed to mean just those who happened to be walking around in a local church. When my brother was reading St. Clement of Alexandria he was amazed to read that Clement believed that when we pray it's not just us praying, but a multitude of angels and saints present with us. Clement put to words the sneaking suspicion I had all along: this it's just me and God thing doesn't cut it. It is about a personal relationship with Jesus, but also a corporate one. The two go hand in hand and can't exist or thrive without the other. The same is true for "quiet times." Every Christian needs personal time with Jesus (I could never live without it!), but also the corporate relationship. They too go hand in hand and without each other, worship in spirit and truth is impossible. I leave you with Clement: "In this way is he [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer]" (Miscellanies 7:12).

An Anglican Federation? The newest talk on the net is that the Lambeth Commission, which is trying to keep the Anglican Communion together, is considering making the Anglican churches a federation instead of a communion. This allows church diversity and even for one church to be out of fellowship with another. In other words, previously the Anglican Church stood for nothing in a de facto sort of way (mainly through renegades like ECUSA), but now there is talk of making this a part of our institution! What a disaster. You believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, we believe in Gaia, Sophia, and Isis. No biggie, it's all "Anglican." If this happens, Anglicanism will forfeit its claim to catholicity. The fact that this has been endorsed mainly by Western, liberal, declining provinces should be enough to convince orthodox Anglicans to run far away from this proposal.

A Glimpse of the Future Arwen: "You have the gift of foresight. What did you see?" Elrond: "I looked into your future and I saw death!" Arwen: "But there is also life. You saw there was a child, you saw my son!" Elrond: "That future is almost gone." Arwen: "But it is not lost." Those among the orthodox remnant in ECUSA often play the role of Elrond, but we've recently had an Arwen moment. In Atlanta, GA, the bishop of Bolivia re-affirmed over 330 people at 2 services. This included 6 baptisms, 38 confirmations, and 44 receptions. In other words, there were 88 people not previously associated with Anglicanism that found Jesus through the Anglican Way. And all this in a congregation that meets in a school cafeteria. For too long evangelism in American Anglicanism has had the millstone of the National Church to contend with. Now we see a non-ECUSA (yet still Anglican, via Bolivia) parish exploding in growth (the priest expects to double in the next 18 months). And clearly this is not all angry Episcopalians, but new converts to Christ and to Anglicanism. I pray this is a glimpse into the future, the future of a non-ECUSA Anglican Communion in the United States and Canada. Amid all the recent nonsense, especially the "marriage" of Bishop Otis Charles, we see death and the future looks almost gone. But as Atlanta shows, there is also life. The future is not lost.

With Liberals, All* Are Welcome at the Table! If you happen to be in Pasadena and are Episcopalian, you may want to check out It's All About Love: A Celebration of Faith, Love, and Equality* (warning PDF) at All Saints Episcopal. It should be a fun evening where you can spend time with midlevel Hollywood luminaries and even rising star and heresiarch Gene Robinson. But lest equality go to anyone's head, liberals and wealthy only please. All* are welcome to the table, I guess it just depends what table and what the meaning of "all" is. *($100 minimum, best seats $10,000).

Neo-Gnostic Revival My rector (and friend) and I were talking and he told me you can tell a lot about a person's theology by how he views Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. I agree completely and I think it reveals the neo-Gnostic tendancies among many American Christians. As a review, Gnosticism is an old heresy which has been revived several times throughout Church history in one form or another. Generally speaking, Gnostics believe that salvation comes through knowledge (Gr. gnosis). They also tend to believe that all creation is evil and many divided the Godhead to speculate an inferior Old Testament Creator God and the superior Father of Jesus. As a result the Gnostic canons of Scripture were usually cut and paste jobs in relation of our current one. Finally, the Gnostics denied the full humanity of Jesus. Some said he only appeared to be human, but didn't leave footprints, suffer, die, etc. Others took the view that the Spirit in Jesus did not experience full union with humanity, even to the point of leaving the man Jesus before he died. The orthodox Church Fathers rejected Gnosticism as inconsistent with the apostolic witness, but nonetheless it has been particularly seductive throughout the history of the Church. We are seeing this in America and the West today, especially in the reaction to Mel's movie. There are people who for one reason or another may not like The Passion and I respect that. But, the religious condemnation of the movie, I believe comes from neo-Gnosticism. It has two sides, both stemming from the most anti-tradition elements of American religion. First, the revisionist critique, which has been the most vitriolic and the most widespread. They usually complain that the movie is too bloody, too realistic in its portrayal of Jesus' sufferings, not grounded enough in the Jesus of history (whatever that means). For the revisionists Jesus has become a lightweight, a first century Doctor Phil. The Incarnation is minimized, the bodily resurrection denied, and the power of the cross is removed. We are left with abstract ideas, hardly different than the theological statements about the so-called "Christ of faith" they seek to abandon. The obsession with finding the "historical Jesus" rather than humanizing him has taken him even further into the realm of ideas. Jesus saves through his teachings, through his knowledge, not through the Incarnation or the Cross. The reality of Jesus' humanity is so downplayed it almost ceases to exist. Not classical Gnosticism, but certainly a cousin. The Passion which graphically portrays Jesus' human sufferings and death is anathema to this view, just as the Incarnation was an anathema to the the original Gnostics. The second approach to criticism of The Passion has come from some fundamentalist quarters. They object to a physical portrayal of Jesus on the screen. They insist that the words in the Gospel, the reading of them, is all that is allowed. These are the same churches that often condemn art and even moderate drinking. The material world becomes something that must be resisted. The Incarnation and its purpose of sanctifying creation and breaking it from the bonds of evil (as catholic thought asserts) is denied, at least in practice. Thus, graphically portraying Jesus' sufferings becomes too close to idolatry in their minds, just like the Jews of Jesus' day could not conceive of the Incarnation of YHWH as anything other than blasphemy. Jesus' humanity becomes an afterthought, something we best not dwell on lest God seem too "other." Yet, God did become one of us, which Gibson visualizes so well. Yet, against all these voices and condemnations, The Passion has been wildly successful. I believe this is for the same reason that orthodoxy triumphed over Gnosticism: the reality of Christ's humanity is vital given the reality of our humanity. We live in a material world and for God to redeem us outside of our own situation seems distant and unloving. But a God who chooses to stoop down and become one of us, fully and completely, is an act of love that resonates with the human spirit. We cannot make our humanity an abstraction or an afterthought; it defines who we are. What an amazing God we worship for whom becoming man was more than an afterthought or an abstration, but the central event in the mystery of redemption and an act of his immense love for his creation.

For Shame http://www.ecusa.anglican.org/6085_31001_ENG_HTM.htm The radical pro-choice agenda present in the mainlines is disgusting. I'd venture to say that the majority of Americans, even those decidedly pro-life or pro-choice, still struggle with the abortion issue. Survey after survey shows that Americans, even those who are pro-choice, feel a little quaesy about abortion. And, as a consequence, they support restrictions on abortion. Very few Americans support abortion on demand. I'd venture to say that very few Episcopalians support abortion on demand. Yet, those few hold sway at the national level and present the "official" church policy. On the area of abortion it may surprise many in the pews to know that not only is the mainline American leadership pro-choice, it is radically pro-choice. The positions held by many of our mainline leaders are indistinguishable from NARAL or NOW. It shouldn't come as a surprise: both draw their membership from the elite, upper middle class, aging former hippies for whom sexual "liberation" is an obsession they try to ram down the throats of anyone who even slightly disagrees with them. Abortion is a difficult personal choice, yet the Church has to be clear: abortion is a sin. It also has to be even clearer that like all sins, it too can be forgiven and the person committing it can receive healing within the Church. However, the mainline churches consider abortion to be either morally acceptable or morally neutral. That is outrageous. That is also why I will not give any money to any organization that forwards some of their money to the national Episcopal Church headquarters. I refuse to support a radically un-Christian agenda. The recent women's march in Washington was downright embarassing to watch. And mainline money went to finance some of that because almost all the major mainline churches were present there. I am no Bush fan, but to see the kinds of spectacles that happened there turns me off from the Kerry camp as well. It is truly sad to see two venerable institutions, the Democratic Party and the Episcopal Church, become so radically leftist and out of touch with ordinary people. For shame!

ELCA Revisionists and Dialogue Most of my friends thought that the Evangelical Lutherans were going about this whole gay debate thing in a good way. They were talking about the issue and thinking and praying. Sure, there's no way anyone can talk, think, and pray away the truth. But, at least it's not just pushing a gay bishop and saying everyone else be damned. Now it seems the gay activists in the Evangelical Lutheran Church don't want to wait. Of course not. They don't want a conversation or an honest look into the issue. They want their agenda and they want it now. It's the same today when the liberals in ECUSA say they want to listen. What they really mean is they talk and the orthodox will shut up. Let the Lutheran example be a lesson: dialogue with revisionists is pointless.

Aren't You Glad You're Liturgical? I am always happy to be liturgical all year round, but there are moments when I specifically thank God for being a part of the traditions (both liturgical and theological) of the Church Catholic. One of those moments is Holy Week. For non-catholics, Holy Week is merely another week in April; for catholics it is the heart of our worship, the time when we are able to experience in even a small way, the life, suffering, death and resurrection of our Lord. All worship in spirit and truth is holy, but Holy Week represents the holiest of even the holy. Those Christians who don't have Holy Week often find themselves seeking ways to find meaning during this time of year. Many times these attempts re-invent the wheel (and a poorer version of it), sometimes they are helpful, but not particularly meaningful, and occasionally they are downright ridiculous. In any case, none of them has anything on the traditional Holy Week festivities. Some churches do Jewish seder meals. Although this is admirable and a great teaching point of history, it isn't specifically Christian. And to point out something obvious: Christians aren't Jewish. Also, the Easter Vigil is based on the Jewish Passover celebrations, but does so in a Christian context, from the reciting of our stories to the meal (the Eucharist). So, while seders and the like are certainly worthwhile, they tend to (because of their very essence as Jewish) leave out a specific part of the faith: Jesus. And for those churches who do add Jesus to it, I say "good for you!" but in that case why not do the better and more Christian Easter Vigil? One example of the ridiculous happened recently in Pennsylvania. The church, an Assemblies of God one, wanted to make the point that Easter is not about bunnies and eggs. Good so far. To show this they brought out a person dressed as the Easter bunny and "whipped" her. Then they stomped eggs and showed a drunken man and self-mutilating woman. Very, very bad. Not just because it would scare the wits out of children but because it's just plain stupid as far as making a point goes. But it comes from the inherent weakness in a non-liturgical church. Anyone who went through the Easter Triduum of Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and the Easter Vigil would easily grasp that Easter is far more than bunnies and eggs. And they'll learn it through a meaningful positive experience, not a silly skit that shows you what Easter is not (negative). Unfortunately, many contemporary churches preach and expect church to be so fun and entertaining that they have no language or way to show that the Gospel is not always fun and entertaining. In fact, the Gospel is rarely either of these, but it will always be meaningful and life changing. That's why the liturgy has endured since the beginning. It cogently and powerfully presents the Gospel in a meaningful way. Thank God I am a liturgical Christian. I am so blessed.

The Episcopal Church: Mainstream Anglican San Franciscan http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040221/D80REHL00.html The city of San Francisco, one of the most radically liberal enclaves even in liberal California has taken a cue from the Episcopal playbook on same sex marriages: ignore broader concensus, disobey the law, and cloak it in language of tolerance, compassion, and yes, experience. Let's look at the similarities: Ignoring broader consensus
Proposistion 22, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman passed handily. The majority of voting Californians clearly want to defend the traditional definition of marriage (the civil union question aside). Congress overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act allowing states to declare gay marriages invalid and polls show Americans against gay marriage in overwhelming numbers. Yet, San Francisco cares not and thumbs its nose at the rest of its fellow citizens. Sound familar? 37 Anglican Primates saying don't proceed with ordination of a gay bishop; The ABC saying don't proceed; nearly every sane person in the world (even those sympathetic to Robinson) saying don't proceed. And yet, ECUSA gladly tells the rest of the world politely (as is the Anglican way) to go to hell. Disobey the Law The broader consensus has made its voice known by the passing of laws, such as proposition 22. Laws, in case the left needs reminding, are binding on all individuals. In an ordered society, even laws we don't necessarily like, are still laws. For every marriage license San Francisco issues, it is committing a criminal act. Does it sound familiar for those of us in ECUSA? Clandestine gay wedding ceremonies? Open gay wedding ceremonies? Ignoring canon law when they disagree with it, vigorously encorcing it when it is against the orthodox? Just as San Francisco is above the law because they are "right," ECUSA bishops are above the canon laws because they are "right." And who says the far left doesn't believe in orthodoxy? Cloak it in language of tolerance, compassion, and yes, experience Allowing gays to marry is the nice thing to do in California, the judges say. Enforcing the law takes a back seat to being nice and polite. Next the courthouses are going to start serving high tea with prominent Episcopal bishops. Both judges declared that nobody is getting hurt so what's the problem with gay marriage (I'm not being sarcastic; this really is judicial reasoning)? San Francisco's mayor suggested Governor Schwarzenegger meet with some gay couples and he'll see that it's both loving and lawful. So I guess if an sin act doesn't physically harm anyone and can in some way be seen as loving it isn't really a sin law anymore. Hmm, that should sound really familiar to Anglicans fed up with ECUSA. In conclusion, the Episcopal Church, like the radical San Franciscans, believes it can do whatever it wants in spite of the law and the broader concensus. The Episcopal Church can finally claim to be mainstream...not Anglican...but Mainstream San Franciscan. Arnie is at least stepping in to stop SF's nonsense. Arnie for ABC?

The Embarassment of Being Anglican It seems that ECUSA no longer has a monopoly on headline grabbing politically correct nuttiness within the Anglican Communion. Now, according to the Church of England General Synod, the Wise Men may not have been wise or even men. Now, they'll be just the "magi" because, you see, it's not totally impossible one of them just might have perhaps been possibly a woman. When it comes to prayer, the CofE's new motto should be: "Even if the odds are slight, you must re-write!" Also, I guess "three kings" was not an option and given ECUSA's recent actions the inclusive "three kings and queens" would probably give the wrong impression. Accordingly, the Synod rushes to force this newfound revelation on the Church's liturgical life. Thank God for the feminists who are ever vigilant and gladly show others just how wrong the established language and worship has been for so many centuries. It makes one wonder how the English people ever truly worshipped before this startling fact was known. After ECUSA consecrated an openly gay bishop, I was embarassed to use the term "Episcopalian." Now, I am experiencing similar embarassment over the title "Anglican," which previously I used with pride. For most people (Christian or otherwise), the debate over the title for the "wise men" is completely ridiculous. I note the article was filed under the Yahoo! News "Oddly Enough" section. While the CofE revisionists applaud their valiant efforts to remove oppressive and exclusive terms, it appears to the rest of the world that Anglicans are just...well...odd. I love the remarks made by the CofE spokesmanperson: [The Scriptures are] "completely silent about whether [the Magi] are men or women. The gender of the Magi is completely unimportant." Uh huh. "Unimportant" indeed. So unimportant that the liturgy must be changed to be more inclusive of gender! And once again, Anglicanism becomes a laughingstock to the rest of the world.

The Frightening Future of Episcopal Worship I used to think those people who complained about the 1979 Book of Common Prayer protested a bit too much. Now, however, I can feel their pain. Although I use and prefer the 1979 BCP (but would gladly let the 1979 book become an Alternative Service Book and welcome a restoration of the official 1928 BCP), I have seen firsthand how quickly and recklessly the Episcopal Church pursues liturgical "reform." The "Enriching Our Worship" series is politically correct, ultra-feminist, non-catholic (barely even Christian) and sadly the future of the liturgy. Yes, I believe this (or at least its "sprit") is the beginning of the new "Book of Common Prayer." I first encountered Enriching Our Worship during Lent when I sat through the "new and improved" "Great Litany." It was a litany, but it was not very great. It contained no trinitarian language and never once referred to Christ as Lord. God was Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier and we asked "Savior, deliver us." This litany can't even affirm the basic teaching about God (as a Trinity of persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) or utter the basic Christian confession (Jesus is Lord). Unfortunately, this represents the general tenor of the new liturgical "reform:" an end to trinitarian language, a removal of supposedly oppressive terms (Lord, King, Master), and an obsession with avoiding using masculine pronouns for God. The result is poor theology (often modalistic or quasi-trinitarian), nonsensical or bland language (e.g God was in Christ reconciling the world to Godself), and a cutting off of the liturgy from its roots (cutting out such important themes as Christ's Lordship, Kingship, etc. tends to do this). Why is this a big deal? It's just an option, right? Yes, but only for now. The seminary I recently attended often used Enriching Our Worship in place of the Book of Common Prayer. Parishes are also substituting EOW material for BCP liturgies. Radical feminism has infiltrated the Episcopal Church (and most other mainlines). Even seminaries that require no standards of doctrinal orthodoxy will require language standards. Anything and everything can be said of God and no one cares (it's all about diversity, remember?). Until, that is, someone refers to God as "he" or "Father." Then, suddenly the revisionists start enforcing their form of orthodoxy. The Episcopal House of Bishop showed their usual tolerance by refusing to make the 1979 edition an ASB or to include a 1928 rite. The result? By enforcing their own agenda they drove out many faithful conservatives. They did the same with women's ordination and now gay ordination. They allowed no real discussion, pushed it through illegally or semi-legally (in all three cases) and then tell the conservatives to sit down and shut up. Then, when the conservatives are angry (and rightly so), they accuse the conservatives of being whiners or intolerant. I hope the network starts in earnest. I have seen the liturgical future of the Episcopal Church and the feeling I get is not unlike that of Frodo when he encounters a ringwraith.

I hear the labels evangelical and catholic thrown around alot. Some, like myself, even claim to be evangelical catholic. I define this as holding to the catholic faith (the Creeds, the councils, etc.) while having a zeal for mission and evangelism. I think as far as Christianity is concerned, both need each other. Without the catholic faith, Christianity is often an experience in search of a theology. Feeling and experience can be elevated to such a level that ancient and biblical truth can be rejected and replaced with the flavor of the day (whether theologically or morally). Without an evangelical side, the Church, although possessing catholic truth, becomes insular and nevers shares the Gospel with the rest of the world. The Great Commission spells out evangelical catholicism in a nutshell: Go and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. This stipulates both evangelism and apostolic teaching.

Ok, a "secret" memo has been leaked saying that the AAC bishops and members don't want to be a part of the Episcopal Church and that they would like to form an alternative to ECUSA to be recognized by various primates (and perhaps even the ABC). I have a bad feeling this is going to be the excuse the liberals are looking for to crack down on orthodoxy in ECUSA. Of course, for anyone who has followed the fallout from GC2003, none of this should come as any surprise. I was under the impression this was the AAC's plan all along. I would probably no longer be Anglican now if I didn't think this was the game plan. I for one am glad to see that the AAC really does take true re-alignment seriously. The network within a church has serious limits, which re-alignment solves (one example is the election of bishops: do you think the HOB would approve another Jack Iker or Bob Duncan? Yeah right!). I say bring on re-alignment and the sooner the better.

http://www.anglicancommuniondioceses.org Click Here to Join the new Anglican Communion Network in North America. Just sign your name electronically (warning: it will be visible to others after you sign, but only your name and location, nothing else) and you are in the network. This is a positive step, something we can actually do! A Happy New Year!

Modernism in the West is dead. The mainline churches (including the Episcopal Church) who have hitched their futures to the modernist star are dying along with it. Instead of recognizing the need for total rejuvenation, the mainlines are keeping modernism on life support (the machine itself is the seminaries). A good example is among young Christians, most of whom are not in mainlines and those who are, typically leave when they come of age. The oldlines may want to stay on, but the believing mainline youth would prefer not to go down with a sinking ship. This is especially true on the Titanic in the Episcopal Church, where a recent survey revealed that secular youth are more Christian than your average Episcopal youth. If this represents the ECUSA futures market, I believe I'll bet on Re-alignment, Rome or Orthodoxy.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2003/11/10/walkout_divides_nh_church/ It seems that Church of the Redeemer in Rochester, NH wanted nothing to do with the re-education officer priest sent by Bishop Theuner to take the place of the orthodox priest he had removed days earlier. The orthodox are in a state of mutiny and ECUSA is quickly fragmenting to say nothing of the communion itself. These incidents are only beginning. The cavalier and condescending attitude of our "leaders" is to blame. I started this controversy as a concerned, but pragmatic, conservative willing to go with the flow. After seeing the complete arrogance of the PB and others, I have become galvanized. I am no longer Erasmus, but Martin Luther in full swing.

http://nashuatelegraph.com/Main.asp?SectionID=25&SubSectionID=378&ArticleID=93055 Ok, it seems we've seen yet another act of "tolerance" from a liberal bishop. Bishop Douglas Theuner of New Hampshire has removed orthodox priest, Fr. Don Wilson from his position as interim priest of Church of the Redeemer, Rochester. And it had nothing to do with his opposition to Robinson, according to Theuner. Seriously. Just how stupid does this guy think we are? Theuner, his diocese isolated, has no spiritual or theological ground to stand on, so he uses the canons to persecute orthodox opponents (the same canons I'm sure he ignores on a regular basis with regards to homosexuality and closed communion). He is using Ingham's bullying tactics and sadly, I think incidents like this will increase. All the talk of inclusivity, tolerance and diversity? Just buzzwords. This could happen to anyone in any diocese who runs afoul of his or her bishop. I don't know if the Episcopalian orthodox can last 12 months for the Primate's commission.

The New Ecumenism Many people are wondering what the future of ecumenical relations will be now that ECUSA has gone off the deep end. I think ECUSA will be as isolated as ever and probably only engage in dialogue with liberal Protestants. I believe that the talks with the Orthodox and Roman Catholics will stop, although gradually so as not to look too harsh in public. Perhaps in their places the Episcopal Church can start dialogues with the Unitarian Universalists and the MCC. But...for Anglicans, I think ecumenical relations look bright. Once re-alignment has some discernible structure I think that the Catholic and Orthodox will negotiate with the new Anglican expression (the Pope's letter of support sent over Griswold's head to the AAC meeting in Dallas is a foreshadowing of this policy). I also think that while official dialogue between mainlines and American Anglicans will go through ECUSA, on a local level, many orthodox Presbyterians, Methodists, and Lutherans will prefer to work with the re-aligned communion instead. Ancient and Future Catholics was born out of an internet ecumenical experience. People from various backgrounds gathered for prayer, fellowship, and discussion on Paltalk and found we had a lot more in common than we ever knew. However, this commonality was based on our adherence to the ancient faith, not on revisionist values. Tired of being attacked by those who were revisionists we almost by necessity stuck together. I believe as the other mainlines fall to the revisionist agenda, this "sticking together" will begin to occur on the local and national level. So, in my opinion the new ecumenism will not seek to merge denominations, but will be local, regional, and national networks of various denominations sticking together to stand up for biblical truth in the midst of a hostile secular and revisionist religious environment.

http://gc2003.episcopalchurch.org/ens/3577_21567_ENG_HTM.htm?menu=undefined The Episcopal News Service has issued an article today entitled "International reaction to consecration in New Hampshire mixed." It looks like Fox News isn't going to have to worry about ENS stealing the "fair and balanced" label anytime soon. Basically, 20 Primates of the "Global South" representing 50 million of the world's Anglicans condemned this consecration. Sydney's archbishop Peter Jensen also condemned it in strong terms. It also mentions Archbishop Eames and Rowan Williams as being opposed, although not as dogmatically so. And New Zealand bishop Thomas Brown opposed it, but doesn't see the fuss. Ok, chalk him up as "mixed." The only ones outside of ECUSA quoted in the article who think this is the best thing since sliced bread are Archbishop Ndungane of South Africa and Colin Slee and Colin Coward (both priests) of England. So, they can muster one archbishop and two priests and this somehow balances out 22 primates, an archbishop, and the over 50 million Anglicans they represent? If this is what passes for "mixed" in the fantasyland called the current Episcopal Church, then it's no wonder diversity is just an affirming buzzword for an aggregate of upper class, white liberals.

I am 25 years old and since I'm not a modernist, I would never claim to speak for all young people. But here is a 20-something who opposes not only Robinson, but also the revisionist agenda. It boggles the minds of some in the Episcopal Church that a young person can stand against so called progressive Christianity. Well, it seems that "progressive" Christianity when viewed through the eyes of Generation Y, looks rather...well...regressive. I love the music of the 1960s, but the theology and social values have proven to be rather bankrupt. While ECUSA bishops think I would love to be assoiciated with "cutting edge" folks like Barbara Harris and Jack Spong, I have no need of outdated feminism or outdated 19th century German theology viewed through outdated 1960s American lenses. Even among young Episcopalians, the 1960s vision too often lives on, which is why I believe we have abyssmal growth, especially among young people. ECUSA has become a haven for agnostics, pluralists, and athiests. These people need God too, but in the mainlines they're frequently not getting God, just comfortable reaffirmation of their present state. I have never been involved in or have seen a Canterbury or mainline college campus group that had more than 15 regular attendees. Most evangelical and Roman Catholic campus groups have that many showing up during an ebola outbreak during summer vacation. Modernism allowed the culture to critique the faith: thus, if an educated athiest couldn't believe in the resurrection, then the Church shouldn't either. The most thriving, growing churches of today, especially among young people, allow the faith to critique the culture. That is why on one hand, mainlines are rapidly graying and on the other hand why mainline youth convert to more evangelical or Catholic or Orthodox traditions. Research has shown that younger people want mystery and substance in their faith, not rationalism and an anything goes attitude. Church membership statistics confirm this trend. Classical Anglicanism offers alot to our youth: mystery, substance, and even charismatic experiences (also a hugely growing movement) but also a place for honest questioning. ECUSA is graying because it not only does not offer the aforementioned traits, but often mocks them. The re-aligned churches will find a huge mission field out there and I hope we take advantage of it. Pax

This is it; the deed has been done. Robinson is now consecrated. I'm usually never at a loss for words, but they seem to be getting stuck halfway today. This is a period of intense sadness. Sure, there is the anger and the sarcasm, but they're just ways of covering up the pain I feel at the course of action ECUSA has taken. When I converted to Anglicanism, I fell in love with the "Anglican Way." Being Anglican also meant, in the USA, becoming Episcopalian. So, I also fell in love with the Episcopal Church. It has been a generally happy, but somewhat rocky 3 years, filled with moments of discovering exactly how far the Episcopal Church has moved from the historic faith. But, I treated them like a spouse often treats revelations of a mate's infidelity: with rationalisation and denial. I figured that there was a silent orthodox majority or that our youth would save the church from ruin. But, I was wrong. The Church I loved has disappointed me in such a profound way, words cannot express it. Today is like the start of the divorce. It is appropriately the calendar day for the Day of the Dead (although it is translated to tomorrow). For many people, their relationship with the Episcopal Church, the Church they loved, is dead. The betrayal, hurt and disappointment are just too much to bear. However, there is hope; the Anglican Church in America will be raised up from the ashes and apart from ECUSA may now be able to finally engage the mission field that is the Americas. We will at last be freed from a hierarchy that has never quite gotten over the theological and social fads of the 1960s. Today is All Saints Sunday in the Episcopal Calendar, a traditional day of baptism. The symbolism of death and new life in baptism is appropriate. Today may seem like a day of death for many in ECUSA, but out of death comes new life. God is doing something new in American Anglicanism. Thanks be to God.

Today is the evening before Gene Robinson is consecrated as bishop of New Hampshire. Call it the eve of "All Hell Breaks Loose" Day. I honestly believe the Anglican Communion as we know it will look radically different after Robinson is consecrated tomorrow. The Primates have spoken, the rest of Christendom has spoken and our interfaith partners have spoken. Yet, ECUSA does not listen and moves forward anyway, knowing it will mean certain excommunication from the majority of the world's Anglicans and the breakdown of ecumenical talks. Robinson's election did not draw the battle lines. Rather, it revealed the fault lines that have existed for years. When the bishops at General Convention refused to affirm key principles of Anglicanism (and Christianity for that matter), they publically affirmed that there are two churches in ECUSA: One church that stands for the catholic faith and evangelical mission and one that stands for inclusivity and diversity, which is essentially standing for whatever happens to be in fashion. There can be no true unity between these two churches because they are radically different in belief and in practice. The choices left are to remain together simply for the sake of remaining together or to go our separate ways. People will be going their separate ways after November 2nd (many already have). Some will just leave Anglicanism completely, some will go to one of the continuing churches, and others will stick it out and seek re-alignment. The options are many, but for most of the orthodox, myself included, remaining in ECUSA outright is not an option. After Sunday, we will have to seriously discern where God is leading us. As a postulant for holy orders, this will be especially difficult, as I have devoted much time and money to ECUSA. But there are others who have devoted much more than I and will lose much too. I watch ECUSA act in this way with a feeling of profound sadness. But there is also hope, hope that the biblical, catholic, and orthodox Anglicans in the USA may finally be able to live out their vision in a realigned communion instead of having to make continuous compromises with a national church that includes the agendas of people like Bishop Spong. I believe that after re-alignment, ECUSA will finally be free to live out its vision as well. With the conservatives mostly gone, it will probably take only a couple of General Conventions to approve same sex blessings, start the creation of a feminist revision of the Prayer Book, and approve "open" communion. As ECUSA spirals out of control, the realigned churches will probably see more and more people come over until ECUSA is a UU church with ceremonial. I have many friends and mentors whom I love and know to be solid Christians who will remain with ECUSA and I hope for their sake I am wrong. Even after Nov. 2nd, I will never stop praying for their ministries. During and after Robinson's consecration tomorrow, I will be in prayer, praying for the future of Anglicanism. I don't believe God is finished with us yet and it could be the start of something wonderful. Let the chaos begin. Pax