First they came for the old.....

I found the link for this story at Billy Ockham. What in the world is going on with TEC? The leadership is turning on the elderly, inhibiting and deposing 70 and 80 year old men, most in ill health or with failing family members. This begins to look like a deliberate purge. Get rid of any of the old guard, discredit and defame them. Then, who will be next? The conservative or even moderate bishops? Yes, look at Pittsburgh. Then, the priests and deacons. Lastly, with changes in canon law at GC2009, prosecute and purge any laity that dare to open their mouths.

Call me naive, but this just does not look to me to be the way to build a church. Welcome to the Episcopal Church! Once you walk through these doors, you give up all rights to your own property, actions and thoughts. You will do and think as we say or we will grind you into the dust.

This is truly cruel and unneccesary

From David Virtue

Mrs. Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, has formally inhibited The Rt. Rev. Edward H. MacBurney, retired Bishop of Quincy. Two days after the letter of inhibition was signed by the Presiding Bishop, MacBurney's son Page died.

Bishop Keith L. Ackerman SSC, Bishop of Quincy, said MacBurney was not aware of the inhibition. Ackerman had to read the inhibition to him over the phone.

"I am beside myself with grief over this unnecessary action taken against my predecessor especially at a time when he is mourning the death of his son this past Friday. I am particularly saddened that, with the exception of the Bishop who initiated this action, those involved in determining this course have never spoken with Bishop MacBurney directly. In the midst of this difficult time for Bishop MacBurney and his family, I am really much more concerned about the implications of St. Matthew 18:15-17 as it relates to how reconciliation is pursued than I am with Title IV, Canon 1, Section 6 as it relates to discipling my dear brother. In the meantime, we are ministering to the needs of the MacBurney family."

Mrs. Jefferts Schori said the presentment issued by the Title IV Review Committee was based on Title IV, canon 3, Section 43Copyright, 44, and 45 of The Episcopal Church. Bishop MacBurney is inhibited from exercising his gifts of ministry and will face a court trial.

http://www.forwardinfaith.com/news/pages/InhibitionBpMac.pdf

(h/t to MCJ)

Plundering the Church

Dr. Mabuse says:

In all this, I find a disquieting lack of any sense of seriousness. There was a time when Anglicans really thought that being an Anglican was important. That the salvation of one's soul could depend on it, and making a wrong choice could have eternal consequences. Now, there's no sense that a person runs any risk at all by leaving the Anglican Church. There's no concern that the people being swept away by the new broom could wind up going to hell. Even to write out the phrase seems faintly ridiculous. No one in TEC or ACC takes their actions seriously in a spiritual manner at all. They remind me of Mr. and Mrs. John Dashwood in "Sense and Sensibility", busily calculating how long it will be before their widowed mother and half-sisters will get out and leave the estate for them to enjoy. There are a few half-hearted expressions of regret, and even faint wishes that they could help, but the bereaved and disinherited are not fooled, and know that the minute their carriage drives out of sight they will be forgotten.

No wonder these people cannot evangelize - they have no reason for being Anglicans themselves, other than it's where they've found rich pickings. The Catholics know that salvation is found in the Church; likewise the Orthodox. What do the Anglicans know? Except, "Oh, well, it's nice and comfortable here, and it'll be even better when there are fewer of us to share."

Not being quite so literary as the good doctor, I'd say they also remind me of these characters.

Watering down the Bible for children

A most amazing article in the current issue of Touchstone:

Eaten Alive

In Removing the Fear from the Story of Jonah, Children’s Versions Remove the Gospel, Too

by Ronald F. Marshall

Jonah is a horrifying book, with its raging storm and fierce sea-monster, a suicide attempt and near drowning, and, at the end, a confrontation with a massive enemy city. But in American children’s literature it is largely a harmless adventure story, all about travel and intrigue, underwater hideouts, success and fame.

Jonah may not have been eaten alive in the Bible, but he has been in the children’s books. In the nineteen versions I examined for this essay, the horror of the story has been extracted and removed from sight, and with it an important theological and imaginative preparation for the gospel

read the rest....

How did your Bishop vote?

From the comments section at Stand Firm:

Comment #28, from Anglican Papalist:

The Rt. Rev. William Love, Albany: No. Twice. And raised his voice in opposition. God bless him.

AP+

No surprise here, but still good to have it confirmed. I am especially heartened by the news that there was indeed voiced opposition.

God bless Bp. Bill.

Look who failed Sacramental Theology....

This is from the Liturgical Officer of the Episcopal Church????? Where did this guy learn sacramental theology - from the back of a cereal box? This guy has been the liturgical officer for TEC since 1994. I think this explains a lot about the present state of liturgy in the church.

Since You Asked: Why do we celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday?
March 31, 2008
[Episcopal Life]
The Rev. Clayton Morris, liturgical officer for the Episcopal Church, responds:
The worship life of the Episcopal Church is ordered in a series of rhythms. The liturgical year is punctuated by seasons: Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Lent, Holy Week, Easter, Pentecost and Ordinary Time.
From Advent to Pentecost, the life and ministry of Jesus is the thematic focus, Sunday by Sunday. From Trinity Sunday until the last Sunday after Pentecost, the weekly gathering of the community reflects on how it can "seek and serve Christ in all persons and strive for justice and peace among all people," in the words of the Baptismal Covenant. The week has its own rhythm.
The Book of Common Prayer calls the church to daily prayer, providing offices for morning, noon, evening and night. The prayer book also calls the church to gather as a congregation once a week to celebrate Eucharist.
Why does the church gather around a table with food and drink in its primary act of worship? Because God calls the church to a ministry of reconciliation. The church is called to restore the dignity of creation. It is all about feeding and being fed. It is all about making certain that all God's children are safe, whole and nourished. The ritual breaking of bread in the midst of the assembly reminds us of our task while it embodies its reality.
In its early history, the church always celebrated the Eucharist on Sunday. For a host of historical and circumstantial reasons, weekly Communion fell out of fashion over time so that, by the time Anglicanism was transplanted to the North American continent, Sunday morning worship without Communion was common. The drafters of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer were very clear about restoring the Eucharist to Sunday morning as a way of underscoring the church's ministry in the world.
So, as faithful Christians, we use the Daily Office in some form, alone or in community, to say our daily prayers. On Sunday, we gather as the body of Christ in the eucharistic assembly. We take bread, bless it, break and share it. Then we take our nourished bodies and souls into the world to do the work God has given us to do.

Okay, there is so much wrong with this, I barely know where to begin. But first, I'd like to know when we started using "Ordinary Time". Is this something from the dreaded Revised Common Lectionary? I object to the whole concept of "ordinary" time; there is no "ordinary" time, it's all redeemed time. "Ordinary" takes it out of the cycle of the life of Jesus and his work in the Church.

Then there is this: " From Trinity Sunday until the last Sunday after Pentecost, the weekly gathering of the community reflects on how it can "seek and serve Christ in all persons and strive for justice and peace among all people," in the words of the Baptismal Covenant

Oh, good, I get to go to Church to be lectured on social work. I have really had it with this whole "Baptismal Covenant". Why do these people take the last question from the Baptismal vows as the entire meaning of the whole thing? Where do they ever refer to this part of the "Baptismal Covenant" - "Do you believe in God the Father?" Or how about "Will you continue in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers?" How about "Will you proclaim the Good News of God in Christ?"

How about this?
Why do we celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday?
Because Sunday is the day of the Resurrection, the first day of a new creation, that's why.
Because the Eucharist has been the central act of worship since the very beginning of the Church. Gathering for the Daily Office is a good and holy thing, but the Eucharist is the supreme sacrament. In case the Rev. Clayton Morris missed that class, a sacrament takes you into the very presence of God, out of, dare I say it, "ordinary time", chronos, into the karios of God.


The church does not gather around a table with food and drink in its primary act of worship "because God calls the church to a ministry of reconciliation." Yes we are called to reconciliation, but not before we confess our sins and are reconciled with God! We gather because Jesus told us to, because in this sacrament we are united with Christ, because we are fed with the very Body and Blood of our Lord. The Eucharist is not about making certain that "all God's children are safe, whole and nourished." It's about bringing our sinful, broken, un-whole selves to the foot of the cross, to the altar of the Lord and receiving forgiveness and healing.

Symbolic of his struggle against reality

News of the bizarre

Transgender man is pregnant

Thomas Beattie lives in Oregon and is married to a woman named Nancy. He's pregnant.
To our neighbors, my wife, Nancy, and I don’t appear in the least unusual. To those in the quiet Oregon community where we live, we are viewed just as we are -- a happy couple deeply in love. Our desire to work hard, buy our first home, and start a family was nothing out of the ordinary. That is, until we decided that I would carry our child.
I am transgender, legally male, and legally married to Nancy. Unlike those in same-sex marriages, domestic partnerships, or civil unions, Nancy and I are afforded the more than 1,100 federal rights of marriage. Sterilization is not a requirement for sex reassignment, so I decided to have chest reconstruction and testosterone therapy but kept my reproductive rights. Wanting to have a biological child is neither a male nor female desire, but a human desire.

Then, this crazy doctor:

Male Pregnancy Now an Option, Beijing Surgeon Says
Doctor Chen Huanran is looking for a few good men -- to get pregnant.
The Beijing doctor -- one of China's most-prominent sex change surgeons -- says he has developed the technology to impregnate a man, and now he wants to use his technique to help his transsexual patients have children of their own.

If successful, it would be the first time ever that a male human has become pregnant, with the possible exception of the Arnold Schwartzenager movie "Junior."

Chen, who works at the Plastic Surgery Hospital of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, said he has already lined up four men for the procedure and an Internet discussion of his "male mother" project has caused hundreds of men around the country to volunteer for swollen ankles, morning sickness and the many other joys of pregnancy.

"We want to help the transsexuals we operate on to realize their basic right of delivering a baby," Chen said yesterday.

All of it reminds me of this, back from when you could actually still mock the insanity.