David's Journal

syndicating my blog

Fri, 08 Jun 2007 06:23:27 GMT

thanks to this_is_warmth I have syndication of my website, davidould.net.

Here it is

davidouldrss

feel free to add it to your friends feed. I'd love it if you felt like coming over and commenting.

signing off

Tue, 05 Jun 2007 13:31:25 GMT

you may all have noticed that I've not posted in a long long time.

Truth is, I spend no time here anymore. Inbetween my studies, getting the personal site up and running and much more activity on Stand Firm, LJ has dropped off my radar.

I'd love to stay in contact with those of you who used to read me regularly. Perhaps someone with a paid account would set up a syndicated account for my RSS feed.

Do come over to davidould.net and say hello.

Stand Firm video, 28 Feb. 2007

Thu, 01 Mar 2007 00:03:29 GMT



"Stand Firm video, 28 Feb. 2007" on Google Video
Matt Greg and I do the rounds.

Jefferts-Schori: How not to listen to anyone at all

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 01:00:52 GMT

...which is, frankly, quite appalling for someone who keeps going on about "listening".

From here, Schori's "Word to the Church". Here's the bits that really grabbed my attention.

The current controversy brings a desire for justice on the one hand into apparent conflict with a desire for fidelity to a strict understanding of the biblical tradition and to the mainstream of the ethical tradition. Either party may be understood to be the meat-eaters, and each is reminded that their single-minded desire may be an idol. Either party might constructively also be understood by the other as the weaker member, whose sensibilities need to be considered and respected.

The reference to meat-eaters is key here. Schori has just brought up 1Cor. 8, where Paul is concerned about those who eat food that has been offered up to idols in the pagan temples. What is clear from 1Cor. 8 is that this is a one-way thing. To put it another way, there are those who are meat-eaters and there are those that are not. How should those who don't eat the pagan offerings treat those who do? It's not a completely balanced issue, both parties are not the same. But Schori wants to argue that they are. The mainstream majority position is marginalised by the use of the term "strict" (i.e. blinkered). She uses the term "mainstream" but wants to suggest that it's a "narrow" view. Note that no such qualifier is used for the liberal position; it is simply "a desire for justice".

Also, we're all just making a mountain out of a molehill. The conflict is only "apparent". If we call all just understand Schori's position then we'd see how divisive our "strict" stand is and the "apparent" conflict would disappear.

This attempt to level out the two positions, indeed to subtely undermine the mainstream position, is almost dishonest since it doesn't even remotely represent either the current situation in the Communion or the scriptural witness. We're all aware what the mainstream position actually is; it was laid out in specific detail in Lambeth 1998 resolution 1.10.

From misrepresenting the current position, she then moves to misrepresent the Communiqué.

Justice, (steadfast) love, and mercy always go together in our biblical tradition. None is complete without the others. While those who seek full inclusion for gay and lesbian Christians, and the equal valuing of their gifts for ministry, do so out of an undeniable passion for justice, others seek a fidelity to the tradition that cannot understand or countenance the violation of what that tradition says about sexual ethics. Each is being asked to forbear for a season. The word of hope is that in God all things are possible, and that fasting is not a permanent condition of a Christian people, nor a normative one. God’s dream is of all people gathered at a feast, and we enter Lent looking toward that Easter feast and the new life that will, in God’s good time, be proclaimed.

Ask yourself this question: are TEC being asked in the Communiqué to put a ban on things "for a season" or permanently? It is, surely, the latter! The exact requirements were "unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the communion - see Windsor para 134". This is obviously not the "season" that Schori is talking of because does anyone really think the mind of the Communion is going to change on this issue in even the medium-term? Schori, rather, is trying to put TEC into a holding-pattern.

Now, I assume that she's not stupid. This is a clever ploy. She is working hard to understate the strength of the requirements placed upon TEC. She needs to placate people like Integrity who are abundantly clear on how stiff the demands of the Communiqué are.

The Rev. Michael Hopkins, immediate past President of Integrity had this reaction:

“Jesus weeps, and so do I. If the House of Bishops (or any other body with actual authority in this church) capitulates to these demands and sacrifices gay and lesbian people to the idol of the Instruments of Unity, it will have become the purveyor of an “anti-Gospel” that will (and should) repel many.”

For Integrity, this isn't just a matter of eating meat - it's about how you understand the Gospel. It's a refreshing clarity on what is going on. The tragedy of how Schori is handling all this is that by trying to tread a middle ground she is demonstrating that she's not really listening to any of the key voices. Perhaps one of the issues that we need to watch out for is how long these people will think they need to keep listening to her?

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<img [...] process"">') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

...which is, frankly, quite appalling for someone who keeps going on about "listening".

From <a href="http://blog.edow.org/weblog/2007/02/the_presiding_bishops_word_to.html#more" target="_blank">here</a>, Schori's "Word to the Church". Here's the bits that really grabbed my attention.

<blockquote>The current controversy brings a desire for justice on the one hand into apparent conflict with a desire for fidelity to a strict understanding of the biblical tradition and to the mainstream of the ethical tradition. Either party may be understood to be the meat-eaters, and each is reminded that their single-minded desire may be an idol. Either party might constructively also be understood by the other as the weaker member, whose sensibilities need to be considered and respected.</blockquote>
The reference to meat-eaters is key here. Schori has just brought up 1Cor. 8, where Paul is concerned about those who eat food that has been offered up to idols in the pagan temples. What is clear from 1Cor. 8 is that this is a one-way thing. To put it another way, there are those who are meat-eaters and there are those that are not. How should those who don't eat the pagan offerings treat those who do? It's not a completely balanced issue, both parties are not the same. But Schori wants to argue that they are. The mainstream majority position is marginalised by the use of the term "strict" (i.e. blinkered). She uses the term "mainstream" but wants to suggest that it's a "narrow" view. Note that no such qualifier is used for the liberal position; it is simply "a desire for justice".

Also, we're all just making a mountain out of a molehill. The conflict is only "apparent". If we call all just understand Schori's position then we'd see how divisive our "strict" stand is and the "apparent" conflict would disappear.

This attempt to level out the two positions, indeed to subtely undermine the mainstream position, is almost dishonest since it doesn't even remotely represent either the current situation in the Communion or the scriptural witness. We're all aware what the mainstream position actually is; it was laid out in specific detail in Lambeth 1998 resolution 1.10.

From misrepresenting the current position, she then moves to misrepresent the Communiqué.
<blockquote>Justice, (steadfast) love, and mercy always go together in our biblical tradition. None is complete without the others. While those who seek full inclusion for gay and lesbian Christians, and the equal valuing of their gifts for ministry, do so out of an undeniable passion for justice, others seek a fidelity to the tradition that cannot understand or countenance the violation of what that tradition says about sexual ethics. Each is being asked to forbear for a season. The word of hope is that in God all things are possible, and that fasting is not a permanent condition of a Christian people, nor a normative one. God’s dream is of all people gathered at a feast, and we enter Lent looking toward that Easter feast and the new life that will, in God’s good time, be proclaimed.</blockquote>
Ask yourself this question: are TEC being asked in the Communiqué to put a ban on things "for a season" or permanently? It is, surely, the latter! The exact requirements were "unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the communion - see Windsor para 134". This is obviously not the "season" that Schori is talking of because does anyone really think the mind of the Communion is going to change on this issue in even the medium-term? Schori, rather, is trying to put TEC into a holding-pattern.

Now, I assume that she's not stupid. This is a clever ploy. She is working hard to understate the strength of the requirements placed upon TEC. She needs to placate people like <a href="http://www.integrityusa.org/" target="_blank">Integrity</a> who are<a href="http://www.integrityusa.org/press/2007-02-19.htm" target="_blank"> abundantly clear on how stiff the demands of the Communiqué are</a>.
<blockquote>The Rev. Michael Hopkins, immediate past President of Integrity had this reaction:

“Jesus weeps, and so do I. If the House of Bishops (or any other body with actual authority in this church) capitulates to these demands and sacrifices gay and lesbian people to the idol of the Instruments of Unity, it will have become the purveyor of an “anti-Gospel” that will (and should) repel many.”</blockquote>
For Integrity, this isn't just a matter of eating meat - it's about how you understand the Gospel. It's a refreshing clarity on what is going on. The tragedy of how Schori is handling all this is that by trying to tread a middle ground she is demonstrating that she's not really listening to any of the key voices. Perhaps one of the issues that we need to watch out for is how long these people will think they need to keep listening to her?

<img src="http://www.extensor.co.uk/articles/listening/fingers_in_ears.jpg" title="the "listening process"" border="1"/><a href="http://whitehorseinn.classicalanglican.net/?p=242">View this post at the WhiteHorseInn</a>

The Communiqué

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 01:00:38 GMT

Well, it's with us. The clone has a good summary.

Here are the direct disciplinary requirements:

The House of Bishops of TEC needs to make a statement that all it’s members will unequivocally NOT authorise or allow any same-sex blessings in theit dioceses or TEC as a whole
The House of Bishops of TEC needs to make a statement that all it’s members will unequivocally NOT consent to the consecration of any person as a Bishop who is living in a same-sex union
Both these unequivocal statements need to be delivered by September 30th 2007 - Failure to do so will have “consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion”

It is, frankly, inconceivable that TEC will sign up to these. They have charted a clear path in the opposite direction. Plus, it would make the position of Gene Robinson untenable - he falls under both of the proscriptions.

This is good news. Schori will, no doubt, have claimed that TEC hasn't been able to respond. It's on the table now, unequivocably - put up or pack your bags.

View this post at the WhiteHorseInn

An example of "Tradition" in the pre-Nicene church? "I'll take just one!"

Mon, 19 Feb 2007 01:14:17 GMT

A wonderful clip from a debate between James White and Gerry Matatics on Long Island in 1996. Here White presses Matatics to demonstrate how those things that are supposed to be part of the 'Tradition' were believed by the early church. Well worth watching through the end. Pay careful attention to the arguments and assumptions on both sides.

View this post at the WhiteHorseInn

Daily Update, February 18, 2007

Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:56:56 GMT



"Daily Update, February 18, 2007" on Google Video
Topic: The Sub-Group Report and the Future of the Communion

I believe in the Holy Catholic Church

Sun, 18 Feb 2007 04:30:25 GMT

posted today on Stand Firm

Revelation 7:9After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, ¹⁰and crying out with a loud voice, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!" ¹¹ And all the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, ¹²saying, "Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might be to our God forever and ever! Amen." ¹³ Then one of the elders addressed me, saying, "Who are these, clothed in white robes, and from where have they come?" ¹⁴I said to him, "Sir, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

The last section of the Apostles' Creed contains the article, "I believe in the holy catholic Church". I wonder if you have ever wondered what these final lines are doing at the end of the Creed? It makes perfect sense to be very clear about who God is, what He's like and what He's not like - those were, after all, the key questions facing the Early Church. But surely it's obvious what the church is.

Well, no its not. Because when we use the word "Church" we can mean any number of different things.

A building. I can say "I'm just going over to the church".

A group of people associated together in the way that so many of us are in our parishes. We can be spoken of together as a church.

A job. Some may talk of my twin brother and I "going into the church".

Some people would even say that it's the whole hierarchical structure that we have, so we speak of the Anglican Church. Some people extend this argument to suggest that without these structures, for example bishops and so forth, we are not a church.

What of course, as Christians, we are interested in knowing is what the Bible says on these things because its our rule in all matters of faith.

And the intriguing thing is, the Bible knows none of these uses of the word. Instead it tells us that the church is something else, something quite remarkable and yet, quite simple.

The word in the bible thats translated into English as church is the greek word ????????, "ekklesia". It simply means "gathering". A bunch of people coming together. As well as being used to speak about what we might recognize as the church it is also used to speak of a town meeting and even a near-riot (Acts 19:32, 39, 40) It simply means a gathering of people.

Now, people dont just gather for any reason, theres always a purpose for gathering and so our question has to be what is this gathering that the bible speaks about?

Well, the answer lies in the above text, Revelation 7.

Revelation is the last book in the bible and it relates a vision that John the Apostle has. Its called an "apocalypse" which simply means an "unveiling". Not necessarily a great universe-ending catastrophe, just an unveiling. So, its as though God is drawing back a curtain on world history so that we can see spiritual realities. Theyre not necessarily future events, theyre picture language to describe things that words can't on their own describe.

And here in Revelation 7 John is being given an insight into the reality of the church and we can see immediately that it is an ????????, a gathering:

Revelation 7:9 After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, ¹⁰and crying out with a loud voice, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!"

Now that is a crowd meeting with a purpose.

First, notice how the gathering is described: a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages.

This great heavenly church that John sees is truly international; all tribes, all peoples, all languages represented. It is, in fact, the completion of the great promise to Abraham at the start of the bible, Genesis 12, where God promises him that through him all the families of earth will be blessed. Well, here they all are, or perhaps more accurately, here we all are because if you are a Christian then this is you, or at least it will be.

Which should make us stop. Because like it or not we have to admit that for many of us we have some difficulty with this. It would be wrong for each and every one of us to pretend that we don't have prejudices when it comes to people that are different to us. Without dwelling on the matter I wonder if I might ask you to consider for a moment whether you have such a global view of the Christian church or, for that matter, whether you harbour a little bit of a "them and us" mentality ? One day, Christian, you will stand with those people around the throne and you will be arm in arm with them.

And that, simply, is what it means to be Catholic. The word Catholic comes from two more greek words; ???? meaning "according to" and ???? which means "whole". The term "Catholic", therefore, means "according to the whole" that is to say "the same as everyone else".

And so the Early Church coined this phrase Catholic to tell people that there was only one church, not several. What they wanted to say is that you can't just run off and do your own thing, making it up as you go along as some people were doing. If you're part of the church then you're part of the Catholic church, you're part of the whole.

Of course, when we hear the word Catholic we immediately think of something else we think of the Roman Catholic Church, based in Rome with its own idea of what the church is. Simply put, they think that they're the true Church, the catholic church, the whole church, and therefore if you're not with them then youre not actually in a proper church. Thats why they use that name "Roman Catholic Church".

But Anglicanism is a Reformed communion because men like Martin Luther, who directly influenced Anglican Reformers like Cranmer, read their bibles and realized that the Roman Church may be many things but it wasnt Catholic. It taught things, and still teaches things, that are simply contradictory to what the Bible says. And when Martin Luther and others like him read their bibles and understood what the true Catholic church looked like they realized they couldnt be in a gathering with Rome any more. As the Anglican Article puts it,

XIX. Of the Church.

...

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

So there is a Catholic church, a whole church, a true church. And we see them clearly here in Revelation 7.

But who are they? Well, were told that theyre clothed in white robes. White, of course, is symbolic of purity, and so the picture here is of people who are perfect and pure, no sin whatsoever. But, in case we didnt get it, were given one of those lovely set-up questions just look with me again at v13.

¹³Then one of the elders addressed me, saying, "Who are these, clothed in white robes, and from where have they come?" ¹⁴I said to him, "Sir, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

Sometimes questions in the Bible are there simply for our benefit. This is one of them: Tell us about these people dressed in white!

And the answer comes in 2 stages.

First they are the ones coming out of the great tribulation.

Tribulation is a word the bible uses regularly to speak of suffering that Christians go through. It's popular at the moment in some Christian cicles to speak of the the Tribulation as though its going to be some sort of future event when things get really tough. That kind of talk is popular in countries like the United States, Britain and Australia where Christians tend to be nice and fat and fairly happy. But ask a Christian in Pakistan or Indonesia or the Sudan whether the Tribulation is something in the future and theyll laugh at you - at least they would if the tears of pain ever stopped. No, the Tribulation is ongoing. It was going on right when John first wrote these words almost 2000 years ago - even then Christians were suffering for Jesus - and so this picture was an enormous encouragement to them to persevere because here is the church, the gathering, that have come through it.

First, they are the ones coming out of the great tribulation.

And, second, John is told that they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Its a fantastic picture, isnt it? Blood making something white when surely it does the opposite? But remember what the whiteness here stands for; its purity, freedom from sin, total forgiveness. And here are people who trust in Jesus' death on a cross, trust in His blood and as a result are completely forgiven. Not somewhat forgiven, not one step along the path to purity - no, they are white. They are perfect.

And Jesus is called the Lamb. It's an image from the Old Testament sacrifices which model for us what Jesus did. He was the true sacrifice.

That's what the true Catholic church believes, more than that - that's what the true Catholic church is. They are people who trust in Christ's death on the cross and, as a result, are completely forgiven.

So let me ask you; is that your picture of being a Christian? Do you believe that by trusting in Jesus you are completely forgiven? Because its easy to slip into thinking that theres something that we must do to be forgiven.

We even sometimes imagine that there are better and worse Christians. So, for example, its common to imagine that there are people such as "the Saints" who are somehow holier than us, who have achieved more in their lives. I realise that this will be a confronting statement for some, but the bible knows no such distinction. Thats not to say, of course, that it doesnt know about saints - it does and it holds them in high regard, they are indeed the most holy of people, but the Bible uses the word "saint" to talk about you and me, to talk about all Christians. Because anyone who trusts in Jesus, according to the Bible, is a saint (Eph. 1:1, Acts 26:10, Rom. 8:27 etc.).

This, then, is the Catholic church, the gathering of saints, all of them, that trust in Jesus' death and nothing else. It's you and me if we trust in Jesus.

So, weve seen what "the Church" is - its a gathering of people.

We've seen who they are - they're suffering but holy people, saints like you and me who trust in Jesus' death.

Finally, lets see what they do.

The first clue as to what the church does is back in v9. If you remember the church has palm branches in their hands. It makes us think of Jesus entering Jerusalem and the people waving palm branches and cheering him as their king. Thats exactly what the church does here and more. They cry out

Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne and to the Lamb.

They dont just cry out anything about God, the thing that they're most excited about is that Salvation belongs to God and to the Lamb Jesus. They're saying what we've already seen - that being saved from the punishment of sin, becoming a Christian, is something that God does and the Church is excited about that. It is the thing they sing about again and again and again, worshipping God because of what He has done.

So again, let me ask you a question. Would you do the same as them? Do you do the same as them? Are you excited above all about the fact that Jesus has done everything that is needed to save you? Because that is the mark of the Christian.

Or perhaps you've allowed other things to cloud your attention, to draw your heart away? Perhaps you've never even realized that this is greatest thing, the thing that the church will be singing about into all eternity?

Perhaps today, even today, you want to join them? There would be no better time. Trust Jesus, trust his death on the cross where he did everything that needs to be done so you could wash your clothes white.

And then join this church, join this holy catholic church and spend the rest of your life and eternity singing about the salvation that belongs to God and to the Lamb.

But the vast majority who read this will have already done that - they trust Jesus and what He has done for them. More specifically, most people reading this (I assume) are Anglicans who are deeply troubled about the events that are overtaking us this second weekend of February, 2007. What difference does a right understanding of the Church make to us?

Well, above all, it means that we may rest secured that whatever the outcome of the Primates' Meeting it will make no difference to the holy catholic Church. If you find yourself in a parish in the middle of a revisionist diocese and the people you look to in the Communion have announced themselves to be out of Communion with your diocese then you must be assured that, although you are out of Communion, you are still gathered with those same true believers around the throne. Being in an out of Communion is, ultimately, a human way of expressing a difference that already exists. But a deeper bond exists between the faithful. We are, even now, gathered up in the heavenlies. Together you and I - in different parts of the world and "out of Communion" - are together pictured in Revelation 7.

The thing to grasp, then, is that the Church is so much bigger than the Anglican Communion. Our unity comes by our common confession that "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne and to the Lamb", not by whether we have appropriate episcopal oversight. The Bible knows nothing of the latter. That is not to say that it is a useful structure to have and, indeed, a useful structure to maintain at this time of division since by coming under one bishop or another we may signal or acceptance or otherwise of what TEC is doing - but it is not a Biblical requirement nor mark of the true church, at least not in the sense that much Bishopry is understood today.

Let me be even bolder. Perhaps the Communion must in one way or another break apart. It has become quite clear that there are so many in leadership in the Anglican Communion who do not believe that salvation belongs to God and the Lamb Jesus. The question of salvation itself is alien to them, let alone the idea that Christ might be thepenal substitute that wins our salvation so completely. How can we even stand to be associated with those that deny Him in this way? Surely to "come out from among them" (2Cor. 6:17) is almost required of us?! For the sake of clarity in our gospel message we must seek that those associations are cut. If many of the Primates of the Communion will not sort this issue out then perhaps those power brokers don't understand the real issues either?

It would, of course, be a tragedy. But sometimes tragedies are necessary.

What is important is that it will have no effect upon the true Church of God. Those that we are finally leaving behind were not part of the Church of God anyway - they were a cancerous growth sucking resources and inhibiting the proclamation of the Biblical gospel - eternal salvation, not the MDG's. And although such a division may leave you feeling desperately and horribly alone you should understand that you are not. The reality is that we are gathered around the throne together. Whether we wear the badge of "Anglican" or not may leave scars on us that we take a long time to recover from - but they are nothing like the scars that bought all of us and hold us all together; those scars were there long before Anglicanism existed and will continue to be there guaranteeing our place in the Holy Catholic Church long after Anglicanism is gone.

View this post at the WhiteHorseInn

Stand Firm Daily Update, February 16 2007

Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:19:24 GMT



"Stand Firm Daily Update, February 16 2007" on Google Video
Roundtable discussion: Are we looking at the end of Canterbury-led Anglicanism?

the liberals still don't get it?

Fri, 16 Feb 2007 01:09:15 GMT

what is amazing about the liberals in the Anglican Communion is that, despite our abundantly clear talk, they still don't understand our position. It must be that they don't understand because no-one, surely, could be so dishonest as to deliberately misrepresent what their opponent is saying?

Surely?

Thing is, that becomes a bit hard to believe when the person talking nonsense is the Primate of Canada, Andrew Hutchison

Here's his blog piece from today.

I am going to a meeting with a gospel of hope and a preferential option for the poor and we are debating who is in and whom we are going to keep out. I have been at this long enough to know that it never boils down to one simple question. Meetings like this are filled with all manner of ego, authority and power but as we gather and are preparing to begin, that endless stream of humanity that I saw on my way haunts my memory. I wish we were dealing with what difference a gospel of hope could make in their lives, rather than worrying about strategies for the Primates and the politics that are an inevitable part of such gatherings. Please remember to pray for my brothers and sister who share in these meetings in the next few days. There is a huge amount at stake and the world needs to hear the good news again - that the gospel does not say God so loved the Church - rather it says God so loved the world!

This is a great example of both abuse of and total avoidance of what the bible says. Consider his first statement about "a gospel of hope". Notice how Hutchison uses those words in a completely different way to the Bible. For Hutchison, "hope" is about "a preferential option for the poor" (particularly those in Tanzania who he spends a whole paragraph describing in his post). In the Bible, hope and poverty are considered completely differently:

Colossians 1:3 We always give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, ⁴since we heard about your faith in Christ Jesus and the love that you have for all the saints. ⁵Your faith and love have arisen from the hope laid up for you in heaven, which you have heard about in the message of truth, the gospel.

Simply put, the "gospel of hope" in the Bible is nothing to do with alleviation of poverty. It is about a certainty of an eternal future. Why is that eternal future so important? Well, Paul goes on to explain:

Colossians 1:21 And you were at one time strangers and enemies in your minds as expressed through your evil deeds, ²²but now he has reconciled you by his physical body through death to present you holy, without blemish, and blameless before him ²³if indeed you remain in the faith, established and firm, without shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard. This gospel has also been preached in all creation under heaven, and I, Paul, have become its servant.

The Christian hope is that whereas we used to be stangers and enemies of Christ (as the context makes clear) we are now reconciled to God by His death on the Cross. We are now considered to be holy, without blemish and blameless. What must we do? Simply "remain in the faith" - that is, just keep trusting Jesus who has done everything for us to make us right before God.

As Paul puts its, we should continue, "without shifting from the hope of the gospel you heard".

But, Hutchison seems to have another gospel - one that's not about presenting us as holy, without blemish and blameless before God but about the here and now.

And that's why we worry so much about these things. Because unrepentant homosexual practice, the Bible is clear, is a bar to entry into that saving hope (just as other blatant unrepentant sin is) (1Cor. 6:9; Jude 1:7 etc). Hutchison, and so many like him, ignore the real gospel and, to compound their error, then encourage people in activity that scripture tells us is a bar to entry into that gospel hope.

And, to make it worse, he then butchers the words of Jesus Himself (not that other scripture is less authoritative):

There is a huge amount at stake and the world needs to hear the good news again - that the gospel does not say God so loved the Church - rather it says God so loved the world!

There is "a huge amount at stake" - as John 3:16 (which Hutchison has so abused) makes abundantly clear.

John 3:16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone would pursue the United Nations Millenium Development Goals.

whoops, no, hang on a minute - I think that's wrong.

*flicks through bible*

oh yeah...

John 3:16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

That's the gospel, Hutchison.

As someone once said:

John 3:10 Jesus answered, "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you don't understand these things? ¹¹I tell you the solemn truth, we speak about what we know and testify about what we have seen, but you people do not accept our testimony.

View this post at the WhiteHorseInn

all the latest Anglican News

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:56:24 GMT

so, (as Sarah Hey wisely points out), the procedural politics have begun.

The big question before the Primates currently meeting in Tanzania is what to do with the Episcopal Church (TEC), and specifically whether they have met the requirements laid out in the Windsor Report and subsequent Dromantine CommuniquÃ©.

You would have thought there is an easy answer. As Kendall Harmon writes, "The Episcopal Church has Failed Respond Adequately to the calls of Windsor".

In order to help the Primates with that decision the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, put together a small sub-committee to present a report on what TEC has done so far. That report can be read here and is, frankly, the biggest load of baloney yet produced by an Anglican body. Greg Griffith is absolutely correct when he writes:

This is not a case of different interpretations, or an attempt to make room for negotiations. It is a falsehood perpetrated on the communion.

The report's assertion that the response of TEC is generally adequate is ridiculous, as Matt Kennedy points out in this must-read article:

Response to and Refutation of the Wholly Inadequate Communion Sub-Group Report

View this post at the WhiteHorseInn

our goddaughter, Eleanor, goes home

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:56:02 GMT

fantastic news.

We're home! Whew! We thank our gracious Father for watching over Eleanor and bring about this healing so quickly. There's a little problem remaining, but not too serious because it was picked up early. When she was in Leonie's tummy, Eleanor was in the "frank breech" position. This means her head was up, her bottom was down, and her ankles were up around her ears! It's common for babies who present this way to have "dislocatable hips" - related to but more serious than "clicky hips". One of Eleanor's hips is dislocatable, requiring some important but non-invasive treatment over the coming months. We went through exactly the same issue with Adelaide four and a half years ago, so we know what we're in for - Eleanor will need to be in a little brace to keep her legs apart for a few months (she'll be perfectly comfortable but she'll end up over-stretching some wondersuits). She'll also need to have a round of ultrasounds in the coming months to check on the progress of her hip formation. The doctor who will be treating her is the same doctor who saw Adelaide when we lived in Sydney in 2002. The doctor is based in Randwick, but he sees patients in Wollongong, for which we're very grateful! Nevertheless, one of the benefits of staying in Randwick today is that we've been able to take advantage of the "hospital super-campus". Just before lunch some orthopaedic surgeons from Sydney Children's Hospital popped over to examine her, then we wheeled her little cot around to the orthotics department in Prince of Wales Hospital to get the brace, and back to the Royal Women's Hospital for an ultrasound downstairs, then the paediatrician came to check on Eleanor and get her discharged finally!

View this post at the WhiteHorseInn

Stand Firm, Daily Update, 15 Feb. 2007

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:46:25 GMT



"Stand Firm, Daily Update, 15 Feb. 2007" on Google Video
Roundtable discussion with Matt Kennedy, Sarah Hey, Greg Griffith, and myself. We discuss the major issues being decided as we speak in Tanzania.

Stand Firm video, 14 Feb 2006

Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:53:08 GMT



"Stand Firm video, 14 Feb 2006" on Google Video
Guests today: David Ould and Ruth Gledhill.

how many Luthers? the true via media

Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:19:47 GMT

Ruth Gledhill has an excellent article in the Times.

Peter Akinola, of Nigeria, the leader of the orthodox and a likely primus inter pares for a new Global South Church, is not going to compromise. Nor is the pro-gay new US Primate, Dr Katharine Jefferts Schori, who could end up leading a new Episcopal Catholic Church. Dr Akinola would see himself as in Lutherâ™s tradition: âœHere I stand. I can do no other.â Dr Schori would see herself in exactly the same way. And so would the American bishop whose consecration in 2003 triggered the inevitable crisis, the openly gay Gene Robinson. No communion is big enough for these three Luthers, all nailing opposing theses to their church doors.

Well, who is the real Luther? The answer is quite clear when you see the full context of what Luther said at the Diet of Worms, 1521, when asked to explain his opposition to Rome.

Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.

This then is the true via media - in between the false authority of Roman popery on the one hand and rationalism on the other. Scripture and reason, but primarly scripture. Only one of the three "Luthers" stands in that place and it's not hard to see who.

View this post at the WhiteHorseInn

Stand Firm Update, 13 Feb. 2007

Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:56:45 GMT



"Stand Firm Update, 13 Feb. 2007" on Google Video
Sarah Hey and Ruth Gledhill join Matt Kennedy for a look at current events.

no David today - they had to make space for Ruth Gledhill

great news this morning

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:17:04 GMT

News this morning about Eleanor Windsor

Even better news! Yesterday evening, the ventilator was removed, because Ellie is able to breathe all by herself. Most likely, she's going to move down to level 2 intermediate care today and will be able to go back to Wollongong hospital not long after that, perhaps on Wednesday or Thursday.

We were both able to spend some good time with her this evening.

View this post at the WhiteHorseInn

Tanzania video, day 2

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:22:20 GMT



"Tanzania video, day 2" on Google Video
second video. I'm near the start but don't dwell on that - watch all of it.

A matter of trust -

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 01:09:14 GMT

Jim Naughton, over at the Diocese of Washington "news" blog, must be a Billy Joel fan. At least that was my first response after reading his latest piece on Tanzania

Word comes from Tanzania that Bishop Martyn Minns of CANA, Canon Chris Sugden of Anglican Mainstream and Father David Anderson of the American Anglican Council are already in Dar es Salaam. I wonder if they are aware that their presence in Tanzania, like their presence in Northern Ireland, convey to the rest of the world that they don't trust Peter Akinola, Bernard Malango, Gregory Venables et. al. to manage on thier own?

Billy Joel was ringing in my ears. It's always been a matter of trust, you see.

Some love is just a lie of the heart,
The cold remains of what began with a passionate start.
And they may not want it to end,
But it will, it's just a question of when.

Breakups begin with a loss of trust. But the really telling moment is when that trust is transferred to someone else. So, when an adulterous spouse abandons someone and the stranded partner finally turns to someone else who will be faithful where the previous partner wasn't; well, it's a clear sign that there is trust where there wasn't previously.

So it's not at all the case here that Minns, Sugden and Anderson don't trust the Global South Primates. Quite the contrary - it's abundantly clear now that Akinola, Malango, Venables et al. don't trust Schori and her people and would rather set up show with someone they do trust and who they know isn' t running after another love (Jeremiah 3:6). Billy loves his girl and wants her to trust him, but the Global South don't trust TEC any more.

Naughton then goes on to quote Lionel Deimel's "bracing observation",

It is cold comfort that neither the traditions of the Anglican Communion nor the constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) nor the constitution and canons of The Episcopal Church will allow the creation of the sort of independent ecclesiastical entity sought by Bishop Duncan in the latest plea for APO. (Composition of the ACC, which, arguably, either reflects or defines the membership of the Anglican Communion itself, can only be changed by a vote of two-thirds of the primates. No one believes that the votes are available to make such a change at next weekâ™s meeting.) The Anglican Communion has ceased to act as a fellowship, however, and increasingly acts through intimidation, if not outright coercion. It is therefore foolhardy for The Episcopal Church to rely on what the Communion âœcannotâ do to guarantee its integrity and independence.

I wonder if Deimel is confused? He says "the traditions of the Anglican Communion nor the constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) nor the constitution and canons of The Episcopal Church will allow the creation of the sort of independent ecclesiastical entity sought by Bishop Duncan in the latest plea for APO" and then he outlines exactly how such structures can recognise such an alternate Province. And the votes may even be there. But more than that, it's not about votes. Ultimately ++Canterbury simply sends out (or doesn' t send out) invites.

Better than that, he thinks that the canons of TEC have something to do with it. That's a laughable argument. Imagine all 3 branches of the the United States Federal government agreeing to kick out one of the States. What if that State (and for fun pick your own - having spent a year at Univerity of Illinois I'm going for Michigan - YMMV) said "but our constitution and laws won't let you do that!" It wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference. But that's the situation we have here. 3 of the 4 Instruments of Unity (the 4th being the Lambeth Conference who have not met since the current crisis began) have made it abundantly clear that TEC is in the wrong and yet, apparently, the canons of TEC render such a unanimous declaration of disapproval irrelevant. I don' t think so. Frankly, TEC really don' t want to wait until Lambeth 2008 because the response their could make what has occurred so far look positively understated.

Is this coercion, as Deimel claims? No, on the contrary - it's Catholicity. The word "catholic" comes from the greek "kata" and "holos", literally "according to the whole". The whole, in terms of the Anglican Communion, have been phenomenally in the current crisis. Catholicity has been established and TEC's actions and statements consistently fall outside those defined boundaries. That is why the Windsor Report and the Primates use the language of "walking apart". Perhaps they should just have said "walking away".

Now, if you want to know what coercion looks like, then take lessons from Bonnie...

We have been tolerant of Bishop Iker....

in other words,

That's a nice diocese you've got there, Iker. Be a shame if anything happened to it...

or perhaps the almost daily filing of lawsuits in Virginia?

Of course, all of this is in order to defend the cherished "independence". Just think about that for a minute. The New Testament is chocka full of reminders of the co-dependency of Christians. We submit to one another (Eph. 5:21) and we imitate God (Eph. 5:1) in Christ, giving Himself up for us (Eph. 5:2). It is no wonder that when a group want to give up the imitation and worship of God and, rather, imitate and worship other things (Rom. 1:21-32) that they would strive for independence. When you're independent you don't have to walk with anyone else, there's no need for them.

Billy is clearly in denial

Some love is just a lie of the heart.
The cold remains of what began with a passionate start.
But that can't happen to us.....
Because it's always been a matter of trust.

He mistakenly thinks that things are going to work out, if only his girl would just trust him again. He's hopelessly wrong. He's not the only one.

View this post at the WhiteHorseInn

First StandFirm video

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 00:30:40 GMT



"First StandFirm video" on Google Video
here's the first of the videos. I chime in at about 5 mins but don't fast-forward. Watch the whole thing for an excellent summary of the crisis we face.

Windsor baby update

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 00:29:10 GMT

Leonie posted this update yesterday (for pictures follow the link).

Thank you so much to everyone who's been praying and helping out. Lionel has been an excellent slave, but he's very tired. I've been mainly lying around...

Today was the first day that I was well enough to have a good look at Eleanor and to have it all explained to me. She's in a humidicrib, dosed up on morphine (just like I was until recently!) and just so gorgeous! She looks like Adelaide and Harry but she has lots of dark hair, which they didn't have. She's nice and fat (for a premmie), and they tell me she's been sucking away on her dummy like there's no tomorrow. This sounds like one of my children!

It's a bit hard not knowing how long Ellie will be in intensive care, and when I can hold her and feed her, but the staff at Royal Women's Hospital are caring for us all so well. And of course I'm having to keep trusting God that this situation is his plan. What a privilege it is to live in a country where it's so easy to have such amazing medical care! She's still having help with her breathing, but she'll come off the morphine soon and they tell me she can start to have some milk tomorrow (via a tube).

View this post at the WhiteHorseInn

England beat Australia!!!

Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:18:52 GMT

just got back from the Sydney Cricket ground after watching England simply crush Australia (no other words are adequate) to take the one-day series here. I am amazed since, frankly, despite us winning the first of the three games I thought Australia would come out hard.

They didn't. They came out soft and even though the game was eventually rained off before the end it was clear that England had won. The scorecard makes the nature of the defeat clear:

Gilchrist 20, Hayden 5, Ponting 7, Clarke 0, Hussey 0, Hogg 14

There were 2 golden moments. The first came in McGrath's last over. Australia's veteran fast bowler was playing his last ever game in Australia and the crowd clapped the whole of the first 5 balls then stood, 40,000 strong, to applaud his run-up for the last ball. And it was a wicket!

Highlight of the game, however, was a simply stunning catch by Dalrymple to take Watson.

View this post at the WhiteHorseInn

David Ould - international media superstar. Or something

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 06:20:02 GMT

the excellent people over at StandFirm will shortly be launching their coverage of the Tanzania Primates' Meeting. I have been asked to be one of the commentators for their daily video podcast in conjunction with Anglican TV. I'll be posting up a link as soon as I have one. In the meantime here's the lovely graphic they made up...

View this post at the WhiteHorseInn

New Primate for the Middle East

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:52:17 GMT

Global South Anglican are reporting that Mouneer Hanna Anis has been elected Primate following the retirement of Clive Handford.

This is great news. First, it's a firm vote for next week's Primates' meeting. Bishop Mouneer is a solid Christian man. Second, he has a great reputation. Friends of ours used to work in Cairo at the Cathedral and speak highly of him. A while ago he came to visit the clergy in Singapore where I was working. One morning he went with Bishop Chew (now Primate of SE Asia) to meet some of the local Imams. By all reports he blew them away - his arabic was far better than theirs and when the discussion got serious his recall of the Qu'ran was far superior.

Give thanks to God.

View this post at the WhiteHorseInn

Nothing Lasts Forever

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:32:17 GMT

...even the longest and most glittering reign must come to an end some day.

Ian Richardson, most famous for playing Francis Urquhart in House of Cards, is dead.

House of Cards remains by far my favourite TV mini-series. Well worth getting hold of.

View this post at the WhiteHorseInn