On the Assassination of Benazir Bhuttto

She may have been, as the article prepared for Parade Magazine noted, "brilliant, beautiful, fearless...ruthlessly ambitious, devious and corrupt." She was also, as summarized so accurately in her own words, "what the terrorists most fear, a female political leader fighting to bring modernity to Pakistan." Not to mention the best hope of the United States for injecting stability and democracy into her troubled homeland, and for gaining access to the evil Osama bin Laden, who probably enjoys sanctuary there.

The lightly-scarfed visage of Benazir, still as bright and beautiful as in the snapshots of her Harvard days, brings to mind the observations of John Eldridge in his The Ramsoned Heart:

Why does Satan make Eve the focus of his assault on humanity? Because she is captivating, uniquely glorious, and he cannot be. She is the incarnation of the Beauty of God. More than anything else in all creation, she embodies the glory of God. She allures the world to God. He hates it with a jealousy we can only imagine. And there is more. The Evil One also hates Eve because she gives life....Women nourish life....Satan is a murderer from the beginning (John 8:44). He brings death. His is a kingdom of death. And thus Eve is his greatest human threat, for she brings life. She is a lifesaver and a lifegiver.....Put those two things together—that Eve incarnates the Beauty of God and she gives life to the world. His bitter heart cannot bear it. He assaults her with a special hatred.

Benazir Bhutto, rest in peace. My someone step forward to accomplish your goals for your country. May the saving power of Jesus Christ be discovered in your homeland.
[Hat tips to Kim and Drudgie.]

A Birthday at any Time Would Smell as Sweet

I have a friend named Matt. He was one of the last orphans to be evacuated out of Viet Nam, on one of the last planes, before things completely fell to Hanoi. He was transported first to a refugee camp in the Philippines, then to an an adoptive family here in the USA. One of the things that did not make the trip with him were any records whatsoever. He was just old enough to remember his name, but caseworkers in the Philippines simply made up a birthdate for him, and it is on that day each year that he and his family celebrate. Now, if, miraculously, some boxes or records were to be unearthed and sent from Viet Name, and Matt were thus to be informed of his true birthday, do you think he would go to all the trouble to change all the records regarding his license, i.d.s, social security number and so forth, not to mention his family's customs of celebrating his birthday on the fabricated birthdate of September 24? He's not sure.

The point here is that the fact that December 25 was arbitrarily chosen as Christ's birthday hundreds of years ago does not affect the fact of Jesus' birth any more than Matt's assigned birthdate effects him. Matt and Jesus are both alive and well today, without regard to what day they are said to have been born. The same with regard to any of the details regarding Jesus' birthdate. Were there really cows, sheep, and shepherds present? Were there two, three, or four wise men from far away, and what, exactly were their names and occupations?

With all due respect to the Archbishop of Canterbury's scholarly precision, and the media hounds that created an event out of it, the good news of Jesus Christ remains unchanged. Jesus was born to Mary, just as had been foretold through the prophets of old. He lived his life among us so that we could come to know God, and he died on the cross to redeem all of humanity from our sins.

Here's hoping the sorely-needed gifts of common sense and discretion may arrive under a few famous trees this year.

Merry Christmas to all! God bless our troops! Pray for the peace of Jerusalem, and for peace throughout the world.

Tasty Bone #2

What follows is a tasty bone, but only when read in a manner that most likely the good Archbishop did not intend:

The principle that one local church should not intervene in the life of another is simply a way of expressing this trust that the form of ministry is something we share and that God provides what is needed for each local community.

The hopelessly liberal and hopelessly autocratic Bishop of Minnesota simply does not provide for the needs of Biblically-orthodox Episcopalians. Therefore, other branches of Anglicanism are needed here in Minnesota to provide what is needed locally, but is blocked by Bishop Jelinek.

By way of example, last year, a convicted sex offender was scheduled to lead an overnight retreat at the Diocese's House of Prayer, all without any disclosure to the retreat registrants about the retreat leader's rather--shall we say--"unorthodox" personal history. At almost the same time, at least two Episcopal churches in the Diocese were denied permission to welcome the Archbishop of Kenya for educational forums. The more broad-minded Bishop of Eau Claire, right next door to the Diocese of Minnesota, happily gave his permission for a similar forum not far from the jurisdictional line. The Minnesotans who were prevented from arranging a forum in their own parish halls lived too far away to attend the forum in the Diocese of Eau Claire, and clearly should have been permitted to listen to a non-liturgical program lead by the good Archbishop and his canon. This is just one example of the way that local needs are NOT met by the local Episcopal franchise exercising monopolistic disregard for any sort of Anglicanism other than its own tiny, mutant version.

So, yes--let's show a mature level of trust so that--dare I say it--a DIVERSITY--of dedicated workers may tend to the needs of Anglicans in a variety of local churches, all worshipping and ministering side by side. Yes!

Tasty Bone #1

I like Rowan Williams' building on the words of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral to describe the process of recognizing one another as standing under the authority of the Bible:

So a full relationship of communion will mean...[that w]e recognise each other in one fellowship when we see one another 'standing under' the word of Scripture. Because of this recognition, we are able to consult and reflect together on the interpretation of Scripture and to learn in that process. Understanding the Bible is not a private process or something to be undertaken in isolation by one part of the family. Radical change in the way we read cannot be determined by one group or tradition alone.

This "recognizing one another" is like the Passover marking of houses in ancient Egypt. Unless the blood marked the doorposts, the inhabitants of that home would not be saved. Conservative Episcopalians and orthodox Anglicans worldwide have realized that the blood can no longer be seen on TEC's doorposts. To varying degrees, conservative Episcopalians no longer feel safe dwelling inside the Episcopal house, and mainstream Anglicans worldwide no longer see TEC as a safe house for fellow Christians.

To continue the metaphor, one group is not free to unilaterally start using Red Dye #2 instead of real blood, and still get to slide in and receive the same benefits. The whole Anglican Communion together has to reflect whether the Red Dye #2 is adequate for the job.

[to be continued]

Please Note: Anglicat is committed to posting SHORT analyses of topics of religious interest. The Archbishop of Canterbury's 2007 Advent Letter presents too many-comment worthy ideas for one short post, so Anglicat is continuing this series to highlight in small bytes the several good things contained in that letter.

Cantuar's Advent Letter: Some Tasty Bones, but No Meat

There is no doubt that the Archbishop of Canterbury says a few helpful things is his 2007 Advent letter, for which all good, orthodox Anglicans can give thanks In pulling his long letter to a conclusion, Rowan Williams indicates his hope that those comments "set out at the beginning of this letter" will "assist in clarifying" the road ahead.

The damning thing, however, about that immediate road ahead that Rowan Williams sketches out, is that it includes "some professionally facilitated conversations between the leadership of The Episcopal Church and those with whom they are most in dispute." Can even the most disciplined and ardent Advent prayers put toothpaste back in a tube? "Those most in dispute" have already left the Episcopal Church. Williams, in this letter, reiterated his intention not to invite to Lambeth the United States' newest bishops, those consecrated by the various African Primates most sympathetic to the plight of traditional Anglicans so marginalized by TEC.

Further, the good Archbishop seriously underestimates the depth and breadth of dissatisfaction of conservatives currently electing to remain within TEC. As one geographically-distant vestry member wrote to me recently, "I'm not in a rush to leave [The Episcopal Church] specifically. There are clearly worse places to be. And there is not currently a viable alternative. But I don't believe [TEC] is viable for long." How will the proposed "professionally facilitated conversations" speak to the needs of the Vestry member quoted above? If they happen, they will be conversations between two sets of leaders who she no longer thinks are worth following. This vestry member is far from alone in this appraisal of the options facing her church.

So, the good Archbishop, in effect, has tossed disaffected conservatives a few bones. I don't think this set of bones will assuage their yearning for real meat. Only a set of Lambeth invitations that includes the leaders of the most dissatisfied Anglicans: the Minns, the Guernseys, and the Atwoods, who could then take a role in forging that overly-due Anglican covenant, can get Anglicanism in America back on its feet again.

Please Note: Anglicat is committed to posting SHORT analyses of topics of religious interest. The Archbishop of Canterbury's 2007 Advent Letter presents too many-comment worthy ideas for one short post, so Anglicat is beginning this series to highlight in small "bytes" the several good things contained in that letter.

Saving Face

We haven't heard much about the poor woman in Saudi Arabia sentenced to 200 lashes with a bamboo cane for the "crime" of being gang raped. Has the absurd, horrendous sentence been overturned, or has the administration of her punishment begun?

200 lashes, it turns out, would be sufficient to kill a large, strong man, it is said. The beneficent authorities in Sharia countries therefore generally administer "only" 30 lashes at a time to women, weak creatures that they are. Now you think that means that 170 lashes get dropped from her sentence? No--that just means that she receives the sentence 30 lashes at a time, at two week intervals. She gets two weeks between sessions to heal and contemplate the next session. Nice, huh?

I am hoping that the apparent media silence about this poor woman is an attempt to shift the spotlight from her, so that Saudi Arabia gets to save face while negating that sentence. Backed into a corner, I think the authorities involved would--literally--lash out. So let's give them plenty of breathing space--and our continued prayers.

(Hat tip to the author of last week's NYT article, which I have misplaced, about how lashes are administered under Sharia law.)

A Sign of the Times

You, yes, YOU can find out about EVERY CLOSED EPISCOPAL CHURCH in the Diocese of Minnesota! Arthur Louis Finnell, Historiographer/Archivist for the diocese, has compiled this list, along with the location of extant parish records. For a mere $15 (checks payable to the Diocese of Minnesota), you can find out all about the closed Episcopal parish of your choice. Also included at no extra charge are references to a number of Episcopal church cemeteries and transcriptions from tombstones.

The above information is taken from the December 12th issue of the Diocese of Minnesota's Weekly News.Let it not be said that the Diocese does not take care of its dead. If membership statistics continue to decline, a sequel will surely be in order, for a nominal fee.

While this new resource may be of genuine interest to genealogists, it seems ironic that it becomes available at a time when Primates from around the world are inviting Biblically-centered Episcopalians to let the dead bury the dead.

Casting Call for the New Exodus

The speed of flow of the Anglican diaspora increased significantly this past week-end through two events.

The first, the consecration of AAC president David Anderson as a bishop in the Province of Nigeria, comes as no surprise; he joins a large handful of other former Episcopalians selected to be Bishops by various African provinces. The really big news is the departure of the Diocese of San Joaquin (California) from the Episcopal Church. No Diocese has seceded from the national Episcopal Church since 1860.

The Episcopal Church's Presiding Bishop Katharine Schori tried to downplay the significance of San Joaquin's departure. Almost comically, she reported that "some members" of the Diocese of San Joaquin were leaving the Episcopal church. In fact, it was a startling vote of 70-12 (clergy ) and 103-10 (laity) that precipitated the departure. Last Saturday, they thus voted to effectively remove all references to the Episcopal Church from their diocesan constitution and describe the diocese as "a constituent member of the Anglican Communion and in full communion with the See of Canterbury."

The Diocese of San Joaquin is a small Diocese within a small (and getting smaller) national church. Of its 47 parishes, probably about five parishes will remain behind with the Episcopal Church. When about 90% of a given Diocese is leaving, that certainly registers as a little more than Schori's dismissive "some people."

Archeological research suggests that the original Exodus of the Jews out of Egypt may not have been quite the huge, cinematically-worthy event we have come to imagine. It may in actual fact have been only a relatively small, rag-tag bunch of former slaves that crossed the Reed Sea, a band that may have been repeatedly augmented by marginalized people, as the original band journeyed to the Promised Land. While the Pharoah in this story has settled into historical obscurity, Moses, the leader of God's people out of oppression in Egypt, is revered to this day.

Are you listening, Bishop Schori? "Some people" think you need a reality check.

God and our First Ammendment Rights

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." (actual text of the First Amendment).

Recent court cases demonstrate that our judicial branch has been zealous in enforcing the first half of this sentence, while ignoring the second half. The courts have stretched the "Establishment Clause" (intended to prohibit the founding of a national church) to the point where it is being used to prohibit the free exercise of religion.

"[T]he notion of separation of church and state has been taken by some beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgement of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in the public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain in our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history and, during the holiday seasons, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places....I will not separate us from the God who gave us liberty."

Mitt Romney spoke these words last night in reasserting the role of religion in our civic life that the framers of our Constitution had in mind. Could it be that this country might possibly be able to get back on the right track in terms of appropriately allowing religious expression? Please, may it be so.

A Minnesotan's Christmas in Africa

While many people planning their retirement think about golf and frequent visits to the grandkids, one woman from southern Minnesota decided to take her nursing skills to Africa and spend the first years of her retirement doing things she wished she had been able to do much earlier: submerge herself in another culture and be of help to those who truly have no other way to obtain basic medical care.

Diana is loving her African adventure, now well into its second year. She has many interesting stories to tell, and one of them is how differently Christmas is celebrated in the village she now calls home. Imagine: no Christmas shopping, because NO ONE exchanges presents at Christmas. No stress, because Christmas, while marked with special services at church and special meals at home, is just another time (like several others during the year) for getting together, not some unique blow-out that is expected to create Hallmark memories. Last year, she hosted a meal to enjoy with her new neighbors: a goat was barbecued and village relationships grew stronger over the eating.

The happiness Diana describes makes me wonder if the Puritans of old Massachusetts Bay Colony--who strictly forbade Christmas festivities (albeit mostly out of distrust of anything Popish)--were not as far off the mark as we usually think. When it comes to Christmas, let's think small in terms of our own celebrations--but BIG in terms of charitable gifts. How can we enkindle a bit of Diana's spirit in our own lives?

The Efforts of a Well-Organized Minority

A recent interpretor of the report by Minnesota's BCMS ("Bishop's Commission on Mission Strategy") has suggested that only 25-30% of the Diocesan leadership could be described as conservative or orthodox. Even if one were to extrapolate that this percentage holds true among all the people sitting in Episcopal pews, and I would suggest that this extrapolated figure is too low), there may still be hope for the Diocese to reverse its downward spiral in terms of membership, stewardship, and mission.

Certainly a well-organized minority can overturn a dysfunctional majority. The question is, does this purported minority wish to do so? Whether its a matter of "Minnesota nice"ness (cardinal rule: never confront an issue directly) or just choosing one's battles wisely, many conservatives/orthodox, along with their liberal colleagues, have learned it's simply easier to ignore the Diocese as much as possible, and get on with what's important (certainly NOT the diocese) as best they can, for as long as they can. Many have jumped ship in order to climb aboard more sea-worthy vessels from the Anglican fleet and from other fleets. Others quite consciously are deciding to "go down with the ship." Others watch, hope, and pray for some miraculous intervention. Others choose to ignore the gloomy situation entirely.

Certainly crucial in reversing (or even just managing well) the current decline, is attention to who will be the next person to wear the mitre in the Diocese when Bishop Jelinek steps down. The lay order at Diocesan Convention rejected Jelinek's wish to have his successor elected during the last months of his watch. Surely, this is a hopeful first step. An articulate, moderate, Biblically-sound successor could transform the almost universal dissatisfaction within the diocese into a commitment to walk a brighter path. It's an election that will hinge on the efforts and votes of attentive lay people.

A Chilling Oxymoron

I'm still reeling over some of the images from a documentary clip I happened to see over the week-end about how lashes are inflicted under Sharia law. All this soft flesh, normally buried under yards of black burqa cloth, was suddenly exposed and struck over and over by a long stick. The horror of the film seemed all the stronger as I remembered the poor woman in Saudi Arabia recently sentenced to 200 lashes for the "crime" of being gang raped. How much trauma can one body and one psyche withstand?

If all this isn't horrible enough, then think about the T-shirts now being sported by extremist Muslims in Western Europe: "Sharia by 2030" is the slogan. These young extremists believe that it will take less than 23 years for Western civilization to fall to the superior culture that is guarded by Sharia law.

And then came one last shock this morning as I did a bit of research for this article. The headlines of the ad proclaimed, "All-American Burqa--Light-weight, Comfortable Fabric." Please, Lord, may the phrase, "All-American Burqa" always be an oxymoron. Thankfully, small red print was added, "Out of stock." May it ever be so.

"It's that Most Wonderful [Interlude] of the Year"--Tra-la!

This year, we enjoy a full ten days' grace between Thanksgiving and the first day of Advent. This doesn't happen often, and I am enjoying these between-times thoroughly. We will have four full week-ends to prepare for Christmas, not counting Thanksgiving week-end, as we never should.

Already, merchants here have begun the "Thank you; Happy Holidays!" mantra as they hand out the receipts from the cash register. Knowing that "holiday" in fact means "holy day," I have never been bothered by this generic pleasantry. This year, however, after our son's art teacher informed the class that Jews, Christians, and Moslems all worship the same god, I am beginning to think that it's important not to skate over our differences, but to acknowledge them respectfully.

So, as "un-Grinch-ily" as possible, I've been responding to the clerks, "Thank you, but what holiday do you mean?" Beginning on December 3, I'll respond, "Thank you; Happy Advent." This may become "Thank you; Happy Channukah" on December 5,7,8,9,10,11, and 12, if that seems to be appropriate. "Thank you; Happy St. Nicholas Day" will claim all of December 6. "Happy Eid-al-Adba" may surprise any hijab-sporting women I meet on December 20. Beginning December 24, "MERRY CHRISTMAS," wins priority, but if any body chooses to wish me a Happy Kwanzaa, I'll feel suitably blessed, beginning December 26.

In all this, I take my cue from my 9th grade world history teacher, whom I absolutely adored. I asked him (it seems like eons ago now) if, since he was Jewish, he minded being wished a Merry Christmas. He said, "Of course not: Why wouldn't I want you to wish me a happy December 25? Merry Christmas to you!"

The strange looks will probably intensify this holiday season as January 5 approaches, when I will still be noting Christmas in my greetings through Twelfth Night. I wonder if I'll still have the patience to spread Epiphany cheer? ;-)