I have posted on the Jesus Tomb controversy at http://sgmmagazineblog.blogspot.com I will be keeping up on that controversy at that site.

The Church
What is is

We all remember William Jefferson Clinton’s discussion of meanings in Monicagate. Well, it looks like another round of ward parsing is about to begin in the Anglican Church. After meeting of the Anglican Communion in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, the Communion issued a communiqué that covered many things including same-sex marriage blessings in the Episcopal Church of the USA.

Although only 2.3 million of the worldwide 77 million Anglicans, the Episcopal Church in the US wields influence by virtue of its wealth compared to the rest of the world. A schism has developed in the Episcopal Church over the same sex marriage in certain churches as well as the elevation of an open homosexual to bishop. The primates want to see fidelity in the Epsicopal Church but they also want to avoid a split. They are aiming for the purity and peace of the church.

The interesting situation concerns the language of the communiqué. The parsing has begun. Here is the specific language of the world wide Communion directed to the Episcopal Church:

In particular, the Primates request, through the Presiding Bishop, that the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church1. make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention (cf TWR, §143, 144); and2. confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent (cf TWR, §134);unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion (cf TWR, §134).
The Primates request that the answer of the House of Bishops is conveyed to the Primates by the Presiding Bishop by 30th September 2007.

In bringing this situation to a head, the Communion has also put together a Pastoral Council to act on behalf of the Primates in consultation with the Episcopal Church. This in itself seems to be a rebuke to the Presiding Bishop in the US and her cohorts, including Bishop Robinson. It is clear the Primates want this matter addressed and resolved and they are not going to allow the Episcopal Church to fiddle and diddle on this matter.

However, here is where the parsing begins. Do the primates mean only authorized Rites of Blessing are prohibited? If so, non-authorized blessings should be o.k. So, if bishops do not authorize the rites, but they still happen, is that within the scope of the communiqué? Those in favor of the homosexual union blessing believe this allows the Episcopal Church to remain in the Communion.

Well, the next few months will tell. Maybe the primates planned for the “spinning” of their language with the appointment of the Council. Or, maybe they were giving the Episcopal Church a way out of their non-Biblical mess. The latter result would seem to be contrary to the orthodoxy the world wide Communion has held to these past few decades. But, if it is the result, it would be, as we call it in the law, form over substance. And, the substance is non-Biblical. Permitting priests to perform “unauthorized” blessings of same-sex marriages is the church not being the Church. The Anglicans would be sacrificing purity for peace which is impossible in Christ’s Church.

What do you believe?
Exclusivity

I am becoming increasingly weary. Any Christian who speaks out against Islam is labeled as intolerant. Of course they are intolerant! Christianity believes in the exclusivity of truth. Why is anyone surprised that Christians speak out against Islam?
Therefore, why is it not fair game to condemn the Islam that sponsored the unprovoked attacks on Sept. 11, 2001? George Bush may have to say Islam is a peaceful religion. He is the head of the political state. The USA as a multicultural 21st century nation that separates church from state must tolerate all religions. But, one religion need not tolerate beliefs that conflict with their beliefs.
This is one of the outfalls of the ridiculous notion of religious pluralism. The only folks who believe all religions are the same are the ones who don’t believe in anything. A person who is serious about his beliefs should call what conflicts with them error. If he doesn’t, he is himself a pluralist.
That some Christians speak out is not a mystery. The mystery is why all who call themselves followers of Christ do not speak out! The claims of Christ (John 14:6) make it clear that He and Islam cannot both be true.
The really amusing thing about all this is that the pluralists are really the intolerant ones. They think they are right. And, that is a truth claim. No one who holds to a specific faith can be right; they are all subject to the correctness of pluralism that claims it is the absolute truth. Is not that the very thing of which the pluralists complain?

Everyone claims to know the truth. Some just try to disguise and wrap their views in culturally acceptable ideas—like pluralism. Instead of having their ideas exposed for their shortcomings, some would rather silence opposing views as patently unacceptable. Truth always requires negation, and without negation there is no truth.

So, keep your ears open and your mind sharp. When you hear, “God speaks Arabic on Friday, Hebrew on Saturday and Latin on Sunday.” Or, “God welcomes different human beings approaching Him through their own history and out of their own cultural heritage.” Or, “God is not exhausted by just one religious faith.” Remember, this leaves no room for faith in the Biblical God of John 14:6.

And, with regard to the exclusivity of Christ, C.S. Lewis put it best when he wrote Jesus is either a 1) a lunatic; 2) the Devil of hell; or 3) God Himself. He is not a Buddha, Mohammed or Joseph Smith. His claim to be God is either true or not. Indeed you must make a choice—Jesus is God or not God. No other options are available

Celtic Proverbs
Woe is he who is indifferent to God’s bounty.

But only if we are afflicted with a kind of cosmic uneasiness, a curious suspicion that we cannot be whole until we come to terms with a transcendent reality at once germane and accessory to ourselves. To those who are content with their own sufficiency and who are loathe to venture beyond their own experience, such restlessness is seen as a psychological disturbance and immediately passed off as delusion. But that may not be the whole story; perhaps, just perhaps, it is not because there is no attributable cause but because the experiential mechanism fails to perceive it, much as the blind eye fails to perceive color or the deaf ear musical pitch.

R. Martin Helick, Travelers From an Ancient Land, Book XII, An Chros, (Regent Graphics: Swissvale, PA, 1993)

Global Warming
The Warming Police?

Within days of the release of he International Panel on Climate Control’s report, there was a call, no demand, for international authority to be set up to police compliance of green house gas emissions. [Note: The report was a summary of what is to come…it was full of conclusions without hard data. That is to be released in the spring, but that didn’t stop the doomsayers from alleging the debate is over!] The leader of the demand was none other than Jacques Chirac of le Republique Grande. Chirac is leaving office this year and possibly he is pitching for a new job…Chief of the Warming Police!
Interestingly, 45 countries quickly jumped on the Chriac bandwagon. Absent, of course, was the USA as well as China and India, the latter being the largest countries in the world [conservatively 2.2 billion residents] both moving into the industrial age at breakneck speed. And, by virtue of their rapid industrialization, they have no environmental controls. I have had the privilege of spending time in both countries. If gw is in fact caused by man, if every SUV in the US is parked, it would make no difference in a world where China and India are cranking out unchecked emissions.
China is renowned for its ecological disasters. When I arrived in Beijing in 2001, it was like being thrust into a “B” movie thriller. The air pollution was so bad everything smelled like burned bacon grease and everything looked gray from the haze in the air. I was like looking at black & white newsreels of third world countries. It was evident that industrialization was the goal. There being no land use controls. Ten megawatt coal fired electric generating plants were built in the middle of residential neighborhoods. Neither the land nor the population was spared in the march to world wide economic power and success.
India was a different situation. The poverty and squalor was overwhelming in most of the country. In fact, where western business made an impact, the cities and standard of living was far better and conditions vastly improved. But, because only a few have so far benefited from the economic advancements in India, more and more development is in order. India, like China, has developed a voracious appetite for fossil fuels [coal and oil] which is what drives the engine of industrialization. The impact of these new participants in the industrialized world has lead to the increasing cost of petroleum world wide. And, not surprisingly, to an increase in greenhouse emissions.
It is hard to get past the point that all this posturing is for the purpose of attacking the United States and bringing her into line with world politics and desires. For many decades, a global government with international powers of enforcement has been trumpeted by those not pleased with the US domination in the world. This has only increased since the fall of world wide communism. The international community has long desired to bring under its authority the “cowboy culture” of the USA.
What better way to move to authority than through environmental control? What a good way to level out the “have not” nation states with the “have” nation states. It is troubling to see the hysteria over gw and the calls to bring individuals and governments to account for the soon to be catastrophe. Personally, I do not see the People’s Republic of China [a curious name for a Communist dictatorship] or for that matter India, turning over its burgeoning economy to an international body to determine if they are proceeding with industrial development properly. The US rejected the Kyoto Treaty with a Senate vote of 95-0. What would the vote be today now that the gw debate has been concluded in the hearts of its proponents and the issue fully politicized? Stay tuned.