Press Release from ACNA on Civil Partnerships

PRESS RELEASE
Ambridge, PA
February 11, 2010

The ACNA

(a) aware of the distress caused by recent divisions between those who wish discriminate against civil partners in the Church of England and those who do not;
(b) recognise and affirm the desire of those who form the majority in the Church of England to remain within the communion family of churches that do not discriminate;
(c) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the ACNA and membership of the Gafcon, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(d) invite the Archbishops of ACNA and Gafcon to report further to themselves in 2011.

##

Retreat for Clergy Spouses

Retreat for Clergy Spouses

March 19-21, 2010

Shrine Mont, Orkney Springs VA

The role of a clergy spouse is unique. You’re part of the church community, but in some ways you aren’t. It can be hard to claim and keep your own identity of being a separate person, spouse, parent perhaps, and all with a life outside of the church. And it is often hard to find a peer group for conversation, fellowship and support.

This weekend retreat is designed to provide you with just these three things:

* Conversation with other clergy spouses about your role and needs.
* Fellowship with food and fun.
* Support from worship and prayers, time to be on your own and do whatever you please, the outdoors and connecting with God.

Accommodations will be in the newly renovated Hillside Cottage at Shrine Mont. Each room has one double bed and one twin bed and a private bath. You may have a private room or choose to have a roommate. Because of the room layout of Hillside, this retreat is limited to women only.

Meals will not be available from the Shrine Mont kitchen, but great food will be provided! Together we will do simple preparations and clean up. Hillside has a beautiful great room with a gas fireplace and gorgeous view.

The retreat begins at 6 pm on Friday night, March 19 and ends at 1 pm on Sunday, March 21. The cost is $150.00/person for the weekend. This includes room, meals, program. No one-night stays, please.

To register please email me at: nelliesgarden16@gmail.com

From Susan Russell

More pictures here.

Economic growth and religion

A recent feature in the Boston Globe covered the economic effects of religion. It's a worthy review. I bring it up to draw attention to the work of Barro and McCleary. As described by the Globe:

The two collected data from 59 countries where a majority of the population followed one of the four major religions, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism. They ran this data - which covered slices of years from 1981 to 2000, measuring things like levels of belief in God, afterlife beliefs, and worship attendance - through statistical models. Their results show a strong correlation between economic growth and certain shifts in beliefs, though only in developing countries. Most strikingly, if belief in hell jumps up sharply while actual church attendance stays flat, it correlates with economic growth. Belief in heaven also has a similar effect, though less pronounced. Mere belief in God has no effect one way or the other. Meanwhile, if church attendance actually rises, it slows growth in developing economies.

McCleary says this makes sense from a strictly economic standpoint - as economies develop and people can earn more money, their time becomes more valuable. For economic growth, she says, “What you want is to have people have their children grow up in a faith, but then they should become productive members of society. They shouldn’t be spending all their time in religious services.”

I wonder if McCleary is aware that these policy recommendations are being taken seriously. From Ghana comes this news

The President of the Volta Region House of Chiefs and Paramount Chief of Asogli traditional area, Togbe Afede XIV has stressed the need for the church to educate its members on the need to work hard and blend their Christian and spiritual growth with work, and avoid spending productive hours on church activities.

He observed that some Christians were spending more of their productive hours at prayer camps and on church activities, than getting involved in socio economic activities, thereby worsening the existing poverty situation in the country.

Togbe Afede, who was addressing the 150th anniversary celebration of the Ho-Kpodzi Evangelical Presbyterian (EP) Church, said "it seems Africans are now worshiping God more than those who introduced the Christian religion to us", saying even though that was the current picture, most Christians in Ghana and Africa were suffering from high level of poverty.

Damian Thompson does not get it

Damian Thompson on the cover up of sexual abuse of children by the Irish Catholic Church:

The greatest scandal, of course, lies in the acts perpetrated by wicked clergy against the innocent. But it’s the secrecy and deceit of the Church authorities that resonates most with me. For, although I was educated by Irish brothers, I can honestly say that I’ve never experienced clerical paedophilia, or even met a priest or brother who was to my knowledge a classic paedophile. But I have encountered, many times, the arrogance of senior clergy who believe that almost anything can be kept secret from the laity if it might “damage the good name of the Church” (ie, inconvenience or embarrass them).

All well said. Except. The greatest scandal is not the individual acts, but the cover up. Without the impulse to protect the name of the church, wicked clergy would have been weeded out instead being passed on to another unsuspecting parish. Without the impulse to protect the name of the church, fewer pedophiles would have entered the priesthood. Without the impulse to present the church as unquestionable there would have been rules to protect children from situations where they could be abused.

The cover up is primary and symptomatic of the structure of the church. The individual acts are secondary.

Doctor calls it like he sees it

Asheville Citizen-Times:

An Asheville eye doctor said he is prepared to go to court against the N.C. Medical Board if it reprimands him for telling a patient she was fat.
...
The patient complained that Sunderhaus poked her thigh and told her she was fat, and scolded her as irresponsible for being unemployed and relying on taxpayers to pay for another pregnancy.
...
The Medical Board ordered Sunderhaus to undergo a psychological evaluation and meet with the board, he said, although he refused to have more extensive physiological tests performed. Sunderhaus said the Medical Board told him it would inform him by letter about any actions they may take against him.

Sunderhaus said he has not had any other complaints against him to the Medical Board and he has never been reprimanded by the board.

Markets in everything - Communion dispenser

Purity Communion Solutions - no irony here - offers a Pez-like dispenser for distribution of communion bread. See the video here.

Don't blame the actuary

Has your local hospital recently shuttered services that where the patients are predominantly on Medicare or Medicaid? There could be a very logical reason.

The Department of Health and Human Services is the home the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Its Office of Actuary recently issued a report on the financial effects of the House healthcare bill.

The Washington Post reports,

A plan to slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending -- one of the biggest sources of funding for President Obama's proposed overhaul of the nation's health-care system -- would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday.

The report, requested by House Republicans, found that Medicare cuts contained in the health package approved by the House on Nov. 7 are likely to prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether.

Congress could intervene to avoid such an outcome, but "so doing would likely result in significantly smaller actual savings" than is currently projected, according to the analysis by the chief actuary for the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid. That would wipe out a big chunk of the financing for the health-care reform package, which is projected to cost $1.05 trillion over the next decade.
...
In the face of greatly increased demand for services, providers are likely to charge higher fees or take patients with better-paying private insurance over Medicaid recipients, "exacerbating existing access problems" in that program, according to the report from Richard S. Foster of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Though the report does not attempt to quantify that impact, Foster writes: "It is reasonable to expect that a significant portion of the increased demand for Medicaid would not be realized."

The excellent economics expositor Greg Mankiw puts it this way:

If a government policy increases the demand for a service, the price of that service tends to rise. If the government prevents prices from rising, shortages develop. The quantity provided is then determined by supply and not demand. In the presence of such excess demand, the result could be a two-tier market structure. Consumers who can somehow pay more than the government-mandated price will be able to purchase the service, while those paying the controlled price may be unable to find a willing supplier.

The laws of economics are like the laws of physics. You can't suspend them.

How do our elected representatives want to deal with the ethical issue they have created? Do they want to face the very real likelihood that the bills being considered what hurt the very people they seek to help? Do they want to be honest that the bills do not pay for themselves?

Clergy Stress

Margaret Treadwell has a great post in today's Episcopal Cafe titled "Managing Stress in Times of Anxiety." She writes, "All of us bear the brunt of some familial anxiety, and searching for its real cause can be of great benefit. But the best way to reduce anxiety is often to increase one’s basic level of differentiation." In other words, how to not let other people's anxiety increase our own.

This is equally true in congregational systems (families), and is of course, what Edwin Friedman's classic book on family systems "Generation To Generation" deals with (Ms. Treadwell studied and worked with Friedman).

I work with a lot of clergy and Episcopal vestries who spend 90% of their time dealing with issues of anxiety in 10% of the congregation. Can we learn to say, as Ms. Treadwell writes, "Where do I begin and end and where does another begin?"

If I, as a church leader, do not have to be responsible for how you heard my sermon, do I have more time to get on with the business of the church - evangelism, sharing the Good News?

Imagination to help the world

Tom Mitchell, writes in the November 5th, Daily News Record (Harrisonburg VA)(subscription required) about Eastern Mennonite University's Spiritual Life Week. Two of the speakers were Tom and Christine Sine, founders of Mustard Seed Associates, a nonprofit multi-denominational alliance headquartered in Seattle. The goal of the organization is to spur people to help others at home and abroad. The Sines were speaking to young adults about these financially fragile times as an opportunity "to help others through service that meets the needs of the less fortunate...We're trying to help college people consider using their lives more to make a difference than a living, " Sine said.

Vestry Elections

Many churches have their annual meetings in December or January, and a big piece of the agenda is often election of new vestry members.

Maybe your church has a wealth of people wanting to serve on the Vestry.
Maybe your church has enough people, often the exact number as the open slots.
Maybe your church has to beat people over the head to get them to serve on the Vestry.

Here are some good rules to follow for leadership recruitment:
1. Those rotating off the Vestry can serve as the nominating committee. Plus the Rector/Vicar.
2. At a meeting (NOT a regular Vestry meeting), begin with prayer for discernment. Then sit down with your parish register and make some notes besides people's names:
a. Who has served within the last 2-3 years and therefore, still needs time off.
b. Who are newcomers to your church? Scratch them off the list of possibilities. Let them get incorporated in other ways before thrusting them onto the Vestry.
c. Who are current program leaders who are not on the Vestry? Which ones do you think may have a call to Vestry leadership? Be sure and check this with your clergy because they often have information about family situations that others do not have.
d. Who are current members/leaders who demonstrate maturity of faith and judgment? Which ones do you think may have a call to Vestry leadership? Be sure and check this with your clergy because they often have information about family situations that others do not have. Note that I say "maturity of faith and judgment."
e. Are there others who you think might have this call and haven't been scratched off the list?

3. Someone on the committee drafts a letter to these people inviting them to consider leadership on the Vestry. Carefully explain the commitment needed from them (meeting days, times and length, other obligations...) AND include what the congregation, wardens and clergy will do for them. Leadership is not a one-way street! Finally, ask for their prayerful consideration of the invitation and say that someone from the nominating committee will call them in a week to discuss.

Circulate the letter via email to others on the nominating committee for their input. Include the Rector/Vicar.

Pray for this list of people.

4. One week later, meet again. Pray. Discuss the list and decide if some people should be removed or others added. Review the letter. Pray. Decide which members of the committee will call which people on the list.
5. Mail the letter.
6. Make phone calls.
7. Re-group is you still do not have enough people to run in the election, and begin again.

This isn't an overnight task! Which is why I'm making this post in early November!

Carolyn Moomaw Chilton is a Congregational Consultant available to help you and your church with issues of leadership development, strategic planning, vestry retreats and staff development. You can contact her by replying to this post.

Making the Grade Isn't about Race

Patrick Welsh, an English teacher at T.C. Williams HS in Alexandria VA, writes in the Washington Post on Sunday, Oct. 18, that he asked his "virtually all-black class of 12th-graders...why don't you guys study like the kids from Africa?" The answers that he got:

"It's because they have fathers who kick their butts and make them study."
"You ask the class, just ask how many of us have our fathers living with us."

And Welsh continues, "When I did, not one hand went up."

His thesis, as it develops, is that the achievement gaps between white and black students is based less on race than on the "gap in familial support and involvement..." in black families.

As the Church struggles to be relevant in the lives of people, and particularly young people, is there a place here for us? What are we doing to strengthen families and help parents help their children?

The Virginia Churchman: February 1979

Virginia Churchman, February 1979, p. 4, "Editor Appointed."

David W. Virtue was appointed interim editor of The Virginia Churchman by Bishop Hall, in consultation with the Communications Committee, effective with the February 1979 edition of the newspaper.

For the past five years he has been religion editor of The Vancouver Province, the heading morning daily in Vancouver, British Columbia. He completed a Master of Christian Studies degree in 1972 at Regent College, University of British Columbia, with a dissertation on "Alexander Solzhenitsyn: A Christian View of Man."

Virtue is married to the former Linda Carol Greenberg of Towson, Maryland. They have a three-year-old son, Jonathan."

Lambeth Public Service Announcement

Now you, too, can follow all the blogging Anglican bishops with one easy click.

Helen Mosher:

Last night at the Episcopal Cafe, we posted links to all the blogs we’re aware of written by Anglican bishops. In a fit of “how am I going to keep up with this,” I created a pipeline of the posts and gave it a single feed, which you can subscribe to here:

http://feeds.feedburner.com/lambethbishops

Hope it’s useful to some of you as well, especially with the Lambeth conference being next week.

This is truly outstanding, Helen. Thanks.

It might be a firehose, but at least it's focused.

Gafconites emerge united?

This was fun to watch. With enemies like these, who needs friends? Are these folks just pathologically angry?
_____________________

Standfirm has behaved in a despicable way! Shame on you for violating the
embargo. You know it was embargoed until the meeting tomorrow. Yet you went
ahead and put it up anyway.
What an awful thing you have done.
[10]
Posted by George Conger on 06-28-2008 at 05:22 PM

It is elsewhere - see Fulcrum ......
[13]
Posted by Martin Reynolds on 06-28-2008 at 05:24 PM

George Conger—what on earth are you talking about??? Fulcrum has had it up forever, along with Ruth Gledhill and Episcopal Cafe.
[14]
Posted by Sarah Hey on 06-28-2008 at 05:25 PM

Note Kendall’s comment about why he is posting it, which is the same reason we did. http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/13784/
[15]
Posted by Sarah Hey on 06-28-2008 at 05:26 PM

Mr. Conger, Fulcrum definitely had the Communique up first because I copied it
there. I am very sorry for your disappointment.
[16]
Posted by Floridian on 06-28-2008 at 05:27 PM

george you have done admirable work this week, good job. Unfortunately the document got out to fulcrum and episcopal cafe and ruth gledhill and then it went all over.
SF had no intention of violating an embargo, there was a big lack of clarity as to when the embargo actually was based on the communication friday night saying the document would be available at 10 p.m. Jerusalem time. Apparently this changed but it was easy to get confused about it, alas.
[17]
Posted by Kendall Harmon on 06-28-2008 at 05:27 PM

Um, I know George Conger isn’t intending to be a troll here. I understand his concerns about the confusion and the breech of embargo. It’s unfortunate.
But, it seems to me the discussion of the embargo could pull the whole thread off topic, which would be highly unfortunate.
[18]
Posted by Karen B. on 06-28-2008 at 05:29 PM

Because others do wrong you should do wrong also? There is no lack of clarity in a
statement that says it is embargoed until 8:00 BST. Fulcrum copied it from
Standfirm and refused to take it down.
[21]
Posted by George Conger on 06-28-2008 at 05:33 PM

#10
George Conger, I believe that Episcopal Cafe the liveral revisionist site had it
up before Stand Firm did! Have you made your disgust known over there as well?
[22]
Posted by One Day Closer on 06-28-2008 at 05:33 PM

It seems academic now? Once it gets out on the internet there is little point
holding an embargo. Many folks won’t know there was an embargo anyway - and if
they did would hardly feel obliged by it - so holding the line becomes futile.
[25]
Posted by Peter on 06-28-2008 at 05:37 PM

No, Fulcrum got it from us. It was my fault. I’ve explained to George in a private email.
[26]
Posted by Greg Griffith on 06-28-2008 at 05:38 PM

Everybody, please lay off George and let’s discuss the statement itself. The situation surrounding the embargo will make for interesting reading one day, but not now.
[27]
Posted by Greg Griffith on 06-28-2008 at 05:39 PM

FWIW - it was most certainly up on Ruth Gledhill’s blog well before it was up on StandFirm. I know this because I did not see it on SF, then went over to Gledhill, saw it, read it, surfed back to SF where it was not yet posted, wrote up a post, tried to post it but couldn’t, then refreshed the page a couple of times, and there it was on SF.
[28]
Posted by jamesw on 06-28-2008 at 05:40 PM

George, Since you are there in Jerusalem with Ruth Gledhill, why don’t you ake her why she didn’t adhere to the embargo and let her know dhow disappointed you are in
her as well! Now on to bigger and better things.....How will this effect Lambeth
if it does at all? Any body game to ponder?
[29]
Posted by One Day Closer on 06-28-2008 at 05:40 PM

Here is the sequence of events. Standfirm publishes first. Fulcrum copies. Episcopal Cafe copies Fulcrum. Look at the time stamps.
Standfirm 4:54 Episcopal Cafe 5:37
Now it is out, the AP has it, and you guys did it. Shame on you for ruining the final day of the conference.
[30]
Posted by George Conger on 06-28-2008 at 05:41 PM

Once it’s posted it’s accessible through internet caches. I had it from bloglines and was mulling over whether to post - decided I didn’t want to do a Virtue so didn’t. However, once SF went live then so did we, fair game at that point.
[31]
Posted by Peter on 06-28-2008 at 05:41 PM

ODC, Ruth is not in Jerusalem any more. Let’s focus on the statement.
[32]
Posted by Greg Griffith on 06-28-2008 at 05:41 PM

Sounds like it was more of a mistake than anything else?
[34]
Posted by Peter on 06-28-2008 at 05:42 PM

George, please check your email from me.
[35]
Posted by Greg Griffith on 06-28-2008 at 05:43 PM

Folks—please get onto topic, thanks. It’s Greg’s fault entirely—The Southern Anglican Women StandFirm Bloggers Association has made this clear on literally thousands of matters here—and I hope that everybody now understands why he merely makes a few minor technical changes occasionally, and why we assigned him the 5 Episcopal Therapists . . .
[36]
Posted by Sarah Hey on 06-28-2008 at 05:44 PM

I did ask a question........How will this effect Lambeth or will it?
[37]
Posted by One Day Closer on 06-28-2008 at 05:44 PM

Sarah Hey ... here is the email I received from Greg Griffith....
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 1:28 AM, Greg Griffith wrote:
I know you assumed we broke the embargo, but it was an honest mistake. I was drafting my post and published it, and immediately removed it. In the 20 seconds that it was up, Bloglines grabbed our RSS feed. Graham grabbed the text from the Bloglines cache. Then Naughton grabbed it from Graham and Ruth followed immediately. We did not “behave despicably.” I made an honest mistake and tried to correct it.
G
[38]
Posted by George Conger on 06-28-2008 at 05:45 PM

Uh George? Are you reading any of the comments here?
[39]
Posted by Sarah Hey on 06-28-2008 at 05:47 PM

You mean . . you had that email and continued posting comments on this thread,
despite Greg’s being at fault, saying that he was at fault, and even though he’s
asked people to talk about the statement?
Wow.
Just wow.
I got it now, George.
[41]
Posted by Sarah Hey on 06-28-2008 at 05:48 PM

You don’t seem to get it do you Sarah. Integrity means doing the right thing, no
matter what the consequences. You are not doing the right thing.
[42]
Posted by George Conger on 06-28-2008 at 05:51 PM

Oh, I get it George—I get you.
Learned a lot on this thread.
[44]
Posted by Sarah Hey on 06-28-2008 at 05:53 PM

George, it seems that it was a mistake, not intentional. Not amatter of integrity, more a matter of finger trouble and overzealous blog cache software. I am sorry
that this happened, but it can’t really be undone now?
[45]
Posted by Peter on 06-28-2008 at 05:55 PM

Sarah, lets’ talk about the statement. []...
[46]
Posted by obadiahslope on 06-28-2008 at 05:55 PM

Well
spotted George Conger, I apologise for trying to point elsewhere I see you have
a very good point.
[47]
Posted by Martin Reynolds on 06-28-2008 at 05:57 PM

The integrity comes in by keeping it up. You know you have done wrong. You can fix it by taking this posting down. Sarah, I am happy to play the snide games with you and to compare my work in the trenches to yours. However, this is a question of principle, and it is hypocritical to take others to task for lack of principle when you are at fault.
A mistake was made in posting it. The bad act was putting it back up, even though you knew it to be wrong, when others copied it from you. Two actions here ... and I am talking about the second ... putting it back up when you knew you should not have.
[48]
Posted by George Conger on 06-28-2008 at 05:59 PM

Mr. Conger,
This discussion should be taken off line. You are not at the center
of the Church and neither is Greg. God’s will for us is that the GAFCON
statement was released here first.
Thanks be to God.
[49]
Posted by Dr. N. on 06-28-2008 at 06:03 PM

RE: “Sarah, I am happy to play the snide games with you and to compare my work in
the trenches to yours.”
I’m not—I couldn’t care less about either *my* or *your* “work in the trenches” . . . [roll eyes] . . .
If you think that it is wrong to post this post right here [setting aside Greg’s initial accidental post that got picked up] then make sure you tell Kendall also to take his down and that he also has no integrity. Fulcrum too . . . I don’t think
Kendall—or Greg—lacks integrity. But again . . . I’ve learned alot by
observation of this thread right here, George.
And thankfully . . . others are too.
[50]
Posted by Sarah Hey on 06-28-2008 at 06:05 PM

Mr. Conger, Thank you for your participation at Stand Firm, however, the subject of
the early posting is now off-topic. Greg made an honest mistake. The post is now
all over the blog. There is no way to unring the bell. To all - Please remain on
topic in discussing the statement and there is a lot for us to discuss.
[51]
Posted by Jackie on 06-28-2008 at 06:08 PM

George, So much bitterness. The fact of the matter is that the cheese is out of the can, and nothing’s going to change that.
StandFirm can take down the post, but that would have zero effect. Actually, the effect would be worse than zero, as most of us here would rather not have to go to Episcopal Cafe to get our news.
Soooo, we can all rejoice in the content of the GAFCON statement, or we can
just sit around listening to you exercise your ego over an honest mistake.
[52]
Posted by Fr. Andrew Gross on 06-28-2008 at 06:08 PM

I did ask Kendall Harmon to take his posting down, both in a comment and in an email. Whether he does or not will speak to the issue.
[54]
Posted by George Conger on 06-28-2008 at 06:10 PM

I guess I’m missing something here. I got sent the e-mail too and saw the time and
put it up. What does GMT mean? I thought it was Greenwich time, when is London
Time which means it’s 5:00 p.m. East Coast Time? This is what was sent to
me:
Press Release
Embargoed till 10:00 /8:00 GMT June 29, 2008
28
June 2008
Final GAFCON statement
We apologize that it has taken a bit longer to finalize the final draft of the GAFCON statement.
A printed version of the statement will be presented and read to the pilgrims in the
plenary on Sunday June 29, at 9.45am, for a brief final review and adoption.
There will be a press briefing at 2.00pm in the Delila Room of the
Renaissance Hotel.
What does 10:00/8:00 GMT mean - 10:00 where? 8:00 where?
I don’t even know what 2:00 p.m. means - London Time? Washington Time? Is
Jerusalem on London Time?
Maybe we can just be careful with each other and watch out and not throw accusations at our brothers and sisters right now. No one knows another person’s heart. We’re all trying as hard as we can to cover GAFCON and the statement is FANTASTIC. Absolutely fantastic. Jesus is Lord.
Obviously, we are all on Holy Spirit Time, not GMT. That’s one thing I think
we know for sure.
bb
[55]
Posted by BabyBlue on 06-28-2008 at 06:11 PM

Hmm, fair point George. It would be academic, but right to take it down - if SF had
agreed to the embargo before receiving the document.
That aside, it’s a great statement and I am very grateful for the work the Lord has done here!
[56]
Posted by Peter on 06-28-2008 at 06:12 PM

BB—note the date—the 29th.
[57]
Posted by Sarah Hey on 06-28-2008 at 06:13 PM

Babyblue, GMT is Greenwich Merdian Time! Across the Thames!
[58]
Posted by One Day Closer on 06-28-2008 at 06:14 PM

George, I don’t see the comment from you at T19.
??
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/13784
[60]
Posted by Sarah Hey on 06-28-2008 at 06:16 PM

So, y’all are fighting among yourselves already?! What embargo, don’t need no stupid
embargo (says someone who knows nothing about the subject.)
Now from the NASCAR Province statement on this historic moment: We see this as a parallel Anglican organization of Bible/True Gospel believers and aloof from the
apostacy. There will be overlap with TEC and COE but no authoritavive
connection. It will also consist of anglicans outside TEC and/or ABC. The
question now is how will the Global Anglican Communion practice discipline? Any
organization has to have a process of credentialing membership and a method to
expell from membership. Guess they will do that soon. Since the two groups will
drift apart after a while, another question is what will TEC/ABC do about the
new group within their area? Probably nothing except 815 may feel obligated to
bring litigation since that is their distinctive. Thus endeth the Encyclical of
NASCAR HOLY SEE
[61]
Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 06-28-2008 at 06:19 PM

Yes George, that would appear to be the only thing that HAS come off T19
[62]
Posted by Martin Reynolds on 06-28-2008 at 06:19 PM

Oh, just saw the date! Good heavens. Today is June 28, tomorrow is June 29. See, I misunderstood the e-mail, too. I think we’re safe to say that it was posted in good faith.
I think it’s also safe to say that we’re all on Holy Spirit Time (HST) now. He is rather notorious for not sticking to man-made schedules, isn’t He?
bb
[63]
Posted by BabyBlue on 06-28-2008 at 06:19 PM

This is an important post and thread. Could the moderators clear it of the “off-topic” stuff.
GMT is London Time (US Eastern Daylight time + 4 hours). 8:00 am in
London is 10:00 am in Jerusalem and 4:00 am in New York. 2:00 pm (1400 hrs) in
Jerusalem is noon in London and 7:00 am in New York.
[65]
Posted by Dr. N. on 06-28-2008 at 06:21 PM

Here in London it is 29th June 00:27 Summer Saving which is GMT+1. A plea that this
thing not be birthed in rancour but any sorting out be done off-line.
[68]
Posted by Pageantmaster on 06-28-2008 at 06:27 PM


In this day and age, if you want something embargoed, you don’t give it to the media.
Back on topic, a very interesting statement. I look forward to seeing how things play out.
At some point, if those more knowledgeable could talk about some of the significant differences between 1662 and, say, 1928 TEC, that would be helpful.
[72]
Posted by DavidH on 06-28-2008 at 06:32 PM

We did not agree to an embargo before we got the document. No embargo was ever mentioned until the statement came through.
The subject line of the email from GAFCON was: “Final GAFCON statement”
Attached was a PDF. I opened the PDF, copied the text, and posted it.
We had been told in a media advisory that the statement would be RELEASED at 2pm Central time. When the email came through at 3:46, I assumed they were just finally getting out to releasing it.
When I realized that in the body of the email GAFCON had requested it be embargoed, I
pulled the post down. It was up for perhaps 20 seconds total.
In that time, Bloglines grabbed the text from our RSS feed, which is automatically updated whenever a post is made. The rest is, unfortunately, played out all over the
blogs.
But if you think we’re going to try and unring this bell, forget it.
The post stays up. Pile on me if you want, George. I made an honest mistake,
which I think is understandable given the surrounding circumstances. Won’t be
the first time I’ve taken this kind of heat, won’t be the last.
[73]
Posted by Greg Griffith on 06-28-2008 at 06:34 PM

I’ll take comments on this matter, and offer more details as to exactly what happened, at contact - at - standfirminfaith - dot - com. I’ll regard subsequent comments on the embargo as off-topic. Otherwise, please return
to the topic of the statement.
[77]
Posted by Greg Griffith on 06-28-2008 at 06:39 PM

I could give a flying #@$@ about all this garbage about
who released what when. I am interested in thoughts about the statement. What
thread ahould we follow since this one has wasted 50 postings on
meaninglessness?
[78]
Posted by R. Scott Purdy on 06-28-2008 at 06:39 PM
_________________________

For the record, Episcopal Cafe grabbed the statement off via the mistaken early posting by Stand Firm.

If everything is black and white....

... why do you need to make color copies anyway?

Julia Duin in Sunday's Washington Times

Many have tried to take their (sic) property with them, including 11 congregations in northern Virginia. These 11 are being sued by the Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia.
...
Today, the Rev. John Yates, rector of the Falls Church, the largest of the 11 congregations at 2,500 members, will ask congregants for a "one-time special sacrificial gift" - his words - to make up for a $300,000 shortfall in contributions.

The church recently slashed its $6 million budget by 5.4 percent.
...
Neal Brown, the rector of St. Margaret's Anglican Church in Woodbridge - formerly St. Margaret's Episcopal - said his congregation of 170 souls eked out $40,000 from their operating budget for legal fees.

"Things are so bad, we can't make any color copies on our copy machine," he told me.
Jim Oakes, vice president of the ADV, says there has been talk of "going to the wider Christian community" to plead for funds. This could get interesting.

"The Episcopal Church seems to be determined to take this until the bitter end," he said. "We are concerned about how we'll handle this next round around the track. We don't have many deep pockets underwriting this."

Emphasis added.

Can you say, IRD? How about Following the Money?

Fitness of Darwinian theory

Opponents of the teaching of the theory evolution want to add three little words to textbooks: "strengths and weaknesses." There's something ironic in an unwitting way about opponents applying Darwinian logic to attack Darwian logic.

From the New York Times

DALLAS — Opponents of teaching evolution, in a natural selection of sorts, have gradually shed those strategies that have not survived the courts. Over the last decade, creationism has given rise to “creation science,” which became “intelligent design,” which in 2005 was banned from the public school curriculum in Pennsylvania by a federal judge.

Now a battle looms in Texas over science textbooks that teach evolution, and the wrestle for control seizes on three words. None of them are “creationism” or “intelligent design” or even “creator.”

The words are “strengths and weaknesses.”

Starting this summer, the state education board will determine the curriculum for the next decade and decide whether the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution should be taught. The benign-sounding phrase, some argue, is a reasonable effort at balance. But critics say it is a new strategy taking shape across the nation to undermine the teaching of evolution, a way for students to hear religious objections under the heading of scientific discourse.

Jumping to conclusions

Paranoia runs deep in the land of CANA. (Dateline May 29, 2008)

Prior installment here.

When is a nonprofit not a nonprofit?

How much wealth can an organization accumulate and still be considered a charity? The New York Times

Authorities from the local tax assessor to members of Congress are increasingly challenging the tax-exempt status of nonprofit institutions — ranging from small group homes to wealthy universities — questioning whether they deserve special treatment.

One issue is the growing confusion over what constitutes a charity at a time when nonprofit groups look more like businesses, charging fees and selling products and services to raise money, and state and local governments are under financial pressure because of lower tax revenues.

And there are others: Does a nonprofit hospital give enough charity care to earn a tax exemption? Is a wealthy university providing enough financial aid?
...
Congress has threatened to impose a requirement that wealthy universities make minimum payouts from their endowments and raised questions about whether nonprofit hospitals are really all that different from their for-profit — and tax-paying — competitors.

And, concerned about the way some churches are spending money, the Senate Finance Committee has asked for detailed financial information from six evangelical ministries asking them to justify their tax exemptions.

Others are questioning whether some tax-exempt nonprofits, primarily universities and hospitals, have accumulated so much wealth that they should no longer be considered charities. In Massachusetts, where Harvard’s endowment has reached $35 billion in assets, legislators are weighing whether to impose a 2.5 percent annual assessment on universities with endowments of more than $1 billion.

The idea behind tax exemptions is that the organizations provide a public service or substantially reduce the burdens of government. Standards from property-tax exemptions are set by the states, while the federal exemption means charities are not taxed on their income.

Donors may ask the same questions. Why give to an organization that is accumulating wealth rather than using it?

Carroll Bogert, the associate director of Human Rights Watch, and a member of the Harvard class of 1983, in an op-ed in the New York Times

At Harvard, where I’m on my way for my 25th reunion, I’d have to be drunk to fall for their pitch. The university’s endowment stands at $35 billion and is likely to hit $100 billion in a decade.
...
If you ask Harvard’s president, Drew Gilpin Faust, why in the world she needs your $1,000 — as I did recently, at one of those pre-reunion cocktail parties in someone’s staggering Fifth Avenue duplex — she has a ready answer: alumni giving covers one-third of Harvard’s operating budget. What she doesn’t mention is that earnings from the endowment last year could cover the entire operating budget while still growing at a healthy rate.
...
A few hundred alumni have formed Harvard Alumni for Social Action, to try to channel 25th-reunion giving to destitute universities in Africa. In three years, we’ve raised $425,000 — a lot for the University of Dar es Salaam but hardly a match for our annual class “gift.” And evidently not enough to win the respect of President Faust, who has begged off meeting the group. Harvard clearly doesn’t like any effort that might divert a dollar away from its Cambridge coffers.

And what about churches that spend more on inreach than outreach -- where inreach includes plush facilities that make it difficult to distinguish the institution from a private club? Some churches do -- in my opinion -- abuse the tax privileges afforded them under the cover of separation of church and state.