Ecumenical Insanity

Saturday, March 20th

Sham trial ends, lesbian pastor acquited

The United Methodist Church ceased being an organized denomination earlier today when a church court solemnly declared that black is white, up is down, and English is an incomprehensible language no longer spoken by the descendents of Wesley. CNN reports as follows:

A lesbian Methodist pastor was acquitted Saturday in a church trial over her sexual orientation, and will be allowed to continue her ministry.

After about 10 hours of deliberations, a jury of 13 pastors ruled in favor of the Rev. Karen Dammann, 47, who disclosed three years ago that she was in a homosexual relationship.

Church law prohibits the ordination of self-avowed, practicing homosexuals and the church's Book of Discipline declares homosexuality to be "incompatible to Christian teachings." But the church's social principles support gay rights and liberties.

The jury issued a statement saying the church "did not present sufficient clear and convincing evidence to sustain the charge."

Putting Dammann's statement that she's involved with a woman (not to mention her "wedding" in Portland last week to that same woman) together with the Discipline's declaration that "Since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be accepted as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church" was apparently beyond the capabilities of the jury, which conducted its deliberations in a combination of Esperanto, Klingon, and pig Latin. Not that it would have mattered. Here's what some of the other principals had to say:

Bishop Elias Galvan, who brought the charge against Dammann: "I think the jury was looking for a way to be faithful to the Book of Discipline and I think they did that. As soon as she's able to return to ministry, we'll welcome her and appoint her."

The Rev. James Finkbeiner, who served as "prosecutor": After the verdict, Finkbeiner said he believed the jury overstepped the bounds of church law. "And I don't feel bad about that. Our process is fair." Then, with permission from Methodist Bishop Elias Galvan, Finkbeiner spoke for himself, adding, "I'm glad I lost, on a personal basis."

The jury: ...said it made its decision "after many hours of painful and prayerful deliberations, and listening for and to the word of God."

Now that the Book of Discipline has been disposed of as the governing law of the UMC, another text must be substituted. My nominee: Through the Looking Glass.
Athanasius on 03.20.04 @ 11:18 PM EST [link]

Friday, March 19th

Can't start 'em young enough

From WorldNetDaily comes this heart-warming story of our educational system in action.

A North Carolina couple is outraged by a book their first-grade daughter brought home from the school library in which a prince finds his true love–in the form of another prince.

The leading character in King & King, Prince Bertie, waves off a bevy of eligible princesses before falling for Prince Lee, Associated Press reported. The book ends with the two "marrying" and sharing a kiss.

"I was flabbergasted," Michael Hartsell of Wilmington, N.C., told the news service. "My child is not old enough to understand something like that, especially when it is not in our beliefs."

AP reports the 32-page book by Linda De Haan and Stern Nijland was published in March 2002 by Tricycle Press, the children's division of Ten Speed Press of Berkeley, Calif. A follow-up, King & King & Family, was recently published. The publisher says the book is intended for readers age 6 and up.

The principal of Freeman Elementary School defended the book.

"What might be inappropriate for one family, in another family is a totally acceptable thing," Principal Elizabeth Miars is quoted as saying.

Hartsell and his wife, Tonya, said they intend to file a written complaint with the committee that reviews library books for the district and are considering transferring their daughter.

And you thought this kind of thing only went on in New York and San Francisco.

(Hat tip: Reepicheep)
Athanasius on 03.19.04 @ 10:59 PM EST [link]

Waiting for an apology...

...though I doubt that any will be forthcoming from Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, Frank Rich of the New York Times, Christopher Hitchens, or any of the other people who predicted that The Passion of the Christ would bring about another Kristallnacht. According to the San Francisco Chronicle:

Despite fears that it could promote anti-Semitism, the new film by Mel Gibson The Passion of the Christ may have made Americans less likely to blame Jews for the death of Jesus, according to a new survey.

Among those interviewed for a new national poll who had seen or knew about the film, 83 percent said the movie and its surrounding controversy had no effect on the extent they believe contemporary Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus. Only 2 percent said the movie made them more likely to blame Jews, while 9 percent said the movie made them less likely to hold Jews responsible.

The poll by the Institute for Jewish and Community Research in San Francisco surveyed 1,003 randomly selected adults from March 5 to 9. The margin of error was 3.7 percentage points.

Jewish and liberal Christian leaders who were all up in arms about the "anti-Semitic message" supposedly embedded in The Passion ought to be thanking Gibson for this effect. I don't imagine that's any more likely than an apology, though.
Athanasius on 03.19.04 @ 08:38 PM EST [link]

Humpty Dumpty: man in purple

Called as a witness in the Karen Dammann gay pastor trial, a retired bishop of the United Methodist Church, Jack Tuell, is quoted by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer saying this:

"In my considered opinion and judgment, the United Methodist Church has never declared the practice of homosexuality to be incompatible with Christian teaching," said Jack Tuell, a retired bishop viewed by many as a top authority on the church's rulebook, the Book of Discipline.

Paragraph 65g of the Book of Discipline, however, says this:

Homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth. All persons need the ministry and guidance of the church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self. Although we do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching, we affirm that God's grace is available to all. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons.

Paragraph 304. 3 of the Discipline says this:

While persons set apart by the Church for ordained ministry are subject to all the frailties of the human condition and the pressures of society, they are required to maintain the highest standards of holy living in the world. Since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be accepted as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.

Illiteracy is a tragic thing. So is dishonesty. Thanks be to God, there is help for both. Get some before it's too late, ok, bishop?
Athanasius on 03.19.04 @ 04:23 PM EST [link]

What, me err?

Karen Dammann, on trial for violating the United Methodist Discipline's prohibition on practicing gay clergy, was quoted today saying:

"God called me into ordained ministry and I just can't believe that God makes a mistake," she said during a break in the trial.

She's right, of course–God doesn't make mistakes. But do you suppose it has ever once occurred to her that maybe, just maybe, she has made a mistake in thinking that God has called her into the ministry?
Athanasius on 03.19.04 @ 03:51 PM EST [link]

Thursday, March 18th

Stuart Smalley, activist

The King County (WA) Journal reported today about the SoulForce protest that took place outside the church where United Methodist pastor Karen Dammann is being tried for violating the disciplinary prohibition on active homosexuals serving in Methodist ministry. A quote from one of the protesters goes a long way toward demonstrating just how bankrupt this movement is:

"It's a great day for going to jail," said the Rev. Phil Lawson, 71, a veteran civil rights activist and retired United Methodist minister. "I've resisted injustice and that makes me feel great."

Bonhoeffer, King, and Gandhi all just rolled over in their graves and shouted, "CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE ISN'T ABOUT YOU!!!"
Athanasius on 03.18.04 @ 10:20 PM EST [link]

Oh, so that's why they did it

Some Christian clerics know exactly who's reponsible for the over 200 deaths of innocent people in Madrid last week: us.

Some members of the clergy have condemned the Iraq war, and expressed regret that it was behind the bombings in Madrid. In an address during the Sunday service at St Andrew’s Church, Rugby, the Rev Mark Beach said: "The people of Madrid are reaping the fruits of our intolerance towards those of different races and religions. The war in Iraq was never going to solve the problems of that region but instead inflamed Arab people all over the world to new heights of anger towards the west."

"Blame the victim" isn't normally a Christian approach to cold-blooded mass murder, but if it gives us a chance to attack the West, some will go for it every time. Rev. Beach might have also explained how the war in Iraq provoked the bombing of the World Trade Center, but never got around to it. We'll look for that next Sunday.

Thanks to Christopher Johnson for providing the link.
Athanasius on 03.18.04 @ 10:02 PM EST [link]

Lesbian pastor's trial starts, silliness makes early appearance

The trial of United Methodist pastor Karen Dammann, accused of violating the church's prohibition on active gays in the ministry, began Friday in Seattle. According to this AP story, one of Dammann's witnesses made an interesting comparison between the trial and Jesus' crucifixion:

One of her first witnesses Wednesday was Mary Ann Tolbert, a professor of biblical studies at Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, Calif., and executive director of its Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies.

Tolbert said the church is inconsistent in how it applies its Book of Discipline. At one time, for example, divorce was not allowed, but the church has since changed its stance, she said.

"It seems to me that, with all due respect, you are acting as a hypocrite," she said.

This has got to be garbled by the reporter. Surely Tolbert is not so dumb as to not understand the distinction between changing the Discipline and ignoring it.

Tolbert reminded the jurors that Jesus was killed because he disagreed with the religious norms of his time.

Do you suppose anyone will head up to Seattle to protest Tolbert's obvious accusation of "deicide" directed at the Jews of Jesus' day? I mean, what did the Romans care about Jewish "religious norms"?

I also wonder why people like Tolbert seem so incapable of understanding the difference between form and substance. Jesus was not crucified because He "disagreed with the religious norms of his time." Lots of people had religious disagreements within first century Judaism. What does she think the divisions between Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes were about, the proper way to prepare lox?

Look, here are a few other examples of people who "disagree with the religious norms" of today's United Methodist Church: skinheads, Neo-Nazis, Klansmen, anti-Semites, polygamists, atheists, and worshippers of Gozer. Should David Duke be ordained and lionized in the UMC because he "disagrees with the religious norms" set down in the Discipline?

"We have to be very careful, you have to be very careful, that you don't replicate the crucifixion of Jesus in what you do," she said.

As far as I know, no one has ever been killed for not abiding by the Methodist Discipline. And as far as I can discern, losing your ordination is not really the same thing as execution. But this kind of melodramatic victim-mongering is standard fare in the religious gay rights movement. Dr. Tolbert no doubt had to be carried from the church with an acute case of the vapors.
Athanasius on 03.18.04 @ 02:49 PM EST [link]

Wednesday, March 17th

Finally!

Ok. This is the real deal. Automatic updating, the whole nine yards. You know how to do it, so do it! Subscribe now!
Athanasius on 03.17.04 @ 11:07 PM EST [link]

Trying again

Well, I've had problems again with the RSS feed. Trying Feedster this time. We'll see how it goes. I'll get back to y'all in a minute.
Athanasius on 03.17.04 @ 11:02 PM EST [link]

Proof that not all lawyers are bad

All joking aside, there are plenty of good lawyers–people who take their jobs, and the law seriously. One such is Barry Adamson, from Lake Oswego, Oregon, who in today's Oregonian takes on the lunacy driving Multnomah County to nullify state marriage law:

A cting with a hysterical dispatch so utterly foreign to local government, Multnomah County unilaterally pronounced a state law–not, mind you, merely a county ordinance–"unconstitutional" and, worse still, decided to not just ignore it but to authorize governmental conduct squarely contrary to the law. Moron that I must be, I had always understood that, at least within this country's legal framework, only the courts have been empowered to render those kinds of determinations. At least the courts have long declared just that.

Thus, within our system of laws it remains the obligation of governmental entities to enforce and uphold the laws our legislators enact. But not for Multnomah County, which believes that it alone may declare those state laws by which it will abide. In the light of reality that never seems to shine on Multnomah County, that kind of anarchistic blather at least serves to inform the public of the all-too-apparent ineptitude of those who enable such absurdity. At least the county stands in celebrated company. Its maniacal defiance of the law mirrors Mississippi's stance when James Meredith attempted to enroll at the University of Mississippi in 1962. Gov. Ross Barnett informed all who would listen that Mississippi alone would determine what laws it would observe, and that it would darn well refuse to abide by any federal law that might otherwise compel it to enroll Meredith. Who can forget President Kennedy's common-sense retort: "Americans are free, in short, to disagree with the law but not to disobey it." Except, apparently, for Multnomah County.

Mr. Adamson ends his piece by asking the rhetorical question, "Who's in charge in this state?" The answer: a collection of pre-adolescents who were never told "no" by their parents, and who are determined not to take "no" for an answer from anyone–not even the law.
Athanasius on 03.17.04 @ 05:13 PM EST [link]

Tuesday, March 16th

Partisan, perhaps? Crazy, maybe?

Anybody out there know the rules regarding church-related organizations working with partisan political ones? I was wondering because earlier this evening, I came across something called the Win without War Coalition. It's calling for President Bush to be censured for misleading the American people about Iraq (next up: polygraphing the French, German, and Russian intelligence services to find out why they thought there were WMDs in Iraq). Anyway, here's a selection of the religious participants in the WWWC:

National Council of Churches
United Methodist Board of Church and Society
United Church of Christ
American Friends Service Committee
Pax Christi (national Catholic peace movement)
Unitarian Universalist Association

Now here's a selection of political organizations:

Council for a Livable World
Feminist Majority Foundation
MoveOn.org
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
WorkingAssets

The religious organizations above are careful not to explicitly endorse candidates. But they are working closely with a wide variety of left-wing organizations, some of them genuinely wacko, in a variety of settings. Another example of this is United for Peace and Justice, which includes in its coalition:

National Council of Churches
General Board of Global Ministries United Methodist Church
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee
Pax Christi
Council of Churches of the City of New York
Church Women United (NCC)

They are yoked with:

Communist Party USA
National Lawyers Guild
League of Revolutionaries for a New America
Pacifica Foundation
Socialist Party USA
Workers Party, USA
Young Communist League, USA
House of The Goddess Center for Pagan Wombyn (my favorite)

Your choice, mainliners. If you're comfortable with your churches throwing in with the CPUSA and the pagan wombyn, keep those checks flowing. If not, maybe you should ask your denominational officials what the NCC is doing marching alongside the loonies.
Athanasius on 03.16.04 @ 09:06 PM EST [link]

What's a law or two between friends

Two New York state Unitarian ministers have been charged with marrying people without a valid licence. The couples in question were all gay. New York state doesn't recognize marriage licenses between people of the same sex. According to the Washington Post:

An attorney for the two ministers, Robert C. Gottlieb, said they will plead not guilty and demand a jury trial on the misdemeanor charges, which carry a possible penalty of a year in prison and $500 in fines on each count.

"We will let the good people of New Paltz decide whether these two ministers are really criminals," he said. "They did not violate the law. Their only intention was to uphold the law, the Constitution and the right to be free from discrimination. The only people who violated the law here are the clerks who refused to issue the licenses."

So much for the noble tradition of civil disobedience, where one violates an unjust law and then pays the penalty as a means of sparking change. These two clowns want to be hailed as heroes without being convicted of the crime, which they freely admit they committed. For them to contend that "they did not violate the law" is to demand the right to break the law with impunity whenever their consciences are sufficiently aroused. To which I can't help but say: Do the crime, do the time.

Athanasius on 03.16.04 @ 05:14 PM EST [link]

Monday, March 15th

Are sub-Saharan Africans not black?

Episcopal Bishop William Swing is from San Francisco, which probably already tells you all you need to know about him. But he reveals a bit more in a letter to clergy, in a piece that Christopher Johnson at MCJ thoroughly roasts. I only have one thing to add to Chris' treatment. Bishop Swing is playing "let's pretend" as a not-so-clever way of attacking those who don't cotton to Gene Robinson in purple, and throws in this line about the new conservative Network:

"Let’s pretend that even though the newest separating scheme, entitled Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Congregations, is not headed by any women or black bishops, the Network’s genius is not tainted by sexism or racism."

The accusation of sexism is nonsense, of course–there are no theologically conservative women bishops in ECUSA, so the lack of them is a matter of self-selection (that and the fact that conservative women priests tend to go nowhere career-wise). The accusation of racism, however, is positively slanderous. Who does Swing think are the biggest supporters of NACDC, Swedes? The fact that American evangelical and Anglo-Catholic bishops have been working hand-in-glove with bishops from Africa, Latin America, and Asia, men who support them unequivocally, and who are joined in joyful service with them–that fact just simply doesn't exist for Swing. It's as though a little bell goes off in his head–they don't agree with me, must be racist, must be racist–and the rhetorical impulse just operates on automatic.

Oh, but wait–I forgot. For folks like Swing, African bishops are just primitives, still wallowing in the superstitions that Christ is humanity's savior, that He calls us to holiness, and that homosexuality is not the greatest gift God has ever given to humanity. Their support doesn't count.
Athanasius on 03.15.04 @ 09:40 PM EST [link]

I'm syndicated!

Finally, thanks to Stephen Downes and his terrific, understandable article "How to Create an RSS Feed With Notepad, a Web Server, and a Beer" (I skipped the beer, but otherwise took his advice), I've now got a working RSS syndication feed. So, for Rev. Mike and the other folks who have been hoping I would overcome my technological incompetence and put this final touch on EI, here it is!
Athanasius on 03.15.04 @ 06:06 PM EST [link]

Sunday, March 14th

Schism or heresy, again

Virginia Episcopal Bishop Peter Lee is not the only ECUSA leader who is touting the line, "if you have to choose between schism and heresy, choose heresy." Here's Atlanta Bishop J. Neil Alexander in a recent letter to his diocese, in which he condemned members of two churches who are leaving to form new congregations under the Anglican Mission in America:

Schism breeds schism. It always has. I hold in mind the great wisdom of the ancient church: if you have to choose between heresy and schism, choose heresy. For heresy is, in the end, just an opinion. and opinions come and go. Schism tears the fabric of the Body of Christ and is irreparable. For those deeply committed to the body of Christ, breaking fellowship is never a faithful option.

I defy Alexander, absolutely dare him, to offer one quote from an orthodox Father of the Church that says heresy is preferable to schism, or that it is a trivial matter of "opinion." Instead, we read stuff like this:

St. Ignatius of Antioch: "Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism [i.e., is a schismatic], he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine [i.e., is a heretic], he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons" (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]).

St. Jerome: "Heretics bring sentence upon themselves since they by their own choice withdraw from the Church, a withdrawal which, since they are aware of it, constitutes damnation. Between heresy and schism there is this difference: that heresy involves perverse doctrine, while schism separates one from the Church on account of disagreement with the bishop. Nevertheless, there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church" (Commentary on Titus 3:10–11 [A.D. 386]).

St. Lactantius: "It is, therefore, the Catholic Church alone which retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth; this, the domicile of faith; this, the temple of God. Whoever does not enter there or whoever does not go out from there, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. . . . Because, however, all the various groups of heretics are confident that they are the Christians and think that theirs is the Catholic Church, let it be known that this is the true Church, in which there is confession and penance and which takes a health-promoting care of the sins and wounds to which the weak flesh is subject" (Divine Institutes 4:30:11–13 [A.D. 307]).

St. Augustine: "We believe also in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church. For heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God; and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor" (Faith and the Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]).

St. Augustine: "The apostle Paul said, 'As for a man that is a heretic, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him' [Titus 3:10]. But those who maintain their own opinion, however false and perverted, without obstinate ill will, especially those who have not originated the error of bold presumption, but have received it from parents who had been led astray and had lapsed...those who seek the truth with careful industry and are ready to be corrected when they have found it, are not to be rated among heretics" (Letters 43:1 [A.D. 412]).

Schism is a terrible sin, as is heresy. Heresy of necessity results in schism, because the heretic separates himself from the Church Catholic. But it is also the case that in the early church, groups and individuals would readily separate themselves from those in power if they fell into heresy (see my namesake and his relationship to the See of Alexandria when it was controlled by Arians, for instance), and they did so in accordance with New Testament teaching (Galatians 1:8-9, for example, or 2 John 7-10). Given that the Anglican Church is itself the product of a separationist movement, it ill behooves Bp. Alexander to decry those who would separate themselves from him for far better reason than Henry VIII did from the Pope.
Athanasius on 03.14.04 @ 05:30 PM EST [link]