Ecumenical Insanity

Saturday, March 27th

LSD used to have the same effect on people

The Edmonton Journal has an interview with "arguably Canada's most celebrated" theologian (the Canada part is why you've never heard of him), Tom Harpur, professor of New Testament at the University of Toronto. He has a new book out called The Pagan Christ, and he has some earth-shaking, mind-boggling, world-changing news:

In his brief, many of the characters and stories of the Bible, including the very life, death by crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, have appeared much earlier, beginning with the ancient Egyptians and moving through the Greco-Roman Pagan religions among others. In a massive coverup that spread across the first three centuries of the church, leaders systematically destroyed as many references to past similarities as possible. Aiming at the lowest common denominator, they began repackaging and re-branding sacred allegories, myths, imagery, parables and metaphors originally derived from ancient mystery plays as literal biblical "history." For his part, Harpur has "grave doubts" that Jesus lived at all.

Calling Marty McFly: your time traveling DeLorean has been stolen by a UT prof who used it to go forward to the past–say, about 1870. Calling Dan Brown: somebody's been plagiarizing parts of The Da Vinci Code. Better contact your lawyer. Calling Dr. Shrinkmeister: Tom Harpur's off his meds again. He's babbling about Vatican conspiracies, and it sounds like he's accusing the Pope of being a thespian.

The (latest) good news in what Harpur calls cosmic Christianity–in his view an answer to declining church membership in North America and Europe–lies in nurturing the Christ within every human heart. For Harpur, seeing matters large and small through this newly discovered prism has made his faith stronger, more liberated, profound.

Hey, Doc, you've got to do something about this guy. Now he's claiming he's Christ. I'd swear he was just one of those New Age nutballs, but he sounds like he means it.

At the risk of seeming flip, I ask Harpur, who lives in the undeniable God's country around Ontario's Georgian Bay, how something this big could have eluded history's greatest intellects, not to mention his own decades of personal and professional study and reflection.

"People have long studied Christianity in isolation, which has led to an extraordinarily warped perspective. And there has been this terrible superiority complex–Christians are the best, the smartest. Any suggestion that (basic tenets) should be examined more deeply have been laughed at and suppressed to the point that questions haven't been asked. I do think that the Vatican knows secrets it will not reveal.

We're gonna need the straight jacket any minute, Doc. He's talking about being smarter than "history's greatest intellects," seeing things no one else can see, discovering the secret of invisibility...oh, Lord, this is serious, Doc, he's threatening to use his secret decoder ring to contact the aliens and get himself beamed outta here. Get the hypo, Doc, before it's too late!
Athanasius on 03.27.04 @ 09:43 PM EST [link]

Moral equivalence with a vengeance

According to South African Broadcasting, Njongonkulu Ndungane, the Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, today made a statement that beggars the imagination. In the course of criticizing a speech by George Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, he said the following:

"There is no doubt that the world has been shocked by the recent suicide attacks in the Middle East, the terrorist attack which left hundreds dead in Spain after the bombing of commuter trains, and the killing of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the leader of Hamas, in Palestine," Ndungane said in a statement.

He makes no attempt to distinguish between suicide attacks on civilians, massive bombings of civilian transportation, and the killing of a terrorist leader. Imagine if there were news from Afghanistan tomorrow, and South African Broadcasting were to report the following:

"There is no doubt that the world has been shocked by the recent suicide attacks in the Middle East, the terrorist attack which left hundreds dead in Spain after the bombing of commuter trains, and the killing of Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, in Afghanistan," Ndungane said in a statement.

Shocked! Shocked, I say! Shocked that the South African Anglican Church is saddled with a "spiritual leader" who can't tell the difference between terrorism and self-defense.

(Thanks to Chris Johnson of MCJ for the link.)
Athanasius on 03.27.04 @ 02:44 PM EST [link]

Thursday, March 25th

WCC: Don't touch terrorists

I don't know why it took them so long, but the bureaucrats in Geneva finally delivered themselves of their judgement against Israel for killing Hamas terror master Sheik Yassin. From Peter Weiderud, director of the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, here it is in full:

Through the targeted assassination of Sheikh Yassin, Israel has chosen to violate international law once again. This action fosters hatred and will likely lead to more bloodshed. It can neither ensure peace nor human security.

Yes, well. Given the unconventional nature of the conflict (is Hamas a criminal gang or an arm of a quasi-government, the PA, that carries out "extra-judicial executions" of unarmed civilians?), cries of "international law violations" are weirdly inapplicable. As for the second part, Bret Stephens, writing in OpinionJournal, may have something relevant to contribute:

The results, in terms of lives saved, were dramatic. In 2003, the number of Israeli terrorist fatalities declined by more than 50% from the previous year, to 213 from 451. The overall number of attacks also declined, to 3,823 in 2003 from 5,301 in 2002, a drop of 30%. In the spring of 2003, Israel stepped up its campaign of targeted assassinations, including a failed attempt on Yassin's deputy, Abdel Aziz Rantisi. Wise heads said Israel had done nothing except incite the Palestinians to greater violence. Instead, Hamas and other Islamic terrorist groups agreed unilaterally to a cease-fire.

In this context, it bears notice that between 2002 and 2003 the number of Palestinian fatalities also declined significantly, from 1,000 to about 700. The reason here is obvious: As the leaders of Palestinian terror groups were picked off and their operations were disrupted, they were unable to carry out the kind of frequent, large-scale attacks that had provoked Israel's large-scale reprisals. Terrorism is a top-down business, not vice versa. Targeted assassinations not only got rid of the most guilty but diminished the risk of open combat between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian foot soldiers.

So the assumption that this or any other targeted killing of Palestinian terrorists will necessarily lead to more bloodshed hardly represents a certainty, yet the WCC (as well as most of the world's prominent politicians) simply asserts it as if it is as sure as the next sunrise. Now, back to our press release:

We are appalled that the State of Israel continues to resort to extra-judicial executions. Every attack has resulted in the unlawful killing of innocent bystanders, including children. These actions as well as Israel’s public official threats to continue to assassinate Palestinians with impunity are totally unacceptable by the WCC and will always be condemned as unlawful.

"Extra-judicial executions." Isn't that a lovely phrase? It suggests that Israel is not in the middle of a war, but has a crime problem. Normally you don't have to try an enemy combatant before killing him.

As for the deaths of children, those are terrible, of course. What the WCC doesn't take note of is that Palestinian terror leaders routinely surround themselves with children when they appear in public, thinking that doing so will ward off attack. What they also don't seem to understand is that if Israel treated terrorism as a crime problem, and sought to arrest someone like Yassin, those around him would fight, and the number of casulties in such a street operation would be ten times worse.

We therefore call on Israel to put an immediate end to its policies of targeted assassinations. The Council also calls on Palestinian armed groups to immediately stop targeting Israeli civilians in indiscriminate suicide bombings and other attacks. We reaffirm our strong conviction that non-violent means of resistance and peaceful negotiations are the only way to achieve peace and security for both the Palestinians and Israelis and a lasting, viable solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

And, oh, yes, we almost forgot–it would be nice if the Palestinian "armed groups" (the word "terrorist" just sticks in their throats) would stop their little games and play nice as well. No outraged condemnation, no total unacceptability, no weeping and gnashing of teeth. In fact, to my recollection, I've never seen a full-throated, pull-out-all-the-rhetorical-stops condemnation of Palestinian terrorism, minus the weasel words. Until such time as the WCC can bring itself to do that, Israel has no more reason to listen to Geneva than they have listening to Hamas.
Athanasius on 03.25.04 @ 10:09 PM EST [link]

Wednesday, March 24th

Abortion extremism

Here's a twist: Jonathan Turley, a self-described "pro-choice law professor," taking the Usual Suspects to task for their absolutist positions, shown forth in their defense of Melissa Rowland, the Utah mother whose bizarre and negligent refusal of medical treatment caused the death of one of her unborn twins:

According to the criminal complaint, starting on Dec. 25, 2003, doctors and nurses advised Rowland repeatedly that the twins were in danger. Doctors reportedly urged Rowland to have a C-section immediately because the twins were experiencing fetal heart problems and were developing poorly and she had dangerously low amniotic fluid. The doctors told her repeatedly that without a C-section the babies faced severe harm or death. Hospital staff reported she appeared indifferent to the fate of the babies.

On Jan. 13, Rowland showed up at a hospital in labor. Emergency room doctors and nurses reportedly attempted to persuade Rowland to have an emergency C-section, but, accordingly to the criminal complaint, she "was uncooperative and continually insisted on going outside for a smoke." After she finally yielded to their demands, a C-section was performed, but it was too late. One baby died and the other twin required stimulation, oxygen, intravenous support and antibiotics to survive. Both Rowland and the surviving twin tested positive for cocaine. The medical examiner's office determined that if Rowland had had the surgery when the doctors originally urged her to, "the baby would have survived."

The willingness of pro-choice groups to embrace Rowland reflects their extreme view of abortion as an absolute right in our constitutional system. But in our system, there are no absolute rights; our constitution is based on a balancing of interests.

Even the oldest and most fundamental rights like free speech or religion must yield in some cases to compelling state interests.

Yet, when it comes to reproductive rights, NOW and other groups reject even the most basic limitations—leaving reproductive rights so sacrosanct that even the most depraved acts by a mother cannot limit her "right to choose."

Though authorities' decision to charge her with first-degree murder (rather than manslaughter) seems excessive, I see no reason why Rowland should not be charged criminally. These twins were not immature fetuses at an early stage of development but were at full term and completely viable outside the womb, yet she knowingly withheld a common, safe surgical procedure while the life drained out of them.

No one would disagree that, if they had been delivered, Rowland could be charged criminally for any physical abuse. However, NOW is insisting that the babies had no rights until delivery, and that a mother can feed them cocaine, refuse pleas to save them and potentially cause the death of two fully developed babies at any time until birth—a position that has little legal support and even less basis in morality.

The decision of NOW and other groups to defend Rowland is only the latest evidence of how far these organizations have moved to the extreme. This month, NOW, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood opposed a parental notice law in Florida as a threat to the right to abortion—even though most pro-choice voters support parental notice. Lynn Paltrow, executive director of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, has declared the charges against Rowland an "assault on motherhood." But the case is no more an assault on motherhood than an embezzlement case is an assault against capitalism.

I agree with Turley's assessment of the Usual Suspects, of course. But it seems to me that he's missing a couple of things. One is that Planned Parenthood is so fanatical about abortion at least in part because PP is in the business of doing abortions and getting paid for it. The other is that for NOW, NARAL, and their sisters, abortion isn't so much a right as a sacrament, a positive good to be defended with fundamentalist religious zeal. I'm NOT suggesting that women who actually have abortions think this way–most do not. Most are terribly regretful and anguished because of it. But with the high priestesses of the abortion cult, such as those Turley is writing about, it's another story.

Athanasius on 03.24.04 @ 10:12 PM EST [link]

Mandela and Yassin: an extraordinary comparison

The treatment that mass murderer Sheik Ahmed Yassin, founder of Hamas, is receiving in some segments of the world media is extraordinary. Put together these two statements, one from the UK daily The Guardian, the other from the Hamas Charter, and see if you don't experience a bit of cognitive dossonance:

When, in October 1997, the halfblind, almost wholly paralysed Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, who has been killed in an Israeli air strike at the age of around 67, arrived in Gaza, after being released from an Israeli jail in exchange for Mossad agents caught redhanded trying to assassinate a colleague in Jordan, one Arab commentator likened him to Nelson Mandela.

The comparison must have made Yasser Arafat seethe inwardly, even as he heaped homage on the returning hero. In his view, if there were any Palestinian Mandela–any unique, historic leader of the Palestinian people–it was himself.

In truth, neither Arafat nor Yassin had Mandela's special greatness. But of the two, it was Yassin, the founder-leader of the militant Islamist organisation Hamas, who came closer. The reason was not to be found in his beliefs–which, in their narrow, obscurantist, religious frame, were far removed from the South African's lofty humanism and compassion–but in the facts of his career, and the part that certain, very personal, qualities–of selflessness, simplicity, conviction and a true sense of service–played in bringing it to fruition.

That's David Hirst in The Guardian. Now, here's what Yassin stood for:

World Zionism, together with imperialistic powers, try through a studied plan and an intelligent strategy to remove one Arab state after another from the circle of struggle against Zionism, in order to have it finally face the Palestinian people only. Egypt was, to a great extent, removed from the circle of the struggle, through the treacherous Camp David Agreement. They are trying to draw other Arab countries into similar agreements and to bring them outside the circle of struggle.

The Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas] calls on Arab and Islamic nations to take up the line of serious and persevering action to prevent the success of this horrendous plan, to warn the people of the danger eminating from leaving the circle of struggle against Zionism. Today it is Palestine, tomorrow it will be one country or another. The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying....

Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people. "May the cowards never sleep."

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

I can certainly see how Hirst could have confused Mandela and Yassin.
Athanasius on 03.24.04 @ 09:35 AM EST [link]

Tuesday, March 23rd

WCC blusters on Iraq

The World Council of Churches marked the first anniversary of the invasion of Iraq with a statement. Rather than doing the simple thing and using the one from Stalinist front group International A.N.S.W.E.R., the WCC put out one of its own:

One year after the pre-emptive, illegal attack on Iraq, the World Council of Churches calls upon all to reflect its seen and unforeseen consequences and reaffirms its previous conviction that the war on Iraq was immoral, ill-advised and in breach of the principles of the UN Charter.

It's interesting that they emphasize the legalities. In 1991, the WCC opposed the Gulf War despite its sanction by the UN Security Council. And they really aren't terribly picky about all the UNSC resolutions Iraq violated or ignored.

Beyond the physical pains that so many Iraqis feel it’s the trauma and anxiety of the future that haunt the larger Iraqi population. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, "True peace is not merely the absence of tension, it is the presence of justice."

This is true. The Iraqi population is terrified that Saddam Hussein might be tried by the Axil of Weasel, which will take some of the billions he got from the Oil-for-Food Program to grease the skids for his triumphant return to Baghdad. Fortunately, now that the US has him, they aren't going to let him go. We need to reassure the Iraqis of that.

There can be no true justice for the Iraqi people when there is the absence of a permanent Iraqi government based on free, democratic elections with the adherence to a constitution that would protect all religious, ethnic and national groupings while maintaining the nation’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Human rights and the rule of law must be at the forefront of all efforts to encourage the building of representative, democratic institutions.

Huh? Where was the WCC when Saddam was butchering his people, running one of the world's most horrific police states, and winning elections with 100% of the vote? I can tell you where–heads buried firmly in the sand. In 2000, 2001, and the first seven months of 2002, the WCC put out exactly one news release or statement about Iraq, and that was about the effects of sanctions (read: Oil-for-Food theft) on Iraqi children. Their concern for "free, democratic elections," "adherence to a constitution," "human rights" and the "rule of law" all got activated when Saddam was overthrown and it looked like there was a possibility of a Western-style, Western-friendly government being installed in Baghdad.

The World Council of Churches notes with dismay the impact of the military and economic occupation of Iraq brought upon by the United States, Britain and others. We continue to be very concerned about the long-term political, social, cultural and religious consequences of the war and the continued occupation.

Their translator must have overdone the wine at lunch. I'm not really sure what they're getting at, but let's guess they're talking about the consequences of the occupation. To wit: Iraq is in better economic shape than it has been in years, free speech is running rampant, far fewer Iraqis have died violently at the hands of al-Qaeda, Ansar al-Islam, and their buddies than would have died violently at the hands of Saddam's sadists, Shiites and Kurds now feel like they have a stake in the country, the restoration of the lands of the Marsh Arabs will be starting soon if it hasn't already...oh, wait a minute. Those aren't the consequences the WCC had in mind. They're talking about the lack of security against the terrorist actions of foreign fanatics. I know what will help: the US military needs to leave. That'll do it!

The impact continues to exacerbate intense hatred towards the "western world" strengthening extremist ideologies, which breeds further global insecurity.

Yes sir, none of the Islamic fanatics had anything but love for us before March 2003.

The World Council of Churches calls upon the occupying powers led by the United States and Britain to quickly put an end to the occupation of Iraq, and allow the United Nations to manage the affairs of Iraq while seeking to build up and strengthen a system where true democracy, the rule of law, good governance and respect for all will prevail for the Iraqi people.

That's right. We should turn Iraq over to the tender mercies of the people who have made Kosovo a crime-ridden, welfare-dependent, corruption-riddled basket case; who pulled out of Baghdad at the first sign of hostility; who managed to turn the Oil-for-Food program into one of the world's biggest porcine feeding troughs; who put Libya in charge of a human rights commission; who put Baathist Iraq in charge of a disarmament commission, who allowed the Palestinian refugee camps to become armed hotbeds of terrorism, who...you get the picture.

The WCC hopes that we as a world would come to a new consciousness that would enable us all to see ourselves more as belonging to a vulnerable and interdependent global community in which we have a mandate to bear one another’s burdens and share in the sufferings of others.

New consciousness? Those of us with the albatross of being members of denominations that are part of the WCC would be happy with any consciousness from Geneva.
Athanasius on 03.23.04 @ 05:16 PM EST [link]

Doubletalk from the Frozen North

Apparently the Canadian Anglican Church is determined to catch up to the chaos in the ECUSA. The Council of General Synod (bishops and other high mucky-mucks) has voted to put the following resolution before the upcoming General Synod:

Blessing of Same-Sex Unions

Be it resolved that this General Synod:

1) Affirm that, even in the face of deeply held convictions about whether the blessing of committed same-sex unions is contrary to the doctrine and teaching of the Anglican Church of Canada, we recognize that through our baptism we are members one of another in Christ Jesus, and we commit ourselves to strive for that communion into which Christ continually calls us.

2) Affirm the authority and jurisdiction of any diocesan synod, with the concurrence of its bishop, to authorize the blessing of committed same sex unions;

3) Affirm the crucial value of continued respectful dialogue and study of biblical, theological, liturgical, pastoral and social aspects of human sexuality; and call upon all bishops, clergy and lay leaders to be instrumental in seeing that dialogue and study continue;

4) Affirm the principle of respect for the way in which the dialogue and study may be taking place, or might take place, in indigenous and various other communities within our church in a manner consistent with their cultures and traditions; and

5) Affirm that the Anglican Church is a church for all the baptized and is committed to taking such actions as are necessary to maintain and serve our fellowship and unity in Christ, including provision of adequate episcopal oversight and pastoral care for all, regardless of the perspective from which they view the blessing of committed same sex relationships.

After several hours of hard work, the official English translation from the Church Bureaucratese has been prepared. It reads as follows:

"BE IT RESOLVED THAT: We know that there are lots of Anglicans who think blessing same-sex unions is unbiblical, immoral, and contrary to tradition. We want them to continue to pay the bills, so we're going to talk them to death, and make them think we're listening to them.

"BE IT RESOLVED THAT: We actually have no intention of listening to them. So while we say the 'dialogue' is continuing, we're going to go ahead and do what we want.

"BE IT RESOLVED THAT: We're going to authorize same-sex union blessings, and then tell the yahoos that we have no choice, since General Synod authorized it.

"BE IT RESOLVED THAT: We'll keep 'dialoguing,' so the children won't get too upset and stop giving their money to us. We will call this 'adequate episcopal oversight' so the primitives will think we care about their opinions, which won't matter once we've changed the rules."

This is Canadian English, of course, so it's less edgy and more respectful of the great unwashed than American Episcopal English. But it still gets the message across, don't you think?

(Thanks to CaNN for the resolution text.)
Athanasius on 03.23.04 @ 08:38 AM EST [link]

Monday, March 22nd

Leading terrorist dead, UK FM mourns

Israel yesterday killed one of the world's leading terrorists, Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the founder of Hamas, a man who has planned hundred of suicide bombings and personally approved the use of women as suicide bombers. As such, he was a disgrace to Islam, though at least one Gaza Strip religious leader said that Israel has "declared war on Islam." The most bizarre reaction I've read, however, is from Britain's Foreign Minister, Jack Straw, who said that Israel's action was “unlawful, unacceptable and unjust.”

Unjust? Unjust? The man was a mass murderer. Israel and Hamas are at war, the latter having never wavered from its declared intent to destroy the Jewish state. How do you figure his killing is any more unjust than the killing of any other Hamas terrorist, Jack? It may not be politically expedient–only time will tell about that–but unjust is a real stretch.

Let me ask you this, Jack. If British intelligence had been able to pinpoint Hitler's location in June of 1940, and the RAF had been able to kill him in an air raid, would that have been "unlawful, unacceptable, and unjust"? And if not, how is that different from Israel's current situation vis-a-vis Hamas?
Athanasius on 03.22.04 @ 09:25 AM EST [link]

Sunday, March 21st

Think of the possibilities...

The Humpty Dumpty approach of the Karen Dammann jury to the United Methodist Book of Discipline presents some interesting possibilities for those who would like to explore them. For instance, according to the Discipline, local church property is owned by the annual conference. Now that an official body of the denomination has decided that what seems to be mandatory is actually only optional or advisory, why can a church not decide to leave the UMC and claim that it owns it own property? After all, if this language is elastic:

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.

Then why can't this language be elastic:

All written instruments of conveyance by which premises are held or hereafter acquired for use as a place of divine worship or other activities for members of The United Methodist Church shall contain the following trust clause: In trust, that said premises shall be used, kept, and maintained as a place of divine worship of the United Methodist ministry and members of The United Methodist Church, subject to the Discipline, usage, and ministerial appointments of said Church as from time to time authorized and declared by the General Conference." (paragraph 2503.1)

Here's a novel, Dammannesque interpretation of this statement: The necessity of such a clause is dependent upon the Discipline. Provisions of the Discipline that offend the conscience of the local congregation may be set aside at will. Therefore, we, the members of congregation X, have decided to void the trust clause of the Discipline as an unjust expropriation of property by those who have not paid for it. If you don't like it, sue us.

Personally, I think you can make an argument for the injustice of a conference beauracracy owning buildings it didn't pay for that's at least as strong as the justice argument made by Dammann's defenders. Tom Oden of Drew Divinity School as already made an argument about the connection between the trust clause and the Discipline's doctrinal standards. Maybe now is the time for the Good News and Confessing Movements to flex their muscles and explore some options. Whaddya think, folks?
Athanasius on 03.21.04 @ 06:25 PM EST [link]

Karen Dammann for bishop!

The following was reported by the United Methodist News Service regarding the verdict in the Karen Dammann trial:

The jury chairperson, the Rev. Judy Schultz, delivered the verdict. “While sustaining the specification that Rev. Karen Dammann is a self-avowed practicing homosexual, we, the trial court, do not find the evidence presented...to be clear and convincing that Karen Dammann has engaged in any ‘practices declared by the United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teachings,’” she said. “We cannot sustain the charge.”

Of the 13-member jury, 11 voted not guilty and two were undecided. No jurors voted for a guilty verdict. A majority of nine was necessary to render a verdict, according to the denomination’s Book of Discipline.

That verdict may be the most Orwellian piece of nonsense ever put to paper by a group of clerics. Frank Griswold and his Episcopal colleagues have nothing on these people.
Athanasius on 03.21.04 @ 08:53 AM EST [link]