You don't want to go there

A group of Arizona pastors is arguing that prohibiting same-sex marriage is an infringement on religious freedom:

A group of Christian pastors plans to fight efforts to pass a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage because members say it threatens religious liberty in Arizona and the United States.

No Longer Silent-Clergy for Justice, an organization with about 150 members, many of them pastors, argues that a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages would represent persecution of a minority religious group by a majority.

Conservative activists announced after the election that they would seek a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, similar to those that passed in 11 states on Election Day.

The Center for Arizona Policy, which is affiliated with numerous evangelical churches, plans to push the state Legislature to place the amendment on the November 2006 ballot. At the same time, it will launch a petition drive to get 184,000 signatures needed to get the initiative on the ballot.

The Catholic Church is expected to support the effort, as it has in other states. Ron Johnson, executive director of the Arizona Catholic Conference, said that the church was active in efforts to support a federal marriage amendment last year and, surely, it would support a state amendment.

But the Rev. Eric Elnes, pastor of Scottsdale Congregational United Church of Christ, said that such support would be prejudiced.

"Banning same-sex marriage is a clear case of one side of the religious spectrum working to eliminate the free practice of another side," Elnes wrote in a statement.

"Even members of No Longer Silent who do not support same-sex marriage agree that a constitutional amendment threatens the very foundation of American religious freedom."

Right. That means that prohibitions on polygamy that restrict the right of fundamentalist Mormons to have multiple wives is also a violation of religious freedom, as is requiring Jehovah's Witnesses to give their children blood transfusion and Christian Scientists to use medical treatment as well as prayer to effect healing. What Rev. Elnes seems to be missing is that just because a religious group thinks a practice is ok does not mean that it necessarily has a First Amendment right to engage in that practice or, more to the point, that the state has to recognize what they do in some official way. No one suggests that Rev. Elnes and his group don't have a right to believe or teach what they choose about homosexuality or to bless same-sex unions if that's what floats their boat. But to play the religious freedom card is a way to try to get the policy change they want without having to persuade the population of Arizona that they have good reasons for wanting to do so.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 09:55 PM EST [link]

To choose or not to choose

From Touchstone magazine's Mere Comments blog comes word that Planned Parenthood has decided that "choice" means "our way or the highway." Apparently the federal government is offering employees in Illinois the opportunity to sign up for a health insurance plan that doesn't cover contraception, abortion, sterilization or in vitro fertilization. It was designed with Catholic employees in mind (and one can argue about the constitutionality of such a design, but that's not the point here), and is completely voluntary. To Planned Parenthood, however, it's all part of a sinister plot to take away the right to choose from federal employees:

Government employees know all about the separation of church and state. But for federal workers in Illinois, a religious "choice" in health insurance coverage is taking away their right to choose. This week, a Catholic health care plan for federal employees that does not provide coverage for contraception, abortion, sterilization, or artificial insemination began enrolling its first members. The plan is the first to be termed "faith-based," and the first that tailors its benefits to align with the ideological premises of the Catholic Church.

The plan is run by OSF Health, part of the Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis, a group that also runs hospitals and medical centers in Illinois and Michigan. It is a new form of coverage that includes a health savings account and high-deductible coverage. This new structure is key to President Bush's health care initiative, and the OSF plan is a new move in the administration's effort to shape federal programs to match its own narrow anti-choice ideological agenda....

Contraception is basic health care–95 percent of American women use it at some point in their lifetimes. But for federal employees in Illinois, it may not be basic for much longer [Emphasis added.]

So, to PP, exercising your choice to not have insurance coverage for abortion, etc., is an invalid choice. You must have these items covered by your insurance, and may not choose not to, or you are being denied the right to choose. In the Orwellian world of Planned Parenthood, choice should only be defended when the right choice is made.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 09:54 PM EST [link]

Ecumenically Insane Quote of the Year

I think we can shut down the competition right now. According to the Seattle Times, Bishop William Skylstad of Spokane, the new President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, penned these words to describe his reaction to the priestly sex abuse scandal:

Last year, Skylstad wrote to diocese members about what he had learned from the scandal. One lesson, he said, was this: "I also came to understand better that there really is no such thing as a supposed consensual sexual relationship between any adult and a minor."

And they say some people aren't educable.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 09:52 PM EST [link]

Why does he persist in saying these silly things?

The IRD's Mark Tooley reports on the post-election analysis of Bob Edgar of the National Council of Churches:

Abortion and homosexuality should not be the "sum total of morality," Edgar insisted. He called these issues relatively "minor" compared to others that involve caring for "the least of these on the planet earth."

Urging a better definition of the differences between "public morality" and "personal piety," Edgar suggested that issues important to religious conservatives, such as abortion and homosexuality, belong more to the latter category and involve a "narrow" notion of morality. Issues important to religious "progressives" belong in the first category.

I'd certainly agree with him that homosexuality is a relatively minor moral issue–or at least it would be, if revisionists in the mainline churches weren't so obsessive about pushing for its acceptance, and left-wingers in politics weren't so obsessive about changing the laws of marriage to accomodate it. Abortion, on the other hand, is only an issue of "personal piety" as opposed to "public morality" if your ideology defines it as such.

"A first-strike foreign policy is immoral," Edgar said of the war in Iraq, which he called a morality issue. He also said it was immoral for the U.S. to continue to detain former al Qaeda and Taliban fighters at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

"Nine million children who don’t have health care is immoral," Edgar continued. So too is air pollution, he said.

Nine million children not having health care would be immoral, if it were true, but it isn't. It's illegal in the United States to deny medical treatment on the basis of ability to pay, and Edgar knows that. What he means is that nine million children don't have health insurance, which sometimes limits the options their parents have for their medical care. That isn't at all the same thing, and changes the moral perspective on it.

Air pollution is immoral? It's dirty, that's for sure, and isn't pleasant to breath, but immoral?

As for foreign policy, Edgar has never explained why it is that it's immoral to detain those who have fought against the US (and done so in a fashion contrary to the laws of war) while their organizations (al-Qaeda, the Taliban) are still at war with us. And regarding Iraq, as I recall, when they made the first strike against Kuwait, the NCC opposed doing anything military then as well. So it isn't just a "first strike foreign policy" that they oppose, but an any-strike policy.

Edgar warned that Bush will have a hard time pleasing his supporters from the Religious Right, whom Edgar named as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham, and James Dobson.

"All of us have been hurt by religious fundamentalism around the world, whether Christian, Islamic or Jewish," Edgar said. "Especially here in this country," he added.

Yes, especially in this country, where women are denied education and the right to vote, prohibited from driving or showing their faces in public, or leaving their homes without male relatives accompanying them; where thiefs have body parts cut off and female adulterers are stoned to death; where girls raped by relatives are hung for the shame they bring on their families; and so on. Oh, wait–you mean that stuff doesn't happen here, where we've suffered so much at the hands of fundamentalists?

"If bombing capital cities helps in the war on terror then we should have bombed Oklahoma City," Edgar said, recalling the 1995 bombing of a federal office building by domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh. Edgar said terrorism should be combated with "international police action" and getting at the "root causes" of terror, not by war.

The root cause of Middle East terror is Islamofascist anti-modernist radicalism, Bob. How would you propose rooting it out? Perhaps we could send the NCC staff over to Saudi Arabia or Iran and get the Wahhabi clerics and the mad mullahs to sing a few choruses of "Kum Ba Yah." Yeah, that's the ticket.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 09:51 PM EST [link]

A study in contrasts

Here's Bob Edgar of the National Council of Churches in a speech last May:

To address these threats, we need a strong United Nations and the active engagement of our democratic allies around the world. Ironically, at a time when the Bush Administration has either side-stepped the UN or tried to manipulate it, the United Nations has more clout and functions better than at any time in its history. Under the able leadership of Kofi Annan, the UN and its subsidiary bodies are playing positive roles around the globe.

Here's the UN at work:

Iraq illicitly earned an estimated $21.3 billion by circumventing United Nations sanctions between 1991 and 2003, according to estimates released yesterday by a U.S. Senate panel.

The figure–double a previously released estimate–was derived by Senate investigators who examined proceeds from a range of moneymaking schemes, such as kickbacks charged for humanitarian goods, surcharges on oil sales and the illegal export of oil.

Investigators for Republicans on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations also released new details of how the regime of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein manipulated the U.N.'s oil-for-food program, which was designed to allow Iraq to sell oil to purchase food, medicine and other humanitarian goods.

"The oil-for-food program was intended to allow the government of Iraq to provide for humanitarian aid and assistance for its people," Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee's subcommittee, said during a hearing yesterday. "Instead, under the oil-for-food program, Saddam Hussein generated massive amounts of money that had one sole purpose: to keep him in power."

The subcommittee's investigation, one of several congressional inquiries into Iraq's circumvention of U.N. sanctions, has been underway for seven months and Coleman said the panel would continue probing the matter. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan appointed former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker to probe corruption in the oil-for-food program.

And here's the UN in the person of Annan stonewalling the US Congress:

Coleman, the chairman of the permanent subcommittee on investigations of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and Levin, the subcommittee's ranking Democrat, wrote to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan on Nov. 9 to ask that he reconsider barring release of more than 55 internal audits of the program and allow U.N. officials to testify to Congress. They criticized Annan for "hindering" their efforts to obtain documents from Lloyd's Registry Inspection Ltd., a British company that inspected goods imported into Iraq through the U.N. program.

The presence of Annan's son as one possible target of investigation has nothing to do with this refusal to cooperate, of course.

Let the record show that Edgar's remarks about more clout and better functioning of the UN under the leadership of Kofi Annan than ever before in its history came after the Oil-for-Food scandal revelations began. He has said nothing in the meantime to indicate that his opinion of the UN has changed. Nor has he admitted that maybe, just maybe, Saddam's massively fraudulent use of the humanitarian program for his own nefarious purposes, rather than US-led sanctions, played a significant role in the deaths of so many Iraqi children from starvation or lack of medical supplies.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 09:49 PM EST [link]

What we have here is a failure of catechesis

From the Boston Globe via Hugh Hewitt comes a nominee for this year's Most Clueless Christian Award. Massachusetts State Rep. Barbara L'Italien, asked to step aside as a children's choir cantor for her well-publicized pro-choice and pro-gay marriage views, can't understand what the problem is:

''I'm trying to be a good Catholic," L'Italien said. ''But this should be a separate issue. Church should be a sanctuary for me and my faith and not have anything to do with my work."

It is possible, I guess, that Rep. L'Italien is completely ignorant of the Catholic, indeed Christian, view that our faith is supposed to permeate everything we are and do–even politics and statecraft. But if so, she needs to take a look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and begin the process of discovering what it means to be a "good Catholic."
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 09:47 PM EST [link]

Evangelicals and Hamas: two peas in a pod

Barbara Ehrenreich, one of the leading lights of the loony secular left (you know, where all the smart people are), takes on conservative evangelicals in The Nation:

...[T]oday's right-leaning Christian churches represent a coldly Calvinist tradition in which even speaking in tongues, if it occurs at all, has been increasingly routinized and restricted to the pastor. What these churches have to offer, in addition to intangibles like eternal salvation, is concrete, material assistance. They have become an alternative welfare state, whose support rests not only on "faith" but also on the loyalty of the grateful recipients.

What Ehrenreich doesn't know about American evangelicalism would fill...well, any decent text on American evangelicalism. Lots of conservative churches are theologically Wesleyan (including virtually all Pentecostals), Lutheran or Anabaptist. I've never heard of a church that restrict speaking in tongues to the pastor (the idea is inane–if a pastor speaks in tongues, he or she is certain to encourage others to do so as well). And the implication that churches buy the "loyalty of the grateful recipients" when they assist the needy is positively insulting. What's really got her in a snit is that someone other than the omnicompetent state is in the business of helping and caring for others.

The closest analogy to America's bureaucratized evangelical movement is Hamas, which draws in poverty-stricken Palestinians through its own miniature welfare state.

Uh, huh. By this logic, Mormons, Catholics, Unitarians, and anyone else who offers assistance to those in need is like Hamas. I suppose one could draw this analogy with just as much logic: American liberals, by supporting the official bureauratized welfare state, seek to make individuals dependent on the government, just like Communists. Think Ehrenreich would buy that analogy?

Mainstream, even liberal, churches also provide a range of services, from soup kitchens to support groups. What makes the typical evangelicals' social welfare efforts sinister is their implicit–and sometimes not so implicit–linkage to a program for the destruction of public and secular services. This year the connecting code words were "abortion" and "gay marriage": To vote for the candidate who opposed these supposed moral atrocities, as the Christian Coalition and so many churches strongly advised, was to vote against public housing subsidies, childcare and expanded public forms of health insurance. While Hamas operates in a nonexistent welfare state, the Christian right advances by attacking the existing one.

Can you say "straw man"? American evangelicals are not, implicitly or explicitly, calling for the "destruction of public and secular services." No one–not even Jerry Falwell–contends that America's churches can take care of the poor all by themselves. Do they want those public services to do a better job of enabling people to help themselves, to avoid long-term dependency on government, to be as much as possible temporary solutions to short-term problems? Of course, as do many liberals who don't buy the idea of the state as lifetime nanny. Do they think there are better ways of dealing with housing shortages and lack of health insurance than through the state? Sure, sometimes there are, and they don't mind exploring them, and even providing them when they can (think Habitat for Humanity, for instance). But apparently in the Ehrenreich universe, these heretical thoughts and actions lump one in with Hamas.

If you want to get an idea of what many in the secular left think of evangelicals, and their sinister theocratic plot to overthrow America, read the whole thing.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 09:46 PM EST [link]

It's the benefits, stupid

Columnist Susan Ager of the Detroit Free Press bemoans the passage of Michigan's ban on gay marriage, complaining that it's no longer about love:

The majority has spoken: In marriage, gender is more important than love.

One man, one woman. That's the only test a couple must pass before the state can join them together.

That's a bummer. About love, I mean. Because what else is marriage about, other than love? Quite a bit, it seems:

After two weeks of feeling sad for our gay and lesbian friends, I came up with an idea that will at least erase their anxiety about health care as they age.

It abides by the letter of the law, not its spirit. That's important these days. George W. Bush is looking for "strict constructionists" for the Supreme Court. The evangelicals who helped nudge him into office read the Bible literally. [They don't, actually, but this is one of those things that absolutely every journalist knows is so, so it must be.]

Here's my plan:

Gay couples marry lesbian couples.

Bob and Ted marry Carol and Alice, becoming Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice.

They must choose carefully whom to marry, of course, because everyone must end up covered under some health plan. That's the big consideration–not love, compatibility, chemistry or shared values.

Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice need never demonstrate love. So far, no law requires married people to exchange body fluids even once.

Ha. Ha. Ha. Very funny. It also nicely undermines her point. There's no necessary connection between health insurance–or hospital visitation rights, or inheritence law, or any of three dozen other things that supposedly require extending marriage rights to gays. It's also the case that many homosexuals–most gay men, certainly–would never, ever think of getting married, except for the material and legal benefits involved. So when Ms. Ager ends her column by quoting the Tina Turner song ("What Love Got to Do With It?"), she's saying more than she knows.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 09:43 PM EST [link]

And he didn't kill nearly as many Jews as he could have...

The Episcopal Bishop of Jerusalem, the Rt. Revd. Riah Abu El-Assal, wants it known that he's second to none when it comes to eulogizing dead terrorists:

It is with a heavy heart that I write to you to express my sorrow, as well as the sorrow of the Diocese of Jerusalem, over the death of President Yasser Arafat. As many of you know, President Arafat was a great supporter of the churches in the land of the Holy One. I have been privileged to bring many pilgrims from around the world to meet with him; and in fact, it was the Compass Rose Society that was the last pilgrim group to meet with him before his health deteriorated.

In the early 1980's I was afforded the opportunity to meet the President, and immediately I was charmed by his leadership, humility, and gracious hospitality. He has been a source of strength for me and the Diocese, for his commitment to peace, justice, and truth has been genuine and remarkable. He has been a true friend, and I have deeply cherished his loyal friendship.

President Arafat's strong faith in God has been a consistent reminder that the destinies of the nations are in the hands of God. It is this faith that has been so affirming of the Christian presence in the Land of the Holy One. His support of the Diocese and its many institutions has been crucial; we are especially grateful for his support of St Luke’s Hospital in Nablus and Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza.

Myself and three other Heads of churches in Jerusalem will be traveling today to Cairo for the official ceremony before returning to Ramallah for the funeral. Please pray for his wife, daughter, and the rest of his family; for all who will participate in Cairo and Ramallah; and for the people of Palestine. Your prayers are very important as we mourn the loss of a great friend of the church and a courageous leader of Palestine. Let us pray that President Arafat may rest in peace and rise in glory.

Speechless. A letter like that from a bishop of a Christian church just leaves me speechless.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 09:41 PM EST [link]

It was AIDS took out Arafat

No, the story below doesn't say that, but the complete refusal of anyone to disclose anything about what killed the old thug leaves very little else that's likely....unless of course the Jews did it:

A senior Palestinian official has renewed suspicions that Yasser Arafat might have died as a result of poisoning, according to an interview with a Turkish newspaper.

Nasser al-Qidwa, Arafat's nephew and Palestinian representative at the United Nations, told the daily Vatan that Arafat's health problem was "such a complicated condition that a diagnosis was not possible."

In comments on rumors that Arafat might have been poisoned, al-Qidwa was quoted as saying: "This is our biggest suspicion. If it were a normal death, it would have been possible to put a diagnosis so far."

Palestinian foreign minister Nabil Shaath has insisted that the 75-year-old leader was not been poisoned but rumors have flown back and forth over what exactly he died of amid the refusal of French doctors to disclose the cause of death to anyone but his family.

It's not like Palestinian culture isn't already overflowing with social pathologies that could put an entire nation in a straight-jacket, guys like Shaath have to give the paranoids more ammunition. Not that the PA leadership is going to do anything to sully the Great Man's memory, especially since thousands of those paranoids have guns, courtesy of that same Yasser Arafat.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 09:40 PM EST [link]

They prefer unintelligent design

This story from CBS News describes a recent controversy over the teaching of evolution in Pennsylvania. The school board in Dover has become the first in the nation to mandate the teaching of "intelligent design," a non-religious alternative to evolution, which as taught in schools is based firmly in philosophical materialism. What I found interesting in the story was this:

When the standards were revised three years ago, the board considered language that would have required students to consider evidence that did not support evolution, but the board dropped the idea after critics alleged it would have led to the widespread teaching of creationism in public schools.
Critics of intelligent design contend it is creationism repackaged in more secular-sounding language.
"Creationism in a cheap tuxedo," said Nicholas Matzke, project information specialist for the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, Calif., which advocates for the teaching of evolution.

Clearly Mr. Matzke is completely unfamiliar with intelligent design theory, which bears little relationship to creationism other than openness to the possibility that life isn't the result of random chemical reactions. To lump intelligent design in with creationism is like calling evolution a species of alchemy because both have to do with chemical change.

I also love the positively religious response of the "critics" who claimed that looking at evidence that counters evolution would result in the teaching of creationism. That there is evidence that throws doubt on evolutionary theory is indisputable (see Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box for an understandable exposition of it) To refuse to expose schoolchildren to it strikes me as the mirror image of fundamentalists trying to get the teaching of evolution banned because it would cause children to question the literal truth of Genesis.

The opposition to intelligent design seems to me to be about this: those who are convinced that there is no Intelligence operating outside of the material bounds of the universe (an unprovable, inescapably "religious" assertion) are struggling for all they're worth to avoid competition from another perspective, namely that there is (or at least may be) an Intelligence that operates independently of the material universe. To cry "creationism!" every time their educational monopoly is challenged is dishonest. To assume that materialistic conceptions of reality are somehow privileged in a secular society is unbounded arrogance.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 09:38 PM EST [link]

Heads roll at PCUSA

Remember what I wrote yesterday about the lack of accountability in mainline church bureauracies? Well, here's an exception to the rule:

Two key Presbyterian Church (USA) staff members were apparently fired early this morning by General Assembly Council (GAC) Executive Director John Detterick–with no clear public explanation for their departures.

According to a memo released this morning, Kathy Lueckert, the deputy executive associate director of the GAC, the governing body of the church’s mission program agency, and the Rev. Peter Sulyok, coordinator of the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP), are no longer employed by the GAC.

Lueckert has served the denomination for five years, Sulyok for nearly twelve.

Lueckert supervised Sulyok and both were members of an ACSWP fact-finding delegation to the Middle East last month that included a televised meeting with Hezbollah, an organization that is on the U.S. government's watch list of terrorist groups.

The lack of explanation is because these were personnel matters. But there can be little doubt that these firings were the consequences of the appallingly bad judgment shown in meeting with Hezbollah.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 09:37 PM EST [link]

WCC fawns on Arafat's memory

The World Council of Churches offers its condolences to the Palestinians on the death of Yasser Arafat:

On the sad occasion of the death of President Yasser Arafat, we extend our condolences to the Palestinian people and to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. We also ask God’s comfort for the members of his family in this time of deep grief.

President Arafat will be remembered for bringing the Palestinian people together and for his unique and tenacious contribution to the cause of establishing their national home.

Too true. It isn't every gun-toting thug who can claim the title "father of modern terrorism."

We stand with the Churches of the Holy Land to honour his commitment to their place in the Palestinian society, its affairs and its future. President Arafat often made sure to mention the church as well as the mosque as core institutions of Palestinian national life. True to the customs of mutual respect among his diverse people, he celebrated Christmas with the churches of Bethlehem as circumstances permitted.

And he was exceptionally nice to puppies, too.

On his long road as a leader, Yasser Arafat came to the recognition that true justice embraces peace, security and hope for both Palestinians and Israelis. His path has now ended, amid the rocks and thorns of occupation, at a distance from the goal he sought. As he is laid to rest the world will see–from the location of his final resting place–how far the Palestinian people must still travel together.

He did come to that recognition–well, except for that intifada thing, and that financing of suicide bombers thing, and that incitement to anti-Semitism thing. I'd write this off as not speaking ill of the dead, except that the WCC leadership believed this utter nonsense about Arafat while he was still alive.

In solidarity with the Palestinian people, the World Council of Churches will continue to work for human rights, sustainable livelihoods, medical care and basic freedoms, in the days and years that lie ahead and until there is peace.

Which is to say, until the memory of Arafat and his never-ending jihad fades enough to allow the Palestinians to realize that Israel is never going away, contrary to the Great Man's life-long delusions.

UPDATE: Here's the response of the Churches for Middle East Peace, a coalition that includes the usual suspects (United Methodist Church, ECUSA, PCUSA, United Church of Christ, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, American Friends Service Committee, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), etc.):

On behalf of Churches for Middle East Peace, [executive director] Corinne Whitlatch sends condolences to the Palestinian people. We join them as they mourn the loss of their historic leader and president, Yasser Arafat.

We remember his life of service to the Palestinian people. Yasser Arafat’s long commitment to good relations between Palestinian Christians and Muslims sets an important example for his people and the region, and we hope it will be part of his legacy.

Notice there's no mention of his commitment to good relations between Muslims and Jews.

The refusal of Prime Minister Sharon and President Bush to negotiate with President Arafat has blocked a political process for far too long. We urge resumption of a political process that can restore hope to both Israelis and Palestinians that their future has promise. We pray that Yasser Arafat’s dedication to a Palestinian state living in peace with its neighbor Israel will come to fruition.

Yep, it's all Sharon and Bush's fault for not negotiating with the old thug. Of course, Barak and Clinton did, and look what it got them. They tried to give him the state he claimed he wanted for his people, and Arafat left their offer on the table and went home to plan the second intifada, which was his idea of "a Palestinian state living in peace." But far be it from CMEP to let facts stand in the way of ideology.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 09:35 PM EST [link]

Legacy of a master terrorist

Jeff Jacoby nails the legacy of Yasser Arafat:

It would take an encyclopedia to catalog all of the evil Arafat committed. But that is no excuse for not trying to recall at least some of it.

Perhaps his signal contribution to the practice of political terror was the introduction of warfare against children. On one black date in May 1974, three PLO terrorists slipped from Lebanon into the northern Israeli town of Ma'alot. They murdered two parents and a child whom they found at home, then seized a local school, taking more than 100 boys and girls hostage and threatening to kill them unless a number of imprisoned terrorists were released. When Israeli troops attempted a rescue, the terrorists exploded hand grenades and opened fire on the students. By the time the horror ended, 25 people were dead; 21 of them were children.

Thirty years later, no one speaks of Ma'alot anymore. The dead children have been forgotten. Everyone knows Arafat's name, but who ever recalls the names of his victims?

So let us recall them: Ilana Turgeman. Rachel Aputa. Yocheved Mazoz. Sarah Ben-Shim'on. Yona Sabag. Yafa Cohen. Shoshana Cohen. Michal Sitrok. Malka Amrosy. Aviva Saada. Yocheved Diyi. Yaakov Levi. Yaakov Kabla. Rina Cohen. Ilana Ne'eman. Sarah Madar. Tamar Dahan. Sarah Soper. Lili Morad. David Madar. Yehudit Madar. The 21 dead children of Ma'alot–21 of the thousands of who died at Arafat's command.

Remember those names when Jacques Chirac ("a man of courage and conviction who, for 40 years, has incarnated the Palestinians' combat for recognition of their national rights") or Kofi Annan ("[Arafat] expressed and symbolized in his person the national aspirations of the Palestinian people") or papal spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls (Arafat was "a leader of great charisma who loved his people and sought to guide them toward national independence") speak of the Great Man's demise.

UPDATE: You can add Nelson Mandela to that sorry list: Arafat was "an icon in the proper sense of the word" (no doubt Mandela doesn't realize what that says about the cause in whose name he terrorized.) "Yasser Arafat was one of the outstanding freedom fighters of this generation, one who gave his entire life to the cause of the Palestinian people." A freedom fighter who slaughters children. And to think, the world holds Mandela up as a moral paragon for his struggle against apartheid. Talk about losing your way. (From Ha'aretz via Solomonia.)
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 09:33 PM EST [link]

Presbyterians, divestment, and anti-Semitism

The Presbyterian Church (USA) continues its campaign against Israel. At a meeting this week characterized by the PCUSA news service as "tense and not always polite," the Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment set criteria for deciding which companies to target. The criteria seek to identify multinational corporations that:

*provide services to or for use by the Israeli police or military to support and maintain the occupation;

*provide products, services or technology of particular strategic importance to the support and maintenance of the occupation;

*have established facilities or operations on occupied land;

*provide products and services, including financial services, for the establishment, expansion or maintenance of Israeli settlements on occupied land;

*provide products, services or financial backing to Israeli or Palestinian groups that commit violence against innocent civilians; and

*finance or assist in the construction of Israel’s enormous separation barrier.

While I appreciate the inclusion of "Palestinian groups that commit violence against innocent civilians," it really misses the point. The primary providers of "products, services or financial backing" to Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other Palestinian terrorist groups aren't companies, but governments. Unless the PCUSA is going to divest itself of holdings in Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, or companies that do business with them, this phrase is meaningless. What we still have is an example of what Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard, has forthrightly labeled anti-Semitism:

I was powerfully struck two years ago, and am not less struck today, by the tendency to cross a line in discussions of Israel. It should be the right of any person to express any opinion he wishes with respect to Israeli foreign policy. And there is much in Israeli policy that surely should be debated, even legitimately criticized and questioned. But there are lines that need to be drawn.

When Israel is singled out for moral opprobrium, something wrong is happening. When the conflict between Israelis and the Palestinians is approached in an entirely asymmetric fashion, with criticism or sanction directed only at Israel, something wrong is happening. When comparisons are drawn with Nazis or Hitler or the SS or apartheid in South Africa, something wrong is happening.

And that is why I chose the words anti-Semitic to address proposals for the large-scale divestiture of companies doing business in Israel, to address the movement in England to remove Israeli scholars from the editorial boards of scholarly journals, to address the move of Presbyterian churches last summer to divest the stocks of companies that were doing business in Israel with no action whatsoever with respect to the Palestinians.

Yesterday, I got an e-mail from Larry Rued, an Elder at First Presbyterian Church in Bradenton, Florida, who alerted me to a petition that is available on the Internet (look here, PCUSAers) calling for a special meeting of the General Assembly to repeal the divestment resolution passed at the last Assembly. Larry also included a document entitled "Why I Signed the Petition Calling for a Special GA Session" that says in part:

Our PCUSA denominational leaders may believe they can ignore, turn-off, or argue with Jewish leaders, Congressional leaders, editorialists, or bloggers regarding the Israel divestment resolution. There is one group that cannot be dissuaded. That group is the 2.4 million members of the Presbyterian Church USA. I signed the petition calling for a special GA session so as to end the delaying that is severely damaging our church's reputation.

I'll be happy to send a copy of the entire document to anyone who asks for it. I'd sign the petition myself, but I'm not a PCUSA member. So I'll endorse it in spirit, and urge members of PCUSA churches to do so electronically.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 09:31 PM EST [link]

Fog from the Frozen North

The IRD has a new quote of the week up, and it's a doozy. This is from United Church of Canada minister Larry Marshall, the founder of the Community of Inner Spirituality in Toronto, which promotes itself as a gathering place for those "who want spirituality without religion," but which looks like it's mostly about spreading the discredited theories of "theologian" Tom Harpur:

"I am a Christian. The historicity of Jesus is an open question....I don't discount the historicity; it's just not a question I'm particularly interested in."

One rather wonders if Jesus feels the same way about Rev. Marshall.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 09:29 PM EST [link]

IRD calls for Margaret Rose's resignation

The Institute on Religion and Democracy has issued a call for responsibility in the ECUSA hierarchy that will no doubt be devoutly ignored:

The President of the Institute on Religion and Democracy today called for the resignation of the Rev. Margaret Rose, director of the Episcopal Church’s Office of Women's Ministries, after that office posted a pagan rite on their website.

The rite, entitled A Women’s Eucharist: A Celebration of the Divine Feminine, was available on the Episcopal Church's website as a resource "to be used by women, men, parishes, dioceses, small groups, within the context of a Sunday morning service, or any other appropriate setting." A news story from the Episcopal News Service (ENS) on October 25 first drew attention to the rites offered on the website of the Office of Women’s Ministries.

"The posting of this rite on the Episcopal Church's official website calls into question the judgment of Margaret Rose and her leadership of the office of Women's Ministries," said IRD President Diane Knippers. "It is demeaning to Christian women to suggest that our worship needs can be met by pagan rituals."

"There needs to be a more full accounting for why this druid rite was posted on the official website of the Episcopal Church," said Knippers. "Also, an account needs to be made for other links and resources offered on the website which use 'goddess' language."

The Women's Ministry page also advertises and recommends books both on the Women's Ministries web page, and through the Episcopal Church’s official bookstore, that celebrate goddess worship. Such titles include: Descent to the Goddess: A Way of Initiation for Women, The Book of the Goddess Past and Present, Goddesses Who Rule, and Beginner's Guide to Wicca.

“It is bizarre to have to remind the Office of Women’s Ministry that the Episcopal Church is a Christian church," said Knippers. "Margaret Rose's judgment cannot be trusted to find authentically Christian resources for women. She should resign her position as director of this office."

I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Knippers, and the statement needed to be made, but it's utterly futile. There is no accountability whatsoever in the bureaucracy of the ECUSA or any of the other large mainline churches. When bishops of the church blow off the issue as a "tempest in a teapot," and blame conservatives for bringing it to public attention, you know that no one is going to be held responsible.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 09:27 PM EST [link]

Finally

The world's foremost terrorist, Yasser Arafat, is dead, having passed away in his sleep in marked contrast to his countless victims. May his death prove to be what his life never was–an opportunity for the rebirth of the Palestinian people and for peace with Israel.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 09:26 PM EST [link]

Bennison speaks, shoots messenger

And there I was, complimenting Bishop Charles Bennison of the ECUSA's Pennsylvania Diocese for being all statesmanlike and everything, and he goes and says stuff like this:

Episcopal Bishop Charles E. Bennison said yesterday that he would not suspend the local clergy couple found to be involved in Druid activity–and he blamed the scandal on "right-wing" groups out to destabilize the Episcopal Church USA.

That's right, blame the messenger for pointing out that the Office of Women's Ministries and two priests were shooting themselves in the feet.

In his first interview since the scandal erupted last month, Bennison, leader of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, said the Rev. William Melnyk and the Rev. Glyn Ruppe-Melnyk had taken part, as students of pre-Christian Celtic spirituality, in "exploratory thinking" with Druid circles.

But his discussions with the couple, he said, convinced him that they had not led any Druid groups or joined nature-worshiping Druid rites.

Well, I guess we don't know for a fact that they ever participated in the celebration of the stuff they wrote–but what does it say about the level of priestly responsibility of the Melnyks that they put it out there for others to use? And what's it say about the extraordinarily bad judgment of OWM that they'd recommend it for use in Sunday morning services?

"They made a small error of judgment that has been very costly to their ministry and their church, and the church at large," Bennison said.

"A small error of judgment." Offering to Episcopalians the means to worship other gods is a "small error in judgment." That's in contrast to a large error in judgment, such as standing up for orthodox teaching in the face of an "outspoken liberal."

An outspoken church liberal, Bennison balanced his criticism of the couple with a determination that the diocese be "a safe place" for theological experimentation.

What does this mean, anyway? A safe place to experiment with paganism? A safe place to trample on the teaching of Scripture and the historic creeds and the baptismal covenant that Bill Melnyk just got through reaffirming? Bennison is the bishop who claimed that Jesus was a sinner just like the rest of us, remember. Is that the kind of "theological experimentation" for which he wants his diocese to be a safe haven?

Bennison said Melnyk "will be directed to be much more aware of what he says and does,...that, as a priest, he is responsible not simply for his own reality but for others' perceptions of his reality."

He's obviously been taking English lessons from Frank Griswold.

Also, the bishop said, Ruppe-Melnyk's "God the Mother" service "is not a Christian rite as most people would understand Christianity." But the church has many alternative rites, he said, "and Glyn has never used it as Christian worship or even in private prayer."

She's never used it as Christian worship because it isn't Christian worship (at least as "most people" would define it–how's that for a weaselly expression?). And if she's never even used it in "private prayer," why did she give it to the OWM to post for use in public worship?

Bennison said the Institute on Religion and Democracy, a conservative Christian group in Washington, fomented the scandal by alerting Christian media to Ruppe-Melnyk's online rite.

The institute, Bennison said, aims "to intimidate people in our church who would exercise theological imaginations, who would think out of the box....We want a church where people can fail and be forgiven rather than a church where no one takes risks."

If the IRD hadn't acted, the "Women's Eucharist" would probably still be on the OWM site, and Bennison wouldn't have been distracted from his persecution of orthodox pastors and parishes, so I can understand why he's upset.

Erik Nelson, research associate for the institute's Episcopal Action Project, said he was surprised Bennison "would continue to defend [the two priests] when they repented and admitted it was wrong."

"There are ways of getting women to be more involved, within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy," Nelson said. "But they had a rite encouraging worship of a goddess, and it was wrong and should have been repudiated not only by the priests but the women's office."

That should read, "a rite encouraging theological experimentation," Erik. Gotta get with the program, my friend.

Ruppe-Melnyk, reached at her church yesterday, said, "We are just trying to keep from escalating an unfortunate and misrepresented situation."

And the nature of that "misrepresentation" is what, exactly?

(Thanks to MCJ for the link.)
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 09:25 PM EST [link]

Fundies on the left

Strange convergence on the Web today. First there was this at the Weekly Standard, from a piece by Libby Sternberg entitled "Winning the 'I Don't Know' Crowd":

It's ironic, isn't it? The left is made up of scores of people ready to paint Bush and Republicans with the "moral extremist" label. "Bush's victory signals the triumph of belief over fact," Garry Wills moaned in the New York Times two days after the election. He sees the election in stark terms–the victory of fundamentalism over reason. In other words, if you don't share Wills's values and voted for Bush, you're stupid.

Maureen Dowd claimed the president "ran a jihad" in America–"jihad" is a word Wills used as well. And columnist Thomas Friedman wondered if he lives in a country where religion trumps science, lamenting that the Americans who voted for Bush have a different vision of what America is.

And perhaps there's some truth in that claim. Maybe the Americans who voted for Bush have doubts about whether homosexuality is a choice and don't want to rush to change sexual-bond institutions that have benefited society for centuries because of an extremist agenda that implies either you're for gay marriage or you're a bigot.

Then there's this from the Discovery Institute via Touchstone:

The courts should not prevent educators from encouraging students to approach the study of evolution with an open mind according to over 30 scientists, including 25 from Georgia, who have submitted a legal brief to the US District Court in the Northern District of Georgia.

The court begins hearing testimony today in a lawsuit brought by the ACLU challenging the Cobb Co. school district's right to insert a sticker into high school biology textbooks which states: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

[Attorney Seth] Cooper points out that the textbook sticker does not deal with creationism or even alternative scientific theories to evolution: "It merely encourages students to avoid dogmatism when studying evolution by carefully and critically examining the evidence with an open mind," explains Cooper. "That sort of critical inquiry is the heart of what science is supposed to be about."

Sternberg's point is that the moral absolutism of the Left (that says that if you don't buy gay marriage, abortion-on-demand, embryonic stem-cell research, etc., you're a stupid, misogynistic, gay-bashing fundamentalist looking to drag America back to the 14th century) is driving millions of Americans who don't want to overturn an established social order on a whim or who think that maybe abortion isn't medicine's gift too humanity into the arms of the Republican Party. Then along comes the ACLU, claiming that allowing schoolchildren to look at a disputed scientific theory with an open mind somehow violates the separation of church and state.

Kinda makes you wonder who the real fundamentalists are, doesn't it?
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 09:22 PM EST [link]

Incoming!

Blogopotamus has decide to declare war on all us evil conservative-evangelical-orthodox types. In a post entitled, "Take Back the Faith!" PJ fires the opening salvo:

Over the next week or so, the SSBJ will be developing a "Take Back the Faith" initiative dedicated to diminishing the cultural influence of groups like the Institute on Religion and Democracy, the Christian Coalition, and the National Association of Evangelicals. It has taken thirty years of propaganda and ruthlessly-waged cultural warfare, but we are to the point where non-evangelical Christians no longer claim the name because of scorched-earth tactics on the part of evangelicals. In my short life, I have seen every non-evangelical Christian friend I have either ditching Christianity or seriously considering it, not because of a change in their theologies but out of a desire to escape constant social pressure from secular progressives (for whom "real" Christianity is the kind they hate) and evangelicals (who are intent on driving them out through whatever inquisitorial means necessary). This culminated in the successful campaign to silence the Melnyks–the opening salvo was fired by the IRD's Erik Nelson and Faith McDonnell, only for fundamentalist blogs (Midwest Conservative Journal, Titusonenine, and CaNN [hey, what about me!]), Christianity Today, the IRD, the Washington Times, several neo-con papers, and Third World bishops to eventually join the fray.

It is time for non-evangelical Christians to wake up and realize that there are well-organized, well-financed organizations out there–almost all shepherded and guided by the IRD–whose sole purpose is to take over or break any Christian organization opposing their cultural values. It is time to realize that they have an organized network whose gears are so well-greased that any mainline minister who “steps out of line” somewhere can be eradicated almost immediately by a whirlwind campaign of invective issuing from what seems like all parts of the globe. It is time to fight back.

The key to recognizing the extraordinarily high Laughability Quotient of this post is in initials "SSBJ." What is that, you say? It's the "Society of Sts. Barlaam and Josaphat," of course. Never heard of them, you say? Well, there's probably a good reason for it. Here are a couple of items from their site that will clue you in on the nature of those who would "take back the faith":

The Society of Saints Barlaam and Josaphat is dedicated to the practice of "Pure Land Christianity"–a Christian (or if you prefer, Buddhist) school of thought holding that Amitabha Buddha and Kuan Yin manifested themselves in the first century as Jesus and Mary. We believe that anyone who has faith in Amitabha or Kuan Yin and the power of their Vow will be reborn in the Pure Land and attain Enlightenment.

(From the FAQ) Whom do you worship?

Virtually anyone/anything a member wishes to worship, but we especially honor Jesus and Mary, both of whom we believe are Bodhisattvas. We encourage worshipping trees, rocks, animals, elves, fairies, spirits, teachers, ancestors, lovers, friends, abstract concepts–even figments of one's imagination. We find that our stuffed animals appreciate reverence too, so they're by no means off-limits.

I understand that because of his resemblance to the traditional portrayals of Buddha, they're thinking of adding Michael Moore to Jesus and Mary, thus making a kind of trinity. In any case, I'll be interested to see how the campaign to take back the faith goes, once they've decided what faith it is that they want to take back.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 09:20 PM EST [link]

Sad end to a sad episode

From today's Philadelphia Inquirer:

An Episcopal priest who, with his wife, faced discipline from the church after the couple's leadership of local Druids became public has resigned from his Downingtown church.

A letter distributed to parishioners yesterday said the lay leadership at St. James' Episcopal Church had determined on Friday that recent events would make it difficult for the Rev. William Melnyk "to continue effectively as the Rector of the church."

"We're disappointed that it had to come to this," said Jeff Brodeur, spokesman for the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania. "It's been an emotional situation for everyone."

Melnyk's wife, the Rev. Glyn Ruppe-Melnyk, led services yesterday at her church in Malvern, St. Francis-in-the-Fields, Brodeur said, but still faces possible discipline. Telephone messages left at St. Francis were not returned.

The couple's participation in modern Druidism–a New Age religion whose adherents worship the sun, nature and trees–became public after national Christian groups and Internet bloggers accused the Episcopal Church USA of promoting paganism through the priests' activities. The national church denied the accusation.

Some churchgoers at St. James' wept at the news of William Melnyk's resignation, while others said they wanted an explanation. Melnyk was not at the Downingtown church yesterday. A home telephone number for the couple could not be located.

"It's like a death," said Barbara Monaghan, a 19-year parishioner who was among many who were visibly upset by the resignation. "This is a parish that's been flourishing, and we owe a lot of that to Bill Melnyk."

The Melnyks, who have directed their respective parishes for nearly four years, wrote letters to Bishop Charles E. Bennison of the Diocese of Pennsylvania on Thursday, saying they "recanted and repudiated" their connection with Druidism.

In their apologies, the couple said they had been active as Druid leaders to reach out to marginal Christians, and that they believed in the historic creeds of Christianity. They also asked for "the mercy of the Church and of our Lord Jesus Christ."

According to the letter that parishioners received yesterday, the vestry–the church's lay leadership–talked to Melnyk on Friday, then decided that his actions had "so compromised his continued effectiveness that it would be best were he to resign."

Their decision was communicated to Melnyk on Saturday by a church leader. Melnyk said then that he would resign, according to the letter.

The Melnyks' involvement in New Age nature worship came to light last month after the Episcopal Church's women's ministry listed two of the Melnyks' Druidic liturgies on its Web site for possible use in developing feminist liturgies. The church quickly removed the liturgies, one of which was a eucharistic service including praise to "God the Mother." But the controversy continued.

The letter informing parishioners of Melnyk's resignation was read aloud at the beginning of services.

The congregation then proceeded to sing and pray, and there was no more mention of Melnyk.

The silence angered one overwrought parishioner, who stood up to speak her mind.

"I'm sorry, but our priest and this congregation are in severe crisis," she said, adding that she was angry that no other explanation was given about Melnyk's resignation.

The woman wept as she left the church and said, "I'll pray for all of you."

Another woman said after service that she was angry the priest had resigned.

"He's a saint," said Jessica Kenworthey, who belongs to another church but attends services at St. James' with her husband, Mark, who is a member. "This is what happens to saints."

I certainly hope that parishioners get more information than this article seems to indicate they got. Someone–Bishop Bennison, if he's up to the job–should sit down with the congregation, explain the nature of Father Melnyk's activities, and why they compromise his effectiveness in his current congregation (as well as why they are a problem for an Episcopal priest, which ought to be understood, but very likely would not be by many members).

(Thanks to Kendall Harmon for the link.)
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 09:18 PM EST [link]

ECUSA and Israel

At a meeting of the ECUSA Executive Council last week, the subject of Druids came up.

Just kidding. Actually, the subject of Israel and possible divestment came up. According to the Episcopal News Service (nice to know ENS wasn't shut down while the world's attention was elsewhere):

The church's plan to study corporate actions involving Israel and the Palestinian Territories was reviewed by the council. The plan calls for a year-long collaborative study of companies that contribute to the infrastructure of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and of companies that have connections to organizations responsible for violence against Israel, announced Bishop Catherine S. Roskam, suffragan of New York and chair of the council’s International Concerns Committee. "No action will be taken without conversation with our Jewish partners at home and abroad," Roskam told the council.

That's good to hear, though what constitutes "conversation" is anybody's guess.

"As a church, we support the State of Israel," explained the Rev. Canon Brian Grieves, director of peace and justice ministries for the Episcopal Church. "Our goal is not to end the state of Israel. Our goal is to create a Palestinian state."

One wonders if it occurs to Rev. Grieves to ask why he feels it necessary to say that the ECUSA isn't seeking the destruction of Israel.

"The question being asked is this–is our church profiting in some way financially at the expense of suffering of the Palestinian people or innocent Israeli citizens?" added Grieves.

His concern for "innocent Israeli citizens" (as opposed to guilty ones, of which there don't seem to be any among the Palestinians) is touching. Does that mean he's suggesting the ECUSA study the possibility of divesting in companies that do business with the Palestinian Authority?
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 09:15 PM EST [link]

Bishop talk

Bishop Bennison on Pennsylvania lets us in on his current thinking re: the pastors Melnyk (thanks to Kendall Harmon for the text):

Dear Brothers and Sisters of the Clergy:

Today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer carries a story by David O’Reilly reporting accusations of druidic practices by the Rev. W. William Melnyk, rector, St. James’, Downingtown, and the Rev. Glyn Ruppe-Melnyk, rector, St. Francis-in-the-Fields, Sugartown, and my receipt of letters from them assuring me of their recantation of druidic teaching and their repudiation of any future connection with druidic organizations. Let me begin by outlining the background.

In response to an appeal from the Women’s Ministries at the Episcopal Church Center in New York for resources supportive of women, Glyn submitted a liturgy she had written in 1997 for study purposes only in a women’s small group in her congregation in Florida. It is a rite for the healing of women who have been the victims of assault or emotional abuse. Glyn tells me she submitted it in good faith and assumed that it would be treated as a resource for study and conversation among clergy and teachers engaged in healing and counseling. It has not now, and never has been, used as a liturgy at St. Francis-in-the-Fields or any parish she has served. She assures me that in the rare contexts of the study of feminist spirituality in which it was shared it has always been with the full explanation that it is not a Christian liturgy, and is not intended to be used as such.

Two weeks ago, the Christianity Today website carried a story about the liturgy accusing Glyn and Bill of paganism.

October 27, Glyn contacted me to inform me of the article’s publication and apologize for any harm she had caused the church and the diocese. On October 28, she and I spoke again. On October 29, I told Glyn and Bill that participation in druid activities is incompatible with their ministries as priests of the Episcopal Church, constitutes a violation of the national church canon law prohibiting the “holding and teaching publicly or privately, and advisably, doctrine contrary to that held by this Church” (Canon IV.1.1), and is extremely serious. At the same time I sought to ensure that both of them be treated fairly and not become victims of a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” mentality. I have been concerned to protect the reputations and meet the pastoral needs of two who have contributed very positively to their parishes and our diocese.

On Saturday, October 30, I had separate conference calls with both clergy and the wardens of their congregations and learned that their ministries have been gratefully received by the people they serve. Later that day Glyn met with her vestry, which expressed its overwhelming support for Glyn as their rector and its conviction that she has always kept St. Francis-in-the-Fields true to the Christian faith.

On Wednesday, November 3, the Very Rev. N. Dean Evans, Dean of the Brandywine Deanery, and I met with Bill and his vestry to consider evidence supporting the accusations. Widespread in the meeting were expressions of gratitude for Bill’s ministry to individuals of his parish and the parish as a community, concern for his ministry, the parish, and the wider church, and a sense that in his efforts to bridge the divide between Christianity and a pagan religion he had gone too far.

On November 4, I received from Bill and Glyn letters of apology and repentance for any damage that the exercise of their ministries has caused and assurances without reservation that they affirm the teaching of the Church as set forth in Holy Scripture, the Creeds, and the Baptismal Covenant. They promised me they are doing everything possible to repair any damage that has been caused to their own congregations or to the wider church.

While I am continuing to ascertain and establish the facts of the two separate cases, at the present time I am issuing both priests a Pastoral Direction and Solemn Warning pertaining to their future conduct in regard to what has occurred.

The past two weeks have been very difficult ones for Glyn and Bill, their wardens, and their vestries, as their ministries have been challenged by voices from outside of the diocese and, indeed, outside the Episcopal Church. I ask you, their sisters and brothers in our diocesan clericus, to pray for them, for their physical and emotional health, for their strength to persevere graciously amidst the pressures they are under, for the people they serve, for our diocese, and for me.

Faithfully,

The Rt. Rev Charles E. Bennison, Jr.
Bishop of Pennsylvania

I certainly second his call for prayer for Father and Mother Melnyk, and for the difficult decisions that he as bishop has to make regarding the situation. Now, if we can just get someone at Episcopal headquarters to take the whole pagan-endorsement-thing seriously....
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 09:14 PM EST [link]

Druid controversy gos international

Now that Father Bill and Mother Glyn Melnyk have done the right thing, it's time for the ECUSA's Office of Women's Ministries to do so as well. The fiction that the only problem with posting a Druid liturgy on the OWM Web site was a possible copyright violation isn't exactly passing muster with at least one Anglican archbishop:

A fresh crisis has broken out in the Anglican Communion after the American Church published a liturgy for blessing divorce and a "women’s eucharist" promoting the worship of pagan deities.

One of the Communion's leading figures, the West Indian Primate, Archbishop Drexel Gomez, said that America’s action showed a "total disregard" for the Windsor Report's call for greater respect for the bonds of Communion.

The rites, Liturgy for Divorce and A Women's Eucharist: A Celebration of the Divine Feminine, were posted on the Episcopal Church’s official website, under its Office for Women’s Ministries, for use by parishes.

Archbishop Gomez expressed horror at the development. "It is a pure mockery of the rite of blessing. It’s acting with total disregard for the rest of the Communion and for the historic teaching of the Church. They are bent on going their own way."

He said that ECUSA's action breaches the bonds of Communion and that the issue would be raised at the next meeting of the Primates. "They will have to decide whether they wish to remain with us or not but we will not countenance that kind of behaviour and we will say so very strongly. They are on a path of self-destruction"

He said that the most that can be done at this stage is to express outrage as strongly as possible. The Ven Paul Gardner, The Chair of the Church of England Evangelical Council, called on the House of Bishops to make a strong statement, declaring how far the American Church has departed from historic teaching.

"The idea of the celebration of divorce is anathema, it shows us that the debate with ECUSA's leadership is about far more than just sexual ethics," he said.

Of course, these comments, coming as they do from a Third World primitive and a British caveman, will be brushed off as ignorant, exclusivistic, and judgmental. And the Episcopal News Service still thinks there's nothing worth paying the slightest bit of attention to in this now international story.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 09:11 PM EST [link]

A letter from Father Melnyk

This was posted as a comment on my last entry. I put it in the main column for everyone to see:

I have today sent this letter to my Bishop. My wife has sent a similar letter:

Dear Bishop,

Recently it has been brought to light by several agencies and individuals that I have been involved in work with Druid organizations in the United States and England, exploring the relationships between Christian and pre-Christian Druid spirituality and theology. These individuals and agencies have presented you with pages of documentation of my activities from the internet. You and I have discussed this material, and you have pointed out to me that it is the opinion of the church that my involvement, writings, and activities go beyond the bounds expected of a Christian and a Christian priest.

I affirm to you with all my heart it was never my intention to engage in such error, but only to help others who had lost connection to the Church to find a way to reconnect. I also thought that there was much in our early British heritage that could help those of us in the Church to broaden our understanding of Anglican tradition.

I was wrong. I repent of and recant without qualification anything and everything I may have said or done which is found to be in conflict with the Baptismal Covenant, and the historical Creeds of the Church. With God as my witness, I reaffirm my belief in the historical creeds of the Church, and the Baptismal Covenant, and reaffirm to you my faith, as expressed in that covenant. I am resigning my membership in the Order of Bards, Ovates, and Druids, as a sign of my repentence.

I have been a follower of Jesus Christ since my Baptism in 1947, and a faithful Deacon and Priest of the Church, with the exception of the error admitted above, since 1981. It is my desire to continue as such, and I ask for the mercy of the Church, and of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Sincerely,

The Rev. W. William Melnyk

I now take pains to publicly affirm this statement, and to thank the contributors to the various Anglican weblogs for bringing this to my attention and helping me to see the truth.

The Rev. W. William Melnyk

I appreciate Father Melnyk's statement, and especially his repudiation of actions and writings that run counter to the historic creeds and baptismal covenant of the Church. I am also glad that he posted this letter to EI, and know that readers of this blog will rejoice in his words. I am happy to have been of service to the brother in helping him see the error of his ways. I will be praying for him and his wife as they continue to seek the Lord's face.

UPDATE: The IRD has the same letter, and prefaces it with this comment:

We are grateful for his humble and direct letter. We hope that the leaders of the Episcopal Church’s Office of Women’s Ministries will likewise repent of that office’s promotion of neo-paganism. We also hope that this direct act of recantation of wrong and reaffirmation of the historic faith of the Church will serve as a model for other Episcopal leaders who have been called to express regret for their actions in the context of “the repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ” (Windsor Report, paragraph 134).

UPDATE: Just thought I'd mention that since this story first surfaced on October 25, the Episcopal News Service has not seen fit to say a single word about it. I checked there this morning, and nope, still nothing. There was, however, a story from the Anglican Church in Canada entitled "Churches urged to take proactive role in Israeli-Palestinian crisis" that has been removed, and the link to its archived location broken. Anyone care to guess what that's about?
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 09:09 PM EST [link]

More from Melnyk

Count on the Web Elves at CaNN to go straight to the heart of the matter. They wrote to the Rev. Bill Melnyk and asked some fair and pointed questions:

(1) Why were all the many personal websites connected with you and your wife removed post-haste after it was discovered that you both were rather interested in druidism? This move raises more questions than it prevents.

(2) If there is nothing to hide on these websites, and all is a matter of misperception, when will these websites (including the 500+ re-named or half-dozen removed postings on the message-board at http://www.druidry.org/) be restored so people can draw their own conclusions? Did you request these measures be taken on Druidry.org? Why the use of "OakWyse/ Druis/ Thrum/ Bran"?

(3) What is White Spring, in Glastonbury? Were funds in fact channelled through St. James' Parish discretionary funds to purchase this property?

(4) You describe yourself as a Druid and a Christian–can you elaborate? If some forms of druidry include actual devotion to powers/ principles/ spirits/ gods other than the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ, how do you reconcile this with the absolute claims of Christianity, and your ordination vows?

(5) How widespread is the new-age/ neo-pagan interest amongst ECUSA parishes and clergy in your experience? Do you know of other 'clergy-druids'?

(6) Do you understand why this issue could be offensive to traditionally-minded Anglicans, including those in Africa, where authentic forms of paganism are a present and problematic reality?

Father Melnyk's response is interesting, if largely uninformative:

Many, many thanks for asking. You are the only person with enough journalistic integrity to do so!
You asked: "(3) What is White Spring, in Glastonbury? Were funds in fact channeled through St. James' Parish discretionary funds to purchase this property?"

The White Spring in Glastonbury is across the street from the Chalice Well Gardens, run by a Christian charitable trust called the Chalice Well Trust. They were hoping to acquire the White Spring to add to the Gardens, joining the spring that rises at Chalice Well, the traditional site where Joseph of Arimathea is said to have hidden the Holy Grail, the Chalice from the Last Supper, when he came to Glastonbury. Glastonbury (specifically, Glastonbury Abbey) is the traditional site of the first Christian Church in Britain. Because it is also the center of the Arthurian tales, it appeals to a broad cross section of Britons. There are several websites regarding "White Spring" that are in no way connected with me, or the Chalice Well Trust.

So the site in question is indeed a Christian site, though open to interfaith use. Use of a discretionary fund to contribute to a charitable trust would have been completely proper.

However, the purchase was not made, no funds were ever received, nor were any disbursed. This has been confirmed by independent audit.

If you say so, Father. But a check at the Web site of Chalice Well, Glastonbury reveals a lot more that's Druid than Christian. Check the bookstore, for instance, whose stock is mostly of the "sacred circles" and "energy patterning" and "Celtic shamanism" variety.

The blogs that have printed allegations otherwise now know those allegations are false, and are actionable for libel. This is, of course, one of the problems with printing things before checking them out.

I am sure you will understand that the blogs have, by their tone and intent, made the rest of your questions so fraught with controversy that I am loathe to answer them on the web for fear of those answers being used unfairly. Simply put, you are not trustworthy in my eyes because you do not have a record or reputation for fairness, objectivity, and impartiality. However, if you are near Downingtown, PA, and would like to visit and have a cup of coffee, I’d be glad to have an expansive and friendly conversation for the record.

You'd think he'd rather have his words unfiltered, and offer as much detail as he'd like. Instead, he makes a phony offer of an interview, knowing Binky is in no position to take him up on it.

One question regarding #6: What is the position of conservative Anglicans in the US regarding polygamy and female circumcision tolerated and practiced within some of the Anglican provinces in Africa?

And when in doubt, change the subject to something irrelevant. Polygamy is a matter of morals, not theology, and has been allowed only when in place before conversion. Divorce of "extra" wives has not been mandated out of concern for the fate of the women involved. Female circumcision has been condemned by African Anglican leadership, and is more commonly practiced by Muslims in any event.
But of course the most interesting thing about this reply is the complete refusal–either to CaNN or to inquiries on Virtuosity–of Rev. Melnyk to say anything at all about what he believes, and whether it's compatible with his vows as an Episcopal priest. But then again, given the rather overwhelming number of writings of his already on the Net, maybe he thinks he's already made what he believes clear.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 09:06 PM EST [link]

Prediction time

Not that anybody asked my opinion, but here's my handicap on the election:

Bush: 296 electoral votes (32 states, including battlegrounds of Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico)

Kerry: 242 electoral votes (18 states and DC, including battlegrounds of Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Michigan, New Hampshire and Massachusetts)

Republicans gain 7 in the House, 3 in the Senate

Tom Daschle loses in South Dakota, Richard Burr wins in North Carolina, and Alan Keyes sets some kind of record for lowest percentage of the vote by a major party candidate in a federal election

Remember, you heard it here first!
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 09:03 PM EST [link]

It's all about ME!

Shirley Ragsdale, religion editor of the Des Moines Register, demonstrated in her column Saturday a good part of what is wrong with the whole "women's liturgy" thing:

Women make up more than half of churchgoers, but so much of their lives is ignored in terms of religious rites, rituals and ceremonies.

There are ceremonies to baptize their babies, but no rituals to mark the passage from girl to woman or to celebrate conception or pregnancy. There are few rituals to mark losses such as miscarriages or passages such as menopause.

And your point is what, exactly? Last time I checked, every rite in all the mainline churches was gender-neutral. Baptism isn't for women's children, it's for God's children. If we're conducting bar mitzvah-like rites of passage for boys and not girls, it's escaped me. And what are the life passages or losses we observe in the lives of men, but not women? Most of the lives of all churchgoers is "ignored," and there's a reason for that: the rites of the church are mostly about God, rather than us.

Then, of course, the Rev. Margaret Rose chimes in:

"For women to move from representation to true inclusion in the church and beyond, the church must embrace pastorally, ritually and liturgically the many passages and experiences of a woman's life," said the Rev. Margaret Rose, director of the Office of Women's Ministries. "These are liminal moments, and they call out for a response within the contexts of our family, friends and neighbors of our life of faith."

And the reason for this, other than feminist ideology, is what? The ritual and liturgy of the Christian Church is typically not about our experience, but about the good news of Jesus Christ. Of course, it may well be that for folks like Rose, the Church really is first and foremost about us–our petty complaints and childish wants, our victimization politics and social agendas–rather than glorifying and serving our Creator and Redeemer.

Sounds very much like what Ms. Ragsdale and Rev. Rose want is to start a new church: the Church of Me. Then they can stuff its liturgy full of their every passage and experience, and no longer have to bother with ol' What's-His-Name.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 09:02 PM EST [link]

Nailing it

The Pontificator has a terrific response to one of the defenders of the pagan "Women's Eucharist":

The issue at hand is not the relationship of the gospel to non-Christian religions. The issue is the distortion of the gospel within the Church. The issue is apostasy. Christians should be intolerant of apostasy. Christians should be intolerant of the syncretistic corruption and distortion of the gospel. Christians should be intolerant of counterfeit revelations that cloak themselves in the vocabulary of Christian faith. We must be intolerant because we have been made stewards of a great truth, a truth that stands against the irreligion and godlessness of the world. It is this truth that is the salvation of mankind. It is this truth that is your salvation and mine.

We rightly expect the Episcopal Church and her ministers to be faithful to the faith once delivered to the saints. If one wants to practice Wiccan liturgy and spirituality, leave the Church. If one wants to believe in an Arian Christ, leave the Church. If one wants to deny the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, leave the Church. If one wants to write books describing Christianity as a terrible blight on humanity, leave the Church. If one wants to preach sermons on how everyone will be saved regardless of their religious convictions and practices, leave the Church. The Church is constituted by divine revelation. Those who cannot subscribe to this revelation, as understood and taught by the Church, have no business pretending they are Christians. To remain in the Church as a fifth column of dissent is morally reprehensible. To remain in the Church in order to evacuate the catholic faith of its content amd spiritual power is blasphemy.

Read the whole thing, including the comments. In more ways than one, this whole controversy, and at least some of the reactions to it, have made clear yet again that within the body of the mainline churches, there are at least two manifestly different religions, in many instances using the same terminology and understanding it in completely different ways, so that we are no longer really worshipping the same God. Each sees itself as the genuine article, and the other as the purveyor of a man-made religion centered on an idol. There are lots of people who don't fall into either camp, and who may not even understand the issues, but more and more I think they are going to have to choose sides as the inevitable separation comes about, not just in the ECUSA, but throughout the mainline Protestant world.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 09:00 PM EST [link]

Druid story goes into print

Julia Duin of the Washington Times has brought the Episcopal Druid story into the mainstream press. Most of what she wrote is already well known to those who have been following the story via the Internet over the last week, but she did get this quote from Margaret Rose of the ECUSA Office of Women's Ministries:

The "women's eucharist," she said in an interview was written by Mrs. Melnyk for a parish study group of women.

"It was written in response to their alienation," she said. "It was not claiming to be a Christian eucharist, but it was a way to look at their own religious traditions and explore them. We don't desire to replace the Sunday liturgy in any way. They wrote it to see what it would feel like to have specifically feminine images."

No one is saying that the OWM is trying to "replace the Sunday liturgy" (as if they could). The original posting of the "Women's Eucharist" did, however, say that it was recommended for use on Sunday mornings. Presumably at sunrise.

Thanks to Ms. Duin and the Times for bringing this story to the attention of an even wider public.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 08:58 PM EST [link]

The Druid speaks

Rev. Bill Melnyk has decided to come out in the open, in a most unusual place: David Virtue's Virtuosity Anglican news site. Unusual, because Mr. Virtue is not known as a friend of liberal Anglicanism, much less Episcopaganism.

In the comment thread that follows David's article, Melnyk posted the following (I assume this is copiable, since it was posted in a public forum) to correct a couple of details he contended David had gotten wrong (see the whole article first if any of this is unclear):

David, My Friend,

Actually, there are a couple of factual errors in your article, probably picked up from one of the other blogs. I knew you'd want to correct them, in the interest of fairness and accuracy.

Anyone can visit St. Francis or St. James Church and see for themselves the Women's Eucharist from the EWM website is not now, nor has it ever been, used at either church. At St. Francis the schedule is Rite 1 at the early service and Rite 2 at the later service. At St. James we use Rite 1 (Prayer1, with Prayer of Humble Access) at 7:45, and Rite 2 at 11:00. At our 9:00 am children-oriented family service we had been using an Evangelical Eucharist from the Iona Community–a Christian Eucharist. Because of this current flap, however, we have changed that to the Prayer Book Rite 2 service. Nothing other than orthodox Christian rites have ever been used at either church. Please visit us on a Sunday and see.
Because of the spurious charge of misuse of my discretionary fund cooked up by one of the weblogs, I have submitted my records to my Senior Warden for audit. He was able to report to the Bishop there has never been any improper use of my discretionary fund, and no donations were ever sent to any groups outside the Episcopal Church.

Glyn and I both invite any readers of this blog to visit either of our churches at any time, and talk with any members of our congregation about the orthodoxy of our preaching, teaching, or liturgical leadership.

This also goes for the Rector of Good Samaritan, Mr. Greg Brewer, who has expressed concern without seeking any knowledge whatsoever regarding what he is concerned about. Mr. Brwer, you have a multi-clergy staff. Please do visit St. Francis and St. James on a Sunday and learn the truth for yourself.

I can understand the issues many people have with the leadership of ECUSA. But the wanton disregard for the well being of the good people of St. Francis Parish and St. James Parish is inexcusable.
And yes, I would welcome anyone else who wishes not only to write me at OakWyse@att.net, but to come to St. James on Sunday and see for yourself. Truth has no fear of contending with lies.
David, please do make these corrections. But not just on my word. Please come to Church at St. Francis and at St. James and see.

By the way, the "shell" I wear sometimes when not wearing a cross is the ancient Christian symbol of Baptism, and is quite well-known as the Symbol of St. James, for whom our parish is named.

Peace to All,

The Rev. Bill Melnyk

I applaud the spirit in which Rev. Melnyk writes, which sounds non-combative and open to discussion. However, there are a couple of points that need to be made: 1) With regard to finances, we have no idea whether the Senior Warden at St. James can be relied upon to make an objective accounting. Certainly there is nothing here that clears up the question raised by the druidry.org posting that sounds like it's running funds for the purchase of land in the UK through the "Rector's Discretionary Fund" at St. James. 2) More importantly, neither this post nor the other two very short ones that Rev. Melnyk has thus far put up in the same thread answer any questions about his or his wife's Druidical activities. Any "wanton disregard" for the people of their congregations is, to this point, to be credited to their accounts, not those of the bloggers who have ferreted out their activities.

In response to a question ("Are you two disciples of Christ in all things, in every aspect of your lives–or of something (or someone) else?"), Rev. Melnyk wrote, "You will certainly say it is good to hear that we are indeed disciples of Jesus Christ in all things." He also wrote, "yes, I choose God. And yes, I am a follower of Jesus Christ, who is my Lord and Savior. And Scripture tells us no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the power of the Holy Spirit." Which is lovely, except that it begs the question of what other deities he and his wife may also be giving their allegiance to. Scripture makes plain that mixing-and-matching isn't an option, so just because you claim Jesus as your "Lord and Savior" doesn't mean you're being exclusive. I hope Rev. Melnyk is, but if so he's got a lot of stuff to explain.

UPDATE: Further comment from Rev. Melnyk indicates that he's going to take the coy approach, and misuse Scripture in the process:

"3. Have you disclosed all relevant facts about your life to your vestry and bishop?"

Yes, I have. Though I readily admit that some might debate what the relevent facts are.

If (and it's a big if) he's saying that Bishop Bennison knows all about his druidic activities, and has no problem with them, while at the same time claiming he needs to investigate them...well, you draw you're own conclusions.

You know, I remember the trouble Paul got into with both his Christian and Jewish colleagues when he conducted his ministry in ways they found unacceptable. His reply was simple: "I become all things to all people" in order to reach as many as possible. In my ministry, the many people who have said to me, "Thank you for showing me that Jesus is more loving than I ever imagined from my experience of the church" outweighs all the recent attacks.

I do hope he didn't learn to use Scripture this way in seminary. He's actually suggesting that Paul–who said eating meat sacrificed to idols was ok under certain circumstances, but would rather have been crucified himself than worship any deity other than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob–would approve of his conducting worship rituals for Astarte in the name of...what? Paul was seeking to save the lost. Is that a concept that Rev. Melnyk can even wrap his mind around?
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 08:57 PM EST [link]

The other side

By way of showing that there is another side to the whole pagan thing, here are a few links to those who think that I and my fellow bloggers are inquisitors, witch-hunters, or just plain not nice people:

Wildhunt.org (Jason Pitzl-Waters, pagan non-Episcopalian)

Salty Vicar (John Wilkins, Episcopal priest)

Gay Spirituality from Joe Perez

Read the comments that go with the posts. They're worth the trip.

UPDATE: A couple more from the other side:

Father Jake Stops the World from a "sometimes heretical" Episcopal priest

Letter from Hardscrabble CreeK: A Pagan Writer's Blog by Chas. Clifton

Pilgrim's Progress from Demi the Jersey Devil

And further stuff from the aforementioned John Wilkins.

UPDATE: And a few more:

Blog That Goes Ping

Blogopotamus!

The Cat's Cradle
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 08:54 PM EST [link]

Druids' bishop weighs in

Bishop Charles Bennison of Pennsylvania has finally responded in a press release to the controversy swirling around two of his priests. I found this on Kendall Harmon's Titusonenine:

Accusations against two local priests that they are practicing druids and in violation of their ordination vows are extremely serious and merit further inquiries to establish the facts, the Rt. Rev. Charles E. Bennison, Jr., Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania, said Friday.

At the same time, it's imperative to ensure that the Revs. Glyn Ruppe-Melnyk and William Melnyk are treated fairly and not victims of a "where there's smoke, there's fire" mentality, he said.

"I am extremely concerned by the charges made against the Melnyks, yet I am also concerned about the reputations and pastoral needs of two priests who have contributed very positively to their parishes and this diocese for four years," Bennison said. "I will not allow this situation to turn into a witch-hunt of any sort." [Do you suppose he has any sense of irony at all?-A.]

Bennison indicated that he is looking forward to communication with the lay leaders of St.-Francis-in-the-Fields, Sugartown, where Rev. Ruppe-Melnyk is rector and St. James', Downingtown, where her husband serves.

The Bishop said he thought it crucial during this process to hear the voices of those now served by the Melnyks.

"The liturgy at the center of this unfortunate controversy was written years ago for study purposes for a small support group of women in a diocese where the priests previously served.

"Yet to be determined is the extent to which it represents the priests' present views," Bennison said. "The Melnyks assure me that it has never been used in liturgy or in their prayer life."

Undoubtedly the bishop is correct in saying that it wouldn't be right or fair to the Melnyks to act in haste without a proper investigation. I do hope he'll look at all of the evidence that's been gathered on the Net over the last few days, and not simply accept their word for things (that last reference to their prayer life makes me wonder, however). I agree with the Pontificator when he writes that "If charges were ever made against me as a priest, I hope my bishop would respond in kind." He is also right that the major focus of this issue needs to be the ECUSA Office of Women's Ministries. As abominable as the thought of two pagans serving as priests of Christian congregations is, the denominational problem is much the larger. At the same time, if the charges against the Melnyks are substantiated (and I have no doubt that they will be, at least against Bill, who seems the more active, or at least prolific, of the two), there can be no question of their remaining in any form of Episcopal ministry. We'll see where this goes, but if Bishop Bennison has any thought of dropping this matter down the memory hole, he'd better remember that the blogosphere never forgets.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 08:52 PM EST [link]

Checking out the bookstore

In case you don't like the "Women's Eucharist," you can look for other help with your goddess needs on the ECUSA Women's Ministries site. For example:

Theology:

*Goddesses Who Rule, edited by Elisabeth Benard and Beverly Moon
Description: All but one of these chapters focuses on a goddess or goddesses from other cultures and faiths that were goddesses of sovereignty. It gives the reader a fuller perspective to understand the place of the feminine in other times and places and permission to dream our dreams as big as possible.

*The Book of the Goddess Past and Present by Carl Olson
Description: The figure of the goddess in a variety of world religions is examined here by different scholars. Included are the Canaanite-Hebrew Goddess, the Virgin Mary, Sophia, the Contemporary Rediscovery of the Goddess and Symbols of Goddesses and God in Feminine Theology. This is not easy reading but the book provides much information.

*Introducing Feminist Christologies by Lisa Isherwood
Description: The author explores who Jesus is for feminist Christian women. She discusses savior, lover, friend, ground of being, shaman, etc.

History:

*The Alphabet Versus the Goddess: The Conflict Between Word and Image by Leonard Shlain
Description: The author, a brain surgeon, proposes that alphabet literacy altered the human brain in very significant ways and was a catalyst for some of the most incredible changes in history, religion, and male and female relationships. It is a difficult read for women, but truth will eventually set you free. There is a hopeful conclusion as the author looks to the future. This is a must read for women and men.

*The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future by Riane Eisler
Description: If you are going to read one book on the entire list, read this one. It "tells a new story of our cultural origins. It shows that war and the 'war of the sexes' are neither divinely nor biologically ordained. And it provides verification that a better future is possible–and is in fact firmly rooted in the haunting drama of what actually happened in our past."

This is the Amazon.com description:

The phenomenal bestseller, with more than 500,000 copies sold worldwide, now with a new epilogue from the author–The Chalice and the Blade has inspired a generation of women and men to envision a truly egalitarian society by exploring the legacy of the peaceful, goddess-worshipping cultures from our prehistoric past.

*The Once and Future Goddess: A Symbol for Our Time by Elinor W. Gadon
Description: This is a thought provoking and challenging book about the divine feminine and its importance for healing both human beings and the natural environment.

*When God Was A Woman by Merlin Stone
Description: This is an important book for women in the Judeo-Christian tradition. It chronicles what we have lost–our equal status with men and our relationship with a mother god who was the wise creator and source of universal order. Stone shows how patriarchy re-imaged God and systematically set out to subordinate women.

Psychology:

*Descent to the Goddess: A Way of Initiation for Women by Sylvia Brinto Perera
Description: Every woman should know the story of Inanna. It lives somewhere inside us all. The story is "about woman's freedom and the need for an inner, female authority in a masculine society."

*Queen Maeve and Her Lovers: A Celtic Archetype of Ecstasy, Addiction, and Healing by Sylvia Brinton Perera
Description: This work by a Jungian scholar and therapist integrates depth psychology and the healing of addictive behaviors with the ancient Celtic myth of Queen Maeve. It has implications and raises interesting possibilities for those not addicted but looking for ecstasy and meaningful rituals.

*Goddesses in Older Women: Archetypes for Women Over Fifty: Becoming a Juicy Crone by Jean Shinoda Bolen
Description: The author names the exciting new potential and energies that awaken in a woman's consciousness on the other side of fifty. Once recognized, they can help a woman feel empowered and wise.

Yessir, the OWM is a regular treasure trove of resources for exploring the inner and outer goddess. I haven't read any of them, and make no claims about their theological content, psychological insights, or historical accuracy. I just thought my readers would be interested in knowing what the OWM lays before (not "officially endorses," though the comment on The Chalice and the Blade certainly suggests such) Episcopalians for study material.

(Hat tip: Erik Nelson)
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 08:49 PM EST [link]

Gotta educate the congregation

OakWyse blesses us with theological insights grand and glorious:

I see "god" in the sense of "Ground of Being," or "Universal Life Force." (The former is solidly mainline Christian theology. The latter is from my work as a Reiki Master.) For the purpose of myth-making, it's okay to anthropomorphize that, but we must remember when we do that we are dealing with metaphor.

I don't like the idea or concept of "worship." Rather, I prefer "celebration": the celebration of life in its glory and holiness. My Druidry relates to the world itself–sea, earth, and sky. I venerate all this, and often do visualize it in terms of Celtic deities. I have a special devotion to Manannan mc Lir, as many know. But I believe Nature has a validity and sacredness in itself, not because it was created, or managed, by some "god."

I am a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, because in him I see a profound example of the presence of holiness, the "Ground of Being," in human flesh. But I believe that everything the Church now says about Jesus, Jesus himself said about people in general. God's (or the Gods') incarnation is everywhere, and in everyone. This makes me certainly a panentheist (God is in everything), and perhaps a pantheist (everything is God)

I believe that the concepts of resurrection and reincarnation are non-provable metaphors for exactly the same thing: life is stronger than death. And people should not set one of those metaphors over against another. Heaven is fully integrated life in the presence and awareness of the Holy. (BTW–"hell" is being in heaven and not liking it. A position people put themselves in, not God.)

The catholic church is a fallible body trying to be the incarnate body of God in the world, and doing only as well as is humanly possible. Every other loving faith group is the same. I am a follower of Jesus mac Dei, but I am very unsure about the "one, holy, catholic, apostolic church." The Bible is the record of the search for God of a specific tradition through the ages. It contains some truth, some beauty, some pathos, and a whole lot of garbage. Like everything else, it makes you dig for what's valuable in it.

Yes–my form of faith makes me a heretic in the eyes of fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Pagans. But heresy is in the eye of the beholder! And there are many, many Christians who see life and the Gods as I have described.

I suspect that John Lenon was the great western theologian of the twentieth century, though he might well have poured a beer over my head for saying so!

In the same thread, we're given a bit more of a peak into what is going on at St. James, Downington:

My congregation strives to learn about and honor its Pagan roots. On February 2nd we will celebrate Imbolc as well as Candlemas, and learn about how Brighid (Goddess and Saint) connects the two.

In a comment on my original post on this subject, Epsicopal priest John Wilkins says, "This is a minor event. A small thing made large by some obsessive people hunting for witches. Easy to see how McCarthy got so many supporters." A few responses: 1) No one had to go hunting–they put themselves right out where the whole world could see them. After that it was just a matter of finding some links. 2) McCarthy was congenitally dishonest about what he knew about Communists in the government (which was next to nothing, though they were there to be found if he'd known what he was doing). All the bloggers pursuing this story have done is quote the Melnyks out of their own mouths. 3) The large thing is the presence of this kind of material on the ECUSA denominational Web site, recommended for use in Sunday worship for anyone dumb enough to use it. Father Wilkins may consider the content of worship, and the object of our worship, trivial enough so that substance doesn't matter. Scripture would indicate that such is not the case, though whether that would make any difference to him, I don't know. I can understand not enjoying the sight of an institution to which you are dedicated under attack. The answer is not to demonize the messengers, but to change the institution, which won't happen as long as its spitting in the face of its own reason for being continues.

UPDATE: Karen at Heretic's Corner has an interesting perspective on the controversy from a kind of, sort of, more liberal point of view. Worth a look.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 08:44 PM EST [link]

Coming soon to a major newspaper near you

The Episcopagan story is about to get bigger. Word in the blogosphere is that the Washington Times is going to be running a story in the next day or two about it. And from there it's only a matter of time before other media outlets jump into the fray. If I were Charles Bennison or Margaret Rose, I'd be practicing my ducking, not to mention getting my phony-baloney story together. And if I were Oakwyse or Glispa, I'd be making hasty reservations for Stonehenge, or wherever it is that pagans go when they want to run from the light of day.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 08:41 PM EST [link]

Hatchetman in the "grove" of the Lord

Chris Johnson has dug up this tidbit on Our Man Melnyk from the Druidry.org site, where his posts are now apparently stored under the name of "Thrum," though he's signing them "Bran." (Those posts haven't been deleted, just altered.) This one gives us an idea of how he and his wife view their ministry:

Hi, folks. I'm 57, live in southeastern Pennsylvania, and have been a member of OBOD since 1998. My spouse and I are both Druid graduates of the training course. We are also both priests in the Episcopal (Anglican) Church. Between us, we lead two groves (some call them "congregations") of Christians learning about Druidry numbering about 1200. As I write this, I have just finished a wedding and a funeral back-to-back for some 300 people.

Raven and I are both members of the Pipes and Drums of the Delaware Valley–she a flourishing tenor drummer, and me a piper. We love Scotland, and go to Iona every spring for Beltaine.

I have served as a tutor in the past, but not at present.

My creed? 'There is only one river.'

Whatever that means. I think that at this point, it's crystal clear that the ball is in Bishop Charles Bennison's court. It's up to him to decide whether it's ok for pagans to infiltrate his diocese and set up shop masquerading as Episcopal priests (I'm not saying their orders aren't valid, just that they've shredded their ordination vows and defected to the Other Side.)
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 08:40 PM EST [">link]

Quick! Hide the evidence!

Head for the hills! That seems to be the general tenor of the burst of Internet activity connected to the "Women's Eucharist." In the last two days:

*The liturgy itself came down off the Office of Women's Ministries site, along with a liturgy for divorce. Lame excuse followed.

*The personal site of the Rev. Druid Bill Melnyk, www.oakwyse.org, has been taken down.

*Tuatha de Brighid took down the page that their version of the "Women's Eucharist" appeared on (fortunately, I still have it here, bwahahahaha). The Wiccan Lunar Ritual by OakWyse and Glispa is still up, however.

*Every single post (over 400) ever made at the message board of Druidry.org by one "Druis" has been removed. Said Druis also claimed to be an "Anglican" priest. (Meanwhile, questions are apparently being raised at MCJ by readers who looked at Druis' posts and discovered that contributions for Druid-related activities have apparently been funnelled through the Rector's Discretionary Fund at St. James Episcopal Church, Downington PA, Rev. Melnyk's church.)

*Just before signing off of Druidry.org, Druis posted this frantic message (down, of course, but saved by a reader at Titusonenine, comment 86):

My Dear Friends ~

Raven and I have come under vicious attack from Anglican fundamentalists re our connection to druidry. Hour by hour the attacks are spreading on fundamentalist BLOGs across the country.
For our protection, we must end all internet connection as soon as possible.

I ask Kernos to leave this one notice up for a day or two, but then to do a universal delete of all references to Druis. Please delete my membership. I cannot stress how serious this is. If you respond, please do not use my name in your response.

I will not be posting again.

You can see a summary of the issue at www.christianitytoday.com

Kernos–the polls will take care of themselves...please note the winners when they are over.

Peace to all. Pray for us.

Druis

The pathetic thing about all thing deletion activity is that the principals seem to have forgotten that what Google has once seen, Google remembers. So hitting all the delete keys in the world aren't going to get the spooky pair off the hook.

In addition to all this attempted cover-up activity, the listserv of the ECUSA House of Bishops has been abuzz. According to one observer of said list,

This sorry mess is being blown off as a tempest-in-a-teapot by many, with some even attempting to defend it as harmless. Others contend "everybody knows" you can't consider something official just because it is posted on the official ECUSA website. Predictably, there are one or two who classify those of us in "fundamentalist" weblogs who raise objections as being prejudiced against the liberation of women from a dominating patriarchal society. (Comment 122)

Yeah, it's a real pity us up-tight fundies can't see that a little polytheistic paganism, all in good fun, never hurt anyone.

I've got further inquiries out to ECUSA leaders. I'll let you know if any of them respond.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 08:38 PM EST [link]

Women's Ministries explains it all for you

The ECUSA Office of Women's Ministries has decided that it has to respond to the firestorm that has surrounded its posting of a neopagan "Women's Eucharist" on its Web site. Initially found by Erik Nelson and Faith McDonnel of the IRD, it was first reported here and at Chris Johnson's MCJ, then picked up by Titusonenine, CaNN, and Christianity Today Weblog. It would seem that that last was the elephant in the living room that could no longer be ignored.

Here's the response:

We have been astounded and grateful for the number of people who have taken an interest in The Office of Women's Ministries of the Episcopal Church through Christianity Today's recent weblog, "Episcopal Church Officially Promotes Idol Worship," as posted by Ted Olsen on October 26, 2004.

"Grateful"–I'll bet.

The material questioned in Olsen's article, "A Women's Eucharist: A Celebration of the Divine Feminine" was sent to us in good faith in response to our recent call for resources. We regret we did not realize that the material was copyright protected. Proper notifications were not included by mistake and so the page has been withdrawn from our website.

In the dictionary under "disingenuous," it says, "see this." They got the material from the author–what more copyright permission did they need? And how hard could it have been to get them? If this was the problem, it would be back up already.

We profoundly regret that Christianity Today did not contact us before making claims such as, "…leaders of the Episcopal Church USA are promoting pagan rites to pagan deities." The resources listed on our website are not approved liturgies of the Episcopal Church. These liturgies are intended to spark dialogue, study, conversation and ponderings around women and our liturgical tradition. There is quite a difference in presenting resources for people’s interest and enlightenment and promoting resources as official claims of the Episcopal Church. Only General Convention has this authority.

She must have consulted a canon lawyer. Technically, of course, the "Women's Eucharist" isn't an official, approved liturgy of the ECUSA. But by putting this on the official ECUSA site, saying nothing about its origins, indicating that it came from an ECUSA clergwoman, and giving no guidance as to how it diverged, if at all, from ECUSA teaching and practice, the OWM certainly gave the impression that they thought it was hunky-dory material for Episcopal women to use. I mean, the GC didn't approve it, but didn't OWM director Margaret Rose approve putting it on the site? Or do low-level OWM grunts just regularly slap neopagan materials on its site for all the world to see without telling the head honchos?

The current liturgy project–A Call for Resources: The Women's Liturgy Project–and the Women's Worship Resources section on our website is a grassroots, organic, interactive process. It is an offering to open the awareness of the many voices and needs that exist among people in the church as we all strive to find expressions of our life, love and faith in God.

And if we find our "expressions of...life, love and faith" in the gods and goddesses of Old Europe or ancient Canaan, bully for us.

So, here's another question for Margaret Rose: Once you've got the necessary copyright permission, are you going to put this "worship resource" back up on the site so that we can all "interact" with it? Better yet, are you going to try to explain to Frank Griswold what the fuss is all about?
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 08:34 PM EST [link]

Keep looking, keep finding

More stuff from the Episcopo-Druids can be found at a business they seem to have some association with, Sacred Grove Handmade Prayer Beads and Wearable Sacred Art. For example, here's a portion of a pagan rosary, written by Episcopal priest Bill Melnyk:

On each Earth Spirit Bead say:
Fur and feather, leaf and stone,
Aid me as I aid you.
Earth Spirits hear my prayer,
And accept my offering of love.
On the divider/space say:
I bind unto myself today the
Power of the Gods and Goddesses.
Meditate on the Honor of the Shining Ones...

On each God and Goddess Bead say:
Gods and Goddesses, Shining Ones,
Honor me as I honor you.
First-Born of Earth, hear my prayer,
And accept my offering of love.
On the divider/space say:
I bind unto myself today the
The presence of the Three Kindred.

And here's one from Oakwyse and Glispa (Episcopal priest Glyn Ruppe-Melnyk): Goddess beads

On the space say:
I bind unto myself today the
Wisdom of the Crone.
Meditate on the Presence of the Crone...
On each Crone Bead say:
Crone now stands in moonlight gleaming,
Starlit night and silver hair;
Peace and wisdom from you streaming,
Goddess, keeper of our care.
On the space say:
I bind unto myself today the
Fertility, Power, and Wisdom of the Goddess.
On the silver Moon Bead conclude:
Blessed Mother, stay by me,
and cast your lovely, silver light.
Uncloud your face that I may see
unveiled, its shining in the night.
Triple Goddess, Blessed Be,
and Merry Meet, my soul's delight!

These folks are deep into this stuff.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 08:32 PM EST [link]

More on the Druid story

Turns out that the "Rev." Bill Melnyk–also known as the Druid priest "OakWyse"–serves a parish of his own, St. James Episcopal in Downington, PA. Here's how he describes himself on his church's site:

Father Bill has served congregations in South Carolina, Tennessee, Michigan, Florida, and New York before coming to Pennsylvania. His chief pastoral interests are in the fields of teaching (especially Old and New Testament, theology, and ethics), preaching, and liturgical planning and leadership. He has extensive experience in spiritual direction, personal spirituality, and retreat leadership.

Fr. Bill is deeply involved in the study of Celtic Sprituality, including the interface between the early Celtic Church and pre-Christian Celtic spritual expressions. His personal spirituality is centered on the unconditional love of God for all creation, and the goodness and worthwhileness of all human beings.

Uh, huh. You wonder whether his congregation knows just how "deeply involved" he is with that "interface." You also wonder whether his bishop, the notorious Charles Bennison, will give a hoot.
(Thanks to MCJ for the link.)

UPDATE: The original link URL no longer works. So if you want to take another look at the source of the hubbub, look here.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 08:30 PM EST [link]

Priest and priestess

The readers of the Rev. Kendall Harmon's blog Titusonenine have been hard at work, and have established that the "Rev." Glyn Ruppe-Melnyk did not plagiarize the neopagan "Women's Eucharist" from the Druid site Tuathe de Brighid and the author "Glispa." That's because she is the Druid author. Here's the connection, courtesy of "Nicholas":

Okay I’m convinced now. I did find the link via the husband. This link identifies the druid "Oakwyse" as being Bill Melnyk. This one identifies Bill Melnyk and Glyn Ruppe-Melnyk as a couple. This one links the two again and gives Melnyk’s email address as being oakwyse at aol dot com. And several links such as this one link Oakwyse and Glispa.

The two of whom have also co-authored this:

Wiccan Lunar Ritual (excerpts)

Honoring the Lady

[Gong] In the Face of the Moon we honor Our Lady, who was of old called among humankind Isis, Artemis, Astarte, Aphrodite, Diana, Mary, and by many other Names.

She stands in the Center of the Circle, with head bowed and arms across her chest.

For the Full Moon, robes are removed at this point and replaced at the conclusion of the prayers. Prayers are offered for the appropriate Lunar phase.

Both sit in silent meditation for a time. A Bell is rung once to end the silence.

Other Working may be done as neede, One note is sounded on the Bell.

New Moon Ritual

Death and New Life

Invocation of the Goddess

[Priest] Dark is the night, new is the Moon,
Quiet as death, dark as the tomb;
Grandmother, Lady, come to us soon,
Warm as life, secure as the womb.
Behold the Lady of Darkness:
Mother, Grandmother, old yet ever young.
Receiving the Blessing of the Goddess

[Priestess] Old and eternal, young as the Spring,
Waning and waxing, new life I bring;
Round is my turning–Full unto New,
Blessing of rebirth I offer to you.

First Quarter Moon Ritual

Nursing

[P] Mother Goddess, silver bowl,
From your Moon-breast, rich and strong,
Pour upon our thirsty souls
The milk of life for which we long.
Behold our Mother, the Waxing Moon:
She who feeds us from her own breast.

[PS] Draw near, Beloved, safely led,
Stay close upon thy Mother’s breast;
From silver bowl you shall be fed,
And suckled there shall you be blessed.

You get the point. Titusonenine reader "Perpetua" asked the author of the "Women's Eucharist" about it, and here's a quote:

"This is not a liturgy of the Episcopal Church. It is a pastoral rite, not intended for Sunday worship or parish liturgy, and as such has neither been submitted to any official sanctioning body in the Episcopal Church nor to my knowledge been used outside small groups studying spirituality."

And here's a link to Bill Melnyk, with a bit about his quest:

On the web as "OakWyse" since 1994, he is the Organizer of RavenOak Grove. OakWyse is a Druid Grade member of OBOD, and an Anglican Priest. He is committed to the exploration of the Common Ground upon which rest ancient Druidry and English Christian Spirituality.

Finally, (genuine) Anglican priest David Roseberry has spoken to the head of Women's Ministries. He describes their less-than-cordial conversation here.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 08:29 PM EST [link]

Liturgy? What liturgy?

Well, well, well. By a miracle of modern technology, the neopagan liturgy formerly found on the worship resources page of the ECUSA Women's Ministries division has been dropped down the memory hole. Nothing on the site would give you any idea that the "Women's Eucharist" had ever been there. No explanation for why it's gone, no acknowledgment that there was anything wrong with it being there.

However, by another miracle of modern technology, this link still works. If you haven't seen the latest testimony to the disintegration of the Episcopal Church's status as a Christian institution, check it out.

UPDATE: By the way, a Liturgy for Divorce that had also sparked some less-than-complimentary responses in the blogosphere is also gone.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 08:25 PM EST [link]

Episcopal neopaganism

There are those who doubt that paganism has penetrated the Episcopal Church. If you're among them, check out this "Women's Eucharist," the text for which comes from the Worship Resources section of the ECUSA Women's Ministries Web site:

A Women’s Eucharist: A Celebration of the Divine Feminine

We gather around a low table, covered with a woven cloth or shawl. A candle, a bowl or vase of flowers, a large shallow bowl filled with salted water, a chalice of sweet red wine, a cup of milk mixed with honey, and a plate of raisin cakes are placed on the table.
When all are seated on the floor and comfortable, one of the women lights the candles saying,

"Mother God, Giver of light, let this flame illumine our hearts and minds. May its warmth remind us of the love in which you embrace us all. We thank you, Mother, for light."

Placing both hands on the fabric covering the table, one of the women says,

"We thank you, Mother, for the hands that wove this cloth. May her life be rich and full. We thank you for the colors, the textures, and the patterns that cover our sacred time and places. We thank you for the wisdom of the weaver’s art, the glory of the interplay of thread and cord. May we be woven together with cords of love and trust as we weave the vision of our lives."

Gathering the flowers to her face, another woman says,

"Blessed are you, Mother God, for the fertility of this world. We thank you for the sight and scent of flowers, for the way their shape evokes in us the unfolding of our own sexuality, and for their power to remind us of the glory and the impermanence of physical beauty. May our days of blossoming and of fading be days spent in your presence."

Dipping her fingers into the bowl of salt water, one of the women says,

"Sisters, this is the water of life. From the womb of the sea, Mother Earth brought forth life. From the womb waters of our own bodies our children are born. In the womb shaped fonts of our churches, we are baptized into community. This is the water of life." Touching the water again, she continues. "This, too, is the water of our tears. Our power to weep is an expression of God’s love in and through us. We weep in sorrow for that which we have lost. We weep in anger for the pain of others. We weep in hope of healing and wholeness, and we weep in joy when our hearts are too full to contain our feelings."

Dipping her fingers in the water, each traces a tear on the cheek of the woman beside her saying,

"Remember, sister, tears are the water of life."

The chalice of sweet red wine is raised and a woman says,

"Blessed are you, Mother God, for you have given us the fruit of the earth. Red as blood, warm as life itself, sweet and intoxicating as love. We thank you for wine. We bless you for the power of this drink to remind us of our own power. We praise you for the strength and beauty of our bodies, and for the menstrual blood of womanhood. We embrace the mystery of life which you have entrusted to us, and we pray for the day when human blood is no longer shed and when woman’s blood is honored as holy and in your image."

The cup is passed hand to hand and all drink from it.

The cup of milk and honey is raised and a woman says,

"Thank you, Mother, for the abundance of life. Thank you for the rich, full, pleasing, and life giving milk of our bodies. Thank you for the children who drink from our breasts for they bring sweetness to our lives. We drink this cup as your daughters, fed from your own bosom. May we be proud of our nurturing and sustaining selves. May we honor our breasts as symbols of your abundance. Thank you for the milk and honey of your presence with us."

The cup is passed and shared by all.

The plate of raisin cakes is raised and a woman says,

"Mother God, our ancient sisters called you Queen of Heaven and baked these cakes in your honor in defiance of their brothers and husbands who would not see your feminine face. We offer you these cakes, made with our own hands; filled with the grain of life–scattered and gathered into one loaf, then broken and shared among many. We offer these cakes and enjoy them too. They are rich with the sweetness of fruit, fertile with the ripeness of grain, sweetened with the power of love. May we also be signs of your love and abundance."

The plate is passed and each woman takes and eats a cake.

When all have eaten, they say together:

"We thank you, Mother, for revealing yourself to us in the mystery of our womanhood. We thank you for the water of life in which we swam in the womb and which gives us the power to weep. We thank you for the blood of life which flows in and from our bodies and which makes us creators in your image as we give birth to new life. We thank you for the milk and honey of life which we receive from our mothers and which we give to our own children. And we thank you for the rich, sweet, and savory taste of life found in the grain of the earth and the fruit of the vine -- the gifts of your body shared with us. May we cherish it and ourselves always, and may we live in your peace."

This comes to the ECUSA courtesy of the Rev. Glyn Ruppe-Melnyk of St. Francis in the Fields, Malvern, PA. Now, compare it to this item, found on Tuathe de Brighid, which refers to itself as "a Clan of modern Druids":

A Celebration of the Divine Feminine in A Eucharist to our Mother Goddess by Glispa

We gather around a low table, covered with a woven cloth or shawl. On the table are a candle, a bowl or vase of flowers, a large shallow bowl filled with salted water, a chalice of sweet red wine, a cup of milk mixed with honey, and a plate of raisin cakes.

When all are seated on the floor and comfortable, one of the women lights the candles saying,

"Mother God, Giver of light, let this flame illumine our hearts and minds. May its warmth remind us of the love in which you embrace us all. We thank you, Mother God, for light."

Placing both hands on the fabric covering the table, one of the women says,

"We thank you, Mother God, for the hands that wove this cloth. May her life be rich and full. We thank you for the colors, the textures, and the patterns that cover our sacred time and places. We thank you for the wisdom of the weaver’s art, the glory of the interplay of thread and cord. May we be woven together with cords of love and trust as we weave the vision of our lives."

Gathering the flowers to her face, another woman says,

"Blessed are you, Mother God, for the fertility of this world. We thank you for the sight and scent of flowers, for the way their shape evokes in us the unfolding of our own sexuality, and for their power to remind us of the glory and the impermanence of physical beauty. May our days of blossoming and of fading be days spent in your presence."

Dipping her fingers into the bowl of salt water, one of the women says,

"Sisters, this is the water of life. From the womb of the sea, our Mother Earth brought forth life. From the womb waters of our own bodies our children are born. In the womb shaped fonts of our churches, we are baptized into community. This is the water of life."

Touching the water again, she continues.

"This, too, is the water of our tears. Our power to weep is an expression of Mother God’s love in and through us. We weep in sorrow for that which we have lost. We weep in anger for the pain of others. We weep in hope of healing and wholeness, and we weep in joy when our hearts are too full to contain our feelings."

Dipping her fingers in the water, each traces a tear on the cheek of the woman beside her saying,

"Remember, sister, tears are the water of life."

The chalice of sweet red wine is raised and a woman says,

"Blessed are you, Mother God, for you have given us the fruit of the earth. Red as blood, warm as life itself, sweet and intoxicating as love. We thank you for wine. We bless you for the power of this drink to remind us of our own power. We praise you for the strength and beauty of our bodies, and for the menstrual blood of womanhood. We embrace the mystery of life which you have entrusted to us, and we pray for the day when human blood is no longer shed and when woman’s blood is honored as holy and in your image."

The cup is passed hand to hand and all drink from it.

The cup of milk and honey is raised and a woman says,

"Thank you Mother God for the abundance of life. Thank you for the rich, full, pleasing, and life giving milk of our bodies. Thank you for the children who drink from our breasts for they bring sweetness to our lives. We drink this cup as your daughters, fed from your own bosom. May we be proud of our nurturing and sustaining selves. May we honor our breasts as symbols of your abundance. Thank you for the milk and honey of your presence with us."

The cup is passed and shared by all.

The plate of raisin cakes is raised and a woman says,

"Mother God, our ancient sisters called you Queen of Heaven and baked these cakes in your honor in defiance of their brothers and husbands who would not see your feminine face. We offer you these cakes, made with our own hands. Filled with the grain of life–scattered and gathered into one loaf, then broken and shared among many. We offer these cakes and enjoy them too. They are rich with the sweetness of fruit, fertile with the ripeness of grain, sweetened with the power of love. May we also be signs of your love and abundance."

The plate is passed and each woman takes and eats a cake.

When all have eaten, they say together:

"We thank you, Mother God, for revealing yourself to us in the mystery of our womanhood. We thank you for the water of life in which we swam in the womb and which gives us the power to weep. We thank you for the blood of life which flows in and from our bodies and which makes us creators in your image as we give birth to new life. We thank you for the milk and honey of life which we receive from our mothers and which we give to our own children. And we thank you for the rich, sweet, and savory taste of life found in the grain of the earth and the fruit of the vine–the gifts of your body shared with us. May we cherish it and ourselves always, and may we live in your peace."

No, this is not a double posting. You read correctly: this neopagan liturgy is currently being offered essentially unchanged on the official Web site of the ECUSA for use by Episcopal churches. If you'd like to contact someone to express your opinion about the, ah, appropriateness of this liturgy on an allegedly Christian Web site, write to the director of Women's Ministries, the Rev. Margaret Rose, at mrose@episcopalchurch.org. I'm sure she'd love to hear from lots of fans of Rev. Ruppe-Melnyk's handiwork.

(Hat tip: Erik.)

UPDATE: If you'd like to get in on the paganization of the ECUSA, you can respond to this invitation:

A Call for Resources

Many aspects of women’s lives and bodies have historically been left unrecognized in the rites, rituals, and ceremonies of the church. However, for women to move from representation to true inclusion in the church and beyond, the church must embrace pastorally, ritually, and liturgically the many passages and experiences of a woman’s life.

We believe in the narrative aspect of liturgy–the ability to tell the story of a woman’s life through ritual, prayer, and ceremony. The following section provides worship resources that respond to the lives of women. We anticipate this will be a place where women can share with one another liturgies they have created or found that respond to the various passages and experiences of their lives. It is our hope that such resources may be incorporated within the context of a Sunday morning service or any other appropriate milieu. These can include but are not limited to:
* conception/pregnancy/miscarriage/childbirth
* menstruation
* menopause
* abortion
* any form of leave taking
* women saints’ days

Yessir, I can't wait to incorporate that menstruation liturgy from the local Wiccan coven into my All Saints' Sunday worship. Because, you see, it's all about us. That God character can get His/Her/Its own worshippers.

UPDATE: Check out the comments by Ted Olsen of Christianity Today's excellent Weblog here.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 08:23 PM EST [link]

The WCC: doin' what they do best

It says here that "Fifty-five church leaders and consultants from nine countries of Asia, Europe and North America met under the auspices of the World Council of Churches (WCC) and the Christian Conference of Asia (CCA) at the Tozanso YMCA conference centre in Japan from 17th to 21st October 2004 to commemorate the 20th anniversary of an historical ecumenical consultation that initiated lines of communication between Christians of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the Republic of Korea (ROK)."

The consultation issued a "final communiqué" in which the participants told a breathlessly waiting world what needs to be done to bring about peace and security (but not freedom–see below) on the Korean peninsula. It criticized the United States for refusing to give in to Kim Jung Il's demands for bilateral negotiations and a non-aggression pact, and criticized Japan for not confronting its undoubtedly beastly past behavior in Korea. Beyond that, the proferred formula for peace goes like this:

*Normalization of relations between the DPRK and the USA and the adoption of a non-aggression pact will provide a solid foundation for ending the Armistice and replacing it with a Peace Treaty. Reconciliation between the US and the DPRK remains the key to diffusing tension in the region.

*A more independent regional policy and role by Japan is essential to create a climate for peace, security and regional stability. The implementation of the Japan-DPRK Pyongyang Declaration 17 September, 2002 will further this process.

*Humanitarian support for food, medicine, and other inputs should be continued by Japan, USA and other countries without conditions attached. Humanitarian assistance should not be abused for political ends. In order to address the fundamental economic conditions, donor countries should consider other forms of assistance like the provision of energy and development aid.

*Lifting of economic sanctions of the DPRK will lead to better living standards and progress in different sectors of society. The US and Japan should refrain from using sanctions as a political leverage in their policy of confrontation and isolation.

*The participants encourage the WCC and the CCA to convene a working group to build an ecumenical network of churches, individuals and organizations interested in promoting peace and the reunification of Korea.

Anyone notice what's utterly missing from those five points (indeed, from the entire communiqué)?
Any reference whatsoever to the North Korean regime's human rights record–universally regarded as the world's worst–or its possession of nuclear weapons in violation of a 1994 agreement that saw the United States and Japan ship lots of humanitarian aid to the North, only to see it wind up on the tables of the military.

You'll remember that just a couple of weeks ago, Bob Edgar of the National Council of Churches was blasting away at the IRD's human rights report for being "grievously off the mark" when it accused the WCC, NCC, ECUSA, UMC, PCUSA, and ELCA of one-sidedly criticizing Israel while ignoring the far worse human rights abuses of others nations, including North Korea. Well, here was an opportunity, under WCC auspices, for someone to point out that North Korea more closely resembles one of the rings of hell than a free and open society, but no. It would seem that any unpleasantness found on the Korean peninsula is–you guessed it–the fault of those evil Americans and their Japanese toadies. Apparently, for consultation participants, the fact that North Korea is the world's foremost thugocracy should present no real barriers to its reunification with the democratic South.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 07:34 PM EST [link]

A new confession of Christ

Jim Wallis of Sojourners magazine has put together a seriously high-powered list of endorsers for a statement entitled "Confessing Christ in a World of Violence." There are a lot of names on the list I respect and appreciate as Christian thinkers; one is a personal friend. Almost all of the signers are academics. Here's what they have to say to the Body of Christ in these perilous times:

1. Jesus Christ, as attested in Holy Scripture, knows no national boundaries. Those who confess his name are found throughout the earth. Our allegiance to Christ takes priority over national identity. Whenever Christianity compromises with empire, the gospel of Christ is discredited.

We reject the false teaching that any nation-state can ever be described with the words, "the light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it." These words, used in scripture, apply only to Christ. No political or religious leader has the right to twist them in the service of war.

No problems with this. Right on.

2. Christ commits Christians to a strong presumption against war. The wanton destructiveness of modern warfare strengthens this obligation. Standing in the shadow of the Cross, Christians have a responsibility to count the cost, speak out for the victims, and explore every alternative before a nation goes to war. We are committed to international cooperation rather than unilateral policies.

We reject the false teaching that a war on terrorism takes precedence over ethical and legal norms. Some things ought never be done–torture, the deliberate bombing of civilians, the use of indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction–regardless of the consequences.

Here the confession starts to drift away from being a Christian to a political statement. What does "explore every alternative before a nation goes to war" mean? And how do we know when "every alternative" has been adequately explored? Determining this undoubtedly involves prudential judgments on the part of policy-makers. As citizens we can certainly disagree with their decisions, but we have no unique competence as Christians to determine the validity of those decisions.

To say "we are committed to international cooperation rather than unilateral policies" is likewise to elevate a prudential judgment to the level of a moral claim. What is there about "international cooperation" that is inherently more moral than "unilateral policies" (which are, in any event, irrelevant to the current international situation, except insofar as one buys the Kerry line that we have no substantive allies in Iraq)? That it is a legitimate policy preference is true. What it has to do with "confessing Christ" is not at all clear, especially since there is no such thing as a "Christian nation" that any others could cooperate with.

3. Christ commands us to see not only the splinter in our adversary's eye, but also the beam in our own. The distinction between good and evil does not run between one nation and another, or one group and another. It runs straight through every human heart.

We reject the false teaching that America is a "Christian nation," representing only virtue, while its adversaries are nothing but vicious. We reject the belief that America has nothing to repent of, even as we reject that it represents most of the world's evil. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23).

This is all unobjectionable, a true statement of Christian belief. I'm also not sure it doesn't miss the point of the current debate. There may well be those who claim America is without fault, but the war-supporting cultural conservatives are not among them. And the fact that Osama bin Laden and his ilk no doubt have their good sides doesn't change the reality that what America and its allies are opposing are evil actions predicated on an evil ideology. The point is that at the same time that these paragraphs make a correct statement of Christian theology, they also pre-suppose that human beings are in the same position as God in judging sin, and thus able to order society according to the teaching that all sin is of equal magnitude. Ask yourself this: was America morally inhibited from fighting Nazism because of Jim Crow? If not, then how is fighting the evil of Islamofascism invalidated by America's current sins?

The other interesting problem raised by point 3 is that it paradoxically contends that America, though clearly not a "Christian nation," should nevertheless act like one. If America, like every other nation, doesn't make policy on the basis of Christian theology, then how can Christians call upon this country to act according to standards about which it is officially agnostic?

4. Christ shows us that enemy-love is the heart of the gospel. While we were yet enemies, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8, 10). We are to show love to our enemies even as we believe God in Christ has shown love to us and the whole world. Enemy-love does not mean capitulating to hostile agendas or domination. It does mean refusing to demonize any human being created in God's image.

We reject the false teaching that any human being can be defined as outside the law's protection. We reject the demonization of perceived enemies, which only paves the way to abuse; and we reject the mistreatment of prisoners, regardless of supposed benefits to their captors.

Again, this is a true statement of Christian teaching, but it seems to assume that America is a Christian nation. Love of enemies, and the crucifixion to which it leads, is at the heart of Christian ethics, but it is not the way that a religiously pluralistic nation can be expected to act. What the signers reject is wholly unobjectionable, and ought to be part of the political/military policy of any civilized nation.

5. Christ teaches us that humility is the virtue befitting forgiven sinners. It tempers all political disagreements, and it allows that our own political perceptions, in a complex world, may be wrong.
We reject the false teaching that those who are not for the United States politically are against it or that those who fundamentally question American policies must be with the "evil-doers." Such crude distinctions, especially when used by Christians, are expressions of the Manichaean heresy, in which the world is divided into forces of absolute good and absolute evil.

Amen to this. Political discourse would be much improved if humility became a defining factor. Once upon a time, there was much more general acknowledgement in political culture that virtually all policy-makers, regardless of party, had basically the same goals and motives for their actions–it was means that were at issue. Now, the impugning of motives is not only standard fare, it is much more the order of the day than discussion of ways-and-means.

To sum up: a good effort, one Christians need to hear, but one that would also be improved by the excision of the author's political biases when they are shrouded in the guise of theology.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 07:32 PM EST [link]

Presbyterians keep digging, trying to find bottom

Ronald Stone, the Presbyterian elder and retired professor of social ethics who thought meeting with Hezbollah was an ethical thing to do, breaks out his shovel again:

Ronald H. Stone, a Presbyterian elder from Pittsburgh whose laudatory comments about a Lebanon-based terrorist group have sparked a storm of interdenominational protest, said yesterday his comments had been taken out of context.

Actually, the context was pretty well reported, but this is the standard excuse these days when someone says something outrageous.

Reached at his hotel in Jerusalem, where he was staying with a delegation representing the Presbyterian Church (USA), Stone said he was against all forms of terrorism, including that advocated by Hezbollah, the Shiite group he and 23 other Presbyterians met with Sunday in southern Lebanon.

Nice to know.

He said his comments at the meeting had been "blown out of proportion" and characterized them as "off-the-cuff remarks" extracted from the nearly 15 minutes he spoke.

Aren't you just dying to know what he said during the other 14 1/2 minutes?

An 83-second videotaped excerpt of the meeting, which first appeared on Hezbollah's television network, Al Manar, was translated later by the Middle East Media Research Institute and posted on its Web site. Sheik Nabil Qauq, the Hezbollah leader in southern Lebanon, speaks first, comparing American foreign policy to "an owl bringing bad tidings."

"All we hear from Bush are words of war, evil, destruction, killing, siege and threat," Nabil Qauq is translated as saying.

You know, the kind of stuff we hear from Hezbollah about Israel all the time. Not to mention that pigs and monkeys thing.

The videotape then shows Stone behind a microphone.

"We treasure the precious words of Hezbollah and your expression of goodwill toward the American people," Stone says. "Also we praise your initiative for dialogue and mutual understanding. We cherish these statements that bring us closer to you. As an elder of our church, I'd like to say that according to my recent experience, relations and conversations with Islamic leaders are a lot easier than dealings and dialogue with Jewish leaders."

Hezbollah's stated purpose since its founding has been the destruction of Israel, and it works in tandem with Iran to make life difficult for the "Great Satan." Where the "initiative for dialogue and mutual understanding" is, nobody except perhaps Ronald Stone knows. As for the last sentence, you wonder what Stone's experience is–if he goes around telling Jewish leaders that Israel should give terrorists anything their hearts desire, I imagine it would make it easier to deal with Islamic leaders than Jewish ones. (I don't know that he has said anything like that, but what else might he mean?)

Stone, an elder at East Liberty Presbyterian Church, said the meeting with Hezbollah was arranged through Presbyterian churches in southern Lebanon and the Middle East Council of Churches.

He had not been asked to speak, Stone said, but after Qauq's comments "somebody had to respond," he said.

Why did someone have to speak? Why did someone have to say anything more than, "thanks for talking to us"? Why did Stone, who wasn't leading the trip, feel the need to talk for 15 minutes on the spur of the moment? Why did they have to accept the arrangement of the meeting? And what in God's name is the Middle East Council of Churches doing consorting with terrorists?

"Our policy is we are seeking out lots of different voices," on the mission, Stone said. "I did not agree with the sheik's social and political analysis. I condemn terrorism and the [Presbyterian] Church condemns terrorism.

Different voices, eh? You wonder when the last time was that a Presbyterian delegation sought out the Klan's opinion on racial issues, or the NRA's on gun control, or Jerry Falwell's on homosexuality, or an Israeli settler's on just about anything. You also wonder if they are meeting with anyone in the Israeli government (anyone Jewish, that is) while they're in Israel.

"When you meet Hezbollah on a Sunday afternoon, they're not running around with guns. There are things that Hezbollah does that are a social service, such as health, education and social welfare."

And Hitler made the trains run on time and lifted Germany out of the Great Depression. Isn't that special?
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 07:30 PM EST [link]

PCUSA damage control efforts continue

PCUSA leaders continue to flail about, trying to mitigate the damage done to Jewish-Presbyterian relations by traveling bucketmouths:

To Jewish leaders at the New York City meeting on September 28, 2004:

We, along with John Detterick, Executive Director of the General Assembly Council, who was unable to be with us in New York, were distressed to learn of the visit of the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy to the Khiam Detention Center and the meeting with Hezbollah leaders. We were particularly distressed about this, given our meeting with you in New York last month.

The time we spent with all of you in New York moved us very deeply, and we made several commitments as a result of our time together. One was to commit ourselves to a continued dialogue with those of you whom we met on the national level, as well as with our Jewish colleagues at local levels. We were particularly moved by the comments during our meeting about the importance of listening to, respecting, and including the Jewish narrative as we lift up our concern for peace in Israel and the Middle East.

Another commitment we made was to press as hard as possible with our colleagues in the Presbyterian Church (USA) to investigate and take advantage of any and all pressure points that we might have as a denomination to make our opposition to the use of terror tactics by Palestinian organizations. We are convinced that such possibilities for pressure must exist,

Because Hamas really, really cares about the opinions of American Presbyterians.

and that the only credible stance that we as a denomination can take is to make absolutely clear our conviction that Palestinian violence is never acceptable and that citizens of Israel must be able to live free of the fear of terrorism.

I'd have preferred their adding "or justified" after "acceptable," but this is otherwise well-put.

The recent visit of the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy to the Khiam Detention Center and its meeting with Hezbollah there was misguided, at best. The group’s specific itinerary was not authorized by any of us; in fact, once we learned of it, we asked the group to drop this visit from their plans. Furthermore, the comments attributed to Presbyterians there, as we understand them, are reprehensible.

Yes they were. Why some church bureaucrats are incapable of uttering a sentence like the latter without qualification is beyond me, but at least they used a strong term for Ronald Stone's remarks.

As a church, and as individuals, we know at the core of our souls that terrorism, especially terrorism against civilians, is one clear source of the lack of peace in the Middle East. Even when we identify and condemn the occupation as another key source of violence and lack of peace, we in no way condone the terrorism of groups such as Hezbollah, or of individuals or other actors in the region. Terrorism in all of its forms is morally abhorrent and completely inexcusable in our eyes.

That's great, but what is fueling the controversy is the recognition that the PCUSA has not even been close to even-handed in its treatment of the "actors." According to the IRD's human rights report, the PCUSA criticizes Israel more than any other foreign country, and between 2000 and 2003 never mentioned China, North Korea (but did mention democratic South Korea, go figure), Cuba, Syria, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or the Palestinian Authority.

Our prayer is for the following. First, that you will continue to work with us to create avenues of communication for that dialogue. Second, that we will find a way to communicate directly about this matter rather than confining ourselves only to what is being communicated through the media. Third, that we as a denomination will find ways to continue our insistence that we side both with Palestinian victims of the occupation and its violence, and with Israeli and Jewish victims of violence and terrorism.

Like perhaps punishing one side with divestment and the other with words? Despite the improved rhetoric, it sounds like the still don't really get it.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 07:27 PM EST [link]

Jewish reactions roll in, Presbyterians reel

Jewish leaders–the ones who are presumably so hard to deal with, touchy people that they are–are responding with outrage to the Presbyterian remarks out of Lebanon. Rabbi Eric Yoffie, President of the Union for Reform Judaism, and Rabbi Paul Menitoff, Executive Vice-President of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, have written to Clifton Kirkpatrick and Moderator Rick Ufford-Chase of the Presbyterian Church (USA):

We are deeply disturbed by reports that leaders of the Presbyterian Church (USA) met with and praised leaders of Hezbollah. In light of our recent meetings and conversations, you can imagine how surprised and alarmed we were to hear of these meetings. We were also very troubled by your statement in response. Though you distance yourself by saying that the visit and the comments made at this meeting do not reflect the official position of the Presbyterian Church (USA), you fail to condemn the fact that an official delegation from your church met with a known terrorist entity whose stated enemies are the United States and the state of Israel.

To speak of Hezbollah "goodwill towards the American people," as Elder [Ronald] Stone is quoted as doing, is astonishing. The U.S. State Department has long identified Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. In 1983, Hezbollah carried out a suicide bombing attack that killed 241 American Marines in Beirut. They continue to portray on their television station, Al Manar, United States foreign policy as Satanic. Chief Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has said that "the Arabs must understand that Israel is merely a battalion of the American army, and that the United States is the principal enemy." And on and, tragically, on.

Furthermore, we are horrified by Elder Stone's praising of Hezbollah for an initiative of "dialogue and mutual understanding." Hezbollah is responsible for untold numbers of Israeli deaths and kidnappings declaring "there is no life and no co-existence with Israel; there is only one slogan: Death to Israel." Hezbollah proclaims "we expect to see a suicide attack every day or every two days" as suicide terror "is the only way to wipe out the Zionists." Even after Israel withdrew from Southern Lebanon, Hezbollah continues to launch rockets into northern Israel killing dozens of Israelis. Hezbollah continues to kidnap Israeli soldiers and civilians, including Elhanan Tannenbaum, an Israeli businessman kidnapped during a business trip to Europe.

We are especially offended by Elder Stone's remarks that meeting with Hezbollah "is a lot easier than dealings and dialogue with Jewish leaders." To suggest that dialogue with terrorists is preferable to conversations with the American Jewish community is appalling and has overtones of anti-Semitism.
Based on our recent dialogue, we had hoped that you would swiftly and strongly denounce these meetings and statements by individuals who speak in the name of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Yet your statement does no more than repeat an earlier blanket condemnation of terrorism with no attention to the meetings of and statements from this delegation.

As we said when we met, there can be no religious justification whatsoever for words that serve to encourage terror and justify terrorism. Surely all people of decency, especially those whose tradition calls on us to "choose life" and "seek peace," can see that Hezbollah is not praiseworthy. We hope and pray that you will exercise the moral leadership required at this moment and repudiate these deplorable words spoken in the name of your church.

Richard Ostling of AP reports two others weighing in:

The American Jewish Committee said the Presbyterians had "lent legitimacy to what American government officials call the 'A-Team' of global terrorists" and delivered "a blow to peace efforts in the region." It called on the Presbyterian Church "to repudiate immediately" the delegation's actions.
Anti-Defamation League director Abraham Foxman said he found it "irresponsible" and "deeply disturbing" that Presbyterian leaders would seek to meet "members of a terrorist organization that is directly responsible for attacks against both Americans and Israelis and that has repeatedly denounced America and Israel as enemies of Islam."

Then there's this editorial from the Jewish newspaper Forward:

With relations between the Jewish and Presbyterian religious communities at their lowest point in decades, it's hard to imagine what could have possessed the Presbyterian Church (USA) to decide this was the right time for a good-will visit with the leadership of Hezbollah.

A 24-member delegation from the church met last Sunday in Lebanon with Sheikh Nabil Kaouk, described in press reports as the commander of Hezbollah in South Lebanon. According to The Associated Press, the group was on a fact-finding mission that included tours of sites near the Lebanese-Israeli border. They were briefed on Hezbollah's network of educational and social services, and heard from Kaouk that his Shi'ite group would welcome better ties with the American people.
Hezbollah is deemed by the American government to be one of the most dangerous international terrorist organizations. It is responsible for a host of atrocities, including the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, which killed 270. Before September 11 it was responsible for more American terrorist deaths than any other group. It is believed to be responsible for the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, still the deadliest anti-Jewish attack since World War II. And it is busy expanding its links to other terrorist groups; it is currently believed to be directing as much as 70% of ongoing terrorist violence in the West Bank.

At press time the leadership of the Presbyterian Church (USA) was said to be seeking to distance itself from the church's irresponsible behavior. But the hug-fest with Hezbollah is merely the logical conclusion of a course that was set last spring, when the church voted to divest itself of holdings in companies doing business with Israel. By singling out Israel for de-legitimization and demonization, the church sent a clear signal to its followers that the Jewish state is fair game and, by implication, that its enemies are valid partners in dialogue.

The church should use this opportunity to re-examine its shameful policies and return to sanity.
And the reaction in Pittsburgh isn't much better:

David Shtulman, executive director of the Pittsburgh chapter of the American Jewish, Committee, said he was stunned by Stone's comments.

"I think saying (Stone's) words are outrageous would be being kind," he said. "In my mind, the Pittsburgh Presbytery and the national Presbytery has to disassociate themselves from these remarks and come out with a strong condemnation of them."

Stone's pastor refused to do so, though a fellow elder at East Liberty Presbyterian Church kinda, sorta did:

The Rev. Richard E. Otty, of East Liberty Presbyterian, declined to discuss Stone's remarks.
"He's not over there as a representative of the church or the congregation, so I really can't comment on the context of any remarks that he's making," Otty said.

But Laura Lou Struthers, 70, of Squirrel Hill, an elder who has attended the church for 45 years, said Stone's words do not reflect a common opinion among parishioners.

"I am surprised that Ron would speak out in such a manner," she said. "I mean, I would not support Hezbollah in any way."

But never let it be said that people in the PCUSA aren't capable of recognizing when they've been whacked with a ball-peen hammer:

"I think it's safe to say that (Stone's) statements as reported in the international press cannot help but worsen relations between the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. and Jewish groups," said Jerry VanMarter, director of the Presbyterian News Service.

As a great man once said, "D'oh!"

UPDATE: From the sinisterly-named Zionist Organization of America:

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) strongly condemns the U.S. Presbyterian Church leaders who this week held friendly meetings with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad and a Hezbollah terrorist leader in Syrian-occupied Lebanon.

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein: "This is the height of hypocrisy: these Presbyterian officials hold friendly meetings with a brutal dictator and a terrorist whose organization has murdered hundreds of Americans, and instead of condemning the dictator or the terrorist, they condemn and threaten Israel, the only country in the region that is a democracy and respects human rights."

According to the Associated Press, the 24-member Presbyterian delegation, headed by the Rev. Nile Harper, 'met with the South Lebanon commander of Hezbollah" on Monday. Hezbollah, which is on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations, is responsible for the 1983 massacre of 241 Marines in Lebanon, among many other atrocities. The next day, the Presbyterian delegation met with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, in Damascus. The Assad regime illegally occupies Lebanon, wantonly violates the human rights of the Syrian and Lebanese population, sponsors terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and is developing weapons of mass destruction.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 07:24 PM EST [link]

Presbyterians attempt damage control

Clifton Kirkpatrick, stated clerk (roughly speaking, CEO) of the Presbyterian Church USA, can certainly spot trouble when he sees it. So when members of his denomination's Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP) went to Lebanon to meet with and praise the work of the terrorist organization Hezbollah, he was quick to disavow any connection with them:

A group of Presbyterians currently visiting the Middle East has received media attention by international press, as well as reporters in the region about their visit with Hezbollah leaders in South Lebanon. The Presbyterian group consists of members of the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP) and staff support for the committee. ACSWP is an advisory committee that develops social witness policy for the PC(USA), which it in turn recommends to the General Assembly for action.
So far, the group’s itinerary has included stops in Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. At the request of church partners, the group visited the Khiam Detention Center in South Lebanon, a former Israeli prison now controlled by Hezbollah, a group that has been associated with terror attacks.

Nice try on the damage control there. Hezbollah has not been "associated" with terror, they have committed terror attacks countless times over the last twenty years. They are responsible for the deaths of who knows how many innocents, and are officially designated a terrorist organization by the State Department. It's not like this is any secret–it's been in all the newspapers.

And who are the "church partners" who wanted the committee to visit such charming folks? And why didn't they just turn down the request, saying "we don't consort with terrorists?" Is Kirkpatrick saying he didn't know what their itinerary was? Was he going to say anything about it if news of it hadn't wound up on the AP wire?

The visit to Hezbollah and the comments on that occasion by members of this Presbyterian group do not reflect the official position of the Presbyterian Church (USA) on peace in the Middle East. The reports of this visit should not be interpreted in any way as lessening our deep commitment to continued Jewish-Christian dialogue, Muslim-Christian dialogue, or Jewish-Christian-Muslim dialogue.
The 216th General Assembly (2004) of the Presbyterian Church (USA) called "terrorism–whether state, group, or individual–immoral because it wrongfully and deliberately attacks innocent civilians," and is "a dead-end alternative to a negotiated settlement of the conflict."

We pray regularly for all those in the Middle East who live with the constant threat of violence. The Presbyterian Church (USA) continues to work for a just peace for all peoples, including Israelis and Palestinians.

It's amazing. He wants us all to know that the crackpots on display in Lebanon have nothing to do with "official" Presbyterian positions. Yet he can't bring himself to address what they had to say with any specificity. Ronald Stone is a recently retired professor of social ethics at Pittsburgh Seminary–doesn't his praise of one of the world's most notorious terrorist organizations, and his put-down of Jewish leaders, merit more than a "he doesn't speak for us"?
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 07:21 PM EST [link]

Presbyterians consort with terrorists

No, that header is not simply provocative. It describes accurately actions by a group of PCUSA people visiting the Middle East:

The head of a visiting U.S. Presbyterian Church delegation called on Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territories and said Monday that his church is studying the possibility of withholding investments to increase pressure on Israel.

"The occupation by Israel in the West Bank and Gaza must end because it is oppressive and destructive for the Palestinian people," the Rev. Nile Harper said in an interview with The Associated Press.
He criticized as "unhelpful" the barrier Israel is building in the West Bank to prevent Palestinian suicide bombings.

Where completed, it's actually been enormously helpful in keeping Israelis alive by preventing terrorist attacks against civilians (attacks in those areas are down something like 90%). It is true that it has not been helpful to Hamas or the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.

Harper, of Ann Arbor, Mich., warned that the General Assembly of his church, whose investments in U.S. firms total $8 billion, had instructed its investment agency to study the possibility of withdrawing its money from U.S. corporations whose products "are being destructively used against the Palestinians" by Israel.

The 24-member delegation traveled to Lebanon on Sunday and met with the south Lebanon commander of Hezbollah, a group Washington calls terrorist but Lebanon sees as a legitimate resistance movement against Israeli occupation of Arab lands.

Hezbollah is the Iranian-funded organization that specializes in rocket attacks on northern Israeli towns, as well as being one of the world's largest providers of terrorist know-how to a wide variety of causes. But Rev. Harper not only doesn't consider such actions "unhelpful," he apparently thinks of such people as legitimate peace partners, along with the occupier of Lebanon:

On Monday, they traveled to Syria, where they met with the minister of expatriates. They were scheduled to meet with President Bashar Assad on Tuesday and to travel to Jordan on Wednesday.
The meeting will aim to gauge the Syrian president's views on Syria's relationship with the United States, said the delegation's coordinator, Peter Sulyok.

"We are interested in peace and justice for Palestinians as well as in the relationship between Syria and Lebanon and Syria and Israel," Sulyok said. "We will be looking to see what new initiatives there might be, what possibilities there might be for peace."

I'll make it easy for you. First the relationships: Syria occupies Lebanon contrary to UN resolutions with some 35,000 troops, and is in a state of war with Israel that has lasted for 56 years now. Then, the peace possibilities: Syria is the headquarters of many of the world's most dangerous terrorist organizations. It aids said organizations with money, materiél, and logistical support. It may well be hiding Saddam Hussein's WMDs, and recently tested chemical weapons on the helpless people of Darfur in the Sudan. Possibilities for peace: nil. No matter how many American Presbyterians meddle.

UPDATE: Here's more about this trip, from the "progressive newswire" at CommonDreams.org:

The meeting between Sheikh Nabil Qauq, the leader of Hezbollah in south Lebanon, and a delegation of 24 leaders of the U.S. Presbyterian Church currently on a fact-finding tour in the Middle East, was broadcast Oct. 17 on Al Manar, Hezbollah's satellite television network. During the broadcast, at least one member of the delegation was shown praising Hezbollah. Elder Ronald Stone, who identified himself as representing the East Liberty Presbyterian Church in Pittsburgh, said, "As an elder of our church, I'd like to say that according to my recent experience, relations and conversations with Islamic leaders are a lot easier than dealings and dialogue with Jewish leaders." Elder Stone went on to praise Hezbollah: "We treasure the precious words of Hezbollah and your expression of goodwill towards the American people."

There may be more to come on this story. Check back for updates.
Athanasius on 11.27.04 @ 07:20 PM EST [link]

It's progress, of a sort

Where angels fear to tread

Methodists gear up for another trial

On the religious left and politics

And the down side of this is what?

Unhinged

Restoration, of a sort