Greater love hath no man.

This is a presentation I made for this Good Friday.

Preliminary thoughts on "gay marriage".

Marriage in this country, as in other Christian based societies, is both a religious and civil institution. Religiously it is a sacrament established by God and is not subject to change. It is between a man and woman as Scripture shows and this is in accord with deep theological as well as biological realities.

In civil terms marriage is an arrangement sanctioned by the State and given special status because of the benefits such arrangements give to the State. It is not a matter of individual rights, because it involves not individuals but specific pairings of individuals. Those parings are granted a license to become recognized as a married couple, as a marriage. Licenses by their very definition are not matters of civil rights. No one has a right to be licensed by the State for any activity unless they meet the criteria which the State lays out and essential. Drivers must be a certain age and have a minimum visual ability in order to having drivers license. This discriminates against ten year olds and the blind. Likewise, mandating that doctors pass certified medical board exams before they are recognized as licensed physicians is also discriminatory, a discrimination which is justified by the very need to recognize and license physicians. Without such discrimination there would be little purpose to licensing.

The purpose of marriage for the State has always been the production of children. The State needs emotionally and intellectually healthy children. If the State could produce them by itself, ala Brave New World, there would be no need for marriages and the licensing of them. People might still be allowed to couple and raise children, but the State would be at best neutral toward such arrangements. But as it is, most governments still recognize the obvious empirical fact that children are best raised by a father and mother who provide the emotional and physical structure and safety for children. Only in rare instances is the State able to do better than a given mother and father, but it is never able to do better than the vast majority of marriages. For this reason, marriages, as a class, are recognized with a license and given special protections and privileges that other human partnering arrangements do not get. These are meant to offset the difficulties that marriages entail. Not all marriages produce children, but optimally they are designed to, and it is more practical and less intrusive for the Sate to treat them as a class according to the basic commonality of a man and woman.

Since homosexual couplings cannot produce children by their very nature they do not strengthen the State in this way. Whatever children might possibly be involved in such couplings must be produced outside of them, which is naturally and statistically proven to be far less advantageous to children. Most so-called gay families require that an original normal family be broken up. And all of them require that either the mother or the father figure, both of which are essential ingredients for healthy psychological devlopment of children, be at best distant. Encouraging this is not to the State's interest.

To redefine marriage as between two men or two women may sound compassionate to those involved, as if marriage were nothing more than an individual right, but it is anything but compassionate to all children in that society who depend upon stable man-and-woman marriages to be supported by the State. Gay marriages make those marriages, and thus all marriages in principle, all about the adults rather than about the children. It questions the very purpose the State has in sanctioning marriage. This is the very reason that same sex marriage threatens traditional marriage. It is a continuation of the weakening of marriage that began within easy divorce. And given that very few homosexuals are really that interested in being “married”, and the stats are already coming in regarding the greater frequency of their divorces, it seems a vast understatement to call the undermining of State support for a millenia old institution at the heart of all human society merely to indulge the whims of a societal minority a rash and foolish act. The political push from homosexuals to grant them marriage is but one more facet of the attempt to remove all recognition that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality, as if the blind demanded the right to drive. Giving the blind drivers licenses might seem compassionate, but who would then want to drive on the roads?

Death to the orthodox...I mean traitors!

The useless body of suppositories that is the HOB of the episcopal sect has just voted on whether to depose Bishop Duncan because he has supported the idea that a diocese can leave.


All in favor?
The ayes have it.

יּﬣוּﬣ Incarnate

The Pope, or at least the Vatican, has come out with new directives for worship eliminating the use of Yahweh in songs. This sparked an interesting conversation I had about the appropriateness of speaking the Tetragrammaton יּﬣוּﬣ,YHVH, for Christians. One friend said that Jesus would never have said it, being a good Jew. I think there is no record of Jesus ever addressing the Father by this name. But what does this mean? Was Jesus showing us that we could call God, Father, but should not speak His most holy NAME? And what is the relationship of יּﬣוּﬣ to the Name which is above all names? Moreover, if Jesus never addressed the Father as יּﬣוּﬣ, why not?

To me the answer is obvious. יּﬣוּﬣ is not the Father's name. It is God's name. Jesus, as God incarnate, would also be the proper recipient of that name. He would be addressing Himself as much as the Father, so the more intimate title and the one which distinguishes the Son from the Father, is used. Jesus is יּﬣוּﬣ. He has to be יּﬣוּﬣ. It would be impossible for the Father to be known as יּﬣוּﬣ unless the Son were not included.

As to the first of these statements Christians need look no further than John 8:58: “Before Abraham was I AM". Here the Jewish respect for not speaking the NAME is blown out of the water as Jesus clearly identifies himself with that NAME. If Jesus says that he is the One who IS then it is only logical, emphasis on the logos, that He means to be identified by the Name that says the same thing.

But why do I say that it is impossible for Jesus not to be יּﬣוּﬣ?

When this Name was revealed to Moses, who revealed it? Was it an angel, like that which Muhammad claimed to give him the revelation from Allah? No, it was God Himself who revealed His Name. But as Christians we know that no one has ever seen God except through the Son. The Father is invisible, and I would add inaudible. He is beyond the realm of our senses, as our senses only register material things. Jesus is the Incarnation of God the Son so that we created beings can see God with our eyes and hear Him with our ears.

So Who really was Moses hearing when he was given the Name? Logically, it was the One who makes God known and knowable. It was the Son. God, the Holy Triune God of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, was, through the Son, revealing His Name, a Name which distinguishes Him from all creation. He alone is the great I AM. All other beings have a beginning and their being is dependent upon their Creator. Not so with God. He eternally is. The Father is. The Son is. The Spirit is. יּﬣוּﬣ is not the Name of the Father only. It is not the name of the Son only, or of the Spirit only. It is the name of GOD.

But there is another name by which we know God. But this is a name which tells us how He relates to us. This name is Jesus, which lexically means “the Lord saves”. This name is really no less intimate than יּﬣוּﬣ. Rather, it is more intimate. This makes Rome's decision to forbid use of Yahweh in worship entirely appropriate for perfectly Christian reasons. Why address God by a Name which separates Him from us when we have a name, which is above all other names, and which shows that transcendent Lord as One who comes down to us? The common use of Yahweh becomes, from this perspective, a use of a more transcendent name but without the proper respect and awe that should accompany that. If we want to express God's intimacy with us and our intimacy with Him then we should use the Name by which he intended before all time to be known to us as Savior and as Friend.

Is there Kool-Aid in the chalice?

When I see a document from the Global South Primates who attended Lambeth 2008 I anticipate some recognition of what a colossal failure it has been.

Not so fast.

The first paragraph begins with the traditional fluff and then we get this:

In the midst of the current critical crisis in the Communion we strivefaithfully
and honourably to ensure the Communion remains and continues steadfast in and to
the faith once delivered to the saints.

That seems nice. One might expect some concrete details or at least a sketch of a plan how they will ensure this. One would be mistaken. But wait, there's more:

In this, the Holy Scripture – which, as the testimony to God’s workgiven by the
Spirit of God is the written Word of God – is the final authority for Christian
belief, teaching, life and conduct. Authentic traditions of doctrine and
practice acknowledge its supremacy. It underpins all bonds of affection,
expressions of fellowship and shaping of structures in the Communion.

Wow. That seems strong. But, wait a minute. Aren't they aware that American and Canadian liberals pretty much reject that authority? Might one expect that subject to be addressed? Alas, one would be disappointed.

The second paragraph has two statements: fond greetings to the absent GAGCON bishops and “solidarity” with the suffering orthodox in the heterodox west. Might this mean a sympathy and “solidarity” for the more than verbal assistance given to these same orthodox by the GAFCON bishops? (he asked wistfully and oh so foolishly). I am all a tingle to find the answer to that question.
Paragraph three is the standard babble about what was heard and liked, without being specific as to content or reasons for liking anything.

Paragraph four is pretty much a kiss blown to Rowan and Lambeth (though a different kind of kiss comes to mind. Why are they “encouraged” by the ABC's first address when the Communion is “at the brink of collapse”? [Stop asking questions, you fool!] Sorry, sorry, I forgot).

Paragraph five indicates that they have some belief that the “Windsor process” is still actually processing somewhere and they are backing the “Pastoral forum”. Would that be a forum in the sense of an academic roundtable where the actual merits of ideas and actions are reasonably debated, or is it more like a community chat room where everyone get to “tell his story” blah blah blah? When I hear the term pastoral these days I am less reminded of a shepherd guiding his sheep with a staff and maybe a handy sheepdog, than I am of a pasture, a blissful meadow wherein one may take ambling walks to nowhere and frequently step in cow pies.

When I come to the next paragraph I am puzzled:

We expect the Lambeth Conference, as a significant instrument of unityof the
Communion, to give vital leadership towards resolving the present crisis over
faith and order.

WHEN was this written? By this wording I would expect that it was written BEFORE Lambeth 2008, when there was still the possibility for the kind of hope that the Present always has for the Future. But now Lambeth 2008 is Past. How anyone with a scintilla of concern for orthodoxy could, afterwards, call Lambeth “a significant instrument of unity” or think that it would lead to any real resolution of this crisis is beyond me.

What is their idea of resolution, or leadership toward that end. “My advice to you is to start drinking, very heavily”? I've tried that before. It is a tried and not-really-true method. Sure, it helps one forget one's troubles, but in the morning the troubles are still there, along with a splitting headache and sometimes dim memories of embarrassing things done the night before. And what is there to do in that situation, sober up and deal with the problems, or have another drink. I fear this WGC process is just some hair of the dog.

That they embrace the ABC's and the WGC's false equating of gay ordinations and SSBs with border crossing without making any acknowledgment that the border crossing came in response to the first two, as well as to the abandonment of Scripture and creedal orthodoxy in TEC and ACoC, which is the underlying cause of those symptoms (something GAFCON noted and addressed) makes me think that they don't really understand the position of the orthodox in those institutions, despite their claim to be in solidarity with them. What do they mean when later in paragraph ten they state their intention to “work together...with all orthodox groups in the United States of America and Canada”? Will they not work with the heretics? Will they in any way oppose the heretics' claim to authority and power over the orthodox there? If so, how is that significantly different from border crossing? If not, how is it any help at all?

Paragraph seven is simply a justifiable complaint of bad behavior, yet without any threat of negative consequences for it. Been there. Done that. Got the T-Shirt, made in China by slave labor.

There are some nice things embedded in the next paragraph, implications that they see their churches growing because of orthodoxy, which would offer hope that eventually orthodoxy will re-emerge as liberalism dies of its own sterility, that is, if it hasn't destroyed everything of value in the Communion in the process. Two difficulties with this:

1. Why not be more clear in stating what seems to be the subtext? Is there really any virtue in obscurity these days?

2. Their description of themselves as having a “prophetic and priestly vocation...as a precious gift to the Anglican Communion”, is problematic. First, as to prophecy, are they claiming to possess that spiritual gift, because they have yet to show in this document that they can speak or write like the prophets? Furthermore, the idea of a prophetic ministry within the church has been much abused, and that on behalf of the very same heresy that they are fighting against. it does not seem wise or prudent to justify the flippant use of that term.

Secondly, I suspect that the use of “priestly” is not well thought out. Priests are those who intercede for sinners. They stand as the bridge between God and those who need to be reconciled to Him. The church has always been seen as having a priestly function, but that is by its interceding for the world, not for itself, or parts of itself. Are these bishops claiming that there are elements within the church that need intercession by the Global South churches? Would that not be tantamount to an admission that some in the church aren't really of the church? I would applaud that admission, but how does one practically live out that belief without altering one's ecclesiastical relationship with those in but not of the church?

Paragraph nine is just more needless verbiage, this time about what “encourages” them, as if it were a pressing concern on the church's part to know how it's leaders were feeling.

Having noted the disconnect that paragraph ten has with the preceding I will only add that the saying that they commit to “listen together to what Lord Jesus says to his church today” is poorly worded in that it leaves open the idea that Jesus might say something new, precisely the wedge that the heretics use to justify abandoning revealed truth.

I wish this statement was anything other than the wishy washy Anglican pablum that it is.

Resistance is Futile

Prepare to be modernized. Obsolete theologies will be disgarded. All will be harmonized. All will submit.




"We are the TEC Demagogic.
Let go of your outdated logic.
Your tradition is doomed.
You will be consumed.
So bow to the new Gynologic."

rules shmules

To no malice will Kate not resort
Nor wording of canon contort
This arrogant witch
Made the bishops her bitch
And their meeting a kangaroo court