Not Every Pope Is Male: Some Are Fully Human

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori tries to work the handicap access panel.
"Let me in! Do you know who I am?"

MRS. JEFFERTS SCHORI AND THE FUTURE OF AN ILLUSION

News Analysis

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
11/25/2007

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church is learning the lesson that what goes around comes around.

Mrs. Jefferts Schori is learning she cannot escape the consequences of her actions or words over the way in which she is running the Episcopal Church.

She is doing major league harm to the institution. She thinks she is getting away with it, but ultimately she will pay the price for her bad behavior. Her iron fist in the velvet glove approach is not working. In fact, it is back-firing.

Mrs. Jefferts Schori has threatened three orthodox bishops demonstrating that behind the façade of sweet-talking "reconciling" language there lurks a fist of conformity, veneered over with a facile spirituality. She is fast becoming the Red Queen in Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland."

The most recent target of her wrath - the Rt. Rev Jack Iker - received a not so veiled threat that if he tried to pull his diocese out of the Episcopal Church, all legal and ecclesiastical hell would rein down on him. It was the same threat she aimed at Pittsburgh Bishop Bob Duncan - it is starting to look like a form letter that only requires someone to change the addressee and hit the "send" button to every recalcitrant bishop who dares to raise his head over the Episcopal Church ramparts and declare their independence.

Undeterred, the conservative bishop of Ft. Worth accused the presiding bishop of misusing her office and engaging in "aggressive, dictatorial posturing," forgetting all the nice words about reconciliation, dialogue and mediation she utters so frequently. Frank Griswold, her predecessor had us all going to a "deeper place", but no one knew where the hell it was, or to Sufi Rumi on a plain beyond good and evil, but no one could find that either. (Charles Bennison is still looking for it, but it might be too late for him.) Schori warned Iker in a letter that he could face church discipline if he continued to back proposals that lead his diocese away from the national church.

If Schori thought she could personally bully this Anglo-Catholic bishop, she clearly badly misjudged the bishop. He wasn't playing nice either. He roared right back saying, "[your letter] appears designed to intimidate our delegates and me. It grieves me that as the Presiding Bishop you would misuse your office in an attempt to intimidate and manipulate this diocese."

Iker turned the screws a little tighter accusing Schori of "intimidation" and making attempts to deter the diocese from taking any action in opposition to the direction she is leading the Church. "It is highly inappropriate for you to attempt to interfere in the internal life of this diocese," he blasted back at her.

Them's fightin' words.

He closed with these words, "While your threats deeply sadden us, they do not frighten us. We will continue to stand firm for the unchanging truth of the Holy Scriptures and the redeeming Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, whatever the costs."

Late last year, Schori attempted to intimidate another bishop, John-David Schofield of San Joaquin by accusing him of "spiritual violence" due to an attempt by him to disassociate his diocese from The Episcopal Church. This brought a riposte from one priest saying that such an accusation, delivered from the public face of the Episcopal Church, is not only "reckless but also offensive, especially to those of us resident in the Diocese of San Joaquin. Is this the 'shalom' that you so fervently preached about at the National Cathedral earlier this month?" Indeed not.

This also begs the question "Just who is doing the spiritual violence?" For orthodox Episcopalians and orthodox Anglicans watching from the sidelines it is Jefferts Schori, not Duncan, Iker or Schofield who are doing "spiritual violence" to the Episcopal Church. She has replaced the faith of the church with Millennium Development Goals. The Great Commission has become the Great Omission.

This past week saw yet another side to the Iron Lady of Episcopalianism. It appears that Mrs Jefferts Schori likes to manipulate even her band of not so merry liberal bishops, who apparently live in mortal fear of her tongue and her legal Rottweiler, David Booth Beers who practically lives at her elbow for $510.00 an hour.

It was revealed in testimony before a Virginia court, where some 11 parishes want to leave the Episcopal Church, that she ordered Virginia Bishop Peter Lee to break a verbal agreement, which would have allowed the parishes to withdraw from the Episcopal Church, and directed the Diocese of Virginia to sue the clergy and lay leaders of the 11 congregations.

The Dominatrix of 815 has wielded her whip against one of her own kind, reducing the theologically soft-headed bishop, Peter James Lee, to a quivering mass of compliance. Earlier he was ready to cut a deal with the departing parishes which was almost on the table, according to testimony from the Rev. John Yates, but then it all fell apart.

No one knew at the time what caused him to change his mind, but at the Fairfax County Circuit Court it all came out in the open when Jefferts Schori admitted that she did it to prevent "incursions by foreign bishops."

She revealed, that shortly after her installation as Presiding Bishop in November, Schori met with Bishop Lee, telling him she "could not support negotiations for sale if the congregations intended to set up as other parts of the Anglican Communion."

Is there a law in American statutes that says to whom you can and cannot sell property? Does Schori have the right to tell a parish priest or bishop to whom he may sell a building?

Jefferts Schori tried very carefully to parse her words, but that didn't fly with the court. She was directed by the court to answer the question more explicitly.

The moral of this story is that she can say whatever she wants in pulpits to gullible Episcopalians, but the courts brook no such prevarication and pluriform talk. You either say what you mean, and mean what you say, or be directed by the courts to be more explicit.

Jefferts Schori has demonstrated that she can play hardball, and that is going down like a lead balloon. One wonders if she successfully intimidated Dr. Rowan Williams in New Orleans when the House of Bishops met. On the surface, all appeared sweetness and light between the two, but there were indications at a press conference that she was in charge and she would not tolerate any opposition or interference in the affairs of the Episcopal Church, even by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

She made it clear in New Orleans that there would be no reversal of the church's forward movement on pansexual behavior and that "consultation" means never having to say you're sorry or change your mind about the direction of The Episcopal Church. Schori made it clear that the Episcopal Church's Constitution and Canons are sacrosanct, and that TEC will never abide by, accept or sanction a universal set of canons that the whole communion would write and live by because TEC could be disciplined by such a body. It would also set a legal precedent over property disputes in the TEC.

If Williams didn't get the message, he would have to be the dumbest archbishop to sit in Lambeth Palace. He can mull over The Episcopal Church's "baptismal covenant" till the Second Coming, but the political situation will demand more immediate attention.

Clearly Schori's ecclesiastical and legal strategy of iron-fisted conformity is not going down well. In fact it is not going over at all. She is more than a disappointment. She is a disaster.

As Charles Bennison, the inhibited Bishop of Pennsylvania learned the hard way recently, when you betray your own liberal constituency, you can find the tables turned against you. If Mrs. Jefferts Schori pushes too hard against her own kind, the same thing could happen to her.

In the world of ecclesiastical politics as in the world of Machiavellian realpolitik, the long knives of revenge are never far from the convention floor. Just ask Bishop Bennison.

The Book of Concord

Martin Chemnitz,
Principal Editor of the Book of Concord, 1580

Martin Chemnitz had the distinct advantage of learning under Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon. Lutherans usually overlook Melanchthon, who trained so many future pastors in his long career. Some say Melanchthon was more influential than Luther, when measured by numbers of students.

Melanchthon was such a theological giant that he would have been known as the chief Reformer of any country in Europe except Germany. Many countries courted him. Melanchthon would have added intellectual luster to his royal sponsors.

Chemnitz was not just another disciple of Luther and Melanchthon. He added substantially to our treasury of great Lutheran books, although his work on the Book of Concord alone would be enough. Chemnitz' important strengths were:
1. His knowledge and use of the Patristic Fathers.
2. His polemics against the Calvinists.

Lutherans are generally weak on the Patristic Fathers. Like their Baptist brothers, they think church history skips from the Apostolic Age to the Reformation, with nothing but darkness between. Chemnitz edited the Book of Concord to show that the Lutheran Confessions were in harmony with the historic Christian faith. Lutheran is not a brand name, a sectarian sideshow, but the best expression of genuine Christian teaching.

Chemnitz' The Two Natures of Christ is educational and devotional at the same time. Doctrinal books, like church history, can turn people into atheists or pan-religionists. Norwich's brilliant history of the Byzantine Empire cannot questions anyone getting upset about the Two Natures of Christ. Chemnitz' great book traces the issues, quotes the Patristic Fathers, and reveals a love for the Word of God and faithful confessions of that truth. Chemnitz alone could match Luther in writing a book that could be called a collection of sermons, Scriptural exposition, or a doctrinal textbook.

The quotations below are a sample, starting with Luther, then Melanchton's work, finally Chemnitz' work in The Two Natures of Christ and the Formula of Concord. The Two Natures was published just before the Book of Concord and its Formula, so we can see how the earlier efforts of the Second Martin contributed to these unifying Confessions.

Luther
"The Holy Scripture is God's Word, written and, so to speak, lettered and put into the form of letters, just as Christ, the eternal Word of God, is clothed in humanity. And men regard and treat the written Word of God in this world just as they do Christ. It is a worm and no book compared with other books; for the honor people accord other writings of men by studying, reading, pondering, keeping, and using them they do not accord Scripture. If it is treated well, it lies there in neglect. Others tear it to pieces, scourge and crucify it, and subject it to all manner of torture until they stretch it sufficiently to apply to their heresy, meaning, and whim...It is a good sign, therefore, if a man has the precious gift of loving and liking Scripture, of gladly reading it, of highly esteeming and treasuring it. Such a man God, in turn, will surely honor...."
What Luther Says, An Anthology, 3 vols., ed. Ewald Plass, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959, I, p. p. 71f. 1541 Psalm 22:6

Melanchthon
"Also they teach that the Word, that is, the Son of God, did assume the human nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, so that there are two natures, the divine and the human, inseparably conjoined in one Person, one Christ, true God and true man, who was born of the Virgin Mary, truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, that He might reconcile the Father unto us, and be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men."
Augsburg Confession, III. The Son of God. Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 45. Tappert, p. 29f. Heiser, p. 12.

"The Third Article the adversaries approve, in which we confess that there are in Christ two natures, namely, a human nature, assumed by the Word into the unity of His person; and that the same Christ suffered and died to reconcile the Father to us; and that He was raised again to reign, and to justify and sanctify believers, etc., according to the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed."
Apology of the Augsburg Confession, III. #52. Of Christ, Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 119. Tappert, p. 107. Heiser, p. 32. Romans 4:25; 2 Corinthians 5:19ff.

Chemnitz
"These arguments of the Monothelites can be found in the proceedings of the Sixth General Council and in the writings of Damascenus. The Church was severely shaken by this controversy, for on the one hand, the Nestorians, under the pretext of the two wills and activities in Christ, tore the person of the one Christ in two, and on the other hand the Eutychians, stressing the one activity, took away the difference of the natures and the essential attributes of Christ."
Martin Chemnitz, The Two Natures of Christ, 1578, trans. J. A. O. Preus, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971. p. 234.

"This dispute concerning the two wills and the two natural operations in Christ is no idle thing, for in addition to the points which we have mentioned, it also has this use that the Son of God assumed our nature in such a way that first in and through Himself He restored our nature to its pristine beauty which had been despoiled and corrupted in Adam, as Cyril says, In Johannem, Book 11, chapter 25...He restored even the powers which our nature had lost because of sin, and in Himself He first repaired and renewed the powers which had been currpted through sin."
Martin Chemnitz, The Two Natures of Christ, 1578, trans. J. A. O. Preus, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971. p. 239.

"...it has been unanimously taught by the other teachers of the Augsburg Confession that Christ is our righteousness not according to His divine nature alone, nor according to His human nature alone, but according to both natures; for He has redeemed, justified, and saved us from our sins as God and man, through His complete obedience; that therefore the righteousness of faith is the forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, and our adoption as God's children only on account of the obedience of Christ, which through faith alone, out of pure grace, is imputed for righteousness to all true believers, and on account of it they are absolved from all their unrighteousness."
Formula of Concord, SD, III. #4. Righteousness of Faith. Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 917. Tappert, p. 539f. Heiser, p. 250.

Dixie Byzantine

Lutherans - the Mother Ship Beckons

I Googled two names together and found another Lutheran-to-Eastern-Orthodox blog, mentioning Fenton (former LCMS pastor).

This Dixie Byzantine blog brings up common themes for Lutherans who join Eastern Orthodoxy. I find this trend hauntingly similar to the one leading so many to Fuller Seminary and Willow Creek.

The last few Lutherans may need to build an ark to survive the tidal wave of Romanism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

I Googled some more and found a blog by Rev. Stuckwisch, who previously published through His Grace, Archbishop Heiser, ELDONA. Stuckwisch listed 40 pastors who influenced him. I am sure Kurt Marquart would be aghast to be on the list with Fenton and Gehlbach. Robert Preus? He died warning his colleagues about their fascination with all things Roman and Eastern Orthodox. Many of the others make sense. They are the leaders slouching toward Constantinople.

The recent issue of Christian News mentions student papers appearing at Concordia Seminary, Ft. Wayne. Jack Cascione is the source, so the information is seriously compromised. If the quotations are correct, future LCMS pastors are stating that a bishop validates the true Church. Cascione is on the opposite end of error, claiming that the Voter's Assembly validates the call, even the Sacraments: extra ecclesiam voterorum nulla salus.

Herman Otten's Sister - Marie Meyer

From the ALPB Online Forum, ipsissima verba:

mariemeyer
ALPB Forum Member

Posts: 22


Re: Lesbian Pastor Tests ELCA Celibacy Rule
« Reply #512 on: Today at 08:46:49 PM »

---------------------------------
Posts on this topic have come primarily from persons who are members of the ELCA. I'd like to comment "up close and personal" as an LCMS women.

Today's article in the NT Times first caught my attention because I grew up in the shadow of Fordham Lutheran Church. When my husband and I returned to the area that now comprises the Metro Synod I served on the Board for LSS of Metropolitan NY and so had the opportunity to meet Bishop Bouman. IMO his stated defense of Pr. Foster, "She's not afrasid to tell people that she loves God and that God loves them" sounds so generic. His reference to a genuine faith that she lives in an "inclusive" way will be ammunition to those in the LCMS who claim that Lutheran bodies who ordain women do so on the on the basis of inclusivity.

Throughout the LCMS it is maintained that Lutherans who ordain women do so on the basis of equality, inclusivity, love and fairness. Thus, LCMS women who openly speak up for an open discussion of how the LCMS defends a male only pastorate are assumed to base their request on "inclusivity and equality." The specter of a "slippery slope' leading to the ordination of persons in a same sex relationship is an insurmountable barrier to any discussion of how the LCMS defends a male pastorate.

I suspect few in the ELCA realize the degree to which how the ELCA deals witrh the ordination of gays and lesbains impacts upon the lives of LCMS women who maintain that the LCMS defense of a male only pastorate ought to be open for discussion.

Marie Meyer

***

GJ - Pastor Herman Otten's sister, Marie Meyer, is an advocate for women's ordination in the Missouri Synod. So is Ralph Bohlmann. I understand Jerry Kieschnick favors women's ordination as well. I met Marie at Concordia, Ft. Wayne and thought I knew her from before. She said we had never met. When I mentioned this to Herman, he said, "She's my sister!" Then I realized her Ottenesque gestures, voice, and looks made me think we had met.

I put the errant words in bold. Several passes through the inspired text were required to find all the mistakes. But truly, Marie's final paragraph, er ah, statement, er ah, paragraph, is worthy of an award.

From this blog I see that Marie Meyer was speaking on the campus of Concordia University Wisconsin. However, her brother Herman is not allowed to speak at either LCMS seminary.

Famous Passage - Good Question

St. Paul, Justification by Faith

KJV Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

***

GJ - We need another justification here--UOJ--a universal absolution, grace without the Means of Grace, forgiveness without faith, justification without the Gospel. I hope the UOJ Stormtroopers study this passage.

1. Those whom He foreknew, He predestinated.
   
2. Those whom He predestinated, He also called.
   
3. Those whom He called, He also justified.
   
4. Those whom He justified, He also glorified.
   

This divine time frame includes all of God's activities, from the very beginning.

Time To Say Goodbye - Richard Roberts

President Richard Roberts with his lovely second wife.

Scandal Brewing at Oral Roberts

Oct 6, 6:38 AM (ET)

By JUSTIN JUOZAPAVICIUS

TULSA, Okla. (AP) - Twenty years ago, televangelist Oral Roberts said he was reading a spy novel when God appeared to him and told him to raise $8 million for Roberts' university, or else he would be "called home."

Now, his son, Oral Roberts University President Richard Roberts, says God is speaking again, telling him to deny lurid allegations in a lawsuit that threatens to engulf this 44-year-old Bible Belt college in scandal.

Richard Roberts is accused of illegal involvement in a local political campaign and lavish spending at donors' expense, including numerous home remodeling projects, use of the university jet for his daughter's senior trip to the Bahamas, and a red Mercedes convertible and a Lexus SUV for his wife, Lindsay.

She is accused of dropping tens of thousands of dollars on clothes, awarding nonacademic scholarships to friends of her children and sending scores of text messages on university-issued cell phones to people described in the lawsuit as "underage males."

(AP) Richard Roberts, president and chief executive officer of Oral Roberts University, is shown in...
Full Image

At a chapel service this week on the 5,300-student campus known for its 60-foot-tall bronze sculpture of praying hands, Roberts said God told him: "We live in a litigious society. Anyone can get mad and file a lawsuit against another person whether they have a legitimate case or not. This lawsuit ... is about intimidation, blackmail and extortion."

San Antonio televangelist John Hagee, a member of the ORU board of regents, said the university's executive board "is conducting a full and thorough investigation."

Colleagues fear for the reputation of the university and the future of the Roberts' ministry, which grew from Southern tent revivals to one of the most successful evangelical empires in the country, hauling in tens of millions of dollars in contributions a year. The university reported nearly $76 million in revenue in 2005, according to the IRS.

Oral Roberts is 89 and lives in California. He holds the title of chancellor, but the university describes him as semi-retired, and his son presides over day-to-day operations on the campus, which had a modern, space-age design when it was built in the early 1960s but now looks dated, like Disney's Tomorrowland.

Cornell Cross II, a senior from Burlington, Vt., said he is looking to transfer to another school because the scandal has "severely devalued and hurt the reputation of my degree." [GJ - What exactly was an ORU degree worth before the scandal?]

"We have asked and asked and asked to see the finances of our school and what they're doing with our money, and we've been told no," said, Cross who is majoring in government. "Now we know why. As a student, I'm not going to stand for it any longer."

The allegations are contained in a lawsuit filed Tuesday by three former professors. They sued ORU and Roberts, alleging they were wrongfully dismissed after reporting the school's involvement in a local political race.

Richard Roberts, according to the suit, asked a professor in 2005 to use his students and university resources to aid a county commissioner's bid for Tulsa mayor. Such involvement would violate state and federal law because of the university's nonprofit status. Up to 50 students are alleged to have worked on the campaign.

The professors also said their dismissals came after they turned over to the board of regents a copy of a report documenting moral and ethical lapses on the part of Roberts and his family. The internal document was prepared by Stephanie Cantese, Richard Roberts' sister-in-law, according to the lawsuit.

An ORU student repairing Cantese's laptop discovered the document and later provided a copy to one of the professors.

It details dozens of alleged instances of misconduct. Among them:

- A longtime maintenance employee was fired so that an underage male friend of Mrs. Roberts could have his position.

- Mrs. Roberts - who is a member of the board of regents and is referred to as ORU's "first lady" on the university's Web site - frequently had cell-phone bills of more than $800 per month, with hundreds of text messages sent between 1 a.m. to 3 a.m. to "underage males who had been provided phones at university expense."

- The university jet was used to take one daughter and several friends on a senior trip to Orlando, Fla., and the Bahamas. The $29,411 trip was billed to the ministry as an "evangelistic function of the president."

- Mrs. Roberts spent more than $39,000 at one Chico's clothing store alone in less than a year, and had other accounts in Texas and California. She also repeatedly said, "As long as I wear it once on TV, we can charge it off." The document cites inconsistencies in clothing purchases and actual usage on TV.

- Mrs. Roberts was given a white Lexus SUV and a red Mercedes convertible by ministry donors.

- University and ministry employees are regularly summoned to the Roberts' home to do the daughters' homework.

- The university and ministry maintain a stable of horses for exclusive use by the Roberts' children.

- The Roberts' home has been remodeled 11 times in the past 14 years.

Tim Brooker, one of the professors who sued, said he fears for the university's survival if certain changes aren't made.

"All over that campus, there are signs up that say, 'And God said, build me a university, build it on my authority, and build it on the Holy Spirit,'" Brooker said. "Unfortunately, ownership has shifted."

***

GJ - Richard Roberts has taken a paid leave and is thought to be living in a secure, undisclosed location, where he can discuss denominational politics with a man known only as Karl, aka the Artful Dodger.

PS -

Statement from George Pearsons - Chairman of the ORU Board of Regents

Today, a letter was sent from Richard Roberts to the Board of Regents of Oral Roberts University tendering his resignation as President of Oral Roberts University effective today, November 23, 2007.

The Board of Regents will meet Monday and Tuesday, November 26 and 27, 2007 to determine action in the search process for a new president.

Executive Regent Billy Joe Daugherty will continue to assume administrative responsibilities of the Office of the President, working together with Chancellor Oral Roberts, until the Regents meeting.

In his letter of resignation to the Board, Richard Roberts said, “I love ORU with all my heart. I love the students, faculty, staff and administration and I want to see God’s best for all of them.”

Thanksgiving Sermon

Eucharist

Day of Thanksgiving

KJV 1 Timothy 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. 7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. 8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

KJV Luke 17:11 And it came to pass, as he went to Jerusalem, that he passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee. 12 And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off: 13 And they lifted up their voices, and said, Jesus, Master, have mercy on us. 14 And when he saw them, he said unto them, Go shew yourselves unto the priests. And it came to pass, that, as they went, they were cleansed. 15 And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God, 16 And fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks: and he was a Samaritan. 17 And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine? 18 There are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger.

Thanksgiving

The Hymn #574
The Invocation p. 15
The Confession of Sins
The Absolution
The Introit p. 16
The Gloria Patri
The Kyrie p. 17
The Gloria in Excelsis
The Salutation and Collect p. 19
The Epistle and Gradual 1 Timothy 2:1-8
The Gospel Luke 17:11-28
Glory be to Thee, O Lord!
Praise be to Thee, O Christ!
The Nicene Creed p. 22
The Sermon Hymn #36
The Sermon

Enter His Courts with Thanksgiving

The Offertory p. 22
The Hymn #304
The Preface p. 24
The Sanctus p. 26
The Lord's Prayer p. 27
The Words of Institution
The Agnus Dei p. 28
The Nunc Dimittis p. 29
The Benediction p. 31
The Hymn #52

KJV Psalm 100
Make a joyful noise unto the LORD,
all ye lands.
2 Serve the LORD with gladness:
come before his presence with singing.
3 Know ye that the LORD he is God:
it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves;
we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.
4 Enter into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise:
be thankful unto him, and bless his name.
5 For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting;
and his truth endureth to all generations.

Luther often commented that our biggest failing is lack of thanks toward God. The pivotal points for an official Day of Thanksgiving are the first Pilgrim’s gathering and later the official pronouncement of President Lincoln, in the midst of the Civil War.

The first Thanksgiving developed from a host of bad rulers in England. Looking back, we can see God’s foresight in providing the Stuart kings, who “left an indelible bad impression on England.” They are the kings who followed Queen Elisabeth I, a monarch so powerful that the pope admired her. King James I gave us the KJV, but he worked to make England a Roman Catholic country again. This was completely devious and dishonest, causing two good things to develop. One was the periodic flight of Protestants to America to enjoy religious freedom. The other was the loss of royal authority and the increase of Parliamentary power. The colonists came to America with a new concept of religion. They were Christian, but they did not want their political leaders to control religion. They even established denominations in the colonies that became states. The separation of Church and State that President Jefferson pledged was a promise to keep the federal government from meddling in religious affairs.

The Stuart follies did not stop with King James I. He was followed by King Charles I and II, who also tried to undermine Protestantism. Finally the Glorious Revolution of William and Mary put an end to these furtive efforts to re-establish Rome. The loss of royal power during this era fed the democratic principles of America.

Because the slavery issue was not resolved in America as it was in England (by the Methodist Wilberforce’s life-long efforts), we had to face a horrible Civil War. Many people forget that we lost more Americans in that war than in all our foreign wars put together. The only other war more savage has been the one against unborn babies.

The Pilgrims barely had a home in America when they stopped to give thanks to God for their new opportunities. Lincoln was still facing disaster when he asked the nation to give thanks to God. He proclaimed:

It is the duty of nations as well as of men to owe their dependence upon the overruling power of God; to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations are blessed whose God is the Lord.

2 Serve the LORD with gladness:
come before his presence with singing.
Being thankful to God is difficult in two different ways. When everything is going well for us, we grow slothful or boastful and think all of it comes from our wisdom, hard work, and foresight. Wealthy people often become godless because everyone treats them as gods. In Fiddler on the Roof, the poor dairyman wishes he were rich so that everyone would pay attention to his words of wisdom.

Another difficulty is being thankful to God during times of trial. That is always relative to the individual. Whatever goodness comes our way we treat as a natural right, until it is gone. We do not even thank God for those benefits until they are missing. Then we are resentful that the bounty is gone. We may have more than most of the people who ever lived and yet feel slighted. Or we may be healthier than most people our age and still feel abnormally ill or weak.

The people with the fewest physical blessings are often the happiest, not because they are without pain, suffering, discomfort, or the difficulties of requiring care. They are the happiest because they are grateful for what they have rather than bitter about what they lack. Brenda Kiehler often mentioned how precious the Gospel was to her, since she really had nothing else. She lived in constant pain, could not take care of her own personal needs, and faced various surgeries that only managed problems for a short time. What mattered most to Brenda? She worried about everyone else. That was her most effective pain therapy. (Her birthday is November 26th.)

Being a little older provides some perspective. My wife and I have outlived many friends and relatives, the same age or much younger. Many years ago my first cousin went out berry picking with his wife and his mother. My cousin was newly married. Later that day his wife died of heat prostration. We thought the news was about his elderly mother, but that was not so. Three young people from my congregation in Sturgis died from needless auto accidents: a new car malfunction, two different drunk drivers. The congregation only had about 60 members, but they lost three teens in a few years. In Midland a young mother, who seemed to have everything and who cared for others, was stricken by fatal cancer only a few years after she visited our daughter Erin in the hospital. In fact, a nurse who cared for Erin soon joined her as a patient in the same area, the intermediate care facility.

When we lose people or face the loss of someone dear to us, we realize how God has created a soul, a unique person, never to be repeated nor forgotten. One of the great tragedies of this age has been the denial of this truth. Therefore, when a child is lost, even due to natural or unavoidable causes, there is a deep sense of loss. Someone unique has begun life. As Professor Nagel said at a Concordia, St. Louis lecture, “Every soul has a name,” speaking of infant baptism. Every single soul has a purpose because God created everything through Christ for that very reason.

3 Know ye that the LORD he is God:
it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves;
we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.
Creation and thanksgiving go together, because the awesome nature of God’s design helps us look beyond the immediate problems of the day. Right now our tangelo tree is ripening. The lemons are not because of the record freeze we had last January. For some reason the tangelo tree escaped damage and produced a record number of individual fruits.

We get to enjoy two phases of the citrus season. The first one happens when all the citrus in Phoenix bloom over a few weeks’ time. The air is heavily scented everywhere, since citrus grows almost without effort here. The aroma is one of the best in Creation, neither heavy nor sweet. Later the little green fruits appear. The long growing season ends with fruit impossible to resist, far better than anything in a grocery store.

The trees should make us thankful to God because their growth, flowering, and fruiting are all accomplished without any help from me, except for a little watering. (My neighbors provide most of the ground moisture through their efforts.) The bees arrive on time to pollinate. The fruits form, take color, and sweeten from the energy of the sun. What is more astounding? – the infinite complexity of the solar system and our main energy source, the sun? or the mutual dependencies of soil, water, rain, insects, molds, birds, butterflies, and lizards?

Now that the weather has changed for the worse in many places, people are angry that we do not live in paradise. They even want to make man the cause of the earth warming and cooling. If 99% of what God provides is good for us, we are angry with the 1% that does not seem pleasing and beneficial at the moment. Faith means trusting in what we do not see and know at the moment, trusting in God’s foresight and His loving-kindness.

KJV Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

This means that nothing happens outside of God’s purpose, design, and benevolence. What confuses people is the impact of man’s sinful nature. As Luther wrote, we live in a world of deceit and greed. Therefore people are always been deceived and cheated. Yet God is so powerful that He can and does use the worst experiences as a blessing. Sometimes He strengthens us for the future. At other times He makes us more compassionate, patient, and understanding. We do not have to listen to His guidance. Most people do not. One LCA pastor told me, “Use others before they use you.” That was his model, and he was outwardly successful. The same minister thought the Feeding of the 5,000 was a “miracle of sharing,” meaning that Jesus did not feed the multitude. They were ashamed of their parsimony and took out their hidden lunches when the boy shared his. (That verse is missing from the KJV and even the feminist NIV!)
First of all, God gives us our material needs, which is so much His nature that He takes care of unbelievers and believers alike.

KJV Matthew 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

For those who are called according to His purpose, God provides an abundance of spiritual help. We are weak, frail creatures, easily discouraged. If we were left on our own, to trust our knowledge, feelings, and experiences, we would desert God in a moment. Look at the disciples on the boat with Jesus in a storm-tossed sea. They relied on their knowledge of the Sea of Galilee, the experience as fishermen, their memories of lost friends and relatives. In a word, they panicked. They shook Jesus awake and accused Him of not caring if they drowned. His response? “O ye of little faith!” They trusted in everything except Christ. They relied on the most unreliable and accused the Lord of Creation of not caring.

When we trust our own knowledge and feelings, we are like the engineer who used to walk across oil storage tanks. They have fabric on top. His inspections meant that he walked across waving, toxic pillars of petroleum. If he had stepped on a tear in the fabric, he would have slipped into thousands of gallons of oil, a bad career move. Our generation has never tired of saying, “Trust your feelings. Go with your feelings.” Contrariwise, they also insist, “Do not trust the Word of God until you judge it with your own experience and knowledge.” Human reason soon makes a fine mess of the Scriptures, which cannot be like anything manufactured or imagined by man. So the overwhelming voice today is to guide us to walk across the shimmering mass of toxins called human experience while avoiding the bedrock of Christ. “On this bedrock I will build My Church.” (Matthew 16. The bedrock is Christ, not Peter, not Peter’s confession.)

To provide us with good spiritual guidance, God has given us His Word in many forms. First of all He made sure that we would have the precise revelation of His will, preserved with amazing precision, written for all time in the Scriptures. No other ancient book has been transmitted so well. No world religion compares to Christianity. The Christian faith is not better or superior. The Christian faith is simply the unique truth of the universe. Everything else is simply a bad imitation.

Every day we should thank God for the Gospels and for the other books of the New Testament, not to mention the Old Testament. The Gospels teach us about Christ and His love for us. They convey Christ to us. God has bound His Holy Spirit to the Word so we can be sure that He is always at work in the Gospel message. When they convey Christ to us, the Scriptures also bring forgiveness. That faith which was implanted in most of us at baptism, as babies, is renewed and strengthened with the often told story of Christ’s death and resurrection. Some were converted as adults and then baptized. In both cases the Word converted us to faith. The Word has preserved that faith.

4 Enter into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise:
be thankful unto him, and bless his name.

Thanksgiving is another word for Holy Communion. Many people call it the Eucharist, after the Greek word for thanksgiving. If I know someone is Greek, I say, “Ev-char-isto,” modern Greek for “I thank you.” One woman was overwhelmed and kept thanking me for saying one word in her language.

Thanksgiving is a good word for the sacrament because we should come to communion with hearts thankful to God. In Luther’s time people disputed the nature of Holy Communion, since that was under attack by the papacy. At one point Luther said, “Do not concentrate on the elements but on the Word. The Word is the power of the sacrament – given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sin.”

People get distracted by other issues when they should concentrate on what God has done, how He loves His own people for loving His Son. What we fail to see here and now will be revealed in the time to come. We always know:

5 For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting;
and his truth endureth to all generations.

Slouching Toward Constantinople: Turn East!

Father Rutowicz no longer links to the Confessional Lutheran Marian monastery, cited earlier on Ichabod. The link does not work.

The Augustana Ministerium, not to be confused with the Augustana Ministerium:

“The Challenge of Eastern Orthodoxy”

and

“Sanctification and Modes of Communication”

Augustana Ministerium Second Annual Theological Conference

August 30-31, 2007

“Eastern Orthodoxy and Lutheranism on Original Sin,” by Rev. John Rutowicz, Part 1 Part 2

“Eastern Orthodoxy and Lutheranism on Justification,” by Rev. David Juhl, Part 1 Part 2

“Eastern Orthodoxy and Lutheranism on Sanctification/Theosis,” by Rev. Gary Gehlbach, Part 1 Part 2

“Sanctification: What Is It? What Causes It? What Are its Consequences?” by Rev. Dr. Steven Hein

“Modes of Communication in the Ministry of the Gospel,” by Rev. Robert Schaibley

GJ - An Eastern Orthodoxy advocate is not amused.
***

GJ - This reminds me of the Panel Discussion on the Church Growth Movement, Mequon Sasusage Factory, 1987, led by such Fuller luminaries as Paul Kelm, Lawrence Otto Olson, David Valleskey, etc. etc. Paul Y. Cho received fulsome praise and adoration. Criticism of Church Growth was received with smirks.

Note below from Cyberstones:

Re: Infant Communion - weedon
I don't think many of us are actually advocating for the immediate move to infant communion - we know and love our parishes and our people, and we know what such advocacy would do to our churches. But we are advocating for the freedom to discuss this and explore the matter - a matter which many of us think the Reformation fathers did not put on the front burner, and therefore did not do justice to. One cannot but be struck in the discussion between Andreae and Jeremias II how Andreae builds his entire case on a reading of 1 Cor. that Luther disallows; or how Andreae can say that we do not NEED to commune the baptized infants because they spiritually eat of Christ by faith, never even taking note that it was exactly this "spiritually eating of Christ by faith" which according to the Formula is the very grounds for a beneficial oral eating. These are matters which the CTCR in its report simply did not deal with, and they need to be looked at. Not in the heat of someone pressing the Church to change on this over night, but in the calm and reasoned and prayerful discussion of the Scriptures by which the Holy Spirit leads the Church to an ever deeper appropriation of the faith once delivered to the saints.
Mar 30, 2007 13:32:44 Re: Infant Communion - Gary Gehlbach
Fr. Weedon, thank you for your well-reasoned comments. You said it much better than I could.

GVG
Mar 30, 2007 17:53:42 Re: Infant Communion - weedon
Fr. Gehlbach,

What I presented was nothing but a condensation of the arguments you have assembled and helpfully presented for all to read. For that the Church owes you a debt of gratitude indeed.

Mar 30, 2007 07:24:48 Re: Infant Communion - Gary Gehlbach
Bill, your analysis is spot on. In the CTCR response to Circuits 18 & 19, it asserts that advocates of infant communion are making the two sacrament equivocal to each other. Yet, that is exactly what it does in its own response. The CTCR dismisses 2000 years of Church history as being irrelevant, yet asserts the importance of the past 150 years of the LCMS. It plays word games by asserting that a person can be "worthy" yet receive the sacrament "unworthily."

For more information on infant communion and links to several LCMS documents, I would refer folks to my website. It has references and links to all sorts of papers on infant communion.

GVG
Mar 30, 2007 08:18:21 Re: Infant Communion - Rev.PTM
Gary, I know that you personally are really "into" the whole infant communion thing. If so, I urge you to take your views very public and post them on your blog site along with all supporting documentation for your position and then's let's have an open debate over it. Subject your position to that scrutiny.

You are going to have a tough row to hoe though trying to reinterpret the Confessions and Scriptures and appealing to a couple of pastor's papers isn't going to cut the old mustard.

Mar 30, 2007 10:11:34 Re: Infant Communion - Gary Gehlbach
I should take it public? Apparently, my website isn't public, although it has been one of the top search results under Google and only recently overtaken by wikipedia and paedocommunion.com. I lost my top listing when we changed ISPs last year.

Several pastors' papers may not "cut the mustard" in your opinion. But the opponents' arguments are weak and don't cut the muster with Scripture and the Confessions.

The topic of infant communion is an open question. Luther and the Reformers never condemned the Eastern Churches on this topic. (Oh, right that is an argument from silence; but it is still a valid point.) Oh, yes, I'm "into" discussing infant communion. Unlike others who simply wish to pontificate their opinions and bully others into submission.

Paul, believe it or not, I want to discuss the issue (my website lists articles both pro and con) and have been discussing it for years. And besides, the real issue behind the infant communion discussion is whether or not infants have faith or if they must have adult faith to be worthy. All the arguments against infant communion (even the CTCR's) indicate that there are two types of faith -- adult faith and infant faith. I find this most offensive and contrary to the Scripture and the Confessions.

You ask in another place whether I commune infants. No, it is not in the western tradition I inherited. But as with all traditions, it must continually tested by Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.

GJ - Click here for Pastor Gehlbach's Infant Communion Mega-site.

***

GJ - The recently resussitated Augustana Ministerium seems to be the farm team for ELDONA. Both are intent on imitating the Eastern Orthodox as much as possible. One Ft. Wayne student dismissed concerns about crypto-Romanism as "just a matter of polity." Likewise, Church Growth is not doctrine but "just a few useful ideas," in the words of Church Growth Enthusiast David Valleskey.

In fact, both trends are Enthusiasm, one hiding in a cloud of incense, the other behind the latest marketing surveys.

Episcopal Tolerance

LIBERALS FRAME DEBATE FORCING ORTHODOX TO DEFEND THEMSELVES

Commentary

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
11/22/2007

Whenever liberals excoriate the orthodox for holding to "rigid positions" on sexuality, they do it by making conservatives look fundamentalist, uninclusive, lacking diversity, while ignoring the real issues like poverty, HIV/AIDS and a woman's right to free abortion.

Liberals and pansexualists also want to make it very clear, and underscore, that if the Anglican Communion splits it is the fault of narrow-minded conservatives who can't see beyond the end of their moral and theological noses. If they would just rediscover the big tent of Anglicanism with its Via Media approach to just about everything, all will be well and all manner of things will be well.

The man who comes in for the most bashing and vitriol is Peter Akinola, Archbishop of Nigeria. Now if Akinola were an African-American, white liberals would never dare say the things about him that they say and get away with because he is ensconced in Africa and does not have access to America's legal system. Bishops Spong, Griswold, Shaw, Bennison et all have all said things about Akinola and his fellow African bishops that would be deemed racist and subject to lawsuits were they spoken on US soil to a US African-American bishop. But they can say the things they do and know they can get away with because Akinola is a "fundamentalist" who lives in Africa, far from the litigious North American scene.

Pennsylvania Bishop Charles E. Bennison's memorable line likening the growth of the church in Africa to that of the Nazi Party will probably make the history books. On another occasion he called African Anglicans "extreme Anglicans." The majority is black and they are tied to the Church of England more than we are, he said. An enormous lie if ever there was one. Liberals and pansexualists are constantly pleading their case with one eye firmly fixed on the Archbishop of Canterbury, begging him to accept New Hampshire Gene Robinson to Lambeth next year regardless of what Dr. Williams might think about sodomy. American liberals would build an altar and sacrifice Akinola on it if it would guarantee an invitation for the homoerotic bishop of New Hampshire - and these people don't even believe in the atonement and the blood of Jesus to cleanse them from all their sins. But Akinola is certainly worth sacrificing for the greater cause of Anglican unity!

Something calling itself the Inclusive Church held their first conference in Derbyshire, England recently and Dr. Jenny Te Paa Principal of the College of St. John the Evangelist in Auckland, New Zealand, and a member of the 2003 Lambeth Commission, and someone assisting in the St Augustine's Seminar responsible for planning the detailed content for the forthcoming Lambeth Conference 2008 (talk about the loading dice for what the content of the Lambeth Conference will be) had this to say.

She condemned what she called the 'reach of enmity' among Anglicans. In a strong speech, Te Paa reminded her hearers "how pervasive the reach of enmity has become amongst us." She told her audience "not to notice the bad behavior of the few, but the good behavior of the many."

So who exactly are those who have enmity and who practice "bad behavior"? Mrs. Jefferts Schori and her legal pit bull David Booth Beers as they sue dioceses and parishes? I don't think so. Jon Bruno Bishop of Los Angeles who is repeatedly suing three orthodox parishes for their properties? I doubt it. What about uninclusive liberal dioceses that refuse to allow graduates from the evangelical Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry exercise their gospel ministry in their dioceses? Not a prayer. Or the 2,000 pansexualists in The Episcopal Church who are pounding the bricks for sodomy seven days a week in every parish and diocesan convention, bullying priests and bishops (look what Louie Crew had to say about SW Florida Bishop Dabney Smith recently). http://tinyurl.com/2b4n4p

Sodomists are TOTALLY RELENTLESS in their pursuit, read behavior, of inclusion. The Episcopal-recognized organization Integrity has its leader Susan Russell running to her computer at every opportunity to push LGBT issues to the forefront on every occasion she can. She is utterly and totally relentless to the point of viciousness in making sure that anyone, bishop or priest who stands in the way of the full inclusion of non-celibate sexual behavior in TEC is included in every statement. The only sexual behavior not to get a pass in The Episcopal Church is, of course, adultery.

Dr. Te Paa lamented the church's obsession with drawing lines that exclude, which is distracting us from the enormous suffering so many people face. We must not "fret and fight" while people are literally dying. Perhaps Mrs Te Paa should talk with Archbishop Bernard Malango of Central Africa whose province is being torn apart over sexuality issues. This province is dying not because of poverty or HIV/AIDS but the relentless pursuit of sodomite acceptance by a bishop and a wannabe English cleric who wants to be a bishop resulting in the destruction of an entire province.

The only people drawing the lines in the Anglican culture wars are liberals and pansexualists. THEY not the orthodox have drawn the lines (of exclusion) demanding full acceptance of a behavior that the church in 2,000 years has never endorsed by the vast majority of Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Evangelicals of all stripes.

At the same conference the Revd Canon Giles Goddard, chair of Inclusive Church, said, "We are not a pressure group of the like-minded." He added, "We are ordinary Anglicans who love our church, and we are deeply concerned by the way in which the effort to exclude is overtaking the calling to live the Gospel."

That's a downright lie at least in the American Episcopal Church. No group has done more pressuring than Integrity, and the few hundred LGBT folk use every diocesan convention, and for the last 25 years, every General Convention, to pressure the Episcopal Church into accepting their abominable behavior. It is a fiction to say otherwise.

Their tactics are nothing short of Stalinist. First preach, change a few lay people and priests' minds, raise unholy hell, convince a few bishops, then coerce the rest. When the rest don't follow, pass a resolution demanding they do, then bully them, scream at them (you can take lessons from Jack Spong, Gene Robinson or Walter Righter) and then set out to destroy those who don't share the now "majority" opinion. Is it any wonder whole dioceses are fleeing the Episcopal Church. How much more should they take from "tolerant" liberals, read revisionists?

A case in point is women's ordination. What was initially a matter of conscience is now fully accepted and DEMANDED in The Episcopal Church. And if you don't conform you will be hounded out of the church. Just ask Ft. Worth Bishop Jack Iker and what he has had to put up with for the sake of his conscience on this issue. It has been nothing but misery in the way he has been beaten up by a single laywoman in his diocese who gets full liberal media attention and support from the national church whenever she opens her mouth.

One only has to scan liberal Episcopal bloggers to read the nastiness and anger at anyone who opposes the pansexual agenda of the Episcopal Church. It is a sight to behold. Their anger and vitriol would fill volumes. The informal HOB/D Listserv which features mostly liberals commenting on church issues occasionally has an orthodox commentator. He is torn to shreds the moment he appears and dares to challenge the current zeitgeist.

Is it any wonder that in recent months three Episcopal bishops have fled to Rome, another has joined CANA (The Nigerian Anglican province) with bishops being consecrated in a half dozen African provinces with the Province of the Southern Cone now offering a safe place for fleeing orthodox dioceses. Two Canadian bishops have even leaped off the floundering Anglican Church of Canada for the spiritual safety of the Southern Cone.

The Inclusive Church crowd meeting in Derbyshire concluded with this statement: "180 people have gathered here at a time in which many people are concerned that the generous tolerance which has characterized Anglicanism is under serious threat from those who wish to divide the church."

GENEROUS TOLERANCE! Mrs. Tee Pa comes from the province of the Anglican Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia that is more than 70% liberal. There is only one orthodox Anglican diocesan holdout in the whole country - Nelson - and I am told that there is now contention in this diocese over the issues. The Province doesn't have to "tolerate" orthodox folk; like the Borg, most opposition has been stifled or absorbed.

If Anglican unity is being threatened it is being threatened by its innovators not by those who stand for the 'faith once delivered for all to the saints'. It is people like Robinson, Bennison, Bruno, Crew, Shaw, Schori, the majority of Episcopal bishops and laymen like Louie Crew who want to change the church's received teaching to make it conform to their desires.

Don't blame orthodox Episcopalians, or evangelicals like Sydney Archbishop Peter Jensen, or Recife Bishop Robinson Cavilcanti (who has still not received an invitation to Lambeth next year) while his liberal counterparts in Brazil have, or the CAPA bishops in Africa, or Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan. These men are KEEPING the faith not destroying it. Tolerance for sexual sin is not on their agenda, and they fear the eternal destiny of the immortal souls of those who don't repent. They will not join them.

To paraphrase: "Woe unto you, sodomites and self-righteous liberals, hypocrites! For you destroy the orthodox, and for a pretence preach inclusion and diversity: therefore you shall receive the greater damnation...Woe unto you, for you compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, you make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."

Woe indeed.

Informal UOJ Research

Church Growth Guru,
Reviewing His UOJ Stormtroopers

A layman interviewed some conservative Lutheran clergy and asked them about Universal Objective Justification, the notion that God absolved the world of sin the moment Christ died (or the moment He rose from the dead). UOJ standard bearers have trouble establishing the Moment of Absolution.

Several clergy replied, "UOJ is another word for the Atonement." The layman said, "Read the Brief Statement." They looked at the words or heard them repeated and said, "That's not right."

My point is that most people, hearing the plain words of Scripture, believe what is revealed - that Christ died for the sins of the world, that this forgiveness comes to them through the Word of the Gospel received in faith.

Only certain clergy cling to UOJ. They are closely associated with the Church Growth Movement in conservative circles, with a more honest Universalism in the ELCA.

Recently some clergy were organizing some kind of independent group, with some laity in attendance. They tried to foist their UOJ on the crowd, only to be clobbered by the clear, plain words of the Bible and the Book of Concord.
I think UOJ--which came recently from Pietism, via Walther--was the turning point for Lutherans in North America. Other fads contributed (evolution, imaginative text criticism, promiscuous translations appearing on a weekly basis) but UOJ has short circuited and undermined the Gospel itself.

Nota bene:

1. UOJ leaders are unionists who have no trouble studying at Fuller Seminary and Willow Creek, as long as their associates help them in denying the obvious.
   
2. UOJ favorite theologians are Waldo Werning, Kent Hunter, Leonard Sweet, Martin Marty, and David Valleskey.
   
3. UOJ leaders show contempt for the Book of Concord.
   
4. UOJ leaders have worked unashamedly with ELCA leaders on joint worship and evangelism programs.
   
5. UOJ leaders defend their position with hysterical attacks against those who prefer justification by faith.
   
6. UOJ leaders deceive the simple by calling the article on justification "the chief article..." just before attacking the central doctrine of the Book of Concord.
   
7. Conservative Lutherans have fallen into rapid decline with the steady rise of UOJ and its favorite malady, the Church Growth Movement, aka the Purpose-Driven Church, aka Becoming Missional.
   

History Channel - The First Thanksgiving

Pilgrim's First Thanksgiving

First Thanksgiving

In 1621, the Plymouth colonists and Wampanoag Indians shared an autumn harvest feast which is acknowledged today as one of the first Thanksgiving celebrations in the colonies. This harvest meal has become a symbol of cooperation and interaction between English colonists and Native Americans. Although this feast is considered by many to the very first Thanksgiving celebration, it was actually in keeping with a long tradition of celebrating the harvest and giving thanks for a successful bounty of crops. Native American groups throughout the Americas, including the Pueblo, Cherokee, Creek and many others organized harvest festivals, ceremonial dances, and other celebrations of thanks for centuries before the arrival of Europeans in North America.


Food preparation
Historians have also recorded other ceremonies of thanks among European settlers in North America, including British colonists in Berkeley Plantation, Virginia. At this site near the Charles River in December of 1619, a group of British settlers led by Captain John Woodlief knelt in prayer and pledged "Thanksgiving" to God for their healthy arrival after a long voyage across the Atlantic. This event has been acknowledged by some scholars and writers as the official first Thanksgiving among European settlers on record. Whether at Plymouth, Berkeley Plantation, or throughout the Americas, celebrations of thanks have held great meaning and importance over time. The legacy of thanks, and particularly of the feast, have survived the centuries as people throughout the United States gather family, friends, and enormous amounts of food for their yearly Thanksgiving meal.

What Was Actually on the Menu?

What foods topped the table at the first harvest feast? Historians aren't completely certain about the full bounty, but it's safe to say the pilgrims weren't gobbling up pumpkin pie or playing with their mashed potatoes. Following is a list of the foods that were available to the colonists at the time of the 1621 feast. However, the only two items that historians know for sure were on the menu are venison and wild fowl, which are mentioned in primary sources. The most detailed description of the "First Thanksgiving" comes from Edward Winslow from A Journal of the Pilgrims at Plymouth, in 1621:

"Our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after a special manner rejoice together after we had gathered the fruit of our labors. They four in one day killed as much fowl as, with a little help beside, served the company almost a week. At which time, among other recreations, we exercised our arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and among the rest their greatest king Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five deer, which they brought to the plantation and bestowed upon our governor, and upon the captain, and others. And although it be not always so plentiful as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want that we often wish you partakersof our plenty.

Did you know that lobster, seal and swans were on the Pilgrims' menu? Learn more...

Seventeenth Century Table Manners:
The pilgrims didn't use forks; they ate with spoons, knives, and their fingers. They wiped their hands on large cloth napkins which they also used to pick up hot morsels of food. Salt would have been on the table at the harvest feast, and people would have sprinkled it on their food. Pepper, however, was something that they used for cooking but wasn't available on the table.

In the seventeenth century, a person's social standing determined what he or she ate. The best food was placed next to the most important people. People didn't tend to sample everything that was on the table (as we do today), they just ate what was closest to them.

Serving in the seventeenth century was very different from serving today. People weren't served their meals individually. Foods were served onto the table and then people took the food from the table and ate it. All the servers had to do was move the food from the place where it was cooked onto the table.

Pilgrims didn't eat in courses as we do today. All of the different types of foods were placed on the table at the same time and people ate in any order they chose. Sometimes there were two courses, but each of them would contain both meat dishes, puddings, and sweets.

More Meat, Less Vegetables
Our modern Thanksgiving repast is centered around the turkey, but that certainly wasn't the case at the pilgrims's feasts. Their meals included many different meats. Vegetable dishes, one of the main components of our modern celebration, didn't really play a large part in the feast mentality of the seventeenth century. Depending on the time of year, many vegetables weren't available to the colonists.

The pilgrims probably didn't have pies or anything sweet at the harvest feast. They had brought some sugar with them on the Mayflower but by the time of the feast, the supply had dwindled. Also, they didn't have an oven so pies and cakes and breads were not possible at all. The food that was eaten at the harvest feast would have seemed fatty by 1990's standards, but it was probably more healthy for the pilgrims than it would be for people today. The colonists were more active and needed more protein. Heart attack was the least of their worries. They were more concerned about the plague and pox.

Surprisingly Spicy Cooking
People tend to think of English food at bland, but, in fact, the pilgrims used many spices, including cinnamon, ginger, nutmeg, pepper, and dried fruit, in sauces for meats. In the seventeenth century, cooks did not use proportions or talk about teaspoons and tablespoons. Instead, they just improvised. The best way to cook things in the seventeenth century was to roast them. Among the pilgrims, someone was assigned to sit for hours at a time and turn the spit to make sure the meat was evenly done.

Since the pilgrims and Wampanoag Indians had no refrigeration in the seventeenth century, they tended to dry a lot of their foods to preserve them. They dried Indian corn, hams, fish, and herbs.

Dinner for Breakfast: Pilgrim Meals:
The biggest meal of the day for the colonists was eaten at noon and it was called noonmeat or dinner. The housewives would spend part of their morning cooking that meal. Supper was a smaller meal that they had at the end of the day. Breakfast tended to be leftovers from the previous day's noonmeat.

In a pilgrim household, the adults sat down to eat and the children and servants waited on them. The foods that the colonists and Wampanoag Indians ate were very similar, but their eating patterns were different. While the colonists had set eating patterns--breakfast, dinner, and supper--the Wampanoags tended to eat when they were hungry and to have pots cooking throughout the day.

Source: Kathleen Curtin, Food Historian at Plimoth Plantation
All Photos Courtesy of Plimouth Plantation, Inc., Plymouth, Mass. USA.ca.

Lincon's Thanksgiving Address

It is the duty of nations as well as of men to owe their dependence upon the overruling power of God; to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations are blessed whose God is the Lord.

We know that by his divine law, nations, like individuals, are subject to punishments and chastisements in this world May we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war which now desolates the land may be a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins; to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole people?

We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven; we have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity; we have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other nation has grown.

But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us, and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own.

Intoxicated with unbroken success we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us.

It has seemed to me fit and proper that God should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole of the American people. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every pad of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November as a day of Thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.


-President Abraham Lincoln
16th president of the USA

The Episcopal News You Read Today... Is the Lutheran News You Will Read In a Few Years

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church,
Katharine Jefferts Schori

This satire was based upon a serious interview in the New York Times! - (Questions for Katharine Jefferts Schori, State of the Church: Interview by DEBORAH SOLOMON, Published: November 19, 2006)

Sunday, November 26, 2006
ECUSA ranks thinning...

... because Episcopalians care about the environment and are far too educated to have children, unlike Catholics and Mormons. Brutally Honest.

So says Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.

Really:

How many members of the Episcopal Church are there in this country?

About 2.2 million. It used to be larger percentagewise, but Episcopalians tend to be better-educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than some other denominations. Roman Catholics and Mormons both have theological reasons for producing lots of children.

Episcopalians aren’t interested in replenishing their ranks by having children?

No. It’s probably the opposite. We encourage people to pay attention to the stewardship of the earth and not use more than their portion.

Regular readers will know that I call myself an exiled Episcopalian. This'll be more reason why I'm likely to remain so.

***

GJ - Below is the actual interview from the New York Times. The writer took the image above from the interview and created the satirical ad. Years ago, The Episcopalian magazine ran companion articles on the resurrection of Christ. One priest said it did happen. The other said it did not. That illustrates the latitudinarianism of the Episcopals.

New York Times

Q: You just took office as the first woman to head the Episcopal Church, and curiously enough, you come from a science background, having worked as an oceanographer for years.

I worked on squids and octopuses.

As a scientist with a Ph.D., what do you make of the Christian fundamentalists who say the earth was created in six days and dismiss evolution as a lot of bunk?

I think it’s a horrendous misunderstanding of both science and active faith tradition. I understand the great creation story in the scientific sense — big bang and evolutionary theory — as the best understanding of how we have come to be what we are: not the meaning behind it, but the process behind it. Genesis is about the meaning behind that.

Your critics see you as an unrepentant liberal who supports the ordination of gay bishops. Are you trying to bolster the religious left?

No. We’re not about being either left or right. We’re about being comprehensive.

How many members of the Episcopal Church are there in this country?

About 2.2 million. It used to be larger percentagewise, but Episcopalians tend to be better-educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than some other denominations. Roman Catholics and Mormons both have theological reasons for producing lots of children.

Episcopalians aren’t interested in replenishing their ranks by having children?

No. It’s probably the opposite. We encourage people to pay attention to the stewardship of the earth and not use more than their portion.

You’re actually Catholic by birth; your parents joined the Episcopal Church when you were 9. What led them to convert?

It was before Vatican II had any influence in local parishes, and I think my parents were looking for a place where wrestling with questions was encouraged rather than discouraged.

Have you met Pope Benedict?

I have not. I think it would be really interesting.

He became embroiled in controversy this fall after suggesting that Muslims have a history of violence.

So do Christians! They have a terrible history. Look at history in the Dark Ages. Charlemagne converted whole tribes by the sword. I think Muslims are poorly understood by the West, and it is easy to latch onto that which we do not understand and demonize it.

What do you make of Ted Haggard, who just stepped down as the head of the National Association of Evangelicals, after he was accused of cavorting with a gay escort?

I think it’s very sad. We’re always surprised when we see people’s clay feet. Our culture seems to delight in exposing them. I think we have a prurient interest in other people’s failings.

You can’t blame the Haggard case on the culture or the media. It isn’t a story about sex so much as the disturbing hypocrisy of a church leader.

But we’re all hypocrites. All of us.

You’re very forgiving.

I like the word “shalom.” I use it in my correspondence, I use it in my sermons, and that’s how I sign my e-mails — “shalom.” To me it is a concrete reminder of what it is we’re all supposed to be about.

Because it means peace in Hebrew?

It means far more than peace. I think it’s a vision of the human community. Those great visions of Isaiah — every person fed, no more strife, the ill are healed, prisoners are released.

You were previously bishop of Nevada, but your new position requires you to live in New York City. Do you and your husband like it here?

He is actually in Nevada. He is a retired mathematician. He will be here in New York when it makes sense.

I hear you’re a pilot.

I got my license when I was 18.

You have many talents.

Many crazinesses, many passions.

***

GJ - The interviewer and interviewee are self-parodies, two Leftists dancing around the issues while trying to sound profound. The archbishop's husband is retired but staying in Nevada "until it makes sense" to live with his wife. I am sympathetic.

Some Can Part with Their Property

NORTH CAROLINA: Charlotte Episcopalians Defect to Province of West Africa

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
11/19/2007

For the Rev. Canon Filmore Strunk, 55, it was a painful but strangely exhilarating moment in his life and ministry. For 19 years he had been a priest in the Episcopal Church. It had been his life's work and ambition - to bring the unchanging gospel of Jesus Christ to the folks at St. Margaret's Episcopal Church in Waxhaw, a growing and thriving suburb on the outskirts of Charlotte, North Carolina.

On November 1 all that changed. The abandonment of the historic Christian faith, the sexuality mess and the Episcopal Church's embracing of Gnosticism finally proved too much for the evangelical pastor of his 600-member orthodox congregation. He walked away from a newly built, 22,000 sq. ft property valued in excess of $4 million taking half his congregation with him.

"It was a painful separation; we had a large number of folk who wanted to stay behind and did. The original church was 600 with some 300 including nine of the 11 vestry electing to move with me. We walked away from a valuable property barely three years old with new gothic stone worth millions. It was very painful for me personally, but I saw that the gospel could not be compromised any longer. Truth had to triumph over institutional loyalty. The sad truth is that many Episcopalians, have become Gnostics and think they are the center of revelation, not God, and feel perfectly easy about changing things as they see that move them. I could not."

Fr. Strunk sees the move as one of the great stories of how God has blessed him and his ministry. "I spent the best part of a decade moving campuses and then I walked away from it all. I could have been seriously depressed. It never happened."

When he made the announcement that he was leaving, he told his congregation he had no interest in spending thousands of dollars legally fighting for the property. "I wanted them to come freely or stay." The new church, now called All Saints Anglican Church, will be under the ecclesiastical authority of The Church of the Province of West Africa and the Most Rev. Justice Akrofi. Strunk has been licensed by the African Primate. Their visiting missionary bishop is the Rt. Rev. John Guernsey who was recently consecrated by the Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi of Uganda.

Strunk, who is on the Pastor's Prayer Summit Leadership Team in Charlotte, faced a challenge: where he would go. Another pastor on the team, a Presbyterian (PCUSA) pastor, the Rev. Bruce Powell immediately offered his church building for the Evangelical Anglican flock now under an overseas African Primate. "The Presbyterian session (vestry) deliberated for two minutes and then unanimously said yes. I was stunned and overwhelmed. God was clearly at work.

"We met for worship in the fellowship hall of the of the Presbyterian Church located in the town of Wesley Chapel just outside of Charlotte on November 1 at a late-afternoon service which included seven priests, nearly 30 musicians and more than 250 congregants. My joy at this brighter day was so profound, God has provided godly bishops for us, a place to worship, a committed congregation and a spirit of joy for this new church that belongs to Him."

Missionary Bishop John Guernsey, who is also Dean of the Mid-Atlantic Convocation of the Anglican Communion Network (ACN) and rector of All Saints Anglican Church of Dale City, VA, presided over the solemn and joy-filled service, during which nine people were confirmed and three received into the Anglican Church.

Other area and regional priests joined Guernsey in traveling to be with Strunk and the congregation on Sunday to witness the start of this new Anglican church. Among them was the Rev. Jim McCaslin of Jacksonville, FL, southeast Dean of the Anglican Communion Network; the Rev. Alan Hawkins, interim rector of King of Kings Anglican Church of Charlotte, NC; the Rev. Clayton Townsend, founder of Matthews Mission, an Anglican church plant in Matthews, NC; the Rev. Craig Welbaum, rector of Light of Christ Anglican Church in the university area of Charlotte, NC; and Fr. Norman Riebe, assisting priest of All Saints Anglican.

"We're not Presbyterians or Anglicans today, we're servants of the Living God," said Siler Presbyterian's pastor Bruce Powell in welcoming the new community of Anglicans to his church's fellowship hall. Strunk and Powell have served together on the servant leader team of the interdenominational Metrolina Pastors Prayer Summit for 11 years. "We were both orthodox pastors in liberal denominations, and we've developed a tremendous bond over the years," said Strunk of his colleague.

Forging a relationship that crosses traditional bishopric lines, Bishop Guernsey is being licensed by Akrofi, Primate of West Africa and Bishop of Accra -- and a longtime friend of Strunk -- to serve as a missionary bishop, helping provide bishopric oversight for All Saints Anglican in the United States.

"This is reflective of the spirit of radical cooperation that we see growing in the leadership of the Anglican realignment," Strunk said of Akrofi and Guernsey's willingness and commitment to work together in an uncharted partnership to support and advise the nascent All Saints Anglican Church.

Holding worship service in another church's home is both a provision and a challenge, says Strunk. "We no longer have a conspicuous church building of our own to attract visitors to our congregation. We will have to be more intentional in our outreach and evangelism as we continue our mission to be disciples making disciples.

"I thought we would hurt financially. It hasn't happened. Some 90 of the 300 who have come over have pledged more than half a million dollars already - that's $6,000 per family. These people are serious about the truth, the church and salvation. It is remarkable what God is doing."

Almost immediately, Fr. Strunk was inhibited by the liberal Bishop of North Carolina, Michael B. Curry for "abandonment of Communion."

"I expect to be deposed. Of course, I have abandoned neither the Anglican Communion nor the faith once delivered to the saints. This is the lie now being constantly perpetrated by liberal TEC bishops. I am not the slightest bit concerned."

Strunk said he got the call on his cell phone from Curry while he was attending an Anglican Relief and Development meeting in Charleston. He was immediately "ministered to" by Pittsburgh Bishop Bob Duncan and the other bishops present. Primate Akrofi is on the board of ARDF and immediately offered his oversight. Fr. Strunk has visited the West African headquarters of the Anglican Province in Ghana over the years.

Strunk says that both Bishop Guernsey and Archbishop Akrofi are two of the godliest, wisest, most prayerful, humblest and strongest men he knows and is proud to be under their authority.

Fr. Strunk is not alone. The area is fast becoming a haven for orthodox Anglican parishes.

The Anglican Church plants in the greater Charlotte region are King of Kings (Southpark area), Light of Christ (university area), Matthews mission (Matthews/Mint hill area) All Saints (Wesley Chapel), Good Shepherd (Huntersville) and Southpointe (Rock Hill). These are all Anglican Mission in America (AMiA) church plants. There is also an APA parish, St. Michaels, in southeast Charlotte. In Raleigh, NC Holy Cross is under the Rev. John Gibson and Holy Trinity in Raleigh has thrived under the British evangelist, author and church planter Canon Michael Green. All Saints Anglican in Chapel Hill is also a new thriving congregation.

Weekly Sunday worship for All Saints Anglican will be held at 4 pm, Sunday School at 5:30 pm, and covered dish supper at 6:30 pm. Youth and children will meet at Siler Presbyterian Church, 6301 Weddington Monroe Rd. Wesley Chapel, NC 28104.

Looking back on his actions Fr. Strunk had this to say: "As the Episcopal Church is not going to repent, I knew I was going to have to leave this building I had worked in for so many years to build. I was in tremendous sorrow, but I was not prepared to trade a beautiful building against my eternal soul."

http://www.all-saints-anglican.org

***

GJ - Lutherans seem to be more attached to their property, with the ministers placing their complete trust in the pension system. "We should so fear, love, and trust in the synod above all things."

The Primacy of the Pope

Treatise Compiled by the Theologians Assembled at Smalcald

1537

1] The Roman Pontiff claims for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom].

2] Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].

3] And thirdly, he says that to believe this is necessary for salvation. And for these reasons the Roman bishop calls himself [and boasts that he is] the vicar of Christ on earth.

4] These three articles we hold to be false, godless, tyrannical, and [quite] pernicious to the Church.

5] Now, in order that our proof [reason and opinion] may be [better] understood, we shall first define what they call being above all [what it means that he boasts of being supreme] by divine right. For they mean that he is universal [that the Pope is the general bishop over the entire Christian Church], or, as they say, ecumenical bishop, i.e., from whom all bishops and pastors throughout the entire world ought to seek ordination and [confirmation, who [alone] is to have the right of electing, ordaining, confirming, deposing all bishops [and pastors]. 6] Besides this, he arrogates to himself the authority to make [all kinds of] laws concerning acts of worship, concerning changing the Sacraments [and] concerning doctrine, and wishes his articles, his decrees, his laws [his statutes and ordinances] to be considered equal to the divine laws [to other articles of the Christian Creed and the Holy Scriptures], i.e., he holds that by the papal laws the consciences of men are so bound that those who neglect them, even without public offense, sin mortally [that they cannot be omitted without sin. For he wishes to found this power upon divine right and the Holy Scriptures; yea, he wishes to have it preferred to the Holy Scriptures and God's commands]. And what he adds is still more horrible, namely, that it is necessary to believe all these things in order to be saved [all these things shall and must be believed at the peril of forfeiting salvation].

7] In the first place, therefore, let us show from the [holy] Gospel that the Roman bishop is not by divine right above [cannot arrogate to himself any supremacy whatever over] other bishops and pastors.

8] I. Luke 22, 25. Christ expressly prohibits lordship among the apostles [that no apostle should have any supremacy over the rest]. For this was the very question, namely, that when Christ spake of His passion, they were disputing who should be at the head, and as it were the vicar of the absent Christ. There Christ reproves this error of the apostles and teaches that there shall not be lordship or superiority among them, but that the apostles should be sent forth as equals to the common ministry of the Gospel. Accordingly, He says: The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors, but ye shall not be so; but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. The antithesis here shows [By holding these matters against one another one sees] that lordship [among the apostles] is disapproved.

II. Matt. 18, 2. The same is taught by the parable when Christ in the same dispute concerning the kingdom places a little child in the midst, signifying that among ministers there is not to be sovereignty, just as a child neither takes nor seeks sovereignty for himself.

9] III. John 20, 21. Christ sends forth His disciples on an equality, without any distinction [so that no one of them was to have more or less power than any other], when He says: As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. [These words are clear and plain:] He says that He sends them individually in the same manner as He Himself was sent; hence He grants to no one a prerogative or lordship above the rest.

10] IV. Gal. 2, 7f St. Paul manifestly affirms that he was neither ordained nor confirmed [and endorsed] by Peter, nor does he acknowledge Peter to be one from whom confirmation should be sought. And he expressly contends concerning this point that his call does not depend upon the authority of Peter. But he ought to have acknowledged Peter as a superior if Peter was superior by divine right [if Peter, indeed, had received such supremacy from Christ]. Paul accordingly says that he had at once preached the Gospel [freely for a long time] without consulting Peter. Also: Of those who seemed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me; God accepteth no man's person). And: They who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me. Since Paul, then, clearly testifies that he did not even wish to seek for the confirmation of Peter [for permission to preach] even when he had come to him, he teaches that the authority of the ministry depends upon the Word of God, and that Peter was not superior to the other apostles, and that it was not from this one individual Peter that ordination or confirmation was to be sought [that the office of the ministry proceeds from the general call of the apostles, and that it is not necessary for all to have the call or confirmation of this one person, Peter, alone].

11] V. In 1 Cor. 3, 6, Paul makes ministers equal, and teaches that the Church is above the ministers. Hence superiority or lordship over the Church or the rest of the ministers is not ascribed to Peter [in preference to other apostles]. For he says thus: All things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, i.e., let neither the other ministers nor Peter assume for themselves lordship or superiority over the Church; let them not burden the Church with traditions; let not the authority of any avail more than the Word [of God]; let not the authority of Cephas be opposed to the authority of the other apostles, as they reasoned at that time: "Cephas, who is an apostle of higher rank, observes this; therefore, both Paul and the rest ought to observe this." Paul removes this pretext from Peter, and denies [Not so, says Paul, and makes Peter doff his little hat, namely, the claim] that his authority is to be preferred to the rest or to the Church.

12] VI. The Council of Nice resolved that the bishop of Alexandria should administer the churches in the East, and the Roman bishop the suburban, i.e., those which were in the Roman provinces in the West. From this start by a human law, i.e. the resolution of the Council, the authority of the Roman bishop first arose. If the Roman bishop already had the superiority by divine law, it would not have been lawful for the Council to take any right from him and transfer it to the bishop of Alexandria; nay, all the bishops of the East ought perpetually to have sought ordination and confirmation from the bishop of Rome.

13] VII. Again the Council of Nice determined that bishops should be elected by their own churches, in the presence of some neighboring bishop or of several. 14] The same was observed [for a long time, not only in the East, but] also in the West and in the Latin churches, as Cyprian and Augustine testify. For Cyprian says in his fourth letter to Cornelius: Accordingly, as regards the divine observance and apostolic practice, you must diligently keep and practice what is also observed among us and in almost all the provinces, that for celebrating ordination properly, whatsoever bishops of the same province live nearest should come together with the people for whom a pastor is being appointed, and the bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people, who most fully know the life of each one, which we also have seen done among us at the ordination of our colleague Sabinus, that by the suffrage of the entire brotherhood, and by the judgment of the bishops who had assembled in their presence, the episcopate was conferred and hands laid on him.

15] Cyprian calls this custom a divine tradition and an apostolic observance, and affirms that it is observed in almost all the provinces.

Since, therefore, neither ordination nor confirmation was sought from a bishop of Rome in the greater part of the world in the Latin and Greek churches, it is sufficiently apparent that the churches did not then accord superiority and domination to the bishop of Rome.

16] Such superiority is impossible. For it is impossible for one bishop to be the overseer of the churches of the whole world, or for churches situated in the most distant lands to seek ordination [for all their ministers] from one. For it is manifest that the kingdom of Christ is scattered throughout the whole world; and to-day there are many churches in the East which do not seek ordination or confirmation from the Roman bishop [which have ministers ordained neither by the Pope nor his bishops]. Therefore, since such superiority [which the Pope, contrary to all Scripture, arrogates to himself] is impossible, and the churches in the greater part of the world have not acknowledged [nor made use of] it, it is sufficiently apparent that it was not instituted [by Christ, and does not spring from divine law].

17] VIII. Many ancient synods have been proclaimed and held in which the bishop of Rome did not preside; as that of Nice and most others. This, too, testifies that the Church did not then acknowledge the primacy or superiority of the bishop of Rome.

***

GJ - So why did Wisconsin Lutheran College (WELS) feature Archbishop Weakland, aptly surnamed, to give a special lecture at their college? Why did they advertise and promote this lecture, inviting the public? Why were a number of Roman Catholic priests featured in the same series?