It's no secret that the gap between the rich and the middle class has grown over the last decade. The rich are getting very, very rich while the poor and middle class are--while not worse off--certainly no better. (Depending on your time frame, however, the poor actually are doing worse.)

This graph shows the average annual income of the top one percent earners in 2005 was more than $1 million, while the middle 60 percent is just above $50,000 per year. That compares with the $500,000 the top one percent earned just ten years before, versus an average income of just below $50,000 for the middle 60 percent. In other words, while the top one percent doubled their income, the middle 60 percent only modestly improved.

More striking is that the average income of the bottom 20 percent seems not to have moved in the last 25 years. Factor in inflation, and the bottom 20 percent is doing much worse. (Women too, it seems, haven't done well. But instead of making less, they're just staying home. And interestingly, feminists are making arguments for doing so.)

There's plenty of debate over why the income of the top earners has so vastly outpaced that of everyone else. It's tempting to argue that the top one percent is making its money off the backs of those less well off. And America, being the nation of individualists it is, has been generally content to allow the rich to get much, much richer. Plus, globalization has brought millions of new laborers into competition with those already in developed economies.

But another argument seems compelling. New York Times writer Tyler Cowen summarizes it this way:

The reason is supply and demand. For the first time in American history, the current generation is not significantly more educated than its parents. Those in need of skilled labor are bidding for a relatively stagnant supply and so must pay more.

Technological change has put a premium on workers who understand, can manage, and can profit from such advances. According to this argument, education--not abuse by the rich--makes the difference between advancing in the economy or falling behind.

But the difference between the educated and the un-educated is not a matter of wealth but of upbringing. After all, the poor can value education as much as the rich, and often do. And, education is not simply a matter of IQ, according to James Heckman, a professor at the University of Chicago and Nobel Laureate. Heckman says in his paper "Schools, Skills and Synapses" (available for download here) that "the workplace is increasingly oriented towards a greater valuation of the skills required for social interaction and for sociability." These skills are taught in the home, Heckman says.

Heckman makes no argument for marriage support programs or other family-supporting policies. In fact, he says the state, for economic reasons, should intervene early in families deemed to be unable to nurture well-educated (in terms of IQ and sociability) children. Yet, his analysis could be used to support traditional, Christian views of the family. "Those born into disadvantaged environments are receiving relatively less stimulation and resources to promote child development ... [Statistics show] the dramatic rise in the proportion of children living in single parent families. The greatest contributor to this growth is the percent living in families with never married mothers.”

But, Heckman says, having two parents--even wealthy ones--isn't enough for healthy child development. "The proper measure of disadvantage is not necessarily family poverty or parental education. The available evidence suggests that the quality of parenting is the important scarce resource. The quality of parenting is not always closely linked to family income or parental education." In other words, there's no inherent reason that children who grow up with wealthy parents, or well-educated ones, should become wealthy themselves.

Unfortunately, more American children are growing up under "disadvantaged" circumstances. And this is having a negative impact on the American economy, because these children, even if they have high IQs, don't have the social skills for success. "A greater fraction of young Americans," Heckman says, "is graduating from college. At the same time, a greater fraction is dropping out of high school."

Churches could use Heckman's paper to argue for a different kind of social ministry, one that emphasizes parenting skills as much as poverty alleviation. Also, it shows once again, that the soft patriarchy model of the family is quite good for all involved. But, to me, it mostly argues that God had it right when he created male and female to be fruitful and multiply.

Posted by Rob Moll at July 31, 2008 8:06PM | Comments (7)

While the media keeps reminding us of the bad news--which is one of its jobs--I keep reading stories that try to put our current economic woes into perspective. Here is a paragraph from an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal ("Where's the Outrage? Really. By Arthur C. Brooks.)

In some countries, a depressed economic climate means mass unemployment, political instability and large-scale deprivation. In America this decade, we have reached the point at which even in a down economy, our unemployment rate does not reach 6% (lower than the rates in Canada and the European Union, let alone those in the developing world). Any unwanted unemployment is terrible; but it is worth remembering that this stability especially benefits the economically vulnerable.

Furthermore, no matter what the state of our economy, we can realistically count on uninterrupted provision of critical public services, high business start-up rates, the world's highest levels of charitable giving and volunteering, and countless other benefits that come from living in a successful nation.

We may well be unsatisfied with the current state of affairs. Some Americans are suffering, and cannot be faulted for seeking substantial political change in the coming election. But most of us are reasonable people, and can see the difference between correctable problems within a strong system of democratic capitalism and the kind of catastrophic failure that justifies real outrage.

This reality should be a part of all our conversations about the current economic crisis--which is a crisis in some ways, and in some ways not.

Posted by Mark Galli at July 31, 2008 12:09PM | Comments (3)

UPDATE: Friday, Aug. 1, 9:30 a.m. BST

Here's the link to the op-ed published in The Times of London

Here's the sound bite:

"St Francis of Assisi said: “Preach the gospel at all times; when necessary use words.” We believe that our absence at this Lambeth Conference is the only way that our voice will be heard. For more than ten years we have been speaking and have not been heard. So maybe our absence will speak louder than our words."

* * *
Thursday, July 31, 2008, 4:30 pm BST

HENRY LUKE OROMBI, Archbishop and primate of Uganda, will have a commentary piece published in The Times of London, which will post online at 9 p.m. BST (British Summer Time).

Times religion correspondent Ruth Gledhill leaked word of this piece on her blog this afternoon. Here's what she wrote:

...in tomorrow's Times, the Archbishop of Uganda, Henry Orombi, will accuse the Arcbishop of Canterbury of a betrayal at the very deepest level. He will argue that even the Pope is elected by his peers, but Dr Williams in his office is little better than a remnant of colonialism. 'The spiritual leadership of a global communion of independent and autonomous Provinces should not be reduced to one man appointed by a secular government,' he says. Nor is the absence of Uganda, Nigeria and other Global South churches a sign that they want to leave the Communion. Far from it. It is a sign of how much they care that it endures. Read it all from when it goes online at 2100 BST and in the paper tomorrow, it is strong stuff!

This op-ed, if it holds up to be as strongly worded as Ruth suggests, opens up an additional set of questions, beyond biblical authority, human sexuality, or border crossings:

Should England retain the Church of England as its established church? Could the Anglican Communion itself play a deciding role in selecting the archbishop of Canterbury, who serves as 'first among equals' in the communion?

Lambeth is about to enter its Final Three days and events here on the grounds of the University of Kent and events off-campus seem to be spinning beyond the control of any one person or committee.

As expected, the Lambeth Reflections document has begun to take shape. And, now in its third draft, it is already huge. 18 pages. And, drafters have yet to address these areas:

* Gender and power
* The Scriptures
* Sexuality and Listening
* The Convenant
* The Windsor Process
* Leading in God's mission
* Conclusion

Just this afternoon, there were three press conferences nearly back to back, including one by Quincy Bishop Keith Ackerman. See below for additional updates:

In the last three days, Lambeth has seen several important developments. Here are some of the more important ones:

Wednesday, July 30, unofficial press conference with Bishop Peter Beckwith from Springfield, IL, a well-known conservative.

Click here for Anglican TV's full unedited video of this outdoor press event. And, click here for an unofficial transcript.

Several comments about Bishop Beckwith's remarks:

1. CT asked, "Who speaks for conservatives here at Lambeth?" This seems like a crucial issue since Lambeth has evangelicals like the measles. They are everywhere, but don't seem to be making much strategic difference. Granted much of Lambeth is as clear as mud, so time may prove me wrong.

Whatever one thinks of GAFCON it has added another layer of complexity on conservatives, who are already working their way through women's ordination and related historical difference between evangelicals and Anglo-catholics.

2. Beckwith's comments at times were deeply personal. He admitted that around the time of General Convention 2003 he was convicted that he had put the Episcopal Church ahead of his commitment to Jesus Christ; he confessed this as "idolatrous" and has since then worked to overcome that.

Thursday, July 31.

On Wednesday, the theme of the day at Lambeth was: Power and Abuse. New York suffragan Bishop Catherine Roskam dropped quite a bombshell with these words:

"We have 700 men here [at Lambeth]. Do you think any of them beat their wives? Chances are they do. The most devout Christians beat their wives... many of our bishops come from places where it is culturally acceptable to beat your wife. In that regard, it makes the conversation quite difficult."

These comments were published in Lambeth Witness, a publication associated with the Inclusive Church Network, GLBT advocacy group. It is published daily and available in print on campus.

As news of this near libelous accusation filtered across the Lambeth conference, John Sentamu, archbishop of York, today (Thurs.) issued a public demand for Bishop Roskam to produce evidence proving her point.

This has set the news media here on a great quest. In the past 12 hours, I have lost track of the number of Lambeth bishops who have been asked by a journo: "Do you beat your wife?"

It was only a matter of time. Here's a parody interview with an anonymous wife-beating bishop.

I include one choice question + answer:

Q: Does it trouble you at all that wife-beating is contrary to the tradition of Christian faith and order, the teaching and practice of centuries of Anglicanism, the explicit statements of previous Lambeth meetings, and the consensus of the majority of the Anglican Communion?

A: Not at all. The spirit is clearly doing a "new thing" in helping us value and celebrate wife-beating. The Church has always been called to push the boundaries... so we need to leave behind the comfortable but dated assumptions and practices of the benightened pre-modern past in order to explore the new places to which God is calling us today. Our church is, in that tradition of radical liminality, encountering God by blazing a new way for others in the Communion to follow.

Posted by Tim Morgan at July 31, 2008 10:25AM | Comments (4)

Tuesday was the first full day of the “Loving God and Neighbor” conference that is bringing together Christian, Muslim, and (a few) Jewish leaders on the campus of Yale University.

The day’s meetings were kicked off by two articulate and compelling Muslim speakers.

First was the remarkably articulate and charming Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad bin Talal of Jordan (who attended Princeton for his undergraduate work and holds a Ph.D. from Cambridge). Prince Ghazi characterized the “Common Word” document issued in 2007 by 138 Muslim scholars and clerics as “our extended global religious handshake.” This was not a concession to Christians, he said. The statement was “about equal peace and not capitulation.”

The first item on his list of tension-producing factors between Muslims and Western Christians was “the question of Jerusalem and Palestine” and during a break in the meetings he re-emphasized the issue of the control of and access to Jerusalem as a factor that would have to be resolved before any lasting détente could be achieved.

Did Ghazi go over the top when he claimed that hostility to Muslims in Western countries was at a high enough level to warrant worries about internment camps—or even concentration camps—in the near future?

It was encouraging that he treated the Holocaust as a historical fact and cited the standard six-million figure (things that often get denied by Muslims in the Middle East). But it was shocking that he claimed that Western societies were, with respect to Muslims, now comparable to the pre-genocidal prejudices among Rwandan Hutus and Tutsis in 1994.

Following Prince Ghazi was Shaykh Mustafa Ceric, the Grand Mufti of Bosnia. “Ours is not the problem of difference,” said Shaykh Ceric about relations between the three great Abrahamic faiths. “Ours is the problem of similarity.”

“Those who are similar are more severe to each other than those that are different,” he pointed out. “We must learn how to live with our similarities.”

Dr. Ceric preached the value of forgiveness. Having witnessed the terror and brutality of the July 1995 Srebrenica massacre of 8,000 Bosnian Muslims, he has had much to forgive. He told the Yale gathering of Muslims and Christians that “the human being has the right to ‘an eye for an eye.’” But the right to revenge is balanced by Islamic teaching: “If you forgive, you will be forgiven in the world to come, and [here my notes are a bit shaky] it will be your propitiation.”

But Ceric startled several evangelical listeners when he suggested that not everyone was worthy of love all the time. While he talked about love for widows and orphans, for example, he named “the arrogant” as an example of those who should not be loved. This contrasts sharply with Christian notions of love, in which we are called to love unconditionally “because he first loved us.” And the difference between the two notions of love became a point of discussion.

Yale theologian Miroslav Volf made a point of explaining the Christian view of love in his panel presentation just before lunch. Contrasting with another Muslim cleric’s assertion that we cannot speak of love as being of the essence of God, but only of love as God’s actions, Volf read the locus classicus from 1 John 4:7-21, with its famous sentence, “God is love.” Because God loves (among the persons of the Trinity) before the world comes into existence, said Volf, God’s love is not reactive, but is of his essence.

The Muslim and Christian presentations on Tuesday were characterized by good will, but neither group backed away from the fundamentals of their faith. Critics of the 2007 “Loving God and Neighbor Together” document feared that it was not as explicitly Christian as it ought to have been. But if the conference is any indication, their concerns were unfounded. Explicitly Christian assertions of the divinity of Jesus, the Triune nature of the Godhead, and the unconditional nature of Christian love were the order of the day.

Posted by David Neff at July 30, 2008 5:41AM | Comments (11)

Filed: 7:05 AM, July 30, 2008

Senator John Kerry kicked off the “Loving God and Neighbor in Word and Deed” conference (also known as the “Common Word” conference) Monday night with a largely unsurprising, but welcome speech. He was, after all, preaching to the choir: Christian and Muslim leaders from around the world who want to find a way to live together peacefully.

Kerry began by telling his roughly 150 listeners that the meeting they were attending at Yale University “can help change the world,” while warning that pessimism about future relationships between the Muslim world and the West hands demagogues who play to pessimism about the inevitable violent clash of cultures and religions. “You have placed yourselves among those who are on the right side of the debate,” he told them. “We must love one another or die.”

Kerry, who is a direct descendant of Puritan governor John Winthrop, famous for his “city on a hill” sermon, recounted for the benefit of the global audience the way in which early American history was shaped by a series of bitter religious splits. But the fruit of that early experience of division was a commitment to welcoming all faiths, he said.

Kerry balanced his assertion that “we all worship the One God, the same God” with a plea that religious differences not be played down among the Abrahamic faiths. We don’t need to succumb to “mush” in order to find tolerance. Nor do we need to remove the influence of faith from our public life, he said. “If we aren’t shaped by our faith, we don’t have faith.”

Our goal should be a politics that seeks the global common good, Kerry said, not just the politics that cares for the people of one nation. He cited Vatican II documents to support this planetary notion of common good politics.

The audience gave Kerry a courteous welcome, but none of his comments drew applause until he called for the US to put Middle East peace back on the mainstream foreign policy agenda, and to do it in a way that would deal with “everyone’s grievances.”

Most quotable line of the evening: “Faith may be worth dying for, but it cannot be worth killing for.”

Kerry has gone back to Washington, but the choir has stayed behind to hear each other sing. The panel discussions today will be less inspirational and motivational and will deal with substantive issues. The dozen or so Muslim and Christian panelists Tuesday include evangelical leaders such as Miroslav Volf (Yale), Peter Kuzmic (Croatia), Tukunboh Adeyemo (Kenya), Martin Accad (Lebanon).

Posted by David Neff at July 30, 2008 5:31AM | Comments (9)

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

ROWAN WILLIAMS, the Archbishop of Canterbury, addressing about 650 bishops at the Lambeth Conference this evening, issued a strong call for "the traditional believer" and the "not-so-traditional believer" to "speak life to each other."

Continue reading for the full text.

Update, 9 p.m.: According to one bishop who unexpectedly popped into the Lambeth press room after dinner, the delivery of the archbishop's address was announced this morning. It was not listed on the official program. There was no applause, just silence, he said, following the address.

This bishop from India told CT, "I can see how the archbishop is sincerely, emotionally involved. I can appreciate his struggle. The absence of some bishops has caused him pain, and it comes out again and again when he speaks. As head and guardian of the family, he is keen to get the family back together.

"He is making a very sincere attempt to tell the members of the communion that we have to be generous, and as I understood it, sacrifice. To keep the family together, everyone has to take a step forward, which means you need to sacrifice something. I need to identify what I need to sacrifice to keep my family together."

According to another unconfirmed report, TEC bishops are again meeting in a provincial session.

Second Presidential Address to the Lambeth Conference 2008

29 July 2008

‘What is Lambeth ’08 going to say?’ is the question looming larger all the time as this final week unfolds. But before trying out any thoughts on that, I want to touch on the prior question, a question that could be expressed as ‘Where is Lambeth ’08 going to speak from?’. I believe if we can answer that adequately, we shall have laid some firm foundations for whatever content there will be.

And the answer, I hope, is that we speak from the centre. I don’t mean speaking from the middle point between two extremes — that just creates another sort of political alignment. I mean that we should try to speak from the heart of our identity as Anglicans; and ultimately from that deepest centre which is our awareness of living in and as the Body of Christ.

We are here at all, surely, because we believe there is an Anglican identity and that it’s worth investing our time and energy in it. I hope that some of the experience of this Conference will have reinforced that sense. And I hope too that we all acknowledge that the only responsible and Christian way of going on engaging with those who aren’t here is by speaking from that centre in Jesus Christ where we all see our lives held and focused.

And, as I suggested in my opening address, speaking from the centre requires habits and practices and disciplines that make some demands upon everyone — not because something alien is being imposed, but because we know we shall only keep ourselves focused on the centre by attention and respect for each other — checking the natural instinct on all sides to cling to one dimension of the truth revealed. I spoke about council and covenant as the shape of the way forward as I see it. And by this I meant, first, that we needed a bit more of a structure in our international affairs to be able to give clear guidance on what would and would not be a grave and lasting divisive course of action by a local church. While at the moment the focus of this sort of question is sexual ethics, it could just as well be pressure for a new baptismal formula or the abandonment of formal reference to the Nicene Creed in a local church’s formulations; it could be a degree of variance in sacramental practice — about the elements of the Eucharist or lay presidency; it could be the regular incorporation into liturgy of non-Scriptural or even non-Christian material.

Some of these questions have a pretty clear answer, but others are open for a little more discussion; and it seems obvious that a body which commands real confidence and whose authority is recognised could help us greatly. But the key points are confidence and authority. If we do develop such a capacity in our structures, we need as a Communion to agree what sort of weight its decisions will have; hence, again, the desirability of a covenantal agreement.

Some have expressed unhappiness about the ‘legalism’ implied in a covenant. But we should be clear that good law is about guaranteeing consistence and fairness in a community; and also that in a community like the Anglican family, it can only work when there is free acceptance. Properly understood, a covenant is an expression of mutual generosity — indeed, ‘generous love’, to borrow the title of the excellent document on Inter-Faith issues which was discussed yesterday. And we might recall that powerful formulation from Rabbi Jonathan Sacks — ‘Covenant is the redemption of solitude’.

Mutual generosity : part of what this means is finding out what the other person or group really means and really needs. The process of this last ten days has been designed to help us to find out something of this — so that when we do address divisive issues, we have created enough of a community for an intelligent generosity to be born. It is by no means a full agreement, but it will, I hope, have strengthened the sense that we have at least a common language, born out of the conviction that Jesus Christ remains the one unique centre.

And within that conviction, what has been heard? I want now to engage in what might be a rather presumptuous exercise — and certainly feels like a risky one. I want to imagine what people on different sides of our most painful current debate hope others have heard or are beginning to hear in our time together. I want to imagine what the main messages would be, within an atmosphere of patience and charity, from those in our Communion who hold to a clear and traditional doctrinal and moral conviction, and also from those who, starting from the same centre, find fewer problems or none with some recent innovations. Although these voices are inevitably rooted in the experience of the developing world and of North America, the division runs through many other provinces internally as well.

So first : what might the traditional believer hope others have heard? ‘What we seek to do in our context is faithfully to pass on what you passed on to us — Holy Scripture, apostolic ministry, sacramental discipline. But what are we to think when all these things seem to be questioned and even overturned? We want to be pastorally caring to all, to be “inclusive” as you like to say. We want to welcome everyone. Yet the gospel and the faith you passed on to us tell us that some kinds of behaviour and relationship are not blessed by God. Our love and our welcome are unreal if we don’t truthfully let others know what has shaped and directed our lives — so along with welcome, we must still challenge people to change their ways. We don’t see why welcoming the gay or lesbian person with love must mean blessing what they do in the Church’s name or accepting them for ordination whatever their lifestyle. We seek to love them — and, all right, we don’t always make a good job of it : but we can’t just say that there is nothing to challenge. Isn’t it like the dilemma of the early Church — welcoming soldiers, yet seeking to get them to lay down their arms?

‘But please remember also that — while you may say that what you do needn’t affect us — your decisions make a vast difference to us. In this world of instant communication, our neighbours know what you do, and they see us as sharing the responsibility. Imagine what that means where those neighbours are passionately traditional Christians — and what it means for our own members, who will be drawn to leave us for a “safer”, more orthodox church. Imagine what it means when those neighbours are non-Christians, delighted to find a stick to beat us with. Imagine what it is to be known as the ‘gay church’ in a context where that spells real contempt and danger.

‘Don’t misunderstand us. We’re not looking for safety and comfort. Some of us know quite a lot about carrying the cross. But when that cross is laid on us by fellow-Christians, it’s quite a lot harder to bear. Don’t be too surprised if some of us want to be at a distance from you — or if we want to support minorities in your midst who seem to us to be suffering.

‘But we are here. We’ve taken a risk in coming, because many who think like us feel we’ve betrayed them just by meeting you. But we value our Communion, we want to understand you and we want you to understand us. Can you find some way of being generous that helps us believe you care about us and about the common language and belief of the Church? Can you — in plain words — step back and let us think and pray about these things without giving us the impression that the debate is over and we’ve lost and that doesn’t matter to you?’

And then : what might the not so traditional believer hope has been heard?

‘What we seek to do in our context is to bring Jesus alive in the minds and hearts of the people of our culture. Trying to speak the language of the culture and relate honestly to where people really are doesn’t have to be a betrayal of Scripture and tradition. We know we’re pushing the boundaries — but don’t some Christians always have to do that? Doesn’t the Bible itself suggest that?

‘We are often hurt, angry and bewildered at the way many others in the Communion see us and treat us these days — as if we were spiritual lepers or traitors to every aspect of Christian belief. We know that no-one is the best judge in their own case, but we see in our church life at least some marks of the Spirit’s gifts. And part of that is acknowledging the gifts we’ve seen in gay and lesbian believers. They will certainly be likely to feel that the restraint you ask for is a betrayal. Please try to see why this is such a dilemma for many of us. You may not see it, but they’re still at risk in our society, still vulnerable to murderous violence. And we have to say to some of you that we long for you to speak up for your gay and lesbian neighbours in situations where they are subject to appalling discrimination. There have been Lambeth Resolutions about that too, remember.

‘A lot of the time, we feel we’re being made scapegoats. Other provinces have acute moral and disciplinary problems, or else they more or less successfully refuse to admit the realities in their midst. But those of us who have faced the complex issues around gay relationships in what we feel to be an open and prayerful way are stigmatised and demonised.

‘Not all of us, of course, supported or took part in the actions that have caused so much trouble. Some of us remain strongly opposed, many of us want to find ways of strengthening our bonds with you. But even those who don’t stand with the majority on innovations will often feel that the life of a whole church, a life that is varied and complex but often deeply and creatively faithful to Christ and the Scriptures, is being wrongly and unjustly seen by you and some of your friends.

‘We want to be generous, and we are hurt that some throw back in our faces both the experience and the resources we long to share. Can you try and see us as fellow-believers struggling to proclaim the same Christ, and to be patient with us?’

Two sets of feelings and perceptions, two appeals for generosity. For the first speaker, the cost of generosity may be accusation of compromise : you’ve been bought, you’ve been deceived by airy talk into tolerating unscriptural and unfaithful policies. For the second speaker, the cost of generosity may be accusations of sacrificing the needs of an oppressed group for the sake of a false or delusional unity, giving up a precious Anglican principle for the sake of a dangerous centralisation. But there is the challenge. If both were able to hear and to respond generously, perhaps we could have something more like a conversation of equals — even something more like a Church.

At Dar-es-Salaam, the primates tried to find a way of inviting different groups to take a step forward simultaneously towards each other. It didn’t happen, and each group was content to blame the other. But the last 18 months don’t suggest that this was a good outcome. Can this Conference now put the same kind of challenge? To the innovator, can we say, ‘Don’t isolate yourself; don’t create facts on the ground that make the invitation to debate ring a bit hollow’? Can we say to the traditionalist, ‘Don’t invest everything in a church of pure and likeminded souls; try to understand the pastoral and human and theological issues that are urgent for those you are opposing, even if you think them deeply wrong’?

I think we perhaps can, if and only if we are captured by the vision of the true Centre, the heart of God out of which flows the impulse of an eternal generosity which creates and heals and promises. It is this generosity which sustains our mission and service in Our Lord’s name. And it is this we are called to show to each other.

At the moment, we seem often to be threatening death to each other, not offering life. What some see as confused or reckless innovation in some provinces is felt as a body-blow to the integrity of mission and a matter of literal physical risk to Christians. The reaction to this is in turn felt as an annihilating judgement on a whole local church, undermining its legitimacy and pouring scorn on its witness. We need to speak life to each other; and that means change. I’ve made no secret of what I think that change should be — a Covenant that recognizes the need to grow towards each other (and also recognizes that not all may choose that way). I find it hard at present to see another way forward that would avoid further disintegration. But whatever your views on this, at least ask the question : ‘Having heard the other person, the other group, as fully and fairly as I can, what generous initiative can I take to break through into a new and transformed relation of communion in Christ?’

+Rowan Cantuar

Posted by Tim Morgan at July 29, 2008 12:30PM | Comments (12)

MOUNEER ANIS,Bishop of Egypt and primate of Jerusalem and the Middle East, was scheduled to meet today Monday, July 28, with leading bishops at the Lambeth Conference.

A leading conservative, Anis released an open letter on the web. Here's one important comment:

The Lambeth Conference has been a time of great fellowship and strength; it has also been a time of disunity and conflict. Everything is going fairly well, but I do not believe that there is hope of a solution from this Lambeth conference. However I hope that we would be able to come up with a road map for a final solution of the current crisis.

Back in January, when I was in Cairo, I interviewed Bishop Anis. See below for an edited transcript of his views on outreach to gays, the crisis in Anglicanism, and how the proposed Anglican convenant might help resolve their differences.

Interview with Mouneer H. Anis, Episcopal bishop of Egypt and primate of the Anglican Province of the Jerusalem and the Middle East (including North Africa).

(Cairo, January 2008. Edited transcript.)

What’s your greatest worry concerning Anglicanism?

I am very concerned about the unity among the conservatives and the evangelicals within the Communion. The Communion is in a crisis, and there are many impaired relationships.

We have made ourselves clear, our theological stand very clear many, many, many times. We announced our rejection of the new revisionists way within the Anglican Communion in many occasions and conferences. This time should not be a time for conferences only, but it should be a time when we actually take action. I personally feel that the issue of homosexuality is just a superficial symptom of a very, very deep illness in the core of the Communion.

Is this an illness in Anglicanism or the church on the whole?
The actual problem is crossing [theological] boundaries of the Communion. The Anglican way is Scripture, the authority of the Scripture, and the interpretation of the majority, or the accepted interpretations of the Scripture by the majority, not just one church within the family.

There is an element of interdependence of each church members of this Anglican Communion family. We need to affirm this. We are a communion. We are not congregationalists. We are not a federation. We are a communion. So it tears us more than any other structure.

It’s hard for American evangelicals to understand what you mean by a global Communion. What does this mean to you?

The Communion is one family of several member churches, and we are tied together. There are instruments of unity within our Communion. The Primates meeting is one of the instruments of unity. There are other things that bring us together and unite us together as a body of Christ.

Although we are a communion and we are a body, we recognize other churches and see in them as part of the wider body of Christ. So we don’t think of our self as the only church of Christ, but we are part of the church of Christ.

With this concept in mind that we are one body, we are one communion even if we are separated geographically, but we are one communion. There is a lot we know about each other. There is communication, direct communication all the time. Today I have communication from the East, as east as Singapore, to the west as Latin America. It’s all in my desk, and that is a great experience, a wonderful thing.

Now, two families of this communion, Canada and America, by going beyond the boundaries of our Anglican way, have created severe disunity. Yes, we celebrate our diversity. But we always aware and we should be aware that this diversity is not unlimited. It is a limited diversity.

Some groups will have a different interpretation. As we interpret the Scripture we need the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit does not work in individual way. He guides the whole church.

It’s not an issue of homosexuality. It is now the issue of Christology. Is Christ divine? Is he the Son of God? Is he our Savior? Is he the only Way or just a way? Is he the Son of God or just a prophet? All these fundamentals are now at stake in several parts in North America. That is a most serious thing.

Many lefty Anglican revisionists use the language of human rights to support their interpretation of the Bible. What is your objection to this approach?

Every human is free to do what he wants as long as he would not break the law of the country where he live or where she live. If we look at these three things—others, self, and laws of the government, should we also say a human can do everything as long as he or she do not break the law of God?

Sin destroys a person because it’s breaking God’s natural law in creation. I am a medical doctor. I can see anatomical complementarity. Each cell makes sense to me in the human body. We cannot just ignore this beautiful, natural architecture and engineering and go a different way. That is God’s law.

Human rights is something that is not imposed by a small group of people on the rest of the world. Human rights is something recognized by all humanity. You are free to dress. You are free to speak. You are free to do your work. You are free to worship. These are things recognized by the whole world.

You cannot just bring a group of people, say that’s a human right, and impose it on the rest of the world. If we said practicing homosexuality is a human right see, how much this will endanger the structure of the society, the natural family, and marriage structure. I cannot call this a human right.

About homophobia, unfortunately this is something always used by revisionists against conservative. Conservatives are not homophobic. I’m not homophobic. If I have gay and lesbian coming to me now, I will welcome them. I will love them the same way I will love a heterosexual. I will pastor to them the same way I will pastor to heterosexual. I recognize that they are human like me.

I recognize that Jesus loves them as he loves me. I recognize that Jesus died for them as he died for me. So from this I will deal with them, I will talk with them. But this does not mean that if I give pastoral care to them is to agree with all what they do.

Suppose I want to do pastoral care for a heterosexual man who has an affair. Should I say to him that’s okay? It’s okay to have an affair outside your marriage? That is not pastoral care. Pastoral care contain encouragement, contain prayer, contain rebuke, contain admonition.

You cannot call me homophobic at all because I am not homophobic

Should non-celibate gays be in church leadership?

Loving practicing homosexuals, gay and lesbian, and caring for them and pastorally caring for them is one thing, and taking them and putting them in church leadership is another thing.

You cannot get someone who breaks the law and take him and elect him as a President of the United States. It’s not injustice, actually, to say, “No, I cannot appoint gay and lesbian in the leadership.” That’s not injustice. That is according to the law and the regulation and the guidance we receive from the Scripture that we should be clear about who will take the position.

So you believe that this includes any position, ordained or church leadership?

Yes. Any leadership. The Bible is very clear that the church should have a say about the life of the person who is going to be ordained, even a deacon. The secular society is putting pressures that [the church] has accepted. But Paul is saying very clearly that we should not conform by the world, and the actual fact, we should transform the world.

What’s happening now is in the church in North America and some parts of the West [wishes] to be relevant to the world. They are allowing the values of the world to become the values of the church, which should be the other way around.

We are not called to be relevant to the world; we are called to be distinct from the world. We are called to be light and we are called to be salt. This is helpful to the world. It hurts. When you shine the light, the light hurts the darkness. That is the church. It should be light, and the light bring love, bring peace, but sometimes it brings admonition.

Are you in favor of creating an Anglican Convenant?

I think the covenant is a very important tool to affirm our interdependence. The liberals want to reduce the covenant. Some “Why a covenant? It’s enough for baptismal vows. If we are baptized that’s enough.”

Not any more.

What is it that’s going to keep the conservatives together because there are so many divisions and factions emerging?

A well-planned conference with a well-planned outcome can bring the conservatives together. If Lambeth Conference does not come out with the idea of the covenant or if many people did not sign the covenant, we as conservatives should sign the covenant together. Then we would be a covenant group, and we can start to think positively about how we can go about the mission of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Enough is enough. Our energy was drained in these issues of sexuality and all these things. It is a time now to move together to build our churches to bring the gospel to the unreached places, to communicate the love of Jesus to the societies where we live, and not to drain our energy, because that is what the devil want.

We really want to come together. In a way, we are the true Anglican Communion. So we need to strengthen the ties with each other by signing the covenant with each other and thinking what’s our mission for the ten years to come.

Posted by Tim Morgan at July 28, 2008 5:57AM | Comments (20)

Less than 1 week after the official opening of the Lambeth conference in the UK, the conservative Common Cause Partnership has issued a press release, declaring their joint intention to request that leading Anglican primates recognize their 1,300 congregations as the new North American Province.

Granted, this was a widely anticipated move. But this effort puts the fat in the fire on a day when Lambeth attendees are having tea with the Queen at Buckingham Palace following their very public march through official London for adoption of the Millennium Development Goals to fight global poverty and improve the standard of living for the world's 3 billion poor people.

Here's the full press release below.

July 24, 2008

COMMON CAUSE PARTNERSHIP WELCOMES JERUSALEM DECLARATION

The Common Cause Partnership leaders issued a statement today welcoming the Jerusalem Declaration and the statement on the Global Anglican Future and pledging to move forward with the work of Anglican unity in North America.

"We, as the Bishops and elected leaders of the Common Cause Partnership are deeply grateful for the Jerusalem Declaration. It describes a hopeful, global Anglican future, rooted in scripture and the authentic Anglican way of faith and practice. We joyfully welcome the words of the GAFCON statement that it is now time 'for the federation currently known as the Common Cause Partnership to be recognized by the Primates Council.'

"The intention of the Executive Committee is to petition the Primates Council for recognition as the North American Province of GAFCON on the basis of the Common Cause Partnership Articles, Theological Statement, and Covenant Declaration, and to ask that their Moderator be seated in the Primate's Council.

"We accept the call to build the Common Cause Partnership into a truly unified body of Anglicans. We are committed to that call. Over the past months, we have worked together, increasing the number of partners and authorizing committees and task groups for Mission,
Education, Governance, Prayer Book & Liturgy, the Episcopate, and Ecumenical Relations. The Executive Committee is meeting regularly to carry forward the particulars of this call. The CCP Council will meet December 1-3, 2008."

The Common Cause Partnership links together nine Anglican jurisdictions and organizations in North America.

Together, the American Anglican Council, the Anglican Coalition in Canada, the
Anglican Communion Network, the Anglican Mission in the Americas, the Anglican Network in Canada, the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, the Federation of Anglican Churches in the Americas, Forward in Faith North America and the Reformed Episcopal Church represent
more the 1,300 Anglican parishes in the United States and Canada.

The Common Cause Partnership Executive Committee is: The Rt. Rev'd Robert Duncan, Moderator; The Venerable Charlie Masters, General Secretary; Mrs. Patience Oruh, Treasurer; The Rt. Rev'd Keith Ackerman, Forward in Faith North America; The Rt. Rev'd David Anderson, American
Anglican Council; The Rt. Rev'd Donald Harvey, Anglican Network in Canada; The Rt. Rev'd Paul Hewett, Federation of Anglican Churches in the Americas; The Rt. Rev'd Martyn Minns, Convocation of Anglicans in North America; The Rt. Rev'd Chuck Murphy, Anglican Mission in the Americas; The Rt. Rev'd Leonard Riches, Reformed Episcopal Church; The Rt. Rev'd Bill Atwood, Anglican Church of Kenya and The Rt. Rev'd John Guernsey, Church of the Province of Uganda.

Here's my admittedly instant analysis:

1. It suggests that conservative Anglicans are pressing their agenda forward, while the rest of the Anglican Communion is spinning its wheels in fruitless 'indaba' meetings.

2. It illuminates a strategy that GAFCON primates plan to address this issue of the legitimacy of a new North American Province by placing the new Primates Council as the emerging new center of Anglicanism.

Thus, the new global Anglicanism transcends recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury. There will no longer be a single answer to this question: Who is Anglican?

3. My follow up point is that if this new Province gains recognition and credibility, Canterbury-based Anglicanism becomes severely weakened in almost every way. It becomes a photo-op site of pilgrimage, not the hub of a worldwide communion.

4. What's the metaphor? Well, this seems too convenient perhaps, but the Indymac Bank take-over crosses my mind.

Just as federal regulators have taken over the failed Indymac Bank, one of the largest bank failures in American history, conservatives perhaps aspire to running the Anglican Communion by cutting it into two pieces the "good bank" with good assets and the "bad bank" with bad/non-performing assets.

And, you can just guess what happens to the bad bank.

PS The British press is following the money or lack thereof at Lambeth. Some are reporting that the conference is 1 million GBP or more in the red.

Posted by Tim Morgan at July 24, 2008 4:44PM | Comments (10)

Baylor University's board of regents has fired president John Lilley, whose presidency began and ended with disputes over tenure.

In 2006, associate professor of church-state studies Francis Beckwith was denied tenure. His appeal became a cause celebre in some evangelical academic circles, and he eventually prevailed. Lilley, however, continued to be viewed with suspicion by some Christian observers.

But it was April's decision to deny tenure to 12 candidates that really set the drumbeats going. Most years, about 10 percent of faculty up for tenure are denied. This year, the 40 percent rejection rate sparked accusations of a "purge" and capricious standards. Seven of the ten faculty who appealed ended up receiving tenure.

A press release from Baylor says board member Harold Cunningham will be acting president until an interim president is named.

Updates to follow. The Waco Tribune-Herald will no doubt have coverage throughout the day.

Posted by Ted Olsen at July 24, 2008 9:57AM | Comments (0)

In March, the trustees of Westminster Theological Seminary suspended professor Peter Enns over theological concerns regarding his book Inspiration and Incarnation.

The controversy got a lot of people talking about the authority of Scripture and two weeks ago even made the front page of The Philadelphia Inquirer.

No doubt the discussion will continue in theology circles (Enns will be on a panel discussing his ideas on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament at the upcoming Evangelical Theological Society meeting, for example).

But the higher ed part of the story though, seems to have more or less come to a close today. Enns and WTS issued a joint statement announcing the end of his employment at the school. A hearing on whether he whether he should be dismissed was to begin August 25.

The statement:

The administration and Prof. Peter Enns wish to announce that they have arrived at mutually agreeable terms, and that, as of 1 August, 2008, Prof. Enns will discontinue his service to Westminster Theological Seminary after fourteen years.

The administration wishes to acknowledge the valued role Prof. Enns has played in the life of the institution, and that his teaching and writings fall within the purview of Evangelical thought. The Seminary wishes Prof. Enns well in his future endeavors to serve the Lord.

Prof. Enns wishes to acknowledge that the leaders of the Seminary (administration and board) are charged with the responsibility of leading the seminary in ways that are deemed most faithful to the institution’s mission as a confessional Reformed Seminary.

Prof. Enns expresses his deep and sincere gratitude to the Lord for his education and years of service at Westminster Theological Seminary.

That it was a joint statement may solve one of the dilemmas as described by John Frame in that Inquirer article: "Humanly speaking, it's hard to imagine how the school will survive. ... If Enns leaves, he will take with him a huge constituency. If he stays, another group will withdraw support."

Previous articles from Christianity Today and Books & Culture about Enns include:

Westminster Theological Suspension | Peter Enns's book Inspiration and Incarnation created a two-year theological battle that resulted in his suspension. (April 1, 2008)
Westminster Theological Seminary Suspends Peter Enns (Mar. 27, 2008)
Two Testaments, One Story | Top evangelical scholars team up for landmark commentary on New Testament use of Old Testament. (Feb. 8, 2008)
Messy Revelation | Why Paul would have flunked hermeneutics. (Books & Culture’s review of Inspiration and Incarnation)

Posted by Ted Olsen at July 23, 2008 7:46PM | Comments (2)

Everyone who either grew up as an evangelical Christian or dated one has heard or spoken this line: "It's not you. I just want to spend more time with God."

I always thought this line was a crock, not because wanting to spend more time with God wasn't admirable, but because it was typically used as a cop-out, a way to ease the discomfort of ruining someone's junior year of high school.

(See, I have this friend, and he had this girlfriend ...)

I think we can agree that few relationships, especially those where both members were Christians, end because one person's quest for godliness is inhibited by the other's indifference. But this story from the Christian Post presents a more difficult issue: What to do when the guy in your Christian band stops believing in Jesus?

Christian metalcore band Haste the Day has asked guitarist Jason Barnes to step down after months of spiritual searching by their close friend concluded with his loss of faith in God.

“This is going to come as a shock to many of you,” the group wrote to fans in their official MySpace page Friday. “After much prayer and thought given to the matter, we asked Jason Barnes to step down from his involvement with Haste the Day.”

In their statement, the seven-year-old band from Indianapolis explained that Barnes had been “searching and searching for real meaning in his existence.”

“After several months of reading literature and talking with friends, Jason had determined that he felt there was no God and certainly no Jesus,” the group revealed.

“We as a band do not have problem with those that do not believe in Jesus, nor do we cast judgement (sic) on those that do not believe in Jesus,” the band continued. “We just want to love on people like Jesus would and hopefully share a little bit about what he's done and doing in our lives.”

After you get over the lameness of the band's name, which sounds like a rip-off of Saves the Day, you realize this situation doesn't have a simple solution. From an evangelical perspective, the band members had to weigh whether Barnes was more likely to return to God if he remained in the band or was removed from it. (In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul tells the church of Corinth to expel an immoral brother for his own good, though the reason is for sinful behavior, not lack of belief.) Then, from a music-making perspective, the band needed to decide whether Haste the Day could stand for the same things with a non-Christian in the band.

Churches deal with the same question when they assemble their worship band, an often-rotating group of musicians selected by a worship leader. I have heard complaints before about non-Christians performing during a Sunday service, and I've known worship leaders who have stepped down without solicitation because they didn't feel their lives were congruent with their words of praise.

I can't think of any parallels from the world of Christian punk culture I matriculated through, but I do remember when Pedro the Lion lost his way.

David Bazan, the frontman and every-position musician behind Pedro, had written poetic albums about God's role in curing the human condition, which album written like a book, with plot and theme and characters and beautiful language. But then I bought "Control," and I noticed Bazan's message was changing. The album, which I believe was about the struggle to fight the ways of the flesh, particularly materialism and infidelity, was among the most depressing I owned. The next album, "Achilles Heel," was much more upbeat, but had some shockers like this line from "Foregone Conclusions":

You were too busy steering the conversation toward the lord
To hear the voice of the spirit begging you to shut the f--k up

"'Foregone Conclusions' has to be the sweetest piece of music and melody Bazan has ever produced even though the lyrics are as bitter and cynical as ever," this art and religion blogger wrote. "Ignore the content of the lyrics and you almost have a feel-good summer hit. I guess that’s one of the things that makes the man compelling. Paradox is his bread and butter – cussing with Christianity; sweet melodies with bitter words."

But by last summer, it became clear that Bazan's bitter words had found a soft spot. He'd lost his faith. "I just find myself on the other side of this line that I wasn't on before," Bazan told the Daily Iowan.

The thing is: His music still shakes my soul. It is beautiful and bitter, obsessed with pain and sadness and joy and doubt and all the other things that make life so wonderful. And his early albums still share the redemptive message found on "Whole."

So -- back to Haste the Day -- what to do when a band member loses their religion?

This article was cross-posted at The God Blog.

Posted by Brad Greenberg at July 23, 2008 6:38PM | Comments (33)

IN UPPER EGYPT along the Nile, hundreds of miles south of Cairo, the growing population is scrambling over the scarce resources of land and water. Egypt's population is currently just over 80 million and if current trends continue, it will surpass 100 million by 2025. (By contrast, its neighbor Israel is not expected to have more than 10 million people by 2025.) In this region, there is an ancient monastery (and a contemporary church building) at Abu Fana (shown here above right). In late May, Abu Fana was the venue for much violence between Muslims and Coptic believers.

Here's an updated dispatch from our Cairo correspondent:

By Cornelis Hulsman

An attack on the monastery of Abû Fânâ, located roughly 200 miles south of the Egyptian capital Cairo, has prompted Coptic emigrant Christians in the West to demonstrate against Egyptian authorities.

On May 31, Muslims from neighboring villages burned monastic cells and a chapel on an area of disputed land, roughly one kilometer away from the old monastic buildings of Abû Fânâ. The fence surrounding the area was run over; water pumps and new crop plantations have been destroyed.

Three monks from the monastery were briefly kidnapped and ill treated. This resulted in all three monks requiring admission into the hospital for treatment. The governor of Minia, Ahmed Dia el-Din, considered the violence “criminal.”

Police arrested 13 Muslims and two Christians who were involved in the fights and who have since been brought before the prosecutor-general. Additional policemen were positioned around the area prevent further conflicts.

Inhabitants of neighboring villages say there are pre-existing conflicts over land. Accusations directed against Christians of building a fence on areas of disputed land and of being behind the death of a Muslim were thrown around during these confrontations. They also believe Christians “always” get their way once news is published and demonstrations take place on their behalf in Western countries, which is further adding to the ill-feelings and tensions.

Governor Ahmed Dia el-Din found several police reports about disputes over land that span several years. Villagers living on the edge of the desert have been reclaiming desert land for at least 20 years.

The monastery itself has also greatly expanded in the past ten years. For many decades, only one monk resided there. Four years ago, there were six monks living in Abû Fânâ, while there are currently 18 monks residing in the monastery. They are assisted by tens of laymen who help in the reclamation of desert land. Around seven years ago they built a large cathedral. Due to this reclamation work, the land of the villages and that of the monastery now border each other.

Egypt suffers from overpopulation, encompassing 80 million inhabitants on an area that is roughly twice the size of New Jersey. The remaining area is desert. Land has become a scarce commodity over which conflicts can easily develop. More than 20 people have recently been killed in land conflicts between two Muslim families elsewhere in Egypt.

Conflicts over landownership mostly occur when documents proving ownership are not clear. Desert land belongs to the state; consequently, when someone wishes to purchase this land, they have to turn to the government to obtain the necessary permission.

This however, frequently does not happen and people will instead draft so-called “orfi” contracts, agreements between two parties that lack the proper registration with the government. It was in this fashion that the Abû Fânâ monastery obtained part of their land. Accordingly, the governor rejected the monastery's claim to posses valid land titles, and it is from this that the current conflict stems.

Egyptians clergy are known to have purchased land or built on vacant land by utilizing “orfi” contracts in order to avoid often difficult and time consuming government procedures. Egyptian Christians often accuse the government of favoring Muslim institutions and enacting bureaucratic obstacles for Christian projects.

Church leaders and monks will not seek violence in search of solutions for land conflicts. “But if it does come to fights,” Coptic researcher Raed al-Sharqawi says, “it then results continuously in intense feelings of sympathy for Copts from parties in the West, which then in turn results in actual financial support for their monastery.

"Thus, conflicts can end up benefiting Christian projects in Egypt, yet at the same time such activism greatly harms the general climate of Muslims and Christians living together.”

* * *
Cornelis Hulsman is editor-in-chief of Arab-West Report. The electronic magazine Arab-West Report sent a fact finding delegation consisting of Egyptians, a Dutchman, a German and a Korean, four Christians and two Muslims into the area to interview the governor, monks, Christian clergy, villagers, and sheikhs. For additional information see: www.arabwestreport.info

Posted by Tim Morgan at July 23, 2008 5:14PM | Comments (3)

The careful choregraphy of Lambeth, set out for the Anglican Communion's 600 plus bishops in attendance, is not going according to the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams' original plan. One of the first to step out of line and off script is Daniel Deng Bul, the newly elected archbishop of Sudan.

From Juba, the capital of the south Sudan, Bul and his fellow Christians have known brutal conflict for decades. While the violence is declining in the South, the Darfur region in western Sudan, of course, is where genocide is a daily reality.

Archbishop Daniel Deng Bul

The growth and spread of the Episcopal Church of Sudan is miracle to behold in light of the national bloody conflict. Sudan's bishops decided to attend Lambeth, unlike their conservative colleagues in Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, Nigeria, among others.

Yesterday, the Sudanese bishops issued the following joint statement:

In view of the present tensions and divisions within the Anglican Communion, and out of deep concern for the unity of the Church, we consider it important to express clearly the position of the Episcopal Church of the Sudan (ECS) concerning human sexuality.

We believe that God created humankind in his own image; male and female he created them for the continuation of humankind on earth. Women and men were created as Godâ?Ts agents and stewards on earth. We believe that human sexuality is Godâ?Ts gift to human beings which is rightly ordered only when expressed within the life-long commitment of marriage between one man and one woman. We require all those in the ministry of the Church to live according to this standard and cannot accept church leaders whose practice is contrary to this.

We reject homosexual practice as contrary to biblical teaching and can accept no place for it within ECS. We strongly oppose developments within the Anglican Church in the USA and Canada in consecrating a practicing homosexual as bishop and in approving a rite for the blessing of same-sex relationships. This has not only caused deep divisions within the Anglican Communion but it has seriously harmed the Churchâ?Ts witness in Africa and elsewhere, opening the church to ridicule and damaging its credibility in a multi-religious environment.

The unity of the Anglican Communion is of profound significance to us as an expression of our unity within the Body of Christ. It is not something we can treat lightly or allow to be fractured easily. Our unity expresses the essential truth of the Gospel that in Christ we are united across different tribes, cultures and nationalities. We have come to attend the Lambeth Conference, despite the decision of others to stay away, to appeal to the whole Anglican Communion to uphold our unity and to take the necessary steps to safeguard the precious unity of the Church.

Out of love for our brothers and sisters in Christ, we appeal to the Anglican Church in the USA and Canada, to demonstrate real commitment to the requests arising from the Windsor process. In particular:

* To refrain from ordaining practicing homosexuals as bishops or priests
* To refrain from approving rites of blessing for same-sex relationships
* To cease court actions with immediate effect;
* To comply with Resolution 1:10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference
* To respect the authority of the Bible.

We believe that such steps are essential for bridging the divisions which have opened up within the Communion.

We affirm our commitment to uphold the four instruments of communion of the Anglican Communion: the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Primatesâ?T Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council; and call upon all Provinces of the Communion to respect these for the sake of the unity and well-being of the Church.

We appeal to this Lambeth Conference to rescue the Anglican Communion from being divided. We pray that God will heal us from the spirit of division. We pray for Godâ?Ts strength and wisdom so that we might be built up in unity as the Body of Christ.
The Most Revd Dr Daniel Deng Bul
Archbishop and Primate of the Episcopal Church of the Sudan and Bishop of Juba

Later on, the archbishop showed up in the press room to answer questions. But it was unscheduled and unofficial. Here's one report that gives one conservative's take on his time with the news media:

We have just had a briefing with the Archbishop of the Sudan, the Most Reverend Dr. Daniel Deng Bul. He informed the press room this morning that he would come and speak with us, since the Anglican Communion News Bureau running this conference, would not schedule a time for him to address the press. The archbishop is young – I would guess that he is in his 40’s. He is very articulate and has an earned Ph.D.

“Let the Anglican world be united and be a normal, respected Christian body. We have not punished the American church yet. We are asking them to repent. I am talking about the institutional church in America, no specific bishops. I am here to speak within the House of Bishops. I cannot be silent on this issue; I must speak to the House for the reality I know with my people. I should not hesitate to be here since I have been an Anglican since I was a child.

When asked what would happen to the Communion if Robinson did not resign, the archbishop continued, “I cannot predict what will happen if he will not resign.”

Ruth Gledhill of the Times of London asked the archbishop who would pay for this conference, reportedly 2.6 million pounds in debt at this minute, and not able to pay for this by the parishes in the Church of England, if the American church was not invited. He replied very gently, “Issues of faith cannot be mixed with materialism.”

The archbishop, known as an expert in the field of reconciliation said, “I am here talking to my brothers and sisters in America. We have experienced offense by their actions. I am not trying to offend them in return but tell them that I love them. We have had a painful experience and they must ask for forgiveness so we can go on together.

“If there is a cultural problem in America, it should be kept in America and not allowed to come into the Anglican world. I am not saying the Americans should all be excluded, but keep Gene Robinson away and we will find a way to help them. (Imagine the American Episcopal Church actually acknowledging that they need the help of the Sudan!)

“This issue of homosexuality in the Anglican Communion has a very serious effect in my country. We are called ‘infidels’ by the Moslems. That means that they will do whatever they can against us to keep us from damaging the people of our country. They challenge our people to convert to Islam and leave the infidel Anglican Church. When our people refuse, sometimes they are killed. These people are very evil and mutilate and harm our people. I am begging the Communion on this issue so no more of my people will be killed.

“My people have been suffering for 21 years of war. Their only hope is in the Church. It is the center of life of my people. No matter what problem we have, no material goods, no health supplies or medicine; no jobs or income; no availability of food. The inflation rate makes our money almost worthless and we have done this for 21 years. The Church is the center of our life together.

“The culture does not change the Bible; the Bible changes the culture. Cultures that do not approve of the Bible are left out of the Church’s life; people who do not believe in the Bible are left out of our churches. The American church is saying that God made a mistake. He made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Adam.

"We will not talk to Gene Robinson or listen to him or his testimony. He has to confess, receive forgiveness and leave. Then we will talk. You cannot bring the listening to gay people to our Communion. People who do not believe in the Bible are left out of our churches, not invited in to tell us why they don’t believe.... The Authority of the Bible is always the same. You cannot pull a line out or add a line to it. That brings you a curse. We are saying no. You are wrong.

“I have just come from a meeting of the African and Global South bishops who are here. There were almost 200 bishops there. They support the statement my Church made yesterday. That’s 17 provinces."

Posted by Tim Morgan at July 23, 2008 9:19AM | Comments (21)

Remember those open-exchange letters last fall between Muslim and Christian leaders? The first, “A Common Word Between Us and You,” was signed by 138 Muslim scholars and clerics and called for a new level of engagement between the two faith groups based on what they said was the “common ground” between Islam and Christianity: love of God and love of neighbor.

The response, “Loving God and Neighbor Together,” was penned by scholars at Yale Divinity School and heartily affirmed the need for deeper understanding between the two faiths (though that letter focused more on relational bridge-building and less on theology). Some 500 Christian leaders signed the document, including pastors Bill Hybels and Rick Warren, missions expert Jonathan J. Bonk, National Association of Evangelicals’ president Leith Anderson, theologian John Stott, and CT editor in chief David Neff. (The letter was also met with criticism from prominent evangelical leaders.)

Now the two letters seem to be bearing their intended fruit, as next week Yale will be hosting a three-day conference bringing together 150 Christian and Muslim leaders for workshops and panel discussions on global interfaith relations. The conference was planned by the drafters of "Common Word" and the Yale Center for Faith & Culture’s director Miroslav Volf, who will be teaching a Yale course on religion and globalization this fall with Tony Blair.

The conference is one in a series intended to promote relational ties and peacemaking initiatives. The other conferences will be held at Cambridge (October), the Vatican (November), Georgetown (March 2009), and the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute in Jordan (October 2009).

Next week’s conference and those following it will likely inspire similar disagreements as did the original letters about whether Christianity and Islam share as much “common ground” as the first letter suggested, and what our faithful response should be to calls for interfaith understanding. (Evangelism? Separation? Peacemaking? All of these in different contexts?) Fortunately, the evangelicals attending—David Neff, Nigerian pastor Tokunboh Adeyemo, Robert Schuller, and Warren Larson, director of the Zwemer Center for Muslim Studies at Columbia International University, among others—have already been thinking biblically about the implications of the letters, and should be able to translate the conference’s outcomes to those of us eager to see its results.

See CT's prior coverage of the letters:

Foreign Correspondence | by Jocelyn Green
Muslim and Christian leaders seek common ground in conciliatory letters.

Speaking Out: The Peacemaking Process | by J. Dudley Woodberry
A call to evangelicals to respond to a significant Muslim overture.

Wheaton College Administrators Remove Names from Christian-Muslim Statement | by Ted Olsen
'My eagerness to support the statement’s strengths caused me to move too quickly,' president Duane Litfin tells student newspaper.

Posted by Katelyn Beaty at July 22, 2008 4:29PM | Comments (4)

"It's only when the tide goes out," says Warren Buffett, "that you learn who's been swimming naked."

For a good long time, the American health care system had its drawers down, but it didn't matter too much. HillaryCare was summarily dismissed in the early '90s. The problems it might have fixed weren't felt badly enough. Lately arguments for universal health care have been about the unavailable care for the uninsured. But still, no action. The vast majority in the country have health insurance, even if they pay more and more for it every year.

But now, even doctors can't afford to pay for health care. Oncologists, who have to pay for drugs before they're delivered intravenously to patients at the doctor's office, have had trouble lately paying up. As a result, they've learned to be more cautious about the costs of the treatments they recommend to their patients. The Wall Street Journal reports:

In a survey of 167 cancer doctors reported last year in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, 42% said they regularly raised the issue of costs when discussing treatment options with patients. The study, conducted by Deborah Schrag, an oncologist at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, found that 23% of oncologists said costs influence their treatment decisions, and 16% said they omit discussion of very expensive treatments when they know the cost will place great strain on patients' resources. ...

John P. Whitecar Jr., an oncologist in Columbus, Miss., says 89% of his cancer patients are on government insurance. He has watched his income plunge 75% in the past three years because of rising treatment costs and declining reimbursements. He says he's borrowed money to keep his office afloat.

At what point should a Christian say, "This simply costs too much. Putting my family in debt or significantly straining their resources is not worth my life. Maybe God wants me in heaven."

Certainly life is priceless. But is more life equally invaluable?

Dying is different these days. Once, vast resources could go toward treating a man suffering from a heart attack. If he lived, he could continue living for decades, and those resources justifiably provided years of good living. Now, people die slowly, consuming those vast resources over the course of years--and often crippling relatives financially.

Joanne Lynn writes, "One hears people say, 'He’s not dying yet,' of a person living with fatal lung cancer. Generally, that means he’s not yet taking to bed, losing weight, and suffering from pain, as would be expected when dying is all that he can do. But the category is used as if one is either 'temporarily immortal'—which is the usual state of human beings—or 'dying,' in which case the person is of a different sort, having different obligations and relationships. 'The Dying' are expected to do little but wrap life up and go. But this dominant myth about dying does not fit many people. Many elderly people are inching toward oblivion with small losses every few weeks or months."

We are, of course, all always dying, thanks to sin. Our outer man is decaying. It seems these days its a good thing to remember and a good thing for Christians to try to re-teach our culture.

Economists have begun thinking about the "cost/benefit dilemma of end-of-life medical care." One writer on the Freakonomic blog says, "When Teddy Kennedy was diagnosed with malignant brain cancer a few weeks ago, the senator who championed universal health care opted for the rarest and most expensive treatment [unlikely to be provided by any state-paid insurance]— surgery followed by radiation and chemotherapy. But with or without surgery, the prognosis for patients with glioblastoma like Kennedy’s is poor, with an 18-month survival rate for those over 60 less than 10 percent."

Wealthy and not at all ready to give up the ghost, Kennedy -- like nearly every American would who can make the choice -- is "fighting" for his life. Even the very, very old these days are opting for surgery and other risky and costly medical procedures that could extend their lives.

Yet, what is that extra time worth? Any universal health care system seems unlikely to provide expensive and marginally beneficial treatment. The government would decide it's not worth $1 million in taxpayer money to give an 85-year-old six more months of life. But unless and until the state starts making those decisions for us, we Christians need to think this one through: How much is longer life worth?

Here's another one: How should pastors help their parishoners decide? This is enough. It's time to see God.

Posted by Rob Moll at July 20, 2008 8:55PM | Comments (20)

This blog post has been moved. For the article, please see "Crackup of Anglican Communion at Hand, Evangelical Bishops Say."

Continue for the press release from GAFCON primates:

GAFCON responds to the Archbishop of Canterbury:

The Global Anglican Future Conference gathered leaders from around the Anglican Communion for pilgrimage, prayer and serious theological reflection. We are grateful to the Archbishop of Canterbury for engaging with the Jerusalem Statement and Declaration. We wish to respond to some of his concerns.

On faith and false teaching. We warmly welcome the Archbishop's affirmation of the Jerusalem Statement as positive and encouraging and in particular that it would be shared by the vast majority of Anglicans. We are however concerned that he should think we assume that all those outside GAFCON are proclaiming another gospel. In no way do we believe that we are the only ones to hold a correct interpretation of scripture according to its plain meaning. We believe we are holding true to the faith once delivered to the saints as it has been received in the Anglican tradition. Many are contending for and proclaiming the orthodox faith throughout the Anglican Communion. Their efforts are, however, undermined by those who are clearly pursuing a false gospel. We are not claiming to be a sinless church. Our concern is with false teaching which justifies sin in the name of Christianity. These are not merely matters of different perspectives and emphases. They have led to unbiblical practice in faith and morals, resulting in impaired and broken communion. We long for all orthodox Anglicans to join in resisting this development.

On the uniqueness of Christ. We are equally concerned to hear that 'the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God' is 'not in dispute' in the Anglican Communion. Leading bishops in The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, and even the Church of England have denied the need to evangelise among people of other faiths, promoted and attended syncretistic events and, in some cases, refused to call Jesus Lord and Saviour.

On legitimacy. In the current disorder in the Communion, GAFCON came together as a gathering of lay leaders, clergy and bishops from over 25 countries on the basis of their confession of the common historic Christian faith. They formed a Council in obedience to the word of God to defend the faith and the faithful who are at risk in some Anglican dioceses and congregations.

GAFCON, where the governing structures of many provinces were present, affirmed such a Council of the GAFCON movement as its body to authenticate and recognise confessing Anglican jurisdictions, clergy and congregations and to encourage all Anglicans to promote the gospel and defend the faith.

In their primates and other bishops, the assembly saw a visible connection to the catholic and apostolic Church and the evangelical and catholic faith which many have received from the Church of England and the historic see of Canterbury. It is this faith which we seek to affirm.

On authority. As the Virginia Report notes, in the Anglican tradition, authority is not concentrated in a single centre, but rather across a number of persons and bodies. This Council is a first step towards bringing greater order to the Communion, both for the sake of bringing long overdue discipline and as a reforming initiative for our institutions.

Whilst we respect territoriality, it cannot be absolute. For missionary and pastoral reasons there have long been overlapping jurisdictions in Anglicanism itself – historically in South Africa, New Zealand, the Gulf and Europe. In situations of false teaching, moreover, it has sometimes been necessary for other bishops to intervene to uphold apostolic faith and order.

On discipline. Finally, with regard to the Archbishop's concern about people who have been disciplined in one jurisdiction and have been accepted in another, we are clear that any such cases have been investigated thoroughly and openly with the fullest possible transparency. Bishops and parishes have been given oversight only after the overseeing bishops have been fully satisfied of no moral impediments to their action.

We enclose a response to the St Andrew's Draft Covenant. (See separate post).

We assure the Archbishop of Canterbury of our respect as the occupier of an historic see which has been used by God to the benefit of his church and continue to pray for him to be given wisdom and discernment.

Signed

The Most Rev Peter Akinola, Primate of Nigeria
The Most Rev Justice Akrofi, Primate of West Africa
The Most Rev Emmanuel Kolini, Primate of Rwanda
The Most Rev Valentine Mokiwa, Primate of Tanzania
The Most Rev Benjamin Nzmibi, Primate of Kenya
The Most Rev Henry Orombi, Primate of Uganda
The Most Rev Gregory Venables, Primate of The Southern Cone

Posted by Tim Morgan at July 19, 2008 11:37PM | Comments (5)

Entertainment Weekly
Informative, investigative, and intelligently written, EW is the standard bearer of entertainment magazines. If you want all of the inside scoop, go to Variety, but if you just want most of it, presented in a fun way without being gossipy or “fanboy,” EW has the write stuff — especially now with the sharp-witted Diablo Cody, Oscar winner for Juno’s script, as a back-page columnist.

MovieWeb, ComingSoon
Want to know what’s coming down the pike — not just in the next few months, but even a couple years from now? I rely on these two sites to keep me informed on upcoming releases — when they’re due, who’s directing, who’s starring, what’s the latest news on each, images, trailers, and so on.

IMDb
The Internet Movie Database has just about everything you could possibly want to know about any movie ever made. Want to know if 1961’s The Guns of Navarone won any Oscars? (It did: Best Special Effects.) Or who played Juror No. 11 in 1957’s 12 Angry Men? (It was George Voskovec.) It’s all here.

Looking Closer
Jeffrey Overstreet was the first critic on the CT Movies team when we launched in 2004 (he’d been writing Film Forum for CT for a while), and I’ve always appreciated his insights into the movies. I’ve learned more about how to watch a movie from Jeffrey than from anyone. His Looking Closer blog keeps me abreast of what’s happening in film, music, and more, and his thoughtful commentary goes the extra mile.

FilmChat
If I only went to one website a day to find out what I had to know that would be relevant to CT readers, Peter T. Chattaway’s FilmChat blog would be that one-stop shop. It’s comprehensive, but especially zeroes in on films, themes, and news relevant to a Christian audience. Bookmark it.

Posted by Susan Wunderink at July 18, 2008 8:15AM | Comments (2)

Mark Pinsky isn't the only Orlando Sentinel employee notified this week that he's being laid off (nor is the Sentinel alone in its cuts).

But as of August 1, his byline will be missed by religion reporters around the world. Over his 13 years on the religion beat, first at the Los Angeles Times then at the Sentinel, Pinsky established a reputation for being one of the best reporters on the beat. His beat was broad, but in the hometown of Campus Crusade for Christ, Wycliffe Bible Translators, and Strang Communications, Pinsky developed a particular expertise in evangelical Christianity. He recounted his experience and reporting in a book, A Jew Among Evangelicals, and in a 2005 Columbia Journalism Review article.

Pinsky also established himself as must-read reporter on the nexus of faith and entertainment culture. Westminster John Knox recently published an expanded version of his 2001 The Gospel According to The Simpsons, and in 2004 published his similar book, The Gospel According to Disney.

CT readers will remember his February 2001 cover story on Ned Flanders, or some of the other reporting he's done for us over the years.

Last month, Reed Business Information announced that it was laying off another great religion journalist, Publishers Weekly senior religion editor Lynn Garrett, whose coverage of religion publishing was second to none. Regardless of whether we're starting to see a trend of cuts in religion journalism, it's sad to see that two indispensable bylines on religion and culture have been dispensed with.

Posted by Ted Olsen at July 17, 2008 11:38AM | Comments (2)

This afternoon, the Senate finally voted on the so-called PEPFAR reauthorization bill.

The Associated Press reports:

The Senate has approved spending $48 billion over the next five years to treat and prevent the spread of AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria in Africa and elsewhere around the world.

The legislation more than triples the current $15 billion program that has brought lifesaving drugs to some 1.7 million people with HIV/AIDS.

The bill passed by a vote of 80-16. That sets up negotiations with the House on a final compromise. President Bush has been a strong advocate for the global AIDS program.

Also, I received in my email inbox, this news release from the Global AIDS Alliance:

Washington, July 16 -- Today the US Senate passed a crucial bill, backed by President Bush, that reauthorizes the US program on global HIV/AIDS while also authorizing much greater funding for programs to address tuberculosis and malaria.

"The bill is a tremendous achievement, and I commend Senators Biden and
Lugar, who authored the bill, and Senator Reid whose determination to
bring the bill forward was indispensable," said Dr. Paul Zeitz,
Executive Director of the Global AIDS Alliance.

"The amount per year, about $10 billion, is less than 1 percent of this
year's federal budget, and thas is a small price to pay for a program
that will save millions of lives and foster good will around the world,"
said Zeitz.

The bill, S. 2731, was approved by the Foreign Relations Committee in
March and was endorsed by both Senators Obama and McCain, but it was
then stalled by several Republican legislators. Today several hostile
amendments were defeated, and the bill was approved 80 to 16. The House
appears ready to approve the Senate version.

"Myths and disinformation were used by Senators Kyl, Bunning, DeMint and
others to try to undermine this bill, but in the end the truth won out,"
noted Zeitz. "This bill will expand American leadership on global
health and foster hope around the world. Once fully funded, it will not
only help poor countries but serve America's interests as well."

The bill lays out a five-year strategy for confronting AIDS, TB and
malaria, while authorizing, though not actually providing, a total
funding level of $48 billion for global health programs. The bill also
lays out a policy framework on such closely related issues as gender,
care for orphaned children, nutrition, and health care worker shortages.

This story will hit the front pages of newspapers tomorrow. Watch for an update soon.

Posted by Tim Morgan at July 16, 2008 6:19PM | Comments (5)

Gary B. Trudeau’s Doonesbury, which newspapers publish either with the comics or the editorial cartoons, just wrapped up a series about Iraqi Christian refugees. Roland (in this series a Fox News correspondent) is trying to cover the story of an Assyrian family in a way that is flattering for the Surge. Doonesbury treats the imaginary Iraqis with a great deal of dignity. Fox News doesn’t fare so well.

Fox News actually did run an Associated Press story about “Christians Fleeing Violence in Iraq” in early May, which brings up the matter of ransoms most Christians pay for "protection."

The background--not in the comic strips, although alluded to--is that Iraq’s Christians, the largest non-Muslim religious group in Iraq , are represented disproportionately in the refugee population (although it should be mentioned that the Assyrian diaspora dates back to World War I). It's such a huge drain that some churches in Iraq have no members left. Christians can be identified by their names and ID cards, and they are often targeted for violence. The Assyrian International News Agency (AINA) is calling it genocide. So, many Assyrians leave as soon as they can. Others, like the family in Doonesbury, wait until something unbearable happens.

CT suggested in an editorial that U.S. and Iraqi governments should:

Stop discrimination in aid grants by naming a special aid coordinator in Iraq to insure that Christians and other minorities receive a fair share of international assistance.

Implement the creation of a homeland for Christians in Iraq's Nineveh Plains to be governed jointly by Christians and other minority groups. (This is provided for under article 125 of Iraq's new constitution.)

Provide more comprehensive care for the estimated 3 million Iraqi refugees and internally displaced people. The United States should follow through with its commitment to resettle more refugees from Iraq. In 2006, only 202 were resettled, while a total of 20,000 had been authorized.

Remove religious affiliation from identification cards. There could hardly be an easier way to protect the lives of Christian civilians, such as Ayad Tariq, than issuing new ID cards minus religious labels.

AINA divides Assyrians up into five groups: Chaldeans (of the Chaldean Catholic Church) at 45 percent, Syriac Orthodox at 26 percent, Church of the East at 19 percent, Syriac Catholic at 4 percent, and other groups at 6 percent. In 2005, 2 percent of Iraq's population was Christian, according to the World Christian Database.

CT published an article on Iraqi Christian refugees in 2006.

Posted by Susan Wunderink at July 15, 2008 10:32AM | Comments (9)

A dispatch from one of CT's correspondents in the Middle East:

By Matthew Snyder

Prince El-Hassan bin Talal of Jordan, uncle to Jordan’s King Abdullah II, recently launched an internet network aimed at countering the growing tensions between the West and the Arab/Islamic world.

The Electronic Network for Arab West Understanding, or ENAWU project involves the partnership of 12 organizations from across the Middle East and Europe, including the Center for Documentation and Research on Arabic Christianity (CEDRAC, Lebanon) and Prince Hassan's own Arab Thought Forum.

“Noah created an ark for the salvation of humanity,” Prince Hassan said. “Can we create an ark for the salvation of our common humanity?”

The Arab world has seen a spike in hostility between Muslims and Christians in recent years. Sectarian violence in Iraq has forced many Iraqi Christians to flee their homeland.

In Egypt, Christian girls often feel pressured to don the hijab, or Islamic headscarf, to avoid harassment. Tensions between Muslim and Christian groups have plagued Lebanon for decades. ENAWU’s supporters believe that by providing resources, such as an archive of more than 20,000 articles and reports from Arab media, and encouraging dialog, their project will help to alleviate such tensions.

“The aim is clear,” said Father Dr. Samir Khalil, founder and director of CEDRAC. “Understanding the other to arrive at dialog and peace. Understanding does not mean we necessarily agree with the other.”

Cornelis Hulsman, editor-in-chief of the Arab West Report and one of ENAWU’s directors, strongly emphasized the media watchdog role of the project.

“We have a problem with media reporting that is often selective, biased, and inflammatory,” Hulsman said. “We have seen a number of tensions which were directly the consequence of poor reporting and that should be countered.”

According to Pakinam Sharqawy, professor of political science at Cairo University, the participation of students will be essential to the success of ENAWU because “dialogue among youth is less politicized, more open … our youth are more prepared to understand others.”

ENAWU is also looking to tap into the contacts and networks of Arab organizations as well as the vast repository of information, and potential participants, on the western shores of the Atlantic.

“We’re really hoping to build relations with relevant organizations in the United States,” Hulsman said.

In earlier coverage of Prince Hassan, he told CT in an exclusive interview:

I believe in conversation and not in conversion. The study of Christianity or Islam is not just about the ecclesiastical context particular to every faith group. We used to talk with a definite article about "the" monotheistic faiths. Today, I show my respect of the other by talking about monotheistic faiths in the context of a broader partnership for humanity, involving Christians, Muslims, Jews, and nonbelievers for that matter. When you talk about ethics and morality, each faith group has difficulty with the semantics.

Click here for the full interview.

Posted by Tim Morgan at July 12, 2008 11:31PM | Comments (7)

Fox News is reporting this morning that its former news anchor and former Bush administration press secretary Tony Snow has died of cancer. Snow was 53.

Read the Fox News obit here, and read Snow's 2007 article "Cancer's Unexpected Blessings" for Christianity Today here.

Here's a brief excerpt from that article:

The moment you enter the Valley of the Shadow of Death, things change. You discover that Christianity is not something doughy, passive, pious, and soft. Faith may be the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. But it also draws you into a world shorn of fearful caution. The life of belief teems with thrills, boldness, danger, shocks, reversals, triumphs, and epiphanies. Think of Paul, traipsing though the known world and contemplating trips to what must have seemed the antipodes (Spain), shaking the dust from his sandals, worrying not about the morrow, but only about the moment.

There's nothing wilder than a life of humble virtue—for it is through selflessness and service that God wrings from our bod