Prayer Requests for Diocesan Conventions

There are several Conventions this weekend.

South Dakota's Convention is underway. The American Anglican Council Chapter will have an information table for the first time, and the Convention will hear resolutions calling on the Episcopal Church to account for lawsuit funding and to sit down with (rather than sue) Christians who can't accept Episcopalian departures from Christian faith and practice. Please pray that the Holy Spirit will transform the Convention environment and that any spiritual evil will be exposed and rejected.

• Delegates from Good Shepherd, Sioux Falls - Fr. Timothy Fountain, Bonnie Makinson, John Daucsavage (also Larry & Marlene Weires, unable to attend due to a death in the family).
• Prayer Support & Witness - Tammy Briggs and Gene Makinson
• AAC/SDK Table Hosts - Dale and Ingrid Dobrovolny

The Common Cause Partnership Prayer Blog has prayers, readings and reflections for the hours of this weekend's Diocese of Pittsburgh Convention. Pittsburgh will vote on leaving the Episcopal Church to join another Anglican entity.

Lent & Beyond is another good prayer resource.

Stuff that spooks me after the VP debate (Updated w/ transcript)

The moderator asked a very clear question* as to when the candidates (hypothetically as President) would authorize the use of nuclear weapons.

Neither candidate answered the question. Both talked about the awful destructive power of nukes. Both fretted about nuclear proliferation. But neither could articulate a policy for the use of nuclear weapons.

One of the glories of our Constitution is civilian control of the military. The Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces is an elected civilian President. But this carries the awesome responsibility of callling for the use of force, up to and including authorization of a nuclear strike.

It seems like the candidates (except John McCain so far) are disowning the Commander in Chief role that they might have to fill.

During the Presidential candidates' debate, Sens. McCain and Obama got into an exchange about wearing bracelets to honor military casualties. What bugged me about Sen. Obama was how he quoted the soldier's mother, asking that the President make sure that no other mother ever suffer the same pain.

In all fairness, Sen. Obama did not say he promised that. But he left it hanging in the air. Can we really elect the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces with the expectation that s/he will never send troops into action, and that there will be no casualties?

If that is our expectation, we are in serious denial. And if a candidate thinks there can be a "no casualties" promise, this is even worse than Pres. Bush Sr.'s "Read my lips: no more taxes" gaffe.

The would- be Commanders in Chief need to articulate a view of the appropriate use of military force.

+++

*TitusOneNine linked to a transcript of last night's debate. Here's the question on nukes:

IFILL: Governor, on another issue, interventionism, nuclear weapons. What should be the trigger, or should there be a trigger, when nuclear weapons use is ever put into play?
PALIN: Nuclear weaponry, of course, would be the be all, end all of just too many people in too many parts of our planet, so those dangerous regimes, again, cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, period.
Our nuclear weaponry here in the U.S. is used as a deterrent. And that's a safe, stable way to use nuclear weaponry.
But for those countries -- North Korea, also, under Kim Jong Il -- we have got to make sure that we're putting the economic sanctions on these countries and that we have friends and allies supporting us in this to make sure that leaders like Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad are not allowed to acquire, to proliferate, or to use those nuclear weapons. It is that important.
Can we talk about Afghanistan real quick, also, though?
IFILL: Certainly.
PALIN: OK, I'd like to just really quickly mention there, too, that when you look back and you say that the Bush administration's policy on Afghanistan perhaps would be the same as McCain, and that's not accurate.
The surge principles, not the exact strategy, but the surge principles that have worked in Iraq need to be implemented in Afghanistan, also. And that, perhaps, would be a difference with the Bush administration.
Now, Barack Obama had said that all we're doing in Afghanistan is air-raiding villages and killing civilians. And such a reckless, reckless comment and untrue comment, again, hurts our cause.
That's not what we're doing there. We're fighting terrorists, and we're securing democracy, and we're building schools for children there so that there is opportunity in that country, also. There will be a big difference there, and we will win in -- in Afghanistan, also.
IFILL: Senator, you may talk about nuclear use, if you'd like, and also about Afghanistan.
BIDEN: I'll talk about both. With Afghanistan, facts matter, Gwen.
The fact is that our commanding general in Afghanistan said today that a surge -- the surge principles used in Iraq will not -- well, let me say this again now -- our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan, not Joe Biden, our commanding general in Afghanistan.
He said we need more troops. We need government-building. We need to spend more money on the infrastructure in Afghanistan.
Look, we have spent more money -- we spend more money in three weeks on combat in Iraq than we spent on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan building that country.
Let me say that again. Three weeks in Iraq; seven years, seven years or six-and-a-half years in Afghanistan. Now, that's number one.
Number two, with regard to arms control and weapons, nuclear weapons require a nuclear arms control regime. John McCain voted against a Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty that every Republican has supported.
John McCain has opposed amending the Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty with an amendment to allow for inspections.
John McCain has not been -- has not been the kind of supporter for dealing with -- and let me put it another way. My time is almost up.
Barack Obama, first thing he did when he came to the United States Senate, new senator, reached across the aisle to my colleague, Dick Lugar, a Republican, and said, "We've got to do something about keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists."
They put together a piece of legislation that, in fact, was serious and real. Every major -- I shouldn't say every -- on the two at least that I named, I know that John McCain has been opposed to extending the arms control regime in the world.

Tolerance & inclusion: blessings and unintended consequences

Why notions of tolerance and inclusion are so vital:

The Iranian Parliament is moving to mandate death for "apostasy" - that is, leaving Islam for another faith or philosophy.

Our Western political notions mean that ideas proliferate - even ideas we don't like - and that they are to be protected from suppression. This makes work hard for the church but it also strengthens it. Converts are more likely to be sincere than nominal - they must really be convinced. And the church is protected from its own corruption when it is not able to force people to join or obey.

Where notions of tolerance and inclusion get off track:

They can fall victim to the law of unintended consequences. Tolerance and inclusion can become a code for entitlement and elitism.

Our Minnesota neighbor, Anglicat, reports that St. Mark's Cathedral in Minneapolis is using October 12th to celebrate a homosexual "National Coming Out Day."

Now, here's a fact: St. Mark's, unlike many Episcopal Churches, has grown robustly . St. Mark's stats are here, and they are impressive.

But, this is the Cathedral of an entire diocese. How is that diocese doing while St. Mark's bulks up on ministry to the well established, very "out" gay community of Minneapolis?

Not so good. The diocese of Minnesota stats are here. Membership is in free fall; Average Sunday Attendance is withering (and would be even worse if not for the "blip" of St. Mark's growth.)

In other words, tolerance and inclusion of a small, geographically limited interest niche might be good for this or that congregation. But for the whole church, "tolerance and inclusion" of just one faction means hoarding and deploying resources for the factional few while sacrificing others.

This says much about why the Episcopal Church is so intent on declaring itself a centralized "hierarchy" and grabbing up real estate and bank accounts wherever possible. It is positioning itself to serve a small niche group and abandon any "inclusion" of other folks.

I've commented before about how the homosexual community's most familiar social model is the "pink ghetto." Having suffered rejection and hostility, many homosexuals congregate in certain districts, usually in larger cities. These neighborhoods become a safe haven for a homosexual culture and lifestyle. It makes sense and works because it is just one manner of life in a pluralistic (there's another word!) society.

But to take that model and impose it on a more diverse organization (a religious denomination, for example) destroys the very "tolerance and diversity" that are proclaimed to gain entrance to the organization. The larger organization might be able to carve out a niche for a subgroup, but once the subgroup defines the organization it can no longer tolerate and include others.

The architects of American Democracy feared "faction" (rule by elite) as much as they feared oppressive majority. Tolerance and inclusion can become a means to elitism and entitlement, pretty much what we are seeing in the Episcopal Church under homosexual direction (don't look at who holds public office, look at who controls the budget and bureaucracy. Katharine Jefferts Schori answers to Louie Crew and the homosexual Integrity organization, who are over-represented on the Executive Council of the denomination and now make pretty much all decisions about church policy, spending and all else of consequence).

40 Days for Life Prayer Campaign Underway

Visit the Lent&Beyond site each day for Christian prayers and readings for life! There will be a special prayer focus on South Dakota, Oct. 19-25. Blessings on Jill Woodliff, who is following God's inspiration and guidance to pray for life, and to intercede specifically for South Dakota's campaign for life.

Attorney General's Summary of Measure 11

The "vote no on 11" crowd will make all kinds of efforts to confuse voters. Those who favor abortion have a fanatical belief system and financial profit incentives that lead them to oppose any restriction on any act of abortion. They can't discuss the reality of life (and death), so they try to create and exaggerate legal technicalities.

So, in the interest of clarity (and keeping the discussion where it belongs, on LIFE), here's the actual summary of Measure 11, as it will appear on SD ballot materials:

Title: An Initiative to prohibit abortions except in cases where the mother’s life or health is at a substantial and irreversible risk, and in cases of reported rape and incest.

Attorney General Explanation: Currently a woman may obtain an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy. Beyond 24 weeks, abortions may be performed only if necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman. Measure 11 would prohibit all abortions performed by medical procedures or substances administered to terminate a pregnancy, except for: abortions medically necessary to prevent death or the serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily organ or system of the woman and abortions to terminate a pregnancy of less than 20 weeks resulting from rape or incest reported to law enforcement.

When an abortion is performed as a result of reported rape or incest, the woman must consent to biological sampling from herself and the embryo or fetus for DNA testing by law enforcement.
Measure 11 would allow the provision of contraception substances prior to the time pregnancy can be determined by conventional medical testing, or assistance in obtaining abortions in states where the procedure is legal.

If approved, Measure 11 will likely be challenged in court and may be declared to be in violation of the United States Constitution. The State may be required to pay attorneys fees and costs.

YES- A vote “Yes” will adopt the proposed law.

NO- A vote “No” will reject the proposed law.

h/t voices carry