2 of 6

The Globe notes that not all schools have sided with the liberal end, and names Nashotah House Theological Seminary in Wisconsin and Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry in Pennsylvania as examples of conservative Episcopal seminaries. (Gordon-Conwell is working with both schools in developing its program.) The paper also notes that Northern Seminary just launched its own Anglican Studies Emphasis in partnership with Trinity Episcopal. Had the story gone beyond America's borders, it probably would have mentioned Regent College's Study Program in World Anglicanism, which is a partnership with Oxford's Wycliffe Hall, Moore Theological College in Sydney, and on the U.K. side, St John's Theological College in Nottingham, Oak Hill College in London, and Trinity College in Bristol. The Anglican Mission in America (AMiA), by the way, has its own Anglican Studies Program, but it is not a degree program; it's really a training in Anglicanism for those with M.Div. degrees from other seminaries.

Northern and Gordon-Conwell smell a new market/ministry here. The story in the breakup of the Episcopal Church USA, then, may not be the denomination's takeover by the Left, but the rise of the young orthodox.

5. Jews still for Jesus
Jews for Jesus has 42 illuminated ads throughout the subway stations at Times Square, The New York Post reports. The paper rounds up the usual complaints. "I personally don't think religion has any place in advertising," Roman Meisenberg explains. "Why do we need this in a public space like the subways?" Yes, from now on, no ads that promise a better life. And religious ads should only be displayed in private, where no one can see them. Makes perfect sense.

Sarah Stevens remarks, "Those people are so annoying, but I'd rather have these ads than have them stop me on the street." Ah, Sarah. You didn't read your Times on Tuesday, did you?

6. There's actually something interesting about the New York gay marriage decision
Speaking of the Times, there's a revealing analysis piece today about yesterday's New York State Court of Appeals decision upholding the ban on same-sex marriage. "Gay leaders," the paper says, are upset not just about the court's decision, but about its reasoning. Here are some sections they find particularly troubling:

In its brief due process analysis [in 1964's Loving v. Virginia case, where the Supreme Court threw out race-based restrictions on marriage], the Supreme Court reiterated that marriage is a right "fundamental to our very existence and survival"— a clear reference to the link between marriage and procreation. … Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation. …

It is not irrational for the Legislature to provide an incentive for opposite-sex couples—for whom children may be conceived from casual, even momentary intimate relationships—to marry, create a family environment, and support their children. Although many same-sex couples share these family objectives and are competently raising children in a stable environment, they are simply not similarly situated to opposite-sex couples in this regard given the intrinsic differences in the assisted reproduction or adoption processes that most homosexual couples rely on to have children.

next page... |  2 of 6

share this page

July (Web-only) 2006, Vol. 50