Stuart Townend to hymn butchers: Your changes are not authorized

Well, it would appear that the Archbishop of Canterbury's rank cowardice in the face of the prevailing winds of the zeitgeist is not the only problem plaguing the Mother Church these days. Cranmer's Curate reports on liberal efforts to deface a theologically rich contemporary hymn.

Liberal Anglicans do not like the reference to the wrath of God being satisfied in the hymn 'In Christ Alone', so what do they do? Censor it.

The Copyright version of Stuart Townend and Keith Getty's classic hymn says:

In Christ alone! who took on flesh
Fulness of God in helpless babe!
This gift of love and righteousness
Scorned by the ones he came to save:
Till on that cross as Jesus died,
The wrath of God was satisfied -
For every sin on Him was laid;
Here in the death of Christ I live.

In the unauthorised version in use in liberal Anglican circles, the sixth line of this verse reads: 'The love of God was exemplified.'

As tends to be the case with revisionist changes, this one does violence to the spiritual context and diminishes the wonder of God's saving love. Liberal Anglicans want their merely exemplary view of the atonement to be sung but the line following the sixth - 'For every sin on Him was laid' - flatly contradicts their attempt to airbrush our culpable and hell-deserving sin out of the death of the Lord Jesus.

In response to an enquiry as to whether the authors had authorised the change, a spokeswoman for Mr Townend told Cranmer's Curate that:

Although all copyright/permission enquiries are handled by Stuart's publishers, you are right in thinking that permission would not be granted to change the words to any of Stuart's songs. However, I'm also aware that an unofficial, edited lyric of the hymn has been circling for some time, and some are unaware that it is unapproved. So it may well be that (one Anglican diocese where the liberal version has been used at official services) are not aware that they're breaking copyright by using it.

A similar controversy erupted here in the states last year when the committee developing a new hymnal for the Presbyterian Church (USA) wanted to alter the "offending" lyric to "the love of God was magnified." Townend refused to allow the change and the song was thus excluded from the hymnal.

The fact that liberals -- be they Anglican, Presbyterian, or what have you -- are offended by the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement is itself offensive, and quite indicative of how far they have strayed from the truth of the Gospel. Not only are they placing their souls in peril, they are depriving themselves of some truly uplifting music. It is no wonder they always seem so grumpy.

*** WARNING: THE FOLLOWING IS THE ORIGINAL UNCUT, UNCENSORED VERSION OF "IN CHRIST ALONE." ***

George: Stand up to the bullies!

From Robert P. George's Facebook page this morning, a call for people of all faiths to stand up to the godless bullies who are intent on imposing their will on every sector of society.

Mozilla has now made its employment policy clear.

No Catholics need apply.

Or Evangelical Christians.

Or Eastern Orthodox.

Or Orthodox Jews.

Or Mormons.

Or Muslims.

Unless, that is, you are the "right kind" of Catholic, Evangelical, Eastern Orthodox Christian, observant Jew, Mormon, or Muslim, namely, the kind who believes your religious or philosophical tradition is wrong about the nature of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and the view now dominant among secular elites is correct. In that case, Mozilla will consider you morally worthy to work for them. Or maybe you can work for them even if you do happen to believe (or should I say "believe") your faith's teaching---so long as you keep your mouth shut about it: "Don't ask, don't tell."

You are disqualified from employment, however, if you reveal your alleged "bigotry" and "cause pain" by stating your convictions. And you are certainly disqualified if you do anything to advance the historic understanding of marriage as a conjugal union in the public square. You see, that's what Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich was discovered to have done---he made a contribution of $1000 to the successful effort to defend marriage in California in 2008. Like the majority of California voters, he thought it best for the state to retain its conjugal marriage law. Recently that historical fact came to light. And in less than a week Eich was gone.

You can bet its not just Mozilla. Now that's the bullies have Eich's head as a trophy on their wall, they will put the heat on every other corporation and major employer. They will pressure them to refuse employment to those who decline to conform their views to the new orthodoxy. And you can also bet that it won't end with same-sex marriage. Next, it will be support for the pro-life cause that will be treated as moral turpitude in the same way that support for marriage is treated. Do you believe in protecting unborn babies from being slain in the womb? Why then "you are a misogynist. You are a hater of women. You are a bigot. We can't have a person like you working for our company." And there will be other political and moral issues, too, that will be treated as litmus tests for eligibility for employment. The defenestration of Eich by people at Mozilla for dissenting from the new orthodoxy on marriage is just the beginning.

Catholics, Evangelicals, Orthodox Christians, Mormons, observant Jews, Muslims, and others had better stand together and face down the bullies, and they had better do it now, or else they will be resigning themselves and their families to a very unhappy status in this society. A very unhappy status indeed. When tactics of intimidation succeed, their success ensures that they will be used more and more often in more and more contexts to serve more and more causes. And standing up to intimidation will become more and more difficult. And more and more costly. And more and more dangerous.

This pretty much says it all

More good news: Olbermann canned by Current TV

Television is once again an Olbermann-free zone! The vile liberal commentator has been canned by Current TV.

Current TV said Friday afternoon that it had terminated its relationship with its lead anchor Keith Olbermann, scarcely one year after he was hired to reboot the channel in his progressive political image.

In a letter to viewers, the channel said Friday, “We created Current to give voice to those Americans who refuse to rely on corporate-controlled media and are seeking an authentic progressive outlet. We are more committed to those goals today than ever before. Current was also founded on the values of respect, openness, collegiality, and loyalty to our viewers. Unfortunately these values are no longer reflected in our relationship with Keith Olbermann and we have ended it.”

Mr. Olbermann will not be given an opportunity to sign off. Starting Friday night, the former New York governor Eliot Spitzer will replace him at 8 p.m., according to the letter to viewers. His program will be titled “Viewpoint with Eliot Spitzer.”

The decision to dismiss Mr. Olbermann was unanimous among the senior managers of Current, according to a person familiar with the matter.

It came after months of infighting between the famously temperamental Mr. Olbermann and his bosses at Current, including David Bohrman, the channel’s president, and Joel Hyatt, its chief executive. The fighting spilled out into public view last January after Mr. Olbermann declined Current’s requests to host special hours of election coverage, apparently out of frustration about technical difficulties that had plagued his 8 p.m. program, “Countdown.”

Bob Beckel's Bible boondoggle

For many years, I have been willing to give Bob Beckel, a former Democrat party operative turned television political commentator, the benefit of the doubt. Notwithstanding his political views, with which I strongly disagree, Beckel has a compelling testimony about overcoming alcohol and substance abuse. So compelling, in fact, that I theorized his over-the-top liberal persona was merely an act played out on television for the entertainment of cable news audiences. Today, however, on Fox's new panel program The Five, he made a statement so monumentally ignorant that my (admittedly charitable) theory was blown to smithereens.

Speaking in his usual snarky tone, Beckel criticized Governor Rick Perry (R-Texas) for citing Jesus as his inspiration for calling for a day of prayer and fasting for the nation on August 6. "I'd like to know, Governor Perry, where Jesus fasted in the New Testament," Beckel demanded. "I think I might have missed that."

Well, Bob, you don't have to look very far in the New Testament to find what you "missed."

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. (Matthew 4.1-2)

Hmmm. Jesus fasted forty days and forty nights during his wilderness temptation experience, which preceded the inauguration of his earthly ministry. That should strike even the most cursory reader of Scripture as pretty significant. If Beckel "might have missed that," then he "might have missed" quite a bit.

A hill for liberals to die on

Hunter Baker has some sobering words for Christians whose politics lean to the left.

Well, we’ve had our discussions about budgets as moral documents and now have reached a budget deal that went right up to the brink of a government shutdown.

To those friends of mine who are also Christians, but identify more with the left than the right, I have a question for you: Just exactly what hill was it the Democrats decided they wanted to die on in this battle? Where did they draw the line and say, “This far and no further!”

It turns out their one adamantine point of no compromise was . . . funding Planned Parenthood. Wow, that’s a real Mr. Smith Goes to Washington moment. Gets you right in the old ticker.

I suspect Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo are feeling a little uncomfortable as they review the bidding.

Not that this should come as a surprise. How many Democrat figures have been down this path and learned that they have to make a choice? Ted Kennedy was pro-life and was forced by his party’s realities to change. Jesse Jackson was pro-life. Same result. Ditto for one Albert Gore.

There is one orthodoxy in the party of the left that will not brook disagreement. Bob Casey the elder knew it. And Ramesh Ponnuru wrote a book about it.

Annoy the Left: Eat Mor Chikin

Here's an idea that will help the economy and inspire you with a renewed sense of hope. Patronize your local Chick-Fil-A. In so doing, you will also be driving left-wing hate-mongers and smear merchants nuts.

Chick-Fil-A is an American success story. Founded by Georgian entrepreneur Truett Cathy in 1946, the family-owned chicken-sandwich chain is one of the country’s largest fast-food businesses. It employs some 50,000 workers across the country at 1,500 outlets in nearly 40 states and the District of Columbia. The company generates more than $2 billion in revenues and serves millions of happy customers with trademark Southern hospitality.

So, what’s the problem? Well, Chick-Fil-A is run by devout Christians who believe in strong marriages, devoted families, and the highest standards of character for their workers. The restaurant chain’s official corporate mission is to “glorify God” and “enrich the lives of everyone we touch.” The company’s community service initiatives, funded through its WinShape Foundation, support foster care, scholarship, summer camp, and marriage enrichment programs. On Sunday, all Chick-Fil-A stores close so workers can spend the day at worship and rest.

For the Left, these Biblically-based corporate principles constitute high social justice crimes and misdemeanors. Democrats are always ready to invoke religion to support their big government, taxpayer-funded initiatives (Obamacare, illegal alien amnesty, increased education spending, and FCC regulatory expansion, for starters).

But when an independent company – thriving on its own merits in the market place — wears its soul on its sleeve, suddenly it’s a theocratic crisis.

Over the past month, several progressive activist blogs have waged an ugly war against Chick-Fil-A. The company’s alleged atrocity: One of its independent outlets in Pennsylvania donated some sandwiches and brownies to a marriage seminar run by the Pennsylvania Family Institute, which happens to oppose same-sex marriage.

In the name of tolerance, the anti-Chick-Fil-A hawks sneered at the company’s main product as “Jesus Chicken,” derided its no-Sunday work policy, and attacked its operators as “anti-gay.” Michael Jones, who describes himself as having “worked in the field of human rights communications for a decade, most recently for Harvard Law School,” launched an online petition drive at www.change.org “demanding” that the company disavow “extreme anti-gay groups.” Facebook users dutifully organized witch hunt drives against the company on college campuses.

Over the weekend, New York Times reporter Kim Severson gave the Chick-Fil-A bashers a coveted Sunday A-section megaphone – repeatedly parroting the “Chick-Fil-A is anti-gay” slur and raising fears of “evangelical Christianity’s muscle flexing” with only the thinnest veneer of journalistic objectivity. Severson, you see, is an openly gay advocate of same-sex marriage equality herself and the former vice-president of the identity politics-mongering National Gay and Lesbian Journalists Association. In a bitter op-ed on gay marriage laws not changing quickly enough, she asserted: “I don’t want the crumbs. I want the whole cake.” Severson has voiced complaints about her social and economic status as an unwed lesbian with a partner and child in several media publications.

I believe my experience at Chick-Fil-A today was pretty typical. At the table across from me, a man and a woman discussed last week's Sunday School lesson. Near the front window, a nursing student studied her medical books while sipping a Coke. The store manager rushed to assist a young mother with her two toddlers in a stroller, escorting them out the door and to their car. Meanwhile, a smiling associate offered to refill my drink as I finished my meal and prepared to leave. She was new in town. Her husband had been transferred and she had to leave her job at a Chick-Fil-A in Richmond. But she was ecstatic about having the opportunity to continue with the company in her new place of residence.

It is no wonder that Chick-Fil-A would see it as nothing but normal to support organizations committed to values and principles that are, after all, normal. To dine at Chick-Fil-A is to be witness to a parade of simple, common decency. That such a thing is an offense to the very people who now lecture us about the need for "civility" is a glaring illustration of the hypocrisy, moral bankruptcy, and utter reprobation of the vile activists of the perverted Left.

Cognitive dissonance: It's the same old liberal song

A few years back, I made a few random observations about the misleading use of the term "progressive" by those of the liberal persuasion.

Is it a sign of "progress" to embrace behaviors, practices, and worldviews which the civilized world has rejected for some two millennia? In ancient times, the Christians were the true "progressives." They looked upon a world awash in decadence and licentiousness and boldly declared there was a better way than the way of temple prostitution and drunken debauchery. A world which embraced such godless misbehavior was a world that was passing away. A new world was coming into being in which the holiness of God would be the order of the day and those who would be a part of it were called to turn away from the temporal pleasures of the flesh and begin living here and now as though this world had passed away and the new world had already begun.

Whenever present-day liberals embrace the term "progressive," they are simply following an age old formula for deceiving weak-minded people into thinking they are the ones with a forward-looking vision. But there is nothing "progressive" about celebrating sin and pretending there is no God or, if there is, he's somehow open to diverse opinions about right and wrong. What was true in ancient times is no less true today. The way of progress is the way of Christ and the cross, for there is no other way to the blessing of eternal life.

It is both amusing and disgusting (not to mention, downright despicable) to see and hear the predictable reaction of left-wing pundits and political hacks to the tragic events in Arizona this past weekend. It is a reminder of another sort of just how backward the so-called "progressives" are. The general template being followed is nearly a half century old. In his excellent book, Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism, James Piereson recounts the almost instantaneous effort by liberal elites to recast the slain president as a martyr for liberal causes instead of a casualty of the Cold War.

The reaction in liberal circles to Kennedy's assassination brings to mind the well-known theory of "cognitive dissonance" that was developed in the 1950s by Leon Festinger and his colleagues at Stanford University. The theory was devised to account for the ways in which people reconcile deeply held beliefs with evidence that clearly contradicts those beliefs. "Cognitive dissonance" is simply an academic way of describing an intense conflict among beliefs that generates psychological tension. In order to eliminate the tension, or the dissonance, people search for ways of making their beliefs consistent, either by denying or ignoring key facts or by reinterpreting facts in such a way as to make them consistent with deeply held convictions. Festinger cited numerous examples of such stratagems, though he found the most powerful illustrations in millenarian religious movements whose leaders have identified a particular date for the destruction of the world or the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Such prophecies, some inspired by end-of-days themes in the book of Revelation, are not all that uncommon in the history of religious movements. The intriguing question is: What is the reaction of cult followers to the inevitable failure of those prophecies in which they have placed such faith and confidence? Believers must in this circumstance find some way to reconcile their religious beliefs with the reality of a world that continues on as before. Festinger observed that they are likely to do so in various ways, some acting more or less rationally by renouncing the cults, others denying or ignoring the plain evidence before them, and still others reinterpreting the facts such that they are made compatible with the prophecies. In the latter case, followers will often recast the prophecy to some future date or suggest that God or some other force has intervened to save the world or to postpone its destruction. It seems ever to be true that people are prepared to go to great lengths to preserve deeply held convictions despite their being contradicted by the facts.

The liberal leaders cited above--Chief Justice Warren, James Reston, Senator Mansfield, Lyndon Johnson--dismissed as irrelevant the fact that President Kennedy was shot by a communist. They, like many Americans, reinterpreted the event so that it was made consistent with liberal assumptions, which held that threats to the nation were most likely to come from the irrational conduct of the radical right. Thus President Kennedy was said to be a victim of intolerance and bigotry which had infected the bloodstream of the nation (as the chief justice had put it). In many quarters, it was said that President Kennedy was a victim of the nation itself, with its violent culture where people are allowed to buy and carry firearms as if they were toys. This perverse conviction filtered into the popular culture in the 1960's, so much so that it was expressed in songs by famous rock-and-roll groups (the analog in the 1960s to Walt Whitman in Lincoln's time). "Sympathy for the Devil," a popular song written in 1968 by the Rolling Stones following the assassination of Robert Kennedy, contains the verse, "I shouted out, 'Who killed the Kennedys?' When after all, it was you and me." Another popular song from the same year, titled "Abraham, Martin, and John," was crafted to link the three men (Lincoln, King, and Kennedy) together as martyrs to the cause of civil rights.

The public did not hear in that dark time the explanation that President Kennedy had been killed for his advocacy of liberty in the face of communist tyranny in Cuba and elsewhere, or that he was a casualty of "the long twilight struggle" to defend and promote freedom in the world. Few linked his death with the bold themes articulated in his Inaugural Address that "we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe in order to assure the survival and success of liberty." No one linked the fallen president to others who had died in the battle against communist tyranny. Few suggested that there may have been a connection between the assassination and the tense confrontation the year before over nuclear missiles in Cuba. Such accounts of the assassination would have been consistent with the facts and entirely compatible with Kennedy's forceful and idealistic leadership. It was true, as will be acknowledged later, that pertinent information that would shed light on the assassination was not known either to the public or to some (not all) leaders at the time. Still, enough information was available in 1963 and 1964 to suggest that Kennedy's assassination was more a consequence of the Cold War than of the civil rights crusade. Such an account might have been advanced in a responsible way without inciting calls for war against the Soviet Union or Cuba. (pp. 103-105)

The parallels between the reaction of the liberal leadership then and their more radical successors now (Piereson's book is a chronicle of mainstream liberalism's collapse into radicalism following the Kennedy assassination) are too numerous to mention here. For those who fancy themselves "progressives," it seems, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Coexist? Pharisaism masquerading as tolerance

H/T to just about everybody in the Anglican blogosphere!

I am always amused, never impressed, by the holier than thou attitude behind the gibberish on display on many a car bumper. It is Pharisaism masquerading as tolerance and holding in disdain anyone who would dare call out such obvious hypocrisy.

The return of Jim Wallis, the thing that wouldn't leave, Volume 2

I am no fan of Jim Wallis. As I have stated before, he is to the Religious Left what Pat Robertson is to the Religious Right. He is a man of little real significance, important only to himself and his small band of left-of-center followers (Robertson's right-of-center followers may be a little more numerous, but only because Robertson has a glitzy TV show and Wallis only has a lousy magazine). Yet, he is once again in the news, and that news, for him and his sterling reputation among evangelicals, is not good.

Jim Wallis is the president of Sojourners, a magazine and organization whose "mission is to articulate the biblical call to social justice." Marvin Olasky recently described his own politics as conservative, and chided Wallis for disingenuously insisting that his politics and Sojourners' were not leftist, and for accepting funds from the George Soros' Open Society Institute, which has a leftist political agenda but a posture somewhere between indifferent to hostile toward Christianity.

An interviewer recently asked Wallis about Olasky's assertions. Wallis gave a carefully wrought, turn-the-other-cheek response: "It's not hyperbole or overstatement to say that Glenn Beck lies for a living. I'm sad to see Marvin Olasky doing the same thing. No, we don't receive money from Soros."

Yesterday the interviewer received a message from "the communications manager for Sojourners, confirming that Sojourners has indeed received funding from Soros' Open Society Institute." It contained a moving statement by Wallis: "I should have declined to comment until I was able to review the [Olasky] blog post in question and consulted with our staff on the details of our funding over the past several years. Instead, I answered in the spirit of the accusation and did not recall the details of our funding over the decade in question."

So, just to recap:

1. Marvin Olasky says that Jim Wallis and Sojourners receive money from George Soros.

2. Jim Wallis says that Sojourners does not receive money from George Soros and that Marvin Olasky lies for a living.

3. Sojourners and Jim Wallis subsequently say that they do receive money from George Soros, though not much, though they don't say how not much.

4. Jim Wallis does not apologize for saying something that was untrue - the three grants from Soros were "so small that I hadn't remembered them" - and doesn't retract or apologize for the assertion that Olasky lies for a living.

5. The only blame Wallis is willing to assign for his own categorical statements that turned out to be categorically wrong is that it was all Olasky's fault, since Wallis merely replied in the spirit of the accusation against Sojourners.

Is it any wonder ours is an age of declining faith?

P.S. Marvin Olasky's colleagues and readers pitched in to help Jim Wallis overcome his spotty, overtaxed and emotionally susceptible memory. The Open Society Institute's tax returns show that it made three grants to Sojourners between 2004 and 2007, for a total of $325,000. Either Sojourners is drowning in money or Wallis is succumbing to dementia, because he says, fessing up, that the "OSI made up the tiniest fraction of Sojourners' funding during that decade--so small that I hadn't remembered them." The other possibility, that Wallis lies - not for a living, exactly - but when it appears convenient for the greater good of articulating the biblical call to social justice, is too far-fetched and cruel to entertain for as long as it takes to pose the thought.

Brussels Journal: Airbrushing Martyrs from the Pages of History

Jerry Salyer, writing for the Brussels Journal, sheds some light on the heroes and martyrs of the German Resistance (a partial history of which is the subject of the recent film, Valkyrie) and the ambivalence, if not outright opposition, of the Allies toward the proposition of a coup led by "aristocrats, theologians, and traditionalist army officers."

It seems that some English policymakers feared catching blue-blood cooties from exposure to – in Oppen’s wry wording – “too many counts and barons.” Remember that Anglo-American leaders had no qualms about turning some hundred thousand men, women, and children into radioactive briquettes in order to “end the war”. (That is, to end it unconditionally, without need of peace negotiations.) And recall that in order to defeat the Führer, Allied leaders were quite willing to make an alliance with that famed international humanitarian Joseph Stalin.

But as for working with Hitler’s enemies within the German aristocracy… well, apparently that was asking a bit much. Whoa – come now, there are limits, after all.

One such aristocratic persona non grata was Oppen’s biographical subject – grand-nephew of the famed Prussian field-marshal of the same name – Helmuth James von Moltke. Though active in a variety of spheres, Moltke’s most productive work is circumscribed by the Kreisau Circle, so-called after the count’s country estate where Protestant theologians, Catholic priests, and lay intellectuals gathered to discuss Germany’s fate. Moltke and his companions intended that post-Hitler Germany would not repeat the mistakes of Weimar, and sought some viable, humane vision with which to fill in the vacuum left by Nazism’s inevitable self-destruction.

The Kreisau papers describe a decentralized society anchored by organic institutions, in which regional autonomy and an independent local leadership class would impede the ascendancy of any totalitarian demagogue. This decentralist ideal flowed from Kreisau’s Christian orientation, which translated practically into an emphasis upon localism and small communities. Such communities based upon “naturally occurring ties between individuals” – i.e., the organic ties which bind families together and neighbors to one another – were in Moltke’s view the key to a sustainably sane society.

Per Moltke, National Socialism was a logical consequence of the modern trend toward political and economic consolidation, a consolidation which snuffed out both human identity and the economic means by which individuals might resist tyranny. Rendered anonymous and faceless like ants in a hive, modern mass-man had no chance for either spiritual or political freedom. Quite early on Moltke attributed the philosophical roots of this totalitarian trend to his bête-noir G.W. Hegel, warning that “... in my view, we are on the road which leads through Hegel to the deification of the state.”

How Moltke’s decentralized society would have turned out is anybody’s guess. And whether Moltke was right in blaming Hegel is debatable; certainly better-qualified heads than mine have questioned how culpable Hegel really is vis-à-vis the modern totalitarian impulse. Yet right answers or wrong, at least Moltke was asking the appropriate questions. While he may have fingered the wrong suspect, at the very least he was aware of the essential nature of the problem – which is more than one can say of most intellectuals then or today. This is worth emphasizing. While Moltke particularly abhorred Nazism, his remarks about the general trend toward “the idolized state” also applied to the Bolsheviks… and to the increasingly centralized regimes of America and Britain as well.

Jimmy Carter: The Gift That Keeps on Giving

Albert Mohler has a little fun with Jimmy Carter and the manufactured media story about his "resignation" from the Southern Baptist Convention.

For critics of the Southern Baptist Convention, former President Jimmy Carter is the gift that just keeps on giving. Over the last several days, yet another round of news reports has trumpeted the news that the former president has resigned his membership in the Southern Baptist Convention. Almost a decade after he first made this announcement, his repetitive return to this theme set up a new avalanche of news reports. Reports, we might add, that are not news. Adding insult to injury, the reports are about a "resignation" that isn't even a resignation. Try explaining that to the international media.

Back in October of 2000, President Carter sent a letter to some 75,000 Baptists, indicating that he intended to separate himself from the Southern Baptist Convention --- a denomination with which he had historically been associated through church membership, public identification, and personal involvement. He spoke of this as "a painful decision" that was made necessary by the convention's stated convictions on a number of issues. For some years, Mr. Carter had been publicly identified with the more liberal wing of Southern Baptist life. He was well known for holding liberal positions on an entire range of issues that set him at odds with the denomination. The catalyst for his public announcement was the revision of the denomination's confession of faith earlier that year.

Any honest observer will be compelled to clarify that Mr. Carter's action was an exercise in public relations. Individuals are not members of the Southern Baptist Convention, and there is no mechanism for individuals either to join or to resign from the denomination. Local churches indicate their desire to identify with the Southern Baptist Convention through contributing to its causes and declaring themselves to be "in friendly cooperation with" other churches in the fellowship of the convention. As more careful media sources indicated back in October of 2000, President and Mrs. Carter actually remained members of a congregation that is, as The New York Times then explained, "still affiliated with the convention."

Just a few years later, the former president reiterated his desire to separate from the Southern Baptist Convention, producing a series of news reports that rarely referenced the fact that Mr. Carter had made such a public announcement years earlier. Over the last two weeks, the pattern has erupted all over again.

Pelosi Snowed Out of Global Warming Rally

You gotta love this!

(CNSNews.com) – Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had to cancel an appearance Monday at a global warming rally in Washington, D.C., that was hit by a snowstorm because her flight was delayed, her office told CNSNews.com.

Brianna Cayo-Cotter, the spokesman for the Energy Action Coalition that held the rally, told a group of reporters that she had been in contact with Pelosi and that her flight had been delayed because of inclement weather.

A blizzard Sunday night and early Monday morning blanketed the nation’s capital with snow, causing events to be cancelled and delayed across the city.

House Select Energy Independence and Global Warming Chairman Edward Markey (D-Mass.), who was scheduled to speak at the global warming event, also canceled his appearance because of the inclement weather, a spokesman from his committee’s office told CNSNews.com on Monday.

[Eben Burnham-Snyder, communications director for the committee, later contacted CNSNews.com to say that Markey could not attend the rally not because of the weather but because of a “scheduling conflict.”

[Burnham-Snyder would not say, however, where Markey was at the time the rally took place. “The problem is that I am in a tough position because I am never allowed to release his schedule but I can tell you that’s not true (that he missed the rally because of the weather) because he was already in the District," said Burnham-Snyder. “It wasn’t the same situation (as Speaker Pelosi) -- not that I am saying Speaker Pelosi’s excuse was not right – but it was not the same position as it was with the Speaker because she was flying. The chairman was already here.”

[“He just literally had something he could not avoid happening as the rally was happening,” said Burnham-Snyder.

[Burnham-Snyder repeated that he was not at liberty to say where Markey was, but, he said, Markey “was not in the Capitol complex at the time.”]

Speaker Pelosi’s office confirmed to CNSNews.com that her flight had been delayed, but they could not say where the flight was coming from or whether she was flying commercial or charter.

No "Progress" in Liberals' World