Telling My Story: A Joyful Penitent

Alice C. Linsley
Telling My Story – Part II (Part I is here.)

The Philadelphia ordination of the eleven women (several lesbians) took place in 1974, the same year that the homosexual action group "Integrity" was founded.

In September 1975, more lesbians were ordained in Washington D.C. Here is the account in Louie Crew's words: "More 'irregular' ordinations of women took place… after our convention. In Washington at the time, on a missionary journey to our new chapters in the east, Jim Wickliff and I yielded to the counsel of friends who advised that our visibility at the ordination might put in jeopardy lesbians among all early ordinands." (From here.)

In 1976 General Convention of ECUSA affirmed homosexual behavior when it passed the “we are children of God” resolution.

In 1977, Bishop Paul Moore (NY) ordained Ellen Marie Barrett, who had served as Integrity's first co-president.

Homosexual activists have attacked the Historic Faith and Practice every year since the founding of Integrity. The undermining of catholic orders has been persistent and steady. Those who uphold Holy Tradition are on firm ground, but we are surrounded by many who hate us for what we represent: resistance to their demonically-inspired vision.

If only right-believing Christians were this persistent in their efforts to bring poor sinners to the Savior!

Most Episcopalians slept through these attacks, many of which were launched with great stealth (as Crew admits in his statement above). However the consecration of Gene Robinson in November 2003 awoke many, but by then it was too late to reverse the disastrous course of the Episcopal Church.

It has become apparent to most Anglicans worldwide that The Episcopal Church USA has departed from the Historic Faith and Practice. This was evident to catholic-minded Anglicans as early as 1975, the year that the eleven women were ordained “priests” in Philadelphia. Steeped in the unified witness of Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture, these traditionalists were clear about where the line is drawn, and they confronted corruption in the Church in the same spirit as Martin Luther who proclaimed in the words of Psalm 16:6: “The lines have fallen to me in pleasant places; Indeed, my heritage is beautiful to me.”

The Anglican heritage is indeed a beautiful one, upholding catholic orders and especially the integrity of the priesthood, verifiably one of the most ancient, even primal, of religious institutions, as has been verified by anthropological studies. (I have written on this here and here.)


Why should the line be drawn at the Priesthood?

Because there is but one Priesthood - that of Jesus Christ, the Eternal Priest - whose priesthood is given to the Church. The priesthood is a mark of the Church catholic and it is about Jesus Christ, so we must get it right or we send a wrong Christological message to the world. True catholic Christians see a woman priest as embodying a non-Christian worldview and therefore use the word “priestess” to underscore the Anglican slide into paganism. For a long time I didn’t understand this. I resented being called a “priestess” by the clergy that I most admired. I thought they were being ungracious, when really they were telling the truth.

To Evangelical Anglicans who ordain women, the term “priestess” seems insulting to the doubtless excellent ordained women in their churches. There was a time when I felt insulted to be called a “priestess”, but having come to understand the unity of Holy Tradition and Scripture, I now recognize that attempts to justify women priests are attempts to justify an innovation so startling and radical that I am committed to resisting it and speaking against it.


From Blissful Ignorance to Joyful Repentance

Some readers must surely be wondering why I didn’t leave ECUSA sooner, seeing the direction that it was going. Honestly, I didn’t see the direction in the 1970s or 1980s. For these reasons: My first experience of Anglicanism was in Iran where Christians suffered for their faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Though I worshipped with the ex-patriate congregation, I saw some of what the Iranian converts suffered and I knew their faith was real.

My second exposure was at Wheaton College (Illinois). At the time I was at Wheaton, there was a revival of interest in classical Anglicanism. This was when many Wheaton professors were “on the Canterbury Trail.” I was learning about the Anglican Way as it should be, not as it was becoming.

Thirdly, I didn't attend an Episcopal seminary. I did my four-year seminary training at a Lutheran seminary and all my professors were serious scholars. We were talking about the centrality of the Cross, about St. Paul's refutation of the Gnostics, about Luther and the Continental Reformers, and about the merger of the Lutheran denominations that was going to take place.

In seminary I took one course that made me think about women priests. It was a course on Anglican Polity taught by Jeffrey Steenson who later became an ECUSA bishop and more recently, a Roman Catholic priest. There were about 12 students in his class and all but one were females seeking ordination. You can imagine our dismay to receive a final exam with only 2 essay questions. One question dealt with the Book of Common Prayer and the second asked us to justify the ordination of women to the priesthood on the basis of history and church tradition. I received an A for my answer to the first question and an F for my answer to the second question. (I was able to cite only spurious feminist sources.) I was furious! So were the other women in the class, and we complained to the Dean. I'm deeply ashamed to think of what happened. Dr. Steenson, who had taken an interest in me and invited me to the service of Blessed Benediction at his parish in Rosemont, was not invited back to teach at the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Philadelphia.

After ordination in 1987, I remained blissfully ignorance of the undermining of Anglicanism because I was very busy as the Chaplain at an all-boys Episcopal boarding school - the Church Farm Church in Exton, Pennsylvania. Working 60 hours a week, it was a brutal job for a single mother of young children, but it was also God’s provision since it came with free housing and our residence was next to the chapel and across the street from my classroom, so I was able to zip home to check on my children. I remained in that position for three years.

During those years I was having many significant dreams, which I recorded in a journal that I kept at my bedside. (I now have about 15 dream journals detailing dreams over about 20 years.) The following 3 dreams are recorded in those journals.

On November 8, 1995 I dreamt that I was in a small office talking on the phone with a women parishioner, trying to persuade her to support the parish. After a time, she finally came to her objection: her husband wouldn’t give to the church because of a woman priest. I countered that he should support the parish at least for the sake of the two male clergy who were on my staff!

I rang off and sat down at a desk. There was a partition immediately in front of me. It was a poorly built partition and the larger room on the other side seemed to be empty but it was well lit from two windows. Behind me to the left was a forest green screen, which had been placed there after church renovation. It was flecked with gold, and behind it I could see another door. The door was slightly open, but I had no idea where it led. I imagined that it was a studio for me to write. This made me glad, as I yearned in those days to have time to write.

After my phone conversation I went into the next room where Brian Wilbert asked me to put on a white and gold cope. A sacred teardrop-shaped pearl hung from it. Sacred letters were inscribed on the pearl, but I couldn’t make out their meaning. After I put it on I was the led into the assembly. All was in confusion as I entered. I sensed various reactions to me and I became nervous. I was being led to a platform in a convention center or large arena. I was to be seated in the cathedra, but it was not ready for me when I arrived. People were busy clearing away furniture to make room for the cathedra. It was very narrow and there was no place to put my Book of Common Prayer. I asked for a small table to be placed next to the cathedra and I sat down. I looked over the congregation, which still had not settled down. I realized that I was expected to say something, but what?

Then the cathedra disappeared and I was facing the other direction with my back to the assembly. I was standing with my hand raised up as in prayer and the throng grew very quiet and I suddenly began to sing. It was a single strong note and perfectly pitched. The note swelled from within me and grew like a bubble coming from my mouth, only invisible. I sang and the people began to sing also. I was not leading the liturgy, but I was leading the singing. The noise was discordant at first, but then the people began to listen to one another and blended their voices. The song became beautiful and I knew that the people would be able to sing to the Lord. Their hearts would be free and they would sing! This gave me great joy.

This dream seems to be connected to an earlier dream, which I had on March 3, 1995. I entered an elevator to go to the second floor but it would only go either to the fourth or the ground floors. Every time I tried to go to the second level the elevator went up to fourth or down to the ground floor. Finally I gave up and got off on the fourth floor.

My son was there with one of his buddies. While in Josh’s room I found gold puzzle boxes. When I opened them I found that they were empty. In a drawer I found a small enameled box with a red velvet lining. I opened it and heard these words: “Solomon was the wisest who ever lived.” The box contained hairs from Solomon’s beard. I removed them and threw them in the trash bin to my right. Then I began to sing a very beautiful song, making up the words as I went. Another woman (the woman I was then) began to sing also but couldn’t come up with the words, so she stopped. I felt very glad and free, like a songbird perched in a tower high above a city.

My song was about a sheer milky white pearl in the shape of a teardrop. It was gleaming white and at its curves it reflected the red lining of the box’s interior.

It is evident from these dreams that my inner life was under construction, that I was seeking to solve a puzzle, and that I was yearning to express what would bring me joy. Clearly my unconscious was busily processing the doubts that I already had about my life and my vocation as a priest.

I had begun to doubt my vocation as a priest, but didn't feel that there was anyone with whom I could share these doubts. Several years later, after taking a position in Kentucky, I asked my bishop, Ted Gulick, if he could meet with me because I needed to share my doubts. He drove from Louisville to Bardstown and took me to lunch. But when it came time to share my heart, something constrained me and I didn't tell him that I was confused about why only the Episcopal Church had women priests and that I felt as if I were wearing someone else's shoes.

There was a third dream, related to the two earlier dreams. In this dream I was vested and standing in the procession of priests. We were preparing to process into the church. I was at the head of the procession and the Bishop was in line ahead of me (not where a bishop should be). Suddenly, off to my right there appeared a gleaming white pearl, shaped like a teardrop. I knew that it was the “Pearl of Great Price” but the only way I could take hold of it was to leave the procession of priests and to turn my back on my bishop.

I left the Episcopal priesthood in March 2005 and in a very real way I turned my back on my bishop in order to take hold of something of great value. That something is really a Someone, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who came into the world to save sinners like me. And to Him I offer my joyful praise and worship! I can do no other. This is my goodly heritage which extends to all who are in the Kingdom of God.

(Telling My Story, Part III is here.)

The Danger of Concordism

"If we accept Genesis 1 as ancient cosmology, then we need to interpret it as ancient cosmology rather than translate it into modern cosmology. If we try to turn it into modern cosmology, we are making the text say something that it never said. It is not just a case of adding meaning (as more information has become available) it is a case of changing meaning. Since we view the text as authoritative, it is a dangerous thing to change the meaning of the text into something it never intended to say." -- John H. Walton, Ph.D (From here.)

Dr. Walton received his Ph.D from Hebrew Union College and is professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College.


Related reading:  Review of Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate; Genesis One as Ancient Cosmology

Forty Days and Forty Nights

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry. (Matthew 4)


Alice C. Linsley

Numbers can be used to track the ethnic origins of a document. For example, the Chinese avoid using the number four, which they regard as an omen representing death, yet four is a sacred number to the Plains Indians of North America. The number four, representing the directional poles, is an essential part of preparing the sacred space for the Oglala's Vision Quest.

The cultural origin of some biblical narratives can be tracked using number symbolism. Most of the biblical texts come from the Hebrew, a caste of ruler-priests who dispersed widely in the ancient world (4000-2000 BC). 

The Hebrew number symbolism can be classified into early Nilotic and later Babylonian traditions. Consider the significance of the phrase 40 days and 40 nights. 

Jesus was in the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights. The phrase "40 days and 40 nights" expresses the completion of a cycle or the fulfillment of an appointed duration of time. The rain came down on Noah for 40 days and forty nights. The Israelites wandered in the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights. Jesus was in the wilderness for "40 days and 40 nights". 

The phrase "40 days and 40 nights" refers to the flood cycle of the Nile River. The Nile flooded for 40 days. Once it crested, the people who had left their homes had to wait 40 nights before returning home. The phrase reflects the Nile River culture of the early Hebrew. The oldest known site of Hebrew worship was at Nekhen on the Nile.

The number forty is less significant in the Babylonian tradition reflected in the Book of Daniel. Daniel is rich in number symbolism, but the number 40 is not one of the symbolic numbers in Daniel. The Euphrates and Tigris rivers of Babylon did not have a 40-day flood cycle followed by a 40-day period during which the waters receded.

The evidence of Genesis suggests an African context for the flood story. In the time of the African Humid Period, the Nile connected to lakes in the desert which connected to major rivers and Lake Chad. It is possible that Noah's flood took place in the region of Lake Chad. That is the only place on earth claimed by the local populations to be Noah's homeland. It is called Borno or Benue, meaning "Land of Noah". The local Kanari people refer to Lake Chad as Buhar Nuhu, meaning "Sea of Noah".

The red areas on this map show that the Y-DNA Haplogroup R1 populations living between the Nile and Lake Chad were connected. It appears that Noah's ancestors moved along this route along the interconnecting rivers and lakes of the African Humid Period (the African Aqualithic).

The Coptic monks speak of the 40 days and 40 nights always in connection to the periodic flooding of the Nile which dispersed nutrient-rich silt over the farmland. Read here about a Coptic monk's understanding of Genesis.

Noah was a Proto-Saharan ruler in the region of Lake Chad at a time when water systems connected the Nile and Lake Chad. The context of the phrase "the forty days and forty nights" of rain is Nilotic, not Mesopotamian. Likewise, Israel's forty years of wandering in the wilderness indicates that this narrative reflects a Nilotic context, rather than a Mesopotamian context.

Related reading: Number Symbolism in the Bible; Discrepancies are Evidence of Authenticity; Jesus Exposes the Devil's Tactics; An Anthropologist Looks at Genesis 6

Peter Bouteneff on Genesis and the Church Fathers

This week at Come Recieve The Light you can listen to Dr. Peter Bouteneff, a professor at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary, explain how the Church Fathers understood some of the more controversial passages in Genesis.

Christians disagree on how to interpret Genesis. Some lean toward an evolutionary view of creation while others affirm creation as having a fixed order. But this debate is not new. Dr. Peter Bouteneff, who has studied how Early Christians resolved many of these issues, works at the intersection of scripture, science, and the ancient Christian faith, and applies his learning to the contemporary discussion.

Go here to listen.

Rightly Reading Genesis 1 - 3

Alice C. Linsley

Question number six of the Nine Meaty Questions is: "I don't read Genesis 1 and 2 as two separate creation stories, but rather chapter 2 as an expansion on the outline laid out in chapter 1.... what do you think?"

Answer: A right reading of Genesis does not require reading the first two chapters as one continuous narrative. These chapters are not a chronological account of historical events. In fact, the narrative flow of chapters 1-3 requires that Genesis 2 be read with Genesis 3, but not Genesis 1 with Genesis 2.

Further, text criticism and number symbolism suggests that Genesis 2 is older than Genesis 1. Looking at the larger picture, it becomes evident that the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 creation and origin accounts represent different traditions among Abraham's Afro-Asiatic people.

One reader of Just Genesis has suggested that "The second description tells it from a different point of view: God's, while the first tells it from man's view." This is certainly the case, but as no humans were present when God created the Heavens and the Earth, Genesis 1 clearly is not to be read as an historical account.

Another reader, Mairnéalach, takes this view: "The two narratives may be reconciled, but any attempt to do so in a consistent manner will also fatally damage the remaining modernistic/journalistic interpretation of Genesis. This is proper and to be desired. If one attempts to maintain the modernistic/journalistic hermeneutic, their rules of interpretation are much like Calvin ball. (This is the game that Calvin and Hobbes played together, where Calvin gets to change the rules on the fly as he wishes, so that he can win the game no matter what happens.)

I appreciate Mairnéalach's criticism of what he calls the "modernistic/journalistic" approach to reading Genesis, something quite foreign to the text itself. Genesis 1 represents an ancient religious worldview that sees the order of creation as having seven parts. Emphasis on the number seven as the achievement of Shalom/Sabbath reflects a well-developed theological understanding of Messiah's inevitable ascent (as we will see later).

The number seven is a reference to union or completion in the first creation story which says that God's creative work lasted six days and God rested on the seventh day. The number seven in association with God at rest (sabbath) portrays the concept of completion or perfection of a relationship between Master and Servant, or between Creator and Creation, or between Husband and Bride.

The seven-part order of Genesis 1 suggests the more recent (eastern Afro-Asiatic) or Babylonian influence, which attaches seven to weddings as attested by Esther 1:5-11: "And when these days were expired, the king made a feast unto all the people that were present in Shushan the palace, both unto great and small, seven days, in the court of the garden of the king's palace. On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, and Abagtha, Zethar, and Carcas, the seven chamberlains that served in the presence of Ahasuerus the king, to bring Vashti the queen before the king with the crown royal, to shew the people and the princes her beauty..."

But the seven-part structure is not characteristic of the older (western Afro-Asiatic) view of the order of creation. The older system, reflected in Genesis 2 and 3, is binary. It upholds the binary distinctions of God-Man, Heaven-Earth, Male-Female, and Life-Death. These distinctions are found in Genesis 1 also, but the structure of Genesis 1 is seven-fold, not binary.

The number symbolism of Abraham's people (which has been re-interpreted in Kabbalah) points to the Triune God (1) whose Son, Jesus Christ, is the Logos (2) who by the Spirit (3) became incarnate of the Virgin Mary (5), lived on earth as a man who died (6) but, as God, rose from the dead, showing great mercy to all the world (4) and ascended as the Royal Son of God (7) who becomes the Royal Bridegroom (8) who enters the bridal chamber to consummate the marriage to his pure and spotless Bride, the Church (9) and from that union will be born a new reality, a new world (10).

Genesis 2-3 addresses the relationship of God (1) and Logos (2), a common theme among the western Afro-Asiatics. The bards of the Bambara of Uganda recite this praise of the generative power of the Logos:

The Word is total:
it cuts, excoriates
forms, modulates
perturbs, maddens
cures or directly kills
amplifies or reduces
According to intention
It excites or calms souls.

The idea of the Logos in Genesis seems strange to many because they don't think of Genesis as being about the Son of God. However, as the kinship pattern of Abraham's people reveals, they were motivated to preserve the bloodline through the mothers by an expectation that a Ruler-Priest-Savior would be born from them whose radiance would be a light to the nations. And they were right!

As linguistics, climatology, anthropology and archaeology collaboratively suggest, this expectation was spread by Afro-Asiatic ruler-priests who controlled the large water systems from west central Africa to the Indus River Valley aound 12,000 years ago. They believed that God, who desires Sabbath communion with us, accomplishes this through the Blood of His Son and eternal Priest. The expectation of this Salvation is first found in Genesis 3:15: Thus the Lord God said to the serpent... 'I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He shall bruise your head, and you shall strike at his heel.'

For Jews the Exodus is the central event of their corporate consciousness whereby God delivered them and established a special relationship with them as His own holy possession. For Christians the central event is the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whereby atonement is made through the shedding of His Blood. We might argue that these events are at odds, the first locating atonement through obedience to the Law and the second locating atonement through Jesus' obedience to the Father. But in both events God is working with a specific line of Afro-Asiatic ruler-priests. It is from this line that Jesus enters the world to bring salvation to sinners according to the ancient expectation.

Humanity's Fallen Existence

Question number five of the "Nine Meaty Questions" sent in by a reader of Just Genesis is "Do you think the fall was eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, or was that just symbolic for some other disobedience?"

Answer: It don't think that the fallen existence of humanity can be explained simply as the result of eating from the tree of knowledge. There is more to this story!

Eating is an earthly pleasure and this story reveals how easily we are tempted to gluttony. St. Gregory (Pope of Rome) preached that "A man can use the world as if he were not using it, if he makes all external needs minister to the support of his life without allowing them to dominate his soul. They remain external to him and under his control, serving him without halting his soul's drive to higher things... no created pleasure in the world should ensnare you."

The idea that eating of a particular plant can make you wise is common among tribal peoples and shamans employ phytohallucinogins to induce trace states during which they receive knowledge from the spirits. According to Amazon shamans, the cosmic serpent taught their ancestors which plants to mix to overcome the body’s natural protection. Combining ingredients allows the DMT in the ayahuasca to produce its hallucinogenic effect when orally ingested. The vine also contains harmaline which can cause vomiting and diarrhea, but it doesn’t have an affect on shamans who develop a tolerance to its emetic and purgative effects over time. However they do not develop a tolerance for ayahuasca’s hallucinogenic effects. Read more about this here.

Here are some responses from readers:

Anonymous wrote: "The fall is a description of failing to obey and call on God for help in obeying. The real fall is not saying they're sorry."

Mairnéalach wrote: "The tree of knowledge of good and evil is a symbol. Until men get deceived by Satan, they enjoy a naive freedom from shame. Once they listen to Satan and disobey God, they have guilt and shame. The reason I say this is symbolic is because human experience recapitulates this disobedience and this revelation of shame constantly. Therefore, I may as well be Adam myself. The tree is the source of my tragic sympathy with the first man."

We must note that there are two trees mentioned in Genesis 2-3 and the one that Adam was commanded not to eat of was "in the middle of the garden" (Gen. 3:3).

St. John Chrysostom (347-407 A.D.) held that the first humans were created midway between corruption and incorruption and were free to choose. It is like the story (Deut. 27:11-26) of the Israelites gathered in the valley between Mount Gerizim (of blessing) and the Mount Ebal (of cursing) and God telling them to "Choose life!"

The Fathers speak of the tree in the middle of the garden as having both a material presence (literal existence) and as representing a state of being (symbolic of being created "midway"). Adam stretched out his hand and took of the fruit of that tree. Christ stretched out his arms on the Tree (Cross) and broke the curse of Adam. The Cross, like the tree in Paradise, literally existed but is also a state of being. Christian often speak of "walking the way of the Cross" or of "taking up the Cross." When, by faith and God's grace, we lift up the Cross we choose life.

Let us return to St. Gregory who poses the choice each human faces daily. He wrote: "If the object of love is what is good, then the soul should take its delight in the higher good, the things of heaven. If the object of fear is what is evil, then we should keep before ourselves the things that are eternally evil. In this way, if the soul sees that we should have a greater love and a greater fear about what concerns the next life, it will never cling to this life. To help us achieve all this we have the help of the mediator between God and man. Through HIM we shall obtain all this the more quickly, the more we burn with a great love for HIM, who lives and reigns with the Father and the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever. Amen."

Telling My Story

A Priestess Comes to Repentance
Alice C. Linsley

A reader of Just Genesis who is interested in what I have written about the Priesthood has asked that I tell my story, something that I am reticent to do because I don’t enjoy talking about myself. This is the third person who has asked me to explain how I moved from being an Episcopal priest to an Orthodox laywoman who believes that Holy Tradition precludes women being priests. So I will attempt to put the events in order and tell the tangled tale.

There is risk of giving offense to those who believe, as I once did, that the Bible doesn’t prohibit women priests, and that this question is not Christological and does not touch the essentials of salvation. If you are offended by reading this, then take C.S. Lewis’ advice to his reader in Mere Christianity – “Leave it alone.” Better to leave it, for one never knows how God may impress upon you a certain point that offers health to the soul. Perhaps we can agree at least on this: that God does desire the health of our souls. And it is in this spirit that I offer what I am about to say.

To tell this story I will need to speak of three aspects which, like three interwoven threads, give texture and depth to the telling. The three aspects touch on (1) my personal life; (2) the parish that presented me for ordination, and (3) the situation in the Episcopal Church USA in the early-1980s.

The Situation in my Personal Life

I was first struck (shocked…really) by the thought of becoming a priest while attempting to keep my children warm during a winter snowstorm in Malvern, Pennsylvania. My husband was gone on a school trip and I was unable to reach him by phone when the furnace in our rented house stopped working because we had run out of fuel. Before leaving, my husband had failed to pay the heating bill and the fuel company refused to deliver until it was paid. I discovered that our bank account had about $15.00 and the fuel bill was about $100.00. Fortunately, we had a fireplace and some split wood, so I closed off the other rooms of the house, covered the windows with blankets, and made sleeping pallets for the children by the fire.

After they were asleep, I began to pray. The Lord knows that my husband was never a responsible provider and that he had a straying eye. The straying became a problem about a year before I finished seminary studies, when he began an affair with the women he married shortly after our divorce in 1987. But this snowstorm caused me to recognize that survival was going to depend on my getting a job and managing some of my income to provide for my children’s needs.

And so as I sat with a heavy heart looking into the fire, I prayed, “Lord, what do you want me to do?” And it was then that the thought came to me that I should be a priest. I am not saying that God gave me that answer, only that the thought came to my mind clearly and so instantly that I was taken back, for as far as I know, I had never consciously considered such a calling.

My immediate reaction to the thought was negative. I wanted to be a teacher, although I didn’t want to spend my life teaching high school Spanish. For the past 7 years I had been a stay-at-home mom, raising children and vegetables. A young Evangelical priest had enlisted me to teach a Ladies’ Bible Study at the church and I enjoyed this immensely more than I had enjoyed teaching Spanish before my children were born. So my heart yearned not to be a priest, but to teach in the Church. Bear this in mind because it speaks directly to what has gone wrong in the Episcopal Church – namely that women are guaranteed pay only if they work as Priests.

But before we move to the situation in my parish – the Church of the Good Samaritan in Paoli, Pennsylvania – let me tell you how faithfully our Lord attended to my family’s needs on that frigid day when the roads were covered with drifting snow. When I couldn’t reach my husband, I called his school and explained our situation. About two hours later a stranger appeared on my doorstep and handed me an envelope with cash to pay the fuel bill. I have lost count of how often our great God has provided for my needs. Not a day passes without some gift from above though I am unworthy that HE should visit me.

The Situation in my Parish

The Church of the Good Samaritan may be known to some of you because it was founded as a mission of the Church of the Good Shepherd in Rosemont, Pennsylvania. Others may recognize my home parish by one of its well-known members – Dr. David Virtue whose Anglican news blog is widely read. It is wonderful that an Anglo-catholic parish should plant what became an Evangelical parish and that the two should stand together in resisting the heretical and corrupt leadership of the Diocese of Pennsylvania and The Episcopal Church.

At the time when my family began worshipping there it was a large and thriving congregation, and I believe it still is, even in the face of the many trials faced by right-believing parishes in the Diocese of Pennsylvania, the spawning ground for two women bishops, several lesbian priests (one of whom, from Maryland, has been selected to run for suffragan bishop of Los Angeles), numerous other confused women priests, a deposed diocesan bishop against whom criminal charges have been brought and sustained… and strangely, me.

I was the first women put forward for ordination from the Church of the Good Samaritan and the decision to endorse me did not come easily. The Rector was Daniel Kilmer Sullivan, a tradition-minded priest who struggled with this decision. His assistant, the priest who had enlisted me to teach the Ladies’ Bible study, read Scripture apart from Holy Tradition and therefore saw no impediment to my being ordained. I believe that he argued his case to the Rector most persuasively. And possibly, the Rector’s wife took up my cause as well.

Still, Father Dan did not rush the matter. From the time I first broached the subject to him to the decision of the Vestry to endorse me was at least 18 months. And I know that much prayer went into this decision. The weight that tipped the scales came, I believe, from the Diocesan leadership. The Rt. Rev. Lyman Ogilby was retiring and it was almost a certainty that the new Diocesan would support the ordination of women. As it turned out, Bishop Allen Bartlett and his feminist wife supported every radical cause, and it was Bishop Bartlett who ordained me. I left the Diocese before Bishop Bennison arrived to further compromise the Church’s integrity.

The Situation in the Diocese of Pennsylvania

What I didn’t understand then, but have since come to see, is that the ordination of women was the proverbial “foot in the door” and that door would swing wide open to non-celibate homosexual clergy. Bishop Ogilby and Bishop Charles E. Bennison were among the bishops of the Episcopal Church who signed the "We Too" statement for Homosexual Roman Catholics, prepared by Brian McNaught and submitted in November 1975 to all Roman Catholic bishops. It is not a coincidence that the in-your-face ordination of the eleven women, several of whom were recognized lesbians, happened in Philadelphia in 1974.

There had always been some contention between the conservative clergy of the Church of the Good Samaritan and the liberal leaders of the Diocese of Pennsylvania. I have no doubt that there were some backroom conversations between the Rector and the Bishop that involved a certain amount of pressure to conform to the “new thing” that was being ascribed to our changeless God. I stepped into this muddle with the aspiration to be a priest and, not being lesbian or a disclaimer of God’s Word, I must have been seen as a reasonably good candidate. Eighteen years would pass before this priestess would come to repentance.

Telling My Story (Part Two) is here.

Extent of the Fall

Question number four of the Nine Meaty Questions is: "If there were several original human couples, were they all involved in the fall?"

Answer: Mitochondrial samples suggest that all humans descend from more than one original mother. We receive our mitochondria from our mothers, so mitochondria studies trace bloodline through the mother, as did Abraham's people.

Genetists have identified 9 genetic groupings or "haplogs" for the human race. This would be no surprise to the Gikuyu who believe that the First Parents had 9 daughters.

Or perhaps the first man had multiple wives (suggested by Genesis), or there may have been multiple sets of original parents (not excluded by Genesis and suggested by linguistics).

We may never know the mechanism whereby 9 haplogs came to be, but we do know that all human beings were created by God, not as machines, but as creatures with the freedom to choose. Our free will is most free when our souls are spiritually healthy by God's grace at work in us.

Sometimes we choose righteousness, seeking restored communion with our Creator and only Savior. We are able to do this by God's grace. Sometimes we choose to rebel against the Creator and the created order, and when we choose this path, we are aided in our rebellion by Satan, the destroyer.

The universal extent of the Fall is evident from the universal extent of death. As all humans die, it is evident that all humans are under the curse of death, a curse that has been undone by the Incarnation, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

God understands our nature better than we understand ourselves. HE knows that we are but dust and to dust we shall return. HE knows the extent of our days, that we wither like the grass. HE knows when we do good and receives our good deeds as being done unto HIM (Matt. 25:40). HE knows when we fail to do good and recieves our failings as being done unto HIM (Matt. 25:45). HE knows when we are being led to do evil by dark spirits. HE knows when the angels of light surround, protect and guide us. HE knows that evil ultimately goes down in defeat.

His grace and mercy extend higher and deeper than the curse.

So while none can escape sin and death, all may receive the gift of eternal life through true repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, who is one with the Father and the Holy Spirit. By His death He has trampled down death and by His life He restores life.

The Making of Man

Alice C. Linsley


Number three of the "Nine Meaty Questions" is "Do you believe in evolution of Man, or was he created out of dust, fully formed?"

Answer: I believe that from the first appearance of Man about 3.5 million years ago, Man has been a special creation of God, made in the Divine Image and therefore unique among creatures. I believe that Mankind is part of a fixed order of creation, meaning that He experiences change in form but not in essence. Further, I believe that the survival and technological development of humans has been superintended in a personal way by the Creator and that the Bible is a reliable account of a certain group of humans (Afro-Asiatics) from whom Jesus Christ, the Son of God, became Incarnate according to an extraordinarily ancient expectation.

Question number three, as worded, assumes that evolution of Man and creation of Man are irreconcilable ideas. Yet many who say they believe the Bible think that Man "evolves" as a fully formed creation of God. There is a good deal of this thinking among Roman Catholics and Protestants who have been influenced by modernism.

Mairnéalach, a reader of Just Genesis has articulated this position very well. Here is her answer to the question: "This question poses a false dichotomy, because it wants to insist a man cannot be created out of dust nor fully formed if he evolved. This is not true. An evolved man is still made out of dust, and he is still fully formed, as long as God's breath is in him. If there were creatures who were genetic precursors to the first real man, then they were not men, not in God's image, nor fully formed. They were mere beasts, until God finished their full formation with the gift of his breath. This is why scripture speaks of ungodliness as being 'as a beast', because it is a rejection of the gift of God's breath, and an insistence on behaving in the crude manner that we were before he put his breath in us."

In this view, "genetic precursors" of Man are not human in the biblical sense, that is, they were not created in the image of God and given life by God's breath. The problem with this explanation is simply the lack of physical evidence for genetic precursors. Primate fossils can be classified as either human or ape if sufficient fossil remains are recovered, especially in cases where artifacts are found or there is evidence of cooking fires.

In other words, convergence evolution lacks substantive physical evidence, as even evolutionists admit. The nearly complete skulls of people who lived 160,000 years ago are, in the words of paleontologist Tim White, "like modern-day humans in almost every feature."[1] Roux, a French geneticist, has stated "Evolutionary convergence at the molecular level is presumed to be widespread, but is poorly documented."[2] Convergent evolution is an interpretation, not an unbiased presentation of data.

Were Adam and Eve the first parents, they would have been created around 4 million years ago. Yet the rulers listed in Genesis 4 and 5 can be placed in history, so there is a disconnect between the story of Adam and Eve and the story of Cain and Seth. This is critical to understanding Genesis correctly.

Randy Beard has written, "I have always been curious about the land of Nod. If Adam and Eve were the first man and woman that God created, who were the people in the land of Nod created by? Were they not created in the image of God? Why doesn't Genesis explore their creation or beginnings?"

Obviously Randy sees that there is a problem if we read Genesis as a history text. The land of Nod/Nok already had a name, a ruler and laws. He wonders if God created the Nokites. The answer is that God created all humans, but the author of Genesis isn't telling us about all humans, only about those from whom the Son of God would become incarnate. That Genesis provides a detailed list of rulers (Gen. 4 and 5) descending, not from Adam and Eve, but from Nok, means that the Nokites are numbered among Jesus' distant ancestors.

Lisa Ransdell asked a similar question: "I was just curious if you believe that people outside the garden were created? If so what is the purpose for the garden, Adam and Eve? Do you have any time frame that you believe this was all created or do you believe in evolution?"

Suppose that Cain and Seth came from the Garden of Eden. According to Genesis, the Land of Nod is "to the east of Eden" and Cain went there when he was banished after murdering his brother. The Nigerian philologist, Modupe Oduyoye, has noted that the Hebrew words for Nod נוד and Nok נוך are virtually identical. So the Garden would be to the west of Nok, which is in the Jos Plateau of Nigeria. That would place Eden somewhere near the largest monument ever found in Africa - Eredo, on the Atlantic coast of Nigeria, less than 150 miles from Ife, which according to the Yoruba, is where God created the First Parents. It is interesting to note also that the Hahm/Yoruba word for garden or virgin forest is "egan" which appears to be the etiology of the Hebrew Eden and cognate to the Hebrew "gan", meaning garden.

Some believe that the creation of Man out of dust is not to be taken literally. A reader made this comment: "This is a literary description: man is formed from the materials of this world and given God's image and life breath." But this explanation neglects the fact that the story of the creation of Man, and all ancient creation stories, come from pre-literate tribal peoples, so it can't be understood as simply a "literary description". Instead, the Adam and Eve story must be understood in the context of African origin-ancestor stories, which are the only close parallels to the story of Adam and Eve.

The motif of first man and first woman is very common in African sacred story. According to the Yoruba of Nigeria, the Supreme God, Olorun, molded the first man and first woman and breathed into them life and sent them forth to settle the earth. They say that the center of this creative activity was Ife, the dwelling place of their First Ancestors.

The story of the first ancestors of the Gikuyu contains many of the motifs found in Genesis. There is first Man Gikuyu and first Woman Mumbi. There is a Tree of Life and a sacred mountain. And the story involves the birth of nine daughters (interesting since the Afro-Asiatic number system was base nine.) As with all the African stories, these stories are clearly intended for oral transmission from generation to generation.

NOTES

1 Read the report on the 160,000 year old Ethiopian fossils here.

2. Roux et al, Structural analysis of the nurse shark (new) antigen receptor (NAR): Molecular convergence of NAR and unusual mammalian immunoglobulins, found here.


Related reading:  YEC Dogma is NOT Biblical; Theories of Creation: An overview

Days of Creation: Literal or Figurative?

Alice C. Linsley

Today I'll take up the second question sent in by a reader of Just Genesis. The question is: "Do you believe in a literal 6-day creation?"

Answer: While Genesis is a reliable source of anthropological information about the ancient Afro-Asiatics, it is not a scientific text in the empirical sense. It emerges from an ancient and eastern worldview and must be understood in that context. In that context the number 6 is symbolic and the days of creation are not necessarily 24-hour days, as St. Augustine recognized in his The Literal Meaning of Genesis translated and annotated by John Hammond Taylor, S.J. (Newman Press, New York, 1982, Volume I, Book 8, Chapter 2, pp. 35-36.)

St. Augustine begins his study of Genesis by laying down the following principle: “If anyone wishes to interpret in a literal sense everything written in this book, that is to understand it only according to the letter of the text, and in doing this he avoids blasphemy and explains everything in agreement with the Catholic faith, not only is he not to be discouraged, but he should be considered an outstanding interpreter worthy of great praise. But if there is no way of understanding a passage in a devout sense worthy of God without assuming that it has been set forth in figures and enigmas, we should remember that we have the authority of the apostles, who solved so many enigmas in the books of the Old Testament, and we should stay with the kind of interpretation which we have adopted with the help of Him who bids us ask, seek and knock. Thus, our purpose should be to explain all these figures of things according to the Catholic faith, whether the matter belongs to history or prophecy, without prejudice to a better and more exact treatment which we or others, whom the Lord is pleased to enlighten may subsequently undertake.”

St. Augustine held that we should be willing to reconsider our ideas about creation/reality as new information becomes available, but he never entertains the idea that new information might contradict biblical revelation. He is almost unique among the Church Fathers in interpreting the six days of creation in a figurative sense, but as an African he was aware of the figurative quality of sacred story telling among Africans.

St. Augustine explains: "The sacred writer was able to separate in the time of his narrative what God did not separate in time in His creative act." In his view, the six days of creation convey the logical order of and relationship of created things, rather than a passage of time. He wrote, "But in the beginning He created all things together and completed the whole in six days, when six times he brought the 'day' which he made before the things which He made, not in a succession of periods of time but in a plan made known according to causes."

Though most of the other Fathers don't agree with him, they always treat St. Augustine's view with great respect. They recognize that the Hebrew word "yom", meaning "day" is used elsewhere in the Bible to indicate an unspecified period of time.

The Question of Chronology

While Genesis 1 appears to be a chronological telling of creation and a chronological accounts of the lives of the Patriarchs, detailed study reveals that some events must be understood to have taken place at nearly the same time or prior to the events being described. For example, the narrative of Abraham’s wives has Sarah’s burial before it speaks of Abraham’s marriage to Keturah. This creates the impression that Abraham married Keturah after Sarah died, but that is not the case. Abraham married Keturah after he settled in the land of Canaan, his mother’s homeland. This second marriage enabled Abraham to gain territory in Canaan.

For St. Augustine this idea was so important that he included this in his Christian Instruction, explaining: “In the Scriptures some things are related in such a way that they seem to be following the order of time or occurring in chronological succession, when actually the narrative, without mentioning it, refers to previous events that had been left unmentioned. Unless we understand this distinction, we shall fall into error. For example, we find in Genesis: ‘And the Lord God planted a paradise of pleasure in the east; and there He put the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food.’ This last mentioned event would seem to have occurred after God had made the man and placed him in paradise. After both these facts have been mentioned briefly (that is, that God planted a paradise and there ‘placed man whom He had formed’), the narrative turns back by means of recapitulation and relates what had been planted and that God brought forth out of the ground all manner of trees fair to behold and pleasant to eat of.” (St. Augustine, Christian Instruction 2:36.52)

The Symbolism of the Number Six

The number six is significant because it represents the material world. In Jewish mysticism six pertains to the flesh, reproduction, and the land. Among the ancient Afro-Asiatics it carried the same meaning as its factors are 2 and 3. In Genesis the number two represents a kingdom or territory established through the first-born sons of the ruler-priests by their 2 wives. The lines of these 2 sons intermarried, insuring that the Son of God would be born to their priestly families. Isaac, first-born of Sarah married a half-sister, just as his father Abraham married a half-sister when he took Sarah as his wife.

The number three represents a confederation or tribal unity. This is why we find 3 sons listed so often in Genesis. Consider these examples:

Gen. 4 - Cain, Abel, Seth
Gen. 4 - Jubal, Jabal, Tubal
Gen. 7 - Ham, Shem, Japheth
Gen. 11 - Haran, Nahor, Abraham
Gen. 22 - Huz, Uz, Buz

The number six then symbolizes man's dominion over the Earth and the fruit of the union of man and wife. Nothing new is created after the 6 day. All of creation is complete, but awaiting day 7, the Sabbath.

This brings us to another point about the six "days" of creation. They are followed by the seventh which refers to union, as in marriage. Genesis 1 says that God's creative work lasted for six days and that God rested from all His work on the seventh day. The number seven in association with God at rest (sabbath) portrays the concept of completion or perfection of a relationship between Master and Servant, or between Creator and Creation, or between Husband and Bride. We find evidence for this throughout the Afro-Asiatic world.

There were seven urns at the wedding in Cana of Galilee where Jesus Christ turned water to wine. In Jewish weddings the Sheva Brachot (7 marriage blessings) are recited under the huppah and the wedding feast lasts 7 days.

Related reading: Biblical Evidence of an Old Earth; On Gaps and Overlaps; Millions of Years Between Genesis 4:1 and Genesis 4:17