The Midwest Conservative Journal

THE DOG THAT DIDN'T BARK

Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:23:38 GMT

Chris Epting and the boys and girls at the North American branch of Affirming Anglican Catholicism send their letter off to the Lambeth Commission. To begin with, the AfAngCats can't for the life of them figure out why everyone's so bent out of shape about Gene Robinson:

Affirming Anglican Catholicism respectfully suggests that ECUSA�??s action with respect to the diocesan election of the Rev. Canon V. Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire and his subsequent confirmation at General Convention is an expression of the true catholicity of the universal Church as it seeks to respond to a local Church representing the Body of Christ in a particular place at a particular time, not a "communion-breaking" event.

After all, we Americans are democrats:

Today, ECUSA continues to be governed according to essentially the same model as originally conceived by White at its founding: acting as the General Convention on the national level, and locally in the diocesan convention, where the community of faith (representing bishops, priests and the laity) participates directly and prayerfully in the governance of ECUSA in accordance with fundamentally American democratic principles.

New Hampshire's was a democratic decision, democratically arrived at. Three cheers for the red, white and blue and all that:

The decision to elect Canon Robinson as Bishop was made by the local community of faith assembled in the Diocese of New Hampshire in accordance with the polity of that Diocese and confirmed, after prayerful consideration, by the General Convention, in compliance with its canons, rules and regulations.

And it's not like New Hampshire rewrote the Bible or anything:

Such a lawful decision, as an exercise of human reason, after democratic dialogue and prayerful consideration, in no way can be considered a "communion-breaking" event �?? particularly when there is no contrary established doctrine of the Church "necessary to salvation" at issue.

Because we in the Episcopal Church haven't decided what we think about sexuality. Really. We're serious. Why are you laughing? Stop laughing:

In seeking to make any statement which might be construed as establishing or articulating authoritative Church doctrine with respect to the particular underlying issues of human sexuality, both the principle of catholicity and the long accepted Anglican belief that scripture on the one hand and tradition and reason/experience on the other mutually inform each other recommend a reserve in the rush to judgment.

We realize that it will take time before Anglican ~~bigots~~ ~~homophobes~~ ~~Nazis~~ ~~Klansmen~~ conservatives catch up to us so we're willing to suffer their existence for the time being:

The Church is only at the beginning of understanding the huge complexities of human sexuality as it relates to the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation. Time is needed to test whether homosexuality might not be more than a tolerated but diminished form of divine imaging in the human person.

This theological work on the reception of the full-range of human experience and its correlation to the "deposit of faith" is hardly complete and in many areas it has hardly begun. It is a virtue of Anglicanism to allow these disputed questions a "long lead." Only with time for reflection can the contours of God�??s catholicity for the Church �?? ever before us �?? be fully explored and our understanding of Christian personhood be expanded.

Because you can't do anything about it anyway. So sod off:

Affirming Anglican Catholicism respectfully maintains that ECUSA, having acted in accordance with its laws of polity as a particular local church established with its distinctive democratic principles of governance, is, therefore, not properly subject to any discipline or other form of intervention by the Anglican Communion or any commission appointed by it.

Did we happen to mention that we're all democrats here?

According to its democratic principles of governance, ECUSA trusts that the decisions of the communities of faith in the local churches of its several dioceses, arrived at after dialogue, prayerful consideration and, finally, democratic vote in compliance with the relevant canonical laws, rules and regulations, reflect the graced presence of the Holy Spirit in their midst. It recognizes that the United States of America is a vast country, in its own way as culturally diverse in some respects as some nations of the Communion are from one another.

ECUSA�??s federal form of polity accommodates that diversity and yet holds the national church together in the General Convention where local decisions are confirmed and national policies are established through a process of discernment, prayer, consensus and, ultimately democratic vote. From time to time, ECUSA, in the course of deciding issues of church governance, is called to evaluate changes in the culture in particular locations by consulting with the communities of faith of local churches through the democratic process.

Bottom line: we're better Anglicans than Peter Akinola could ever hope to be:

If to be in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury is to trust and respect each other to respond authentically to what the Holy Spirit is saying to the local Church in pursuit of its mission, then ECUSA�??s action should be regarded as a celebration of its participation in the Communion and not as an attempt to impair or break its relationship with the See of Canterbury or any other member of the Anglican Communion.

We want to keep talking to Anglican conservatives until they realize how wrong they are. But they're going to have to stop being so mean to us:

However, the principles and tradition that lie at the heart of Anglicanism and, indeed, form the foundation of ECUSA suggest that it is precisely at such times that the need for dialogue is paramount. Equally important is the need for patience: the passage of sufficient time for the dialogue to occur, for reason and understanding to ripen, for the experience of cultural change to mature among the people, for the Holy Spirit to work its ultimate will �?? and for this to happen without the stigma of reproach, reprimand, abandonment or censure or unseemly grasps at power.

Now if you'll excuse us, we have to go find out what the secular culture wants us to believe:

ECUSA has and is engaged in that process of dialogue - within itself and within the wider Communion. Within ECUSA, each diocese is finding its way �?? in its own time, at its own pace and in its own particular way �?? to respond to the changes that are reflected in the American culture with respect to issues of human sexuality, many of which invariably and necessarily affect the life of the local community of faith. As a national church, ECUSA is and will continue to work to hold those local and autonomous dioceses together as a strong worshipping community as they work to discern the will of the Holy Spirit for them as a community of faith and continue to seek to understand the full meaning of catholicity with respect to the issues that face the universal Church today.

Where to begin? I'm not sure I can do justice to this much Episcopal hypocrisy and mendacity. We have no idea why the rest of the Anglican world is so angry and the rest of the Anglican world can't do anything about it anyway, so there. We desperately want to remain in communion with other Anglican churches but only on our terms; if you think we're apostates, then just shut up. And if an Anglican diocese somewhere, "after dialogue, prayerful consideration and, finally, a democratic vote," decides that unrepentant homosexual Anglicans ought to be publicly whipped and then excommunicated, I seriously doubt that Eppie would invoke the word "democratic" so often.

The AfAngCat "Holy Spirit" is nothing more than a divine notary who exists to validate whatever pops into Episcopal heads; do they seriously believe that "decisions of the communities of faith in the local churches of its several dioceses, arrived at after dialogue, prayerful consideration and, finally, democratic vote in compliance with the relevant canonical laws, rules and regulations, reflect the graced presence of the Holy Spirit?" And if Epting and the other AfAngCats really think that the sexuality question hasn't been settled and that ECUSA is still engaged in a "dialogue" about it, then they are as impressive a group of liars as the Episcopal Church contains.

But the most telling thing about this letter is what it doesn't include. From one end of the thing to the other, there is not one quotation from the Bible. If this were an actual issue of actual Biblical justice and an actual move of the actual Holy Spirit, I would think that Epting and his group could have come up with at least one. If, contrary to the assertions of every Anglican conservative in the world, "there is no contrary established doctrine of the Church 'necessary to salvation' at issue" here, then let Epting and his group cite a Bible verse or two to bolster their case. The AfAngCats have admitted as clearly as they possibly could that the supporters of Gene Robinson don't have a Scriptural leg to stand on

VOUS N'ENTREREZ PAS -

Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:13:07 GMT

Ariel Sharon est un homme très chanceux.

LONE PRAIRIE

Mon, 19 Jul 2004 17:48:23 GMT

Andrew and Judith Kleinfeld explain the difference between Americans and everybody else:

Because the cowboy melded the aristocratic virtues of honor and indifference to material things with the democratic values of self-reliance, discipline, and independence, this myth appealed deeply to our national character. Freedom imposes burdens--isolation, inequality, and anxiety about whether our choices are wise. The cowboy ideal stimulates in us the vigor to attempt difficult new tasks.

When foreigners see us as cowboys, they are not mistaken. As a people, we still exhibit a high degree of courage, independence, aggressiveness, competence, and spirit. Diplomatic Europeans have responded to tyranny over the latest century mostly with accommodation, like the townspeople in High Noon. Cowboy Americans, on the other hand, have hungered to confront and defeat tyrants, in real life as in legend. Our Western experience--love of freedom, little deference to wealth and status, an idealistic drive for justice, and a willingness to be ferocious toward these ends--continues to drive much of what is best about America.

So can they call us cowboys? You bet. Because we are. Our response ought to be that of the Virginian when he was described as a son of a bitch: "When you call me that, smile!"

Read the whole thing.

MERCY KILLING

Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:24:52 GMT

Irrelevant church passes stupid resolution:

The 216th General Assembly approved several measures opposing the Israeli occupation of Palestine Friday, including a call for the corporate witness office of the Presbyterian Church (USA) to begin gathering data to support a selective divestment of holdings in multinational corporations doing business in Israel/Palestine.

"Multinational corporations doing business Israel/Palestine," Gracie? Does McDonald's go on the list if they open one up in Beersheba? And where the heck is "Israel/Palestine" anyway? If I didn't know better, I'd swear the PCUSA thought those two terms were interchangeable. Then, of course, there was this old bong hit:

Divestment is one of the strategies that U.S. churches used in the 1970s and '80s in a successful campaign to end apartheid in South Africa.

Let's see. South Africa. A minority refused to grant rights to the vast majority in order to preserve its own power. Israel. Fighting for its national existence against nations who have tried to wipe it off the map ever since its founding and who continue to try. Yeah, that's exactly the same. This is as close as the ~~Posturing Frauds~~ Presbyterians got to even-handedness in this thing:

The divestment action also calls for the United States to be an �??honest, even-handed broker for peace�?? and calls for �??more meaningful participation�?? in peace negotiations by Russia, Germany, France and others. It also encourages the U.S., Israeli and Palestinian governments to �??lay aside arrogant political posturing and get on with forging negotiated compromises that open a path to peace.�??

To translate, "honest, even-handed broker for peace" means that the Presbies think that the US should pay for Palestinian ammo. "More meaningful participation" by Russia, Germany, France and others means that the PCUSA wants to get some anti-Israel sentiment in the game so that the US will be outvoted when the next "peace plan" gets conjured up at the UN. And "arrogant political posturing" on Israel's part is Jerusalem's efforts to see that its citizens are not blown to pieces or maimed for life by Muslims. And since nobody anywhere cares what the PCUSA thinks about anything at all, they felt free to take a few more shots at Israel:

In other actions related to Israel, the Assembly voted by large margins to condemn Israel's construction of a �??security wall�?? across the West Bank; disavow Christian Zionism as a legitimate theological stance and direct the denomination's Middle East and Interfaith Relations offices to develop resources on differences between fundamental Zionism and Reformed theology; and study the feasibility of sponsoring economic-development projects in Palestine and putting an action plan in place by 2005.

In case you needed any more convincing why liberal Protestantism must die.

REALISM

Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:36:29 GMT

Sylvester J. Brown, Jr. is an African-American columnist for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. He is a liberal who would rather that John Kerry wins in November. Which makes the following all the more interesting:

President George W. Bush deserves credit for his candor, if for nothing else.

Black leaders and Democrats have been bashing Bush for refusing to attend the 95th annual NAACP convention in Philadelphia last week.

When asked why he skipped the convention, Bush didn't mince words.

"You've heard the rhetoric and the names they've called me," Bush said. "I would describe my relationship with the current leadership as basically nonexistent."

Now, that's a refreshing, nonpolitical response. Basically, the president said, "Hey, they don't like me. I don't like them. Why should I kiss up to an organization that opposes my party and my politics?"

That would be a legitimate question. Another question is why the NAACP leaders even expected Bush to attend their conference given the way they've treated him.

Last year, chairman Julian Bond said Republicans appeal "to the dark underside of American culture." In June, he said the conservatives' idea of equal rights is the "American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side by side." Bond and NAACP president Kweisi Mfume have repeatedly claimed that Bush practices "racial division."

John Kerry, as expected, ~~sucked up~~ preached the usual Democratic sermon:

Sensing relationship trouble, Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry jumped at the opportunity to woo conventioneers. With Sister Sledge's song "We Are Family" as a convenient backdrop, Kerry added fuel to simmering racial embers. Bush has divided the nation by "race and class," he preached. Under his leadership, Kerry promised, the door would always be open for dialogue with black leaders and Democrats would respect and respond to the needs and issues of black voters.

What needs? What issues? Kerry made minor promises based on his assessment of black needs. He committed to nothing substantial because NAACP leaders demanded nothing of substance.

Kerry's appearance was a familiar, kissy-faced, well-choreographed political routine. In the end, the NAACP promised to do what they planned all along: support Kerry's campaign.

Brown thinks that George W. Bush need not worry about what dinosaurs like the NAACP think about anything:

To President Bush: Don't sweat the NAACP. Dust off your "faith-based initiative" plan and rework it as an "urban economic growth" plan. Target young people like Russell Simmons' Hip-Hop Summit crowd. Promote a realistic plan to establish businesses, increase home ownership and rebuild communities. Recruit Rep. Jim Talent and hire former Oklahoma Congressman J.C. Watts, who have promoted such proposals.

The Democrats and the NAACP desperately need to learn what decade and millenium it is:

Democrats: Lose the lip service and scary tales of racist Republican conspiracies. It's old and annoying.

Finally, my advice to the NAACP and other influential black leaders: Lead. Decide and define your own agenda. Demand real commitments in exchange for the votes you supposedly represent.

I don't know if that's a good thing or not. Because if it ever happens, the Republican Party will cease to exist.

PALESTINIAN SUMTER?

Sun, 18 Jul 2004 12:29:04 GMT

Is the long-awaited Palestinian civil war about to begin?

Gunmen angry over Yasser Arafat's overhaul of his security forces burned down Palestinian Authority offices in Gaza on Sunday.

The internal Palestinian unrest was the most serious in more than a year. In 2003, protests against corruption forced Arafat to promise reforms and appoint a new government, led by Mahmoud Abbas. He resigned after only four months.

Dozens of militants belonging to an extreme offshoot of Arafat's Fatah movement stormed an office building in the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis shortly after midnight to protest Arafat's appointment of his cousin, Moussa Arafat, as chief of security.

One security guard was wounded in a gun battle with the militants, who seized control of the building, stole weapons, and burned two offices and several cars parked nearby, witnesses and officials said.

Dissatisfaction with Arafat's reforms spread throughout the Palestinian territories, though violence was confined to the Gaza Strip.

"Arafat now is at a crossroads. Either he makes a revolution inside his authority or the Palestinian people will make a revolution against him," said Ahmed Jamous, a student at Ramallah's Bir Zeit University.

"The people want elections and good government, not to be ruled by a group of corrupt thieves."

In Gaza late Saturday, about 2,000 protesters �?? many of them armed �?? marched to the Palestinian Legislative Council building.

"There is a consensus in the Palestinian nation and not just in Gaza that what is happening now can't continue," Soufian Abu Zaida, a Fatah leader in Gaza told Israel Radio.

We know from our own history that the Founding Fathers put off dealing with the issue of slavery(to the point of excising Mr. Jefferson's magnificent anti-slavery passages from the Declaration of Independence) with the expectation that the problem would somehow take care of itself. The result of their procrastination was the worst war in the history of the world up until that time.

Throughout their history, the Palestinians have been so utterly obsessed with the destruction of Israel that they have refused to deal with their own societal corruption. But recent Israeli moves(the Gaza withdrawal, the West Bank wall, assasination of terrorist leaders, Israel's disinterest in the anti-Jewish dictates of "international law" and the UN, etc.) have driven home to the Palestinians that their supreme national goal, the one to which they've devoted their entire lives, indeed their national existence, isn't going to happen. And so someone must pay.

If this is, in fact, the start of the Palestinian civil war(and that is a big if), then Americans know that what will follow will not be pleasant. But it will be necessary. And even though this people celebrated 9/11, I will not celebrate the deaths, many of them innocent, that will result from this struggle. I will, however, pray that something noble emerges from it, something that will be worthy of some sort of independent state.

EYE OF THE BEHOLDER

Sat, 17 Jul 2004 12:04:56 GMT

The ECUSA isn't even pretending anymore. Compare this Episcopal Party Line Service story:

Nearly 30 years ago, on July 29, 1974, 11 women were ordained to the Episcopal priesthood in rites termed "irregular" in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On September 7, 1975, four more were ordained in Washington, D.C. And on September 16, 1976, General Convention approved the ordination of women.

Plans are being made across the church to commemorate the anniversary. For instance, the Episcopal Church's Office of Women's Ministries website offers "Thirty Ways to Celebrate Thirty Years of Women's Ordained Ministry," to be used between July 29, 2004 and September 16, 2006.

With this one:

Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, Ohio Bishop J. Clark Grew II, and Ohio Bishop-elect Mark Hollingsworth Jr. responded sternly to five retired Episcopal bishops and a diocesan bishop from Brazil who confirmed 110 individuals at a service held March 14 in an Orthodox church in Akron, Ohio, without the permission of the local diocesan bishop.

Bishop William Wantland, retired Bishop of Eau Claire, was the celebrant at the confirmation Eucharist, held at Presentation of Our Lord Orthodox Church in Akron. Bishop C. FitzSimons Allison, retired Bishop of South Carolina, preached, and Bishop Robinson Cavalcanti of Northern Brazil was a special guest whose presence was described in a press release issued by the American Anglican Council (AAC) as �??illustrating international support for the measures.�?? Also participating in the confirmations were Bishop Maurice Benitez, retired Bishop of Texas; Bishop William Cox, retired assistant bishop of Oklahoma; and Bishop Alex Dickson, retired Bishop of West Tennessee.

In January 2000, Allison and Dickson were part of a group that consecrated two American priests, John H. Rodgers and Charles H. Murphy, as bishops for what became the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA), a breakaway Anglican group operating under the auspices of the Provinces of South East Asia and Rwanda. In June 2001, they also participated in the irregular consecration of four additional bishops for the AMiA. Both actions were denounced by then-Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey as divisive.

Me, I think celebrating a canon violation sends the wrong message. But carefully note which one of these stories has quotes around the word "irregular" and which one doesn't. Note which violation of the canons was condemned and which one is to be commemorated. Remember all this the next time some liberal Episcopalian invokes the canons against church conservatives.

GOING FOR THE GOLD

Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:53:00 GMT

I know I once referred to Rowan Williams as Bozo the Archbishop but I'm seriously thinking about applying for this award:

The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Revd Dr Rowan Williams, has launched a bid to identify and encourage the most promising theological writers of the current age.

The Michael Ramsey Prize, which is being sponsored by the Lambeth Fund and administered by SPCK, commemorates the centenary of the birth of Michael Ramsey, the 100th Archbishop of Canterbury. The £15,000 award will recognise a published new work which, in the opinion of the judges, is saying "something new and compelling at the cutting edge of Christian thinking and that will make a serious contribution to the faith and life of the Church". Dr Williams will serve as one of the judges.

I hope it's open to Americans. And if the work has to be on paper, I guess I'm out. But if it does, I'm working on something right now that might qualify. Said the Editor, enigmatically.

"I'M A LIVIN' JOKE!"

Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:02:38 GMT

The common belief that Anglican churches are places where anything goes and where Anglican clergymen are allowed to say or do or think anything they want is a bald-faced lie. Because some sins are just too serious to ignore, like the one committed by this guy:

The Chancellor of the Diocese of Lichfield was this week considering his judgement in a case of an over-eager clergyman versus Canon Law specifications for font placements.

Canon Law specifications...FOR FONT PLACEMENTS?!!

The rare case was brought before ecclesiastical court after the Rector of Trentham, the Rev Nigel di Castiglione, and two churchwardens landed in the hot water for moving the font without the necessary consent, according to the Lichfield Diocesan spokesman.

"Moving the font without the necessary consent." You need...consent...in the C of E...to move...your...baptismal font. Oh my dear Lord. Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, PLEASE tell me that somebody's yanking my chain.

Local residents and the conservation officer of Stafford Borough Council launched a complaint after the unauthorised relocation of the font and the introduction of new carpeting over the church�??s �??rare�?? tiling last year.

Mr di Castiglione has apologised for breaching church planning laws, but maintains that the new position gives the font a �??closer focus with the other foci �?? the Holy Table and pulpit.�??

Idiot. If you'd just told people that you moved the font to better accomodate gay and lesbian parishioners like you were supposed to, the Diocese wouldn't have had to go to all this trouble.

The Rt Rev Christopher Hill, recently named as the next Bishop of Guildford, also contributed to the sensitive courtroom proceedings by giving evidence about the �??theological arguments about the position of fonts.�??

No. That is not possible. I did not just read those words. For if there are "theological arguments about the position of fonts," that means that someone must have spent time thinking them up. Which implies that he actually believed that church font position was not an unbelievably stupid topic. And that's too horrible an idea to contemplate. FYI. If this site should suddenly and without warning go silent for a very long period of time, don't worry about it. All that means is that I've gone insane.

The Bishop said he disapproved of the �??manner in which the change has been made�??, but said he was sympathetic to the application for a �??confirmatory faculty�?? rather than a Restoration Order.

Anglicans. The Grampa Simpsons of Christianity.

UPDATE: Apparently, nobody's yanking my chain at all. Go here, here, and here.

HE'S BAAACK! -

Mon, 15 Sep 2003 16:02:29 GMT

I just returned from the desert today. Posting to one's blog from Motel 6's turned out to be tougher than I thought it would be. I guess it can be done but that would necessitate knowing something about computers which pretty much leaves me out.

Anyway, I had a marvelous time and spent way too much money(which is kind of why I'm back now). MCJ 2003 World Tour pictures will be made available as soon as I get them developed. I'm going to have at the e-mail and will get back to posting as quickly as possible.

SHOWDOWN

Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:39:41 GMT

Rev. Christopher Leighton e-mailed this report of his recent meeting with Connecticut Episcopal Bishop Andrew Smith, reproduced here in its entirety:

To my brothers and sisters in Christ who prayed for me:

1) Thank you for your prayers and communications of encouragement. In response to prayer, I felt calm and strong.

2) My 35-minute meeting with Andrew Smith was one-on-one and frank.

3) He wanted to make sure I understood that the relationship of the six churches to him cannot continue at the "impasse". He sees only three possibilities for us. The first is that we will leave. The second is that we will stay, and accept his form of DEPO. And the third is that we do nothing, thinking that nothing will happen, but that he will take canonical initiatives against the clergy and their churches.

4) I listened and then was asked for any response. I responded with the following:

My response to his Pastoral Directive was to obey the summons to be present. I have tried to respect Andrew and his office during his years as Diocesan.

I made it clear that St. Paul's and I have no intentions of leaving the diocese or the Episcopal Church. I let him know that I heard firsthand from an individual that the diocesan office, explicitly a staff member, has been saying that "the seven churches are leaving". I asked Andrew to correct the situation and perception. To my knowledge, I have not heard of any church saying it was leaving. And in fact, on behalf of St. Paul's I said, "We're not threatening to leave. We're threatening to stay."

I reminded him that I was present as the rector of a parish whose vestry and parishioners are united. The vestry has made a decision to redirect funds. The vestry has requested Adequate Episcopal Oversight. There seems to be an untold story in Connecticut, and it is the impact that his actions are having on the laity. I was present, and so proud of my vestry, as they wrote the letter concerning DEPO, and each member individually signed it. Though I wasn't present at the other five churches as the letters were signed, I conveyed how impressed I was by all those signatures. Is it Andrew�??s intention to ignore the needs of these parishes?

My response about DEPO - The House of Bishops is offering DEPO to the end of reconciliation with those who disagree with recent actions of the Episcopal Church. I said it's an unusual form of reconciling work to unilaterally impose on an injured party a take-it-or-leave-it approach. I can't imagine two estranged parties in a marriage ever working it out if one had a plan that he or she insisted would work for the other, without any input from that party. It truly feels like Andrew is coming down the mountain from the House of Bishops. I asked if he would reconsider meeting with the vestries together. His agitation about them being a power bloc or a mini-diocese was countered by my observation that they are in agreement as to what are their needs, and that his version of DEPO doesn't meet their needs. I asked Andrew to consider putting aside concerns about power, and just meeting with a group that is fearful that he will pick them off individually.

I asked him what the hurry was. He had spoken that these conversations began in April, and that there had to be conclusion. I opined, "You've won. Why don't you just let things sit for a while?" He said he was soon to go on vacation, that he was expecting action when he returns in September. I told him I would communicate with St. Paul's. He will be calling me in early September.

GUILTY!!

Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:50:55 GMT

I used to think that there were only five sins left in the liberal Anglican church: racism, sexism, "homophobia," not recycling and not making a pilgrimage to the United Nations. Turns out there's a sixth, it's an extremely serious sin and every single person in the West, from the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain on down to that new baby girl your neighbors just brought home, is guilty of it and desperately needs to repent. That almost unpardonable sin is, of course, being born.

Don't even think about trying to deny it. Anglicans know all about you Westerners. Your three SUV's are each 45 feet long, get 2 miles to the gallon and smoke like steam locomotives. You don't have white tiger steaks for dinner every night; sometimes you have humpback whale ribs or manatee filets flown in. You spend your vacations hunting endangered species and then relaxing at that summer home you built on those 75,000 acres of rain forest you cheated that indigenous person out of and clear cut so that you could build your plastic mansion and still have enough room for the coal-burning power plant that heats it.

You suck. Just go away. Your very existence makes the Church of England physically ill:

Church of England harvest festival services could soon expect worshippers not only to thank God for an abundant crop but also to repent for sins against the environment and for oppression and inequality.

Congregations which traditionally gather around piles of bread, fruit and vegetables to sing "We plough the fields and scatter" will be asked to acknowledge their "selfishness in not sharing the earth's bounty fairly". They may also apologise for "our failure to protect resources for others" and for "inequality and oppression in the earth".

The new prayers are contained in the latest addition to the liturgy, the Common Worship: Times and Seasons, which is expected to be approved by the General Synod meeting in York tomorrow.

Another proposal which would have required all Church of England dioceses and parishes to spike their communion wine with cyanide "so that Church members will all die the horrible deaths they so richly deserve" was referred to a committee for further study.

During Rogationtide, which marks the blessing of the land, worshippers will be asked to pray to "free the exploited and oppressed" and long for "a harvest of justice, Lord we pray.'

One section reads: "For all those who depend on the earth for their daily food and fuel, whose forests are destroyed for the profit of a few, Lord we pray...

A Church spokesman said the prayers "reflected the reality of the global economy in which people recognised the need for fair trade and justice for everybody who produces our food. These are all suggested outlines for use with services that already exist."

But when asked why Anglicans should concern themselves with these questions since Jesus never explicitly condemned destroying forests for the profit of a few, the Church spokesman inexplicably hung up the telephone.

NO-GRIZ

Wed, 14 Jul 2004 12:43:35 GMT

Doug LeBlanc sends this one along. This is either one of the greatest breaches of church/state separation in a very long time or the Episcopal Diocese of Easton, which encompasses eastern Maryland, has just grooved a fast ball right down the middle for its orthodox members.

Seems that Maryland Episcopalians can now purchase special Maryland Episcopal license plates for their cars. It's an official Maryland plate, it's got the words "The Episcopal Church" on it and it contains the Episcopal shield. The Bishop of Easton's already got one.

I don't know what the character limits are on such a plate(I assume that they're no more than seven or so) but orthodox Maryland Episcopalians can have a great deal of fun if they can personalize these babies. They could have their plates say things like:

LEV2013

ROM-127

YEA-ACN

YEA-AAC

READMCJ

GO-CANN

DUNCAN

REPENT

Feel free to add any more you can think of.

THE STORY SO FAR

Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:14:35 GMT

Geoffrey Kirk sums up the last six years of Anglican history:

By a large majority (and despite a virtually incomprehensible speech from Rowan Williams to the contrary) the Lambeth Conference of 1998 resolved �?? amongst other things related to the Church�??s teaching on human sexuality �?? that �??This Conference �?� in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage.�??

The resolution went on �??This Conference cannot advise the legitimizing or blessing of same-sex unions, nor the ordination of those involved in same gender unions.�??

This clear statement of what the Church has always taught was treated by some (hysterically by Richard Holloway) as an attack on gays. Various bodies, including many American bishops, felt obliged to pledge further dialogue with homosexual groups and individuals, as though that were no part of the monitoring of the situation also recommended by the Conference.

Canadian and American liberals returned home and promptly lined their bird cages with the Lambeth resolutions:

Preparations were immediately set in train in the Episcopal Church of the United States and in the Anglican Church of Canada to do just the opposite of what the Lambeth Fathers had recommended. Rites were confected, unofficially used or adopted in a number of American dioceses, and most famously in the Diocese of New Westminster in Canada. Bishop Chane of Washington DC �??blessed�?? the �??union�?? of a priest of his diocese with a partner with whom he had been living for the past ten years.

While slapping down those who disagreed with them:

Meanwhile, Bishop Terence Buckle of the Yukon (with the support and encouragement of other Canadian bishops and Primates from other parts of the Communion) offered episcopal oversight to those parishes in the Diocese of New Westminster which held themselves to be alienated from their bishop as a result of the unilateral action of the diocese.

Archbishop Crawley (Metropolitan of the Province of British Columbia) promptly announced that he was initiating canonical proceedings against Bishop Buckle.

�??Bishop Buckle is acting unlawfully�??, Archbishop Crawley stated in a message to the members of the Anglican Church of Canada. �??Disciplinary proceedings against Bishop Buckle as provided in the canons have begun and will take their proper course �?� Bishop Ingham has formally inhibited him functioning in the Diocese of New Westminster, I �?� have required Bishop Buckle to respect that inhibition and to refrain from interfering with the life of the diocese of New Westminster�?��??

Certain Canadian laymen wondered why evil was now being called good and good evil:

Lay people from the parishes to which Bishop Buckle had offered pastoral care and oversight (the kind of oversight, be it remembered, in other circumstances, encouraged by the first Eames Commission) understandably asked why the Archbishop was so certain that Bishop Buckle had committed an ecclesiastical offence, and that Bishop Ingham (who had acted without sanction of the General Synod) had not done nothing of the kind.

Said Peter Turner, a lay member of the vestry of St Simon�??s Church, Vancouver : �??When a bishop offers pastoral care, this is not something which should be disciplined; it should be lauded. We hold that Bishop Ingham and now Archbishop Crawley are acting illegally. A year ago we presented a legal brief to Bishop Ingham claiming that blessing same-sex unions went beyond what a bishop and a diocese could lawfully do.�??

In the United States, the Episcopalians expressed their usual contempt for the rest of the Anglican world:

Meanwhile, back in the USA, the agenda was being advanced in a different but complementary way. A priest [Canon Gene Robinson], engaged in precisely the sort of relationship which the Lambeth Conference had found itself unable to �??advise�?? (and Bishop Ingham had been busy �??blessing�??), was elected to a diocesan bishopric, and gained the necessary consents for ordination.

Which election prompted a Primates meeting which produced this warning:

�??If his [Gene Robinson�??s] consecration proceeds, we recognize that we have reached a crucial and critical point in the life of the Anglican Communion and we have had to conclude that the future of the Communion itself will be put in jeopardy. In this case, the ministry of this one bishop will not be recognized by most of the Anglican world, and many provinces are likely to consider themselves to be out of communion with the Episcopal Church (USA). This will tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level, and may lead to further division on this and further issues as provinces have to decide in consequence whether they can remain in communion with provinces that choose not to break communion with the Episcopal Church (USA). Similar considerations apply to the situation pertaining in the Diocese of New Westminster.�??

Which warning had no effect whatsoever. So the Primates did what Anglicans always do when they don't want to have to make a decision. They stalled for time and prayed to whatever it is that they pray to that the conservatives would forget all about the controversy:

The Primates were clearly at the end of their tether and unable to know what to do next. So they adopted the hackneyed ploy of an �??Archbishop�??s Commission�??. They entrusted it (as tradition apparently requires) to Archbishop Robin Eames of Armagh, a plausible cove and a �??safe pair of hands�??, who whose principal qualification in these matters is that he failed to implement in his own Province the recommendations of his own last commission.

The Primates meeting, though, did have one positive result. It proved to the world that Frank Griswold is a liar:

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (Frank Griswold) appeared shiftily on a platform at the press conference which launched the Primates�?? Statement, and then rushed back to the United States to do the deed which it had roundly castigated. With the words of the Lambeth Conference Resolution of 1998 (�??This Conference cannot advise the ordination of those involved in same gender unions�??) and the decision of the extraordinary Primates Meeting of 2004 (�??This will tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level�?��??) no doubt ringing in his cloth ears, he laid his hands on Gene Robinson.

The violent reaction to that consecration in the Anglican world may have prompted the Anglican Church of Canada's recent General Synod to hold off on official approval of same-sex marriages:

This defiant action had a not entirely expected result in Canada. By a not very comfortable majority (and after a solemn warning about the implications of a Canadian decision in favour of same-sex unions for the credibility of the Eames [�??Lambeth�??] Commission) the General Synod failed to give National Church approval to rites for same sex unions. They deferred the matter until their next meeting in 2007.

Which gained the approval of my gracious lord of Canterbury:

Said Rowan Williams: �??The decision to defer the question of the right of dioceses over same-sex blessings offers hope for the continuing collegiality of the Anglican Communion. It is important that the Canadian church has held back from a structural shift that would have run counter to the pleas and wishes of the Primates�?? meeting last Autumn and of so many around the Communion. In doing so, it has avoided complicating still further the work of the Lambeth Commission.�??

As everyone now knows, the Trimmer spoke too quickly. Because the very next day, the Anglican Church of Canada passed a resolution that, in some respects, expresses an even more radical sentiment than does the approval of Gene Robinson:

His statement, it now appears, was made before Lambeth Palace had notice of a further decision of the Canadian General Synod to declare same sex relationships �??holy�??: �??�?�we affirm the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same-sex relationships.�??

Two conclusions may be drawn from such a statement. The first is that, if same-sex relationships of a �??committed�?? nature are indeed already �??holy�??, they have no need of further �??blessing�??. (On that understanding Bishop Ingham�??s and Bishops Chane�??s activities would be laudable but quite superfluous.) The second is that, by refusing to bless such �??holy�?? relationships, churches or individuals are simply demonstrating their own deficiencies in blessedness and sanctity.

But not to worry. Because, believe it or not, the ACC is going to talk things over some more. There's even going to be a Commission and everything:

There is, we are now told, to be a period of further �??dialogue�?? (until the General Synod of 2007), during which the Canadian Church will maturely assess these issues. There is (you guessed it!) to be a Commission examining the matter. At the end of this process of discernment, the Canadian Church will be able to reach an informed and measured decision.

And if you believe that the ACC's "informed and measured decision" has not already been made, then you are either Michael Ingham, Garth Bulmer or a fool, if you'll pardon the redundancy.

Thanks to William Tighe.

MY LORD BISHOP -

Tue, 13 Jul 2004 12:40:41 GMT

You will have to look a very long time to find a more breathtaking example of liberal Anglican arrogance and condescension than this account of Charles Bennison's recent visit to a Philadelphia-area parish. It's too long to quote so read the whole thing.

PRIORITIES

Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:57:18 GMT

David Hope really wishes that the Church of England would get its act together:

An archbishop has warned the Church of England to stop being obsessed with sexuality and return to preaching the Christian gospel.

Archbishop of York David Hope said the mother church of the Anglican communion should concentrate on its basic task of converting unbelievers.

Dr Hope, who is leading a Bible study seminar at the general synod in York, said the Church of England was "in danger of being overwhelmed in respect of the single issue of sex and sexuality" - a reference to the worldwide Anglican debate over allowing openly homosexual clergy to remain in the ministry.

"We are almost wholly diverted and distracted from the fundamental priority of the mission entrusted to us by Christ," he said.

If "we are almost wholly diverted and distracted from the fundamental priority of the mission entrusted to us by Christ," Yorkie, one needs to ask just who it was in the Anglican church that "diverted and distracted" us in the first place. Was it not the liberal wing who insouciantly tossed aside 2,000 years of Christian teaching and Biblical interpretation just to assuage the feelings of homosexuals? Would it be better for Anglican conservatives to quietly accept heresy and apostasy rather than allow the church to be "diverted and distracted" from its mission?

Another thing. Everyone knows that phrases like "in danger of being overwhelmed in respect of the single issue of sex and sexuality" are code insisting that certain sexual practices are sinful and ought not to be tacitly encouraged. Why else would conservatives have raised such a fuss about Gene Robinson and same-sex marriages?

If we are now to downplay the sexuality talk because it supposedly distracts us from our mission, are we not downplaying certain aspects of the Gospel message while we're trying to convert these unbelievers of yours? Ministers of the Gospel are supposed to proclaim all the counsel of God, Yorkie. One wonders just what it is that you'd like unbelievers to convert to.

BEARDO -

Mon, 12 Jul 2004 16:49:31 GMT

Recently I considered reducing the Ulysses S. Grant-ish growth on my face to a goatee. But I'm certainly not going to now as Kathy Shaidle comes up with one of the all-time great euphemisms for that style of beard.

APOLOGY

Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:29:39 GMT

A recent French attack, alleged to be anti-Semitic, against a mother and her baby appears to have been a hoax:

Police in France have detained a woman who alleged she had been the subject of a shocking anti-Semitic attack.

The move came after no evidence was found to corroborate her story four days after the alleged assault on a train in the suburbs of Paris.

The 23-year-old woman said six men cut her clothes and drew swastikas on her body, accusing her of being Jewish.

Police say there are trying to clarify some inaccuracies in the account of the woman who has not been named.

According to French media reports - citing unnamed police sources - the woman subsequently admitted having made the story up.

The case has sparked widespread condemnation amid concern that racist and anti-Semitic attacks are on the rise in France.

I would like to apologize for automatically assuming that (1) this incident took place at all and that (2) Muslims were involved. I shall try not to make that mistake again

But Muslims had better ask themselves some serious questions. Great numbers of us were willing to believe this story for a good reason and, the inevitable outcry notwithstanding, that reason is not racism or an alleged anti-Muslim animus.

We were willing to believe it because far too many similar attacks have been made by Muslims in the past, attacks that Islamic communities do not seriously try to stop and Islamic religious leaders seldom preach against and sometimes even encourage. If you've done serious time for burglary and a house in your neighborhood gets robbed, it ought not surprise you if you hear from the police.

PURGE

Sun, 11 Jul 2004 13:26:36 GMT

This e-mail was just forwarded to me:

Fr. Chris Leighton, of St Paul's Church, Darien,Connecticut, just phoned me to ask you all for prayers for himself and the five other rectors of member AAC parishes. Bp Andrew Smith has just mailed each one a certified letter, sternly insisting--ordering them to meet, one at a time, with him in his office (at an early date not specified to me.)

Everyone, please remember in the intention of your prayers for these priests for the courage and the clarity of mind and heart which they need right now, as they witness for Jesus to their bishop, in the virtual certainty of his opposition to their biblically orthodox faith.

Frank? Andrew Smith doesn't sound like he got your message about how you'd like to find a way to "honor the deeply held divergent points of view among us" and how Episcopalians "believe that those with divergent points of view can live and pray together within the same household of faith." You might want to give him a call.

UPDATE: This comment was recently posted.

Dear friends,

Thanks for your prayerful support. It's amazing what simply asking for prayer leads to! The way we're approaching this meeting is biblically. (2 Chronicles 32:7-8): "'Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or discouraged because of the king of Assyria and the vast army with him, for there is a greater power with us than with him. With him is only the arm of flesh, but with us is the Lord our God to help us and to fight our battles.' And the people gained confidence from what Hezekiah the king of Judah said."

I am encouraged.

Christopher Leighton

NOT AS I DO

Sun, 11 Jul 2004 10:29:08 GMT

In Britain, the expressed desire by conservative Anglicans to withhold funds from the national church over the appointment of the openly homosexual Jeffrey John as Dean of St. Alban's Cathedral has been harshly criticized by the church's left wing. So it is somewhat surprising to learn that as a protest against the Church of England's financial situation, several dioceses, some of which are quite liberal, are planning on or are sympathetic to the idea of...um...withholding funds from the national church:

The Church of England's largest diocese is leading an unprecedented revolt, preparing to withhold more than £100,000 in protest over spiralling costs.

In a move that could have far-reaching consequences, the Diocese of London is threatening to cap the money it is expected to pay towards the Church's central bureaucracy.

Six other large dioceses, including Southwark, Oxford and Chichester, are understood to be sympathetic and could follow suit, further undermining the Church's finances.

Oxford is currently led by the very liberal Richard Harries, the man who wanted Jeffrey John appointed as Bishop of Reading. And it was the Dean of Southwark Cathedral and Jeffrey John's former boss, Colin Slee, who had this to say about what his diocese is now apparently considering:

"Scripture has a lot to say about the misuse of money as a weapon," [Slee] said.

"This is an attempt at coercion. They are highly organised as a lobby group within the Church. This is unscriptural and a misuse of money."

Actually, none of this is surprising at all. But one wonders why Anglican liberals even bother to get out of bed on Sunday mornings.