Monday, June 30, 2008

BREAKING: Bishop Iker endorses GAFCON and Jerusalem Declaration.

You may find Bishop Iker’s statement here:

June 29, 2008

It has been a joy to participate in the GAFCON experience in Jerusalem, and I welcome and endorse the proclamation that has been issued at the conclusion of our week of deliberation and prayer.

It is a positive contribution to the future direction of the Anglican Communion, as well as a very encouraging affirmation and validation of the realignment that has been taking place in the Communion over the past few years.

We stand in solidarity with the GAFCON movement and principles, and we in Fort Worth look forward to the continuing saga of this exciting development in our life together as faithful Anglicans.

May the Lord continue to bless and guide us in the challenging days ahead of us.

The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker 
Bishop of Fort Worth

This is encouraging to see. I very much want Anglo-Catholics involved in this.

Thanks to Texanglican for alerting me to this.

Tomorrow Night, London

If I were anywhere in England, I would soooo be at this post-GAFCON meeting. ++Venables, Packer+, ++Orombi? Wow!

Meanwhile, BabyBlue has a helpful post-GAFCON timeline up. Guess which event I will be participating in.

Post-GAFCON Analysis

I’ve been eagerly reading analysis of GAFCON. So far, the best pieces I’ve come across are from:

Matt+ Kennedy

Fr. Kennedy notes that the See of Canterbury and heretical bishops have just been marginalized and face further marginalization.

Hills of the North

This is perhaps the best analysis I’ve read so far. He, too, notes well the marginalization of Rowan Williams and of Lambeth:

The Lambeth indaba groups now look even sillier than they did before. The whole Communion is unraveling, and the Archbishop and his American minders and financiers want Lambeth to be nothing more than 60s-style rap sessions. The format that he believed would keep the Communion together now seems poised to underscore his flaccid and ineffectual leadership at the very moment decisive action seems most important. And Lambeth as currently structured will against the GAFCON backdrop not merely appear as a waste of time--it will now be viewed as protecting the North Americans, something the Archbishop simply cannot afford at this point.

It looks increasingly like the best option for Rowan Williams now is simply to resign. He has been tried and found wanting . . .

Christopher Johnson

Mr. Johnson gives a kick in the pants to orthodox North American Anglicans. I particularly agree with his advice to “try the REC.” :)

Sunday, June 29, 2008

GAFCON’s Conclusion and My Dream Coming True

GAFCON has now concluded and I share their joyous excitement over their final statement, including the Jerusalem Declaration.

I will be surely discussing aspects of this beginning of the fellowship of confessing Anglicans in the months to come. For now, two things about the statement stand out to me and will send me to Morning Prayer and Holy Communion with a glad heart:

First, although I know things need to be worked out, it’s practically in black and white that my dream in becoming part of a global orthodox Anglican communion is coming true. (And, yes, I get a bit emotional as type that.) I blinked and had to reread the following in my rector’s backyard last night. From the Jerusalem Declaration:

11. We are committed to the unity of all those who know and love Christ and to building authentic ecumenical relationships. We recognise the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice, and we encourage them to join us in this declaration.

That’s includes my REC! And later on the statement:

We believe this is a critical moment when the Primates’ Council will need to put in place structures to lead and support the church. In particular, we believe the time is now ripe for the formation of a province in North America for the federation currently known as Common Cause Partnership to be recognised by the Primates’ Council.

YESSSS! (And take that, dithering Canterbury!) That also includes my REC! I’m so excited about this, I can hardly articulate it as you can tell.

Second, I am beyond pleased to see a worldwide Anglican body finally have the guts to proclaim . . .

13. We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord.

This is how apostate leaders should be dealt with. How long has it been since a mainline church has so done? I’ve long felt that apostates forfeit their authority in Christ’s church. Finally, a worldwide fellowship of churches has the backbone to come out and so say and so act. The sorry history of putting up with Spongs and Bennisons and Schoris and Inghams and Chanes and ad nauseam is utterly repudiated!

St. Athanasius, who gives us godly precedent for treating heretic bishops as no bishops at all, must be smiling down upon us now.

Athanasius must also be pleased at the affirmation of his creed. (Yes, I know he probably did not write it himself.)

3. We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.


Like I said, I feel like I’m living a dream. I practically have to pinch myself to be sure it’s true.

By the way, I’m I the only one who is reminded of “the fellowship” in the Lord of the Rings? Men of courage bind themselves together to combat the forces of evil. Yeah, I know. Maybe it’s a stretch. I’m a bit excitable and excited this morning.

I’ll have more to say in due time. But for now, let the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans begin!

Friday, June 27, 2008

Labour Defeats the Monster Raving Loony Party . . .

. . . but hardly anyone else in the Henley by-election. Their well-deserved humiliation is astounding. They didn’t even outpoll the Greens or the BNP. And their vote was far closer to the Official Monster Raving Loony Party candidate Bananaman Owen than to the Conservative or Liberal Democrat Parties.

The numbers:

John Howell (C) 19,796 (57%, +3.5%)
Stephen Kearney (LD) 9,680 (28%, +1.8%)
Mark Stevenson (Green) 1,321 (3.8%, +0.5%)
Timothy Rait (BNP) 1,243 (3.6%)
Richard McKenzie (Lab) 1,066 (3.1%, -11.7%)
Chris Adams (UKIP) 843 (2.4%, -0.1%)
Bananaman Owen (Loony) 242 (0.70%)
Derek Allpass (Eng Dem) 157 (0.45%)
C maj 10,116 (29.1%)


Encouraging Words from GAFCON

In addition to Archbishop Nzimbi’s statement overnight, there are additional encouraging words from GAFCON. Matt+ Kennedy, a participant who, as noted here, was very concerned earlier in the week, reports this morning, “No one here, whether communion conservative or federal, wants the week to end with an innocuous communiqué and, I think, there is a very good chance that that danger has been averted.”

David Ould is not there, but is “hearing whispers from GAFCON that the final communiqué is going to be tougher than first envisioned. In particular . . . there's a groundswell of opinion amongst the delegates that a firmer line needs to be taken and communicated if the conference is to make a lasting difference.”

Keep praying.

Thursday, June 26, 2008

BREAKING: GAFCON – “Permanent Structures” Needed

I’m feeling more optimistic about GAFCON after this statement from the chairman of the communiqué committee, Archbishop Nzimbi, on the progress of work on a final statement. I’m particularly encouraged by the following:

There is recognition that for this movement to continue to develop it will require an agreed theological framework and appropriate structures to sustain its growth.

There is also agreement that more permanent structures need to be established for those faithful Anglicans who live and serve in provinces that have abandoned the traditional teaching of the Bible.

It looks like a good worldwide home for orthodox Anglicans might actually happen.

GAFCON: Just Another Meeting?

That’s the question Matt+ Kennedy is asking today.

I completely agree that if it turns out to be just another meeting, it would be a great failure:

If this meeting turns out to be another meeting wherein we are told to wait and that no structural differentiation whatsoever is made; if we leave Jerusalem with a nagging statement to the effect that the Archbishop must “Do something” and that in the meantime we will “obey scripture” and “plant churches”; if we leave here having taught the ABC that we will never do anything more than meet and whine and make “important statements” then GAFCON will have been a dramatic failure. The Archbishop and his successors will know precisely how to deal with us. We will have shown that when pushed to the brink we will blink; that we do not have the will to act decisively; that GAFCON is a paper tiger, noisy but harmless.

Again, Matt+ is there at GAFCON. And he concedes, “there is some danger of that happening.”

And that is a matter for concern and prayer.

J. I. Packer: ++Rowan Williams Should Resign

Ruth Gledhill may think this is no big deal. But for a man of Dr. Packer’s stature to publically say the Archbishop of Canterbury should resign is significant.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

GAFCON: A Strong New Orthodox Anglican Fellowship is NOT in the Bag.

Matt+ Kennedy, who is attending GAFCON has posted “A GAFCON Parable” over at Stand Firm today. Reading it and Matt’s further comments tells me a good strong outcome of GAFCON is not in the bag, that there is a risk of this becoming not much more than just another meeting . . . which at this point would likely be a disaster.

Matt explains his parable:

I am implying that if this meeting turns out to be another meeting wherein we are told to wait and that no structural differentiation whatsoever is made; that if we leave here with a nagging message that the ABC must “Do something” and that in the meantime we will “obey scripture” and “plant churches”; that if we leave here having taught the ABC that we will NEVER do anything more than meet and whine and make “important statements” then GAFCON will have been a dramatic failure. The ABC and his successors will know precisely how to deal with us.

There are many things that might be done to provide structural differentiation short of a complete break with Canterbury. Those things, I think, must be done.

He later is asked if the negative outcome he warns of is a risk. His one word reply?


Matt+ is a calm sort, not excitable (as I am at times). So his concern tells me a good GAFCON outcome is not in the bag at all, that there may be forces (or simply inertia) hindering the conference from taking real action and from setting up a much needed new worldwide orthodox Anglican structure.

To state the obvious, we need to pray and pray hard.

McCain Campaign Must Get Over the Stupids

I’m getting more than a little concerned about the McCain campaign. A stupid campaign will not beat Barack Obama. And lately a stupid campaign is what we’ve been getting.

The most publicized case of stupid is consultant Charlie Black’s comment that McCain would benefit from a terror attack.

I remember Charlie Black back in my North Carolina political days in 1984. Even back then, he seemed a restrained, even taciturn man. So for him to say something that stupid floors me. I wonder what got over him.

A less publicized instance of stupid is the campaign’s cancellation of a fundraiser at Clayton Williams’ home because of ill-advised remarks of Williams during his 1990 campaign for Governor of Texas against Ann Richards.

These remarks are a famous part of Texas political lore. Only a little homework would have revealed them to the campaign before they decided to schedule the fundraiser. But to schedule it, then call it off over those remarks of 18 years ago is stupid. Williams is a beloved figure to many in Texas. He’s seen as a little loose with his words and as having blown the 1990 campaign because of it. But he’s also perceived with affection as basically a fun, nice guy and a prototypical Texan. Snubbing him ticked off a lot of Texans whom it is best not to tick off.

Every campaign has its stupid moments. But many a campaign has also been sunk by stupidity. McCain’s campaign had best stop the stupid . . . now.

MORE: After I posted, I remembered get-out-the-vote phone calls I got from the McCain campaign before the Texas primary. I got several calls from them in which their computer didn’t answer until I said “Hello” about three times.

As I’ve already told them, that’s not the way to win hearts and votes. They need to get their act together.

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

GAFCON Leaders Confirm There Will Be No Split

Archbishop Nzimbi of Kenya, who is heading up the GAFCON communiqué committee, and Archbishop Orombi of Uganda have both confirmed that GAFCON is not seeking to split from the Anglican Communion.

An interesting element in this direction is the leadership of the Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen. He has a rather divisive image and is a polarizing figure. (Just mention his name at The Ship of Fools, for example.) And I have several issues with him as well. Yet Ruth Gledhill notes that he is a key influence behind GAFCON not splitting from the Anglican Communion.

It seems those eeevil “schismatics” aren’t so schismatic after all.

Monday, June 23, 2008

Anglican Fellowship in Works at GAFCON

Ruth Gledhill reports that the plan to be hatched at GAFCON is an orthodox Anglican Fellowship to be a “church within a church” in the Anglican Communion and a safe home for orthodox Anglicans. The tenor of Archbishop Akinola’s opening address seems to confirm that direction.

Although in my more tempestuous moments, I might prefer an outright split, I think this a good direction to go. I’m even a little excited at the possibility of being a part of worldwide orthodox Anglican church along with the Reformed Episcopal Church.

Now there is a little voice inside my head saying, “’A church within a church’ – that’s been tried before – repeatedly.” But I will dare to suggest things are different this time. This will be a group that has limits to their tolerance. Most GAFCON bishops will not be at Lambeth for one thing. Gledhill reports an Anglican Fellowship won’t be in communion with the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada for another. And most of these bishops are not afraid to call out apostates as ++Akinola boldly did in his address. Anglican Fellowship bishops will be of tougher stuff than “Windsor bishops.”

It also helps that an Anglican Fellowship will have the ballast of staunchly orthodox national churches, such as the Churches of Nigeria and Uganda. Most of the Anglican Fellowship won’t be under constant pressure from their churches to compromise and give in. In addition, it will include churches that have already proven they will not compromise the Faith for unity, churches such as the REC.

At the same time, it is good not to burn bridges. It is probably wise that most of the Anglican Fellowship will retain links with Canterbury for now at least. Reform of Canterbury and of the Anglican Communion is certainly not beyond God’s power, particularly given that the successor to the current Archbishop of Canterbury is likely to be an improvement. (That’s not saying much, but hey . . . .) And if an Anglican Fellowship were to cut links from Canterbury immediately, it would further split orthodox Anglicans as many do want to retain communion with Canterbury. And it would make the fellowship much smaller and less of an influence. So, as out of communion with Canterbury as I am*, I do think it wise that an Anglican Fellowship hold its nose and not cut itself off from that ancient Anglican see.

In any case, I continue to pray for God’s grace and guidance upon GAFCON. I invite you to join me.

*I’ve calmed down a bit since the linked post of last Fall. But I am still very much not in communion with ++Canterbury.

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

The Bishop of London Writes Dr. Martin Dudley

And it seems His Grace is not pleased:

Dear Martin,

You have sought to justify your actions to the BBC and in various newspapers but have failed more than two weeks after the service to communicate with me.

I read in the press that you had been planning this event since November. I find it astonishing that you did not take the opportunity to consult your Bishop.

You describe the result as “familiar words reordered and reconfigured carrying new meanings.” I note that the order of service, which I have now received, includes the phrase “With this ring I thee bind, with my body I thee worship”.

At first sight this seems to break the House of Bishops Guidelines which as I explained in my letter of December 6th 2005 apply the traditional teaching of the Church of England to the new circumstances created by the enactment of Civil Partnerships.

The point at issue is not Civil Partnerships themselves or the relation of biblical teaching to homosexual practice. There is of course a range of opinion on these matters in the Church and, as you know, homophobia is not tolerated in the Diocese of London. The real issue is whether you wilfully defied the discipline of the Church and broke your oath of canonical obedience to your Bishop.

The Archbishops have already issued a statement in which they say that “those clergy who disagree with the Church’s teaching are at liberty to seek to persuade others within the Church of the reasons why they believe, in the light of Scripture, tradition and reason that it should be changed. But they are not at liberty simply to disregard it.”

St Bartholomew’s is not a personal fiefdom. You serve there as an ordained minister of the Church of England, under the authority of the Canons and as someone who enjoys my licence. I have already asked the Archdeacon of London to commence the investigation and I shall be referring the matter to the Chancellor of the Diocese. Before I do this, I am giving you an opportunity to make representations to me direct.

Yours faithfully.

The Rt Revd & Rt Hon Richard Chartres DD FSA POed

I’m beginning to think the Rev. Dudley just might made an example.

(And, yes, I added the POed bit.)

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

The Rev. Martin Dudley is a First Class A$$

But don’t take my word on the priest who officiated at *that* gay wedding. Read for yourself.

This is particularly outstanding:

But there are some who dispute Dr Dudley's portrayal of himself as "the Christian good neighbour". Peter Bill, 61, a journalist, lives on the third-floor of a block of flats just yards from the church and says that in his experience, Dr Dudley is quite the opposite. Moreover, that it yields an interesting insight into the way Dr Dudley operates.

"The bedroom window of my flat is 30 feet from the church's bell tower," says Mr Bill. "When I bought the flat in 1999, the bell was not working but subsequently Dudley had it fixed and the bloody bell would chime incredibly loudly every hour on the hour from 7am to midnight. I found it hard to sleep and spoke to other residents who felt similarly, so I dropped a polite note asking if they could reduce the bell ringing from 8am to 10pm so that we could get a proper night's sleep.

"Dudley called and what he said was so bizarre that I've never forgotten it. He told me: 'The patients in the intensive care unit of St Bart's Hospital [also a neighbour] like the bells to ring because it reminds them that they're still alive.' I was taken aback. I said: 'We're only asking you to cut back two hours, presumably they still know they're alive at 1am and you don't ring the bell then.' But he wouldn't listen. He was totally dismissive. I'd never met anyone so arrogant, intemperate and inflexible."

Later, when Mr Bill happened to meet Dr Dudley's boss - the Archdeacon of London Peter Delaney, ironically the man the Bishop of London will now charge with investigating Dr Dudley - the Archdeacon offered to raise the issue, only to write back that he had "tried and failed".

Then two years ago, Mr Bill bumped into Michael Cassidy, a City lawyer and, like Dr Dudley, a City of London councillor. Dr Dudley sits on 14 City of London committees, while Mr Cassidy was previously council leader.

Mr Cassidy agreed to approach Dr Dudley as an "honest broker" over the bells issue, only to be shocked by his response. "He told me he'd agree to the residents' request for £5,000," recalls Mr Cassidy. "The gall of it! I just couldn't believe it."

Mr Bill says that Dr Dudley later justified the £5,000 - to be paid to the church - on the grounds that "if I have the bells turned off, that's the amount it would add to the value of your flats". In disgust, Mr Bill sent an email to Dr Dudley saying he wanted nothing more to do with him. "What a bastard. I told him I'd never met someone with such a manifestly un-Christian attitude to his neighbours."

Asked yesterday to explain his mercenary attitude to the bells, Dr Dudley said: "I'm sorry but I'm not prepared to discuss that. I don't want to be interrogated further."

I imagine he didn’t.

Archbishops of Canterbury and York Say Something

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have made a statement about *that* gay marriage, and I think it a good one:

We have heard the reports of the recent service in St Bartholomew the Great with very great concern. We cannot comment on the specific circumstances because they are the subject of an investigation launched by the Bishop of London.

On the general issue, however, the various reference points for the Church of England's approach to human sexuality (1987 Synod motion, 1991 Bishops' Statement- Issues in Human Sexuality- , Lambeth motion 1:10, House of Bishops' 2005 statement on civil partnerships) are well known and remain current.

Those clergy who disagree with the Church's teaching are at liberty to seek to persuade others within the Church of the reasons why they believe, in the light of Scripture, tradition and reason that it should be changed. But they are not at liberty simply to disregard it.

Of course, now the issue is whether there will be, not just words, but action. We’ll see.

Meanwhile, the officiant of *that* gay marriage, Dr. Martin Dudley, has explained himself in a way. And he cites . . . the Seventies. I am not kidding.

Did anything good come out of the Seventies? There’s a reason sane men no longer wear hip-hugging plaid bell-bottoms, you know.

More Evil in Zimbabwe and South Africa

Robert Mugabe has now pretty much said he’s not going to give up power if he loses the vote . . . again.

Please continue to pray for Zimbabwe as I am. The reason I haven’t been posting much on the situation there is frankly it is so distressing I hardly know what to say. Mugabe is evil incarnate and is at war against his people. He’s using food, torture, murder etc. etc. as weapons to hold power. I can only imagine the fear and hopelessness people of good will in Zimbabwe must suffer, not to mention hunger and worse.

Meanwhile, I still haven’t heard that apology from the World Council of Churches for backing that thug.

Nor is there any action from the African National Congress government in South Africa. They wore the mantle of righteousness (in spite of their own atrocities) and got the world to intervene on their behalf against apartheid. But now that something ten times worse than apartheid is on their doorstep, they do . . . nothing.

Monday, June 16, 2008

*That* Gay Wedding: an Opportunity for ++Rowan

By now, you have surely heard of *that* gay wedding in London. (Yes, yes. The rector in question insists it wasn’t really a gay wedding, which, given how much the liturgy and spectacle was made to look like a wedding, is a bit specious.) So I won’t go over the details.

It’s being portrayed as something of a train wreck for the Church of England. And it may be if not handled right. If there is no real discipline, if there is no more than “concern” and studied avoidance of actually doing something about this, then, yes, it will further divisions in the Anglican Communion. The Church of England will be exposed as little better than the Episcopal Church, making communion with Canterbury even less of a priority for many orthodox.

However, I see this as an opportunity for ++Rowan Williams. Here, he has a golden opportunity to at least appear to come down hard against same-sex blessings. And this “wedding” was so blatant and is so publicized that the officiant Dr. Martin Dudley might as well have worn a “KICK ME” sign on his chasuble. His presumption begs for discipline.

Should the Archbishop of Canterbury so act (or, again, appear to do so), he would give those orthodox wanting to stay in communion with him more grounds to do so. He would also undercut (justified) suspicions that he is enabling the apostates and stringing along the orthodox. And that right before GAFCON and Lambeth.

Now, yes, there are procedures to be followed in the Church of England and all that. But ++Rowan still has an opportunity to appear to get on the right side of this – which he must do if this is not to become a train wreck.

But so far, he hasn’t said a word. If he doesn’t want the Anglican Communion to fragment further, he had better say something and soon.

Opportunity or disaster – your choice, Dr. Williams.

London Times: 500 Clergy Ready to Leave CofE over “Betrayal” on Women Bishops

Ruth Gledhill reports that over 500 clergy are preparing to resign from the Church of England should the House of Bishops’ recommendation to allow women bishops without adequate provisions for traditionalist objectors become church law.

This would be a terrible loss to the Church of England and to Anglicanism (as most will likely cross the Tiber, I suspect). That this won’t stop the liberals from trying to proceed full speed ahead speaks volumes about them.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

The Shiny Happy Gulag in Action (And it can happen here.)

Yesterday I mentioned the show trials up in Canada. Here and here is an example of the Shiny Happy Gulag in action. As punishment for a 2002 letter to the editor opposing gay rights agendas, Stephen Boission was ordered by the Alberta Human Rights Commission pretty much to be silent for life about gays, to pay thousands of loonies of fines, and to apologize. Thankfully, he refuses to apologize and won’t pay the fines unless necessary for appeal. I hope more people tell Canada’s Human Rights Commissions what to do with themselves.

Don’t think this kind of suppression of free speech can’t happen in America. Those liberals who perpetually push for us to become as screwed up as the rest of the world would love to gag us mean hateful homophobic bigoted right-wingers conservatives.

Over my dead body.

There’s a reason I own guns and know how to use them.


More comments over at titusonenine.

And thanks to Billy Ockham for the flag.

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Why I’m Rather *Contentious* at Times

My kind and forebearing readers may have noticed I can be rather harsh when going after those who hold basic rights and freedoms in low regard and sell them cheap for their agendas. Some may find my dubbing the New Labour government “Gulag UK” a bit over the top, for example. Others may think I’m a bit too obsessed with exposing Barack Obama for the phony and threat to freedom he is. And all have surely noticed I don’t pull punches on those who ditch the faith and persecute the faithful yet presume to hold church offices, Presiding Heretic Schori being front and center. Some may even find me *gasp* rude – the ultimate sin for an Anglican.

I could make a long explanation for why I choose to be so, well, disrespectful at times. I do know I’ve always been wired that way. I’ve always been slow to see the point in showing respect to those who have utterly lost the right to it. (And it may scare you to know I used to be worse about that than now!) I’m not saying that is necessarily a good thing. God is good to those completely undeserving of it. So we should do likewise.

But I’ll defer to Dr. Mabuse instead of further explanation. Her post on the “Human Rights” show trials in Canada articulates well why I choose to be a bit contentious at times:

Politeness is essential in the realm of common grace, but not in any absolute sense; not 100% of the time. When it comes to the point where a group of people are taking away something ineffably valuable -- in this case, freedom of speech and thought, although it could be your relatives, in a cattle car -- those people do not deserve respect, they deserve vilification . . .

To which I can only say, “AMEN!”

The Fixing of the NBA: Tim Donaghy is Talking

About a year ago, prompted by the Tim Donaghy scandal, I finally allowed myself to post my conviction that the NBA is fixed.

Now, credible source or no, Tim Donaghy is talking and his charges of game fixing have laid a big fat egg on the storybook Celtics-Lakers series.

I think that is part of the problem. Sometimes, the NBA wants a compelling story just a bit too badly. Two years ago, everyone was fawning over Miami Heat Coach Pat Riley. And we all know that Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban is not the NBA’s favorite. So what happened in the championship series? After the clearly superior Dallas team went up 2-0, the refs started blowing their whistle anytime anyone breathed on Heat star Dwayne Wade, and Dallas then couldn’t stop Wade and the Heat. I don’t know if anyone could with such a rigging. As much as I wanted Dallas to win, I stopped watching because it was obvious the fix was in.

Or this year. The NBA dearly wanted a Lakers-Celtics championship series. So when the (small market and rather boring, ahem) San Antonio Spurs threatened to crash that party, the refs swallowed their whistles during an obvious and crucial foul at the end of Game 4, giving the game to the Lakers. Even the NBA confessed it was a foul.

So it should be no surprise that one of Donaghy’s allegations involves helping out the HOLY LA Lakers *genuflect* and getting them to a Game 7 in their sacred championship year of 2002. An interesting comment about that year from someone who was pulling for the Lakers: “I would not doubt for a second that that series was fixed. It was pretty obvious even as i was routing for the Lakers in that series that something was not right. I remember having a bet on the Lakers to win the title that year and was fortunate to have a lot of bad calls go my way.”

What’s amusing about all this is that the NBA wants Donaghy to pay it a million dollars in restitution. Perhaps, they thought that would intimidate Donaghy to be quiet. If so, it is certainly not having the intended result.

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Obama Shuts Down His Catholic Advisory Council?

It’s difficult to accertain this, but it appears Barack Obama has dissolved his Catholic National Advisory Council.

He had gotten some flack for his sham council and rightly so. It consisted mainly of liberal cafeteria Catholics such as pro-abortion Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius, who has been all but excommunicated, having been instructed not to receive Holy Communion. Obama’s “Catholic” council was about as Catholic as John Shelby Spong is Christian.

Perhaps his campaign considered it wasn’t working in pulling the wool over Catholic eyes and has therefore quietly shut it down.

Monday, June 09, 2008

Catholic Adoption Agency to Defy Gulag UK

Like Cranmer, I’m pleased to see the report that the Westminster Catholic Children’s Society, headed by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, intends to stay open and also to refuse to adopt to homosexual couples in defiance of Labour’s gay rights law.

There are times to stand up and flat out say “No” to tyrants. This is such a time.

Friday, June 06, 2008

Archbishop of York Nails Gulag UK

In a speech before the Institute of Jewish Policy Research, the Archbishop of York has called out New Labour’s Gulag UK:

Our current Government is in danger of sacrificing Liberty in favour of an abused form of equality – not a meaningful equality that enables the excluded to be brought into society, but rather an equality based on dictat and bureaucracy, which overreaches into the realm of personal conscience.

Good on ++York for telling it like it is! The complete speech may be found here.

I would change a couple of things in the speech, however. For one thing, I would not quote Jim Wallis favorably. For another, New Labour is sacrificing Liberty in favor of its faux equality. But good on ++York for calling out Gulag UK nonetheless.

Thursday, June 05, 2008

Look Who’s Teaching Youth in the Episcopal Church

A Corpus Christi Continuing Anglican priest relays the following about a conversation he had with an Episcopal youth director. I post it with little comment (and modest editing) because I think it says volumes about the Episcopal Church and who is teaching youth in that denomination.

Today I was out working and I came across a sign that is outside one of the local Episcopal churches. It said, "We're tired of hypocritical churches, too."

Well I got a quick laugh and then it dawned on me that the statement was directed probably at those of us who take the Bible seriously. I thought about it and I decided that the only way for me to find out what was meant by the sign was to just phone the church and ask, so I did.

The man on the phone who answered said that he was the youth director and I asked him about the message on the sign, saying that it was a strange message for a church. He said that all are welcome to his church no matter who they are or what they are or what they do.

I said, OK so that's nice. So what do you mean by that? Are you saying I can do anything and its OK?

In the course of conversation, he said that the only sure witness of truth is only found in the words of Jesus, specifically in the Sermon on the Mount. I asked, Are you saying that all the bible is not the word of God?

He said we can’t be sure that the words of St Paul are accurate since they were redacted and the canon of scripture wasn't known till the late 3rd century at the council of Nicea. I said, REALLY that's a new one on me. I asked him then if we can’t be sure about the validity of scripture how can we know the truth?

He said unequivocally that we cant know anything for certain that all we have is "the spirit" to lead us. I said oh so how can we be sure about that, he said we can’t. I asked him about the 39 articles of religion he said I am not ordained and that he is not bound by them...just the spirit of course.

There was more to the conversation these are the lowlights.

And remember, this is not a report from New York or Californicate. This is from South Texas in the *relatively* orthodox Diocese of West Texas.

Tuesday, June 03, 2008

Obama: “I am not pro-abortion.”

I’m sorry if I seem to be harping on Barack Obama. But the various disconnects in what he says and does are truly amazing and alarming. Yet the news media gives him a free pass for the most part. So I see it as my duty as a blogger to shed a little light.

The latest disconnect is this statement from the campaign trail in South Dakota: “I am not pro-abortion.”

Wow! What a whopper! This is from a guy who supports forcing taxpayers to fund abortions, who vociferously opposed the ban on partial birth abortions, who was given 100% ratings by NARAL in 2005, 2006, and 2007, etc. etc. How the hell is he not pro-abortion? Because he hasn’t personally performed abortions himself?

And, sorry, “pro-choice” doesn’t fly here. Anyone who thinks taxpayers should be forced to pay for elective abortions gives up the right to use that buzzword.

Obama is either a big liar or he is so disconnected from the truth that he doesn’t have the faintest idea what it is.

Maybe Obama Is the Messiah

From a very interesting 2004 interview:

Do you believe in sin?


What is sin?

Being out of alignment with my values.

So his values are the measure of what is sin or not. Maybe he really is the Messiah.

He seems to think so.

Monday, June 02, 2008

NOW Obama quits his church.

Let’s see, years and years of nutty leftist Hate America, Hate Whitey preaching wasn’t enough to tell Obama that maybe, just maybe, he ought to change churches. (And, remember, Trinity Church of Christ was not his childhood church. It was a church he chose to join as an adult.)

But now, he decides it’s time to leave. I wonder why? Could it be SATAN political ambition?:

Barack Obama’s resignation from Trinity United Church of Christ over, in part, “a cultural and a stylistic gap” raises additional doubts about him. The obvious question is what “cultural and stylistic gap” exists now that hasn’t existed during the last two decades, when Obama was a member of Trinity United and an intimate friend with its pastor, Jeremiah Wright Jr.?

Good question.

The answer, of course, is none. Trinity United and Jeremiah Wright are what they have always been; it is Obama — or more precisely, Obama’s political interests — that have changed.

I can’t imagine joining a hate church of any sort. And I can’t imagine leaving my church for political gain.

This whole episode says volumes about Barack Obama.


With apologies to The Church Lady.

If I were in England . . .

. . . I would definitely go to this Post-GAFCON meeting in London on July 1st.

++Orombi, ++Venables, ++Jensen, and Packer+ speaking? I would be so there.