Friday, May 29, 2009

I Make Brian McLaren’s Site

I sent Brian McLaren an email confronting him for agreeing to speak to the Episcopal Church’s General Convention. And, lo and behold, it made his site:

Here's another [e-mail] - a lot like the previous one in tone:

Mr. McLaren,
Shame on you for speaking to the Episcopal Church's General Convention. The Episcopal Church persecutes the faithful, promotes abortion and any number of heresies. And you have allied yourself with their evil.
Your so-called generous orthodoxy is neither.
Shame on you!

So he doesn’t actually respond and instead sniffs about its tone and lumps it with an unrelated e-mail. But I’ll take what I can get.

Taliban ACLU Target War Memorial

The ACLU is asking the Supreme Court to outlaw a war memorial first erected in 1934 in the Mojave Desert. Why? Because the memorial is a cross. Horrors!

With its tireless efforts to disinfect American public life of Christian symbols, not to mention freedom of religion, the ACLU has well earned being tagged the American Taliban.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Step 1: Dig pit. Step 2: Fall in.

Remember all those psalms about the evil digging pits for the righteous and then falling into them themselves? The pseudo-Diocese of San Joaquin set up by The Episcopal Church presents us with an amusing example of the same.

The Anglican Curmudgeon reports that TEC’s pseudo-diocese has painted themselves into a bit of a corner (if you excuse another metaphor). For it appears their canonical gymnastics have made it almost impossible for them to achieve a quorum sufficient to hold a convention, much less “depose” 61 clergy.


Obama’s Incredible Irresponsibility on Missile Defense

Obama is being incredibly irresponsible by cutting funds for missile defense. With North Korea shooting off missiles and testing nukes and with Iran going merrily along in its nuke program now is no time to cut back on missile defense.

Even a Clintonite wimp can see that.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Bishop Gladstone Adams, Vindictive Lowlife

If my good readers are in need of their daily bile, they may check out how TEC Bishop Gladstone Adams is being a vindictive lowlife against a rector who won’t kiss his feet . . . again.


MORE: O.K. I have to say more. I know Matt+ Kennedy. He is a good gentle Christian man. He and his parish have bent over backwards to conduct themselves as Christians through this whole matter, even after they lost their buildings and even after a bequest which was clearly not intended for the Episcopal Church was handed over to greedy said “church” in a miscarriage of justice. Matt+ talks about this here. As is typical of him, he is far more gracious about this than I am.

And, yet, The Episcopal Church still won’t leave Matt+ and his parish alone, even after they are long gone.

The shameless evil of The Episcopal Church continues to astound.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Why did Bush the Elder appoint Sotomayor?

An argument you will hear again and again is that Sonia Sotomayor is really a moderate – after all George H. W. Bush appointed her.

Don’t buy that for a minute. Bush’s appointment was a political horse trade and nothing more:

. . . in 1992, the Senate was controlled by Democrats, and the two senators from New York were Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Republican Alphonse D'Amato.

By a number of accounts, Moynihan and D'Amato had a longstanding arrangement. "It was a special deal whereby D'Amato agreed to defer to the pick of Moynihan for one out of every four district court seats," another former Bush official told me. "That was a deal that preceded President Bush I, so basically Moynihan was picking one of four district court nominees." That deal stood even though Republicans controlled the White House and thus (theoretically) the right to choose judges for the federal courts.

And at that moment, in 1992, it was Moynihan's turn to choose, and his choice was Sotomayor. There is no evidence that anyone in the Bush I White House or Justice Department thought Sotomayor was a conservative, or even a moderate, but no one wanted a fight with Moynihan. "She was not our first choice," recalls a third Bush I official, "but she was someone who was, if we were going to get a nominee confirmed to that position -- essentially someone we had to go with."

Not to mention Bush the Elder’s judicial choices were not exactly stellar. He appointed Souter, after all.

Republicans, Be Careful About Sotomayor

I am sure it will not surprise my kind readers that I am not thrilled over President Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. But, given my combative nature, my council to Republicans may astonish – do not expend too much political capital in opposing her.

Yes, her qualifications are questionable. Yes, her commitment to the Constitution is highly questionable.

But Obama can do worse, believe me. And it is unlikely he will do better in picking a Supreme Court Justice. (Heck, it wouldn’t shock me if she proved an improvement over Souter. That's not saying much, but hey . . .)

It is also unlikely this nomination can be stopped. And – the main reason I council caution – her story is endearing. Even such a mean sado-conservative as myself finds it hard to dislike her. I do not think heated opposition to her would prove fruitful, but would instead backfire.

There are many battles to be fought against the audacity of Obama. This is not one of them. Republicans would do well to keep their opposition scrupulously polite and principled.

A Coming ACNA Clash Over Episcopal Elections?

A bit of controversy is arising over the ACNA’s provisional Constitution and Canons’ provision for episcopal elections in new dioceses (as opposed to already established jurisdictions, which are grandfathered), namely the following:

Where the originating body is newly formed, that body shall normally nominate two or three candidates, from whom the College of Bishops may select one.

Now I do not at all share Sarah Hey’s horror at this, but a taste of how controversial this may become may be had in the discussion at her post.

Personally, I want a means to put checks on both the sort of rampant democracy seen in the Episcopal Church and on any possible “bishops’ cabal.”

The clergy and laity should have a voice, but if they have excessive power, then activists with non-Christian agendas can take over as in the Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian Church. Frankly, some laity and clergy should have precious little voice, thank you. (And I am a layman, for the record.)

But laity and clergy should have enough power to reject unsuitable bishops that are or would be chosen by mistaken bishops from on high.

I think the canon to which Ms. Hey objects does adequately put checks both on laity and clergy and on bishops. Neither will be able to impose unsuitable candidates over the strong objections of the other. And I think the proposed canons as a whole are balanced, making it difficult for either a cabal of activists or a cabal of bishops to hijack ACNA.

But that is just my brief and humble opinion. What is more important is whether the ACNA will conflict over the means of episcopal elections for the new dioceses and perhaps over the overall balance of power between bishops and clergy and laity. And enough in the ACNA are both so democracy-minded and suspicious of bishops that said conflict might be coming very soon. This is certainly an area to watch at the Provincial Assembly next month.

Friday, May 22, 2009

Brian McLaren to Speak at Episcopal Church General Convention

Brian McLaren is showing his true colors. He has agreed to speak at The Episcopal Church’s General Convention in July.

He has thereby allied himself with and agreed to participate in a convention of those who persecute the faithful, enthusiastically support and fund abortion, and advocate any number of heresies. He has allied himself with the enemies of the faith and of the faithful.

It is now clear his generous orthodoxy is neither generous nor orthodox. It is evil.

And so is he.

Hat tip to Christopher Johnson.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Gulag UK: Bow Down to Gay Agenda or Else!

If there was any doubt remaining about whether the gay agenda trumps religious freedom under the Labour government, Maria Eagle, the Labour Government Equalities Minister (Wow, that title is Orwellian!) puts it to rest:

The circumstances in which religious institutions can practice anything less than full equality are few and far between.

And, of course, there’s any number of pseudo-Christians in clerical garb to collaborate with, heck, cheerlead the state in suppressing religious freedom.
There’s Giles Fraser, now of St. Paul’s Cathedral (an institution sinking by the minute):

Hateful attitudes towards LGBT people, sometimes aired on football terraces, are no different to those found in supposedly religious settings. We must not allow homophobia to disguise itself as any sort of legitimate religious belief – it isn’t! Homophobia is a sin and its eradication from churches, mosques and synagogues is one of the most urgent challenges for people of faith in the 21st century.

So if you believe in God’s commands concerning sexuality (And, yes, Mr. Fraser would surely consider that “homophobia.”), that belief is illegitimate and subject to “eradication.” Just letting you know.

There’s Marilyn McCord Adams, who disgraces Christ Church Oxford:

Adult believers have a responsibility to weed tradition, to identify systemic evils that are ripe for uprooting, pre-eminently human rights violations, and to go after them with a shovel and trowel.

If you are a UK Christian who holds traditional views on sexual morality, let there be no doubt Labour, with the help of these people, is coming after you with “shovel and trowel” if you dare act upon those traditional views in administering your church and ministries.

Hat tip to Stand Firm.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

A Note About Dialogue on Abortion

I got back yesterday from an excellent camping trip in West Texas. So I’m catching up on the world at the moment.

But I did want to get a word in about Obama’s motions toward “dialogue” on abortion.

As strong as my convictions are on the issue, I can talk with those who are genuinely pro-choice, i. e. those who do not want to prohibit elective abortion, but also do not want to force people to support abortion through taxpayer funding, federal mandates, and the like. At least they recognize that abortion is morally problematic for a great many, and they respect the consciences of that great many.

But if you force the taxpayers among that great many to support abortion worldwide, as Obama did in one of his first acts as President, that closes off dialogue, to put it very mildly. It’s like . . . well, it’s like the Episcopal Church – cram your apostasies, including support of abortion, down people’s throats while calling for “dialogue”, “conversation” and “holy listening.”

And to do that and then say at Notre Dame, “Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion.” . . . . Well, a man who would act as Obama did and then say that would say just about anything.

I have better things to do than to “dialogue” with such, thank you.

Friday, May 15, 2009

Postal Workers Who Refuse to Deliver BNP Leaflets Should Be Fired

In the UK, about 100 postal workers are refusing to deliver leaflets from the British National Party. Their Labourite union is supporting them, of course, and is oh-so-outraged that they may have been threatened with being fired.

Heck, it is an outrage if they are not fired (after first being given a second chance to do their jobs). Who gave these workers and their union vetoes on free speech? Their job is not to censor political speech but to deliver the frickin’ mail. Or is free speech in the UK so endangered that postal workers and unions can suppress it at will?

By the way, rubbish like this only increases support for the BNP. Keep angering the electorate with more and more outrages against freedom – and Labourites are doing a great job of that – and more of the electorate will vote for the party which most caters to that anger.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Unions vs. Taxpayers

Even while the economy is hurting and governments at all levels deal with budgetary issues, labor unions are busy shaking down taxpayers with the support of Obama and Democrats.

This aspect of Obama’s agenda – and it is part of Obama’s agenda; the taxpayer bail-out of GM and Chrysler is really a sweetheart bail-out of the UAW, and there’s more to come – has not gotten the attention it deserves. One reason for that is his strategy of pushing for so much – tax hikes, skyrocketing spending, cap-and-trade, socialized health care, the Obama Youth, “hate crime” laws etc. etc. etc. – that it is difficult to oppose it all. Opposing Obama is like opposing a serial firestarter. But his support of unions is an important part of his push to make us more like Europe where unions can bring a country to its knees.

Already, unions use forced dues from workers to push their political agenda. I shudder to think how much more power they will use against us under Obama.

An aside: a little history comes to mind. We had similar problems with unions in the 70’s and with Democrat support of their excesses. Then the air traffic controllers made the mistake of going on strike for absurd demands in 1981 . . . under Ronald Reagan. He swiftly fired them and banned them from being rehired. And their union was quickly decertified.

Not surprisingly, that did wonders for dealing with overreaching labor unions. But now we have a president who rewards their excesses.

*sigh* I miss Ronald Reagan.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

My Next Vehicle Purchase . . .

. . . will NOT be from GM or Chrysler. I refuse to reward Obama’s bashing of bondholders and rewarding of unions, unions that helped bring down those automakers.

That’s not to mention that at around 50,000 miles already, it’s obvious my current GM pick-up (Yes, all Texans drive pick-ups, wear cowboys hats . . . .) is cheaply made, with a running light out, a window not working, etc.

It’s bad enough my tax dollars are rewarding such failure and irresponsibility, and political pay-offs to unions. I’ll be d**ned if my future purchases further reward such.

There might be a Ford in my future.

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Dr. Rowan Williams Grades on a Curve

Grade inflation hits the Anglican Consultative Council. From Professor Rowan Williams:

What have we achieved? What are the challenges we’ve discovered? What are the lessons we’ve learned?

There’s no absolute measure for achievement.

Of course not.

In critical times quite small things may be quite large achievements. And so, if we reflect on what we’ve done in the last ten days, then it may be that even some apparently very routine things are real achievements. We’ve got up every morning; and we’ve prayed every morning; we’ve read scripture together; we’ve affirmed our will to stay in relation;

Plays well with others . . .

and we’ve done some planning. We have sent forward work on the aid and development alliance, on theological education, on evangelism and church growth, on the Bible in the Church.

Applies himself . . .

We’ve agreed on the follow-up to the work of the Windsor Continuation Group.

After gutting the moratorium on litigation. And you did that by, what, one vote? And that after unseating that vote from Uganda. Some agreement.

We’ve even agreed on the substance of the Covenant, including, and we should remember this, the timescale for that work.

Really? Don’t you mean a majority, manipulated by parliamentary abuses, voted to put off the most important section of the Covenant, that on disciplinary procedures. A large minority, who actually represent the majority in the Anglican Communion are not happy about that. To call that agreement is, again, a stretch. But we are grading on a curve here, aren’t we.

I won’t bore you with the rest of ++Rowan’s speech. Like most of his statements, it is sheer torture to read. But if you must, here it is.

The following stands out, however:

But that takes us into the final area – what have we learned? And I don’t simply mean what have we learned in terms of process, though it does seem to me that we’ve learned yet again that one of the things we’re not terribly good at is resolution passing. I’d suggest, purely practically that for the next ACC we might very well have a little briefing in advance about procedures, and perhaps some time right at the beginning of the meeting – it’s a highly practical suggestion and very modest – right at the beginning of the meeting to explain a bit about how resolution procedures work.

Oh please. ++Rowan’s pet primate, Aspinall of Australia was behind the parliamentary finagling that more or less killed Section 4 of the Covenant. And Rowan aided and abetting it. For him to now say let’s do resolution procedures better is like the Mafia advocating gun safety.

“Be the Party of No”

Some Republicans are hesitant to say “No” too often to Obama. He is popular (for now), and they don’t want the Republican Party to be known as the Party of No.

But often “No” is right. And it is certainly right now in light of Obama’s Leftist agenda. Not only that, when a President overreaches – and Obama is certainly doing that – saying “No” long and often is smart politics as Fred Barnes reminds us with a bit of history.

I suspect that goes double now. For Obama’s policies are a recipe for 70’s Stagflation and worse. Thus, in the not so distant future, those who stand strong and say “No” shall be rewarded politically. Those who are Obama’s lapdogs shall be punished.

Sounds kinda biblical, doesn’t it?

Monday, May 11, 2009

And you thought I was hard on the ACC . . .

It appears my characterization Friday of the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Jamaica might have been a bit off – the meeting might have been even worse.

But don’t take my word for it. Chris Sugden focuses on the litigation issue and on the highly questionable and confusing parliamentary run around aided and abetted by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself. Here’s another summary of the same and of the delay of Section 4 of the Covenant, a delay which pleases the Episcopal Church as said section contained the proposed disciplinary procedures.

Stephen Noll states that this is more than a delay, that the Covenant is dead. He has further thoughts here and holds Canterbury accountable for the Covenant’s mortal injuries at the hands of the ACC.

Robert Munday also takes Dr. Williams to task for his “perfidy.”

Who else but the Anglican Curmudgeon gives the ACC meeting and its excuse for parliamentary procedure a withering examination and finds both it and ++Rowan wanting.

AND if you still think I’m too hard on the ACC meeting, then you don’t want to see what Christopher Johnson thinks here and here.

You really don’t.


MORE: I have to admit that, after reading the Anglican Communion Institute’s statement on the ACC, my respect for the ACI continues to grow. And their conclusion is a bit of a jaw-dropper:

If lawful and proper action on the covenant is not forthcoming from this meeting of the Council, the only appropriate response is for the Churches of the Communion to begin themselves the process of adopting the Ridley Cambridge Text.

The ACI suggesting going around the Instruments of Communion?? As “Katherine” comments here, pigs may be flying.

Friday, May 08, 2009

Katherine Schori, Shameless Hypocrite, and the ACC, Gutless Wonder

TEC Presiding “Bishop” Katherine Schori indeed knows no shame. In the midst of pushing a litigation blitzkrieg against the orthodox, which includes scuttling an immanent settlement in the Diocese of Virginia, she offers the Anglican Consultative Council a resolution on . . . peacemaking.

Yeah. Stalin and Mao were all for peace, too, after they killed their opponents, of course.

As for the ACC, it once again reveals what a useless, gutless wonder it is by passing her resolution without opposition. If any delegate called out Schori for her hypocrisy, I certainly haven’t heard of it. And, remember, the ACC has ignored Schori’s persecution of the faithful via litigation.

The ACC met in Jamaica, and a UN Human Rights Commission broke out.


UPDATE: It looks like some in the ACC may not be completely without intestines after all. According to this live blog, the ACC just came one vote short (Remember the Church of Uganda delegate who was unseated?) of restoring the missing fourth moratorium on litigation.

And from the debate, it appears there’s not a little unhappiness on the floor. I may have more comment after the smoke clears.

Thursday, May 07, 2009

ACC Ignores Episcopalian Lawsuits

Both BabyBlue and the American Anglican Council have noted that the Anglican Consultative Council is willfully ignoring The Episcopal Church’s litigation against departing orthodox parishes. I could dwell on other actions and inactions of the ACC meeting in Jamaica (as BabyBlue has), but I think that omission just about says it all as to how useless the Anglican Communion has become. As the American Anglican Council sums up well:

This is the state of affairs in the Anglican Communion. Wise, learned, and, capable people abound in the councils of the Church. But when the time comes for them to address critical issues including ones of doctrine, morality, the authority of Scripture, the uniqueness of Christ as Lord and saviour of all, and Christians suing Christians, they call for more conversations and delays, rather than action.

Tuesday, May 05, 2009

Does the ANCA Really Want to Join the Anglican Communion?

The bad joke that is the Anglican Consultative Council meeting helps bring an issue more into focus, an issue about which not much has been said: do we in the Anglican Church in North America really want to join the Anglican Communion?

Granted, it is unlikely we can join the Anglican Communion in the near future. When it counts, the current Archbishop of Canterbury is in the pocket of the Episcopal Church and will not recognize the ACNA as a province. And several other primates are of a similar mindset. Much more likely is that the GAFCON provinces and a scattering of other orthodox provinces and bishops will recognize the ACNA.

But what if the ACNA can actually be recognized by the Anglican Communion as a whole and can thereby join it. Do we really want to do so?

I think it’s doable. Being in the Anglican Communion does not require one to be in full or even partial communion with everyone in the same. A number of provinces are out of communion with The Episcopal Church for example.

But if one’s communion is impaired even with the Archbishop of Canterbury and cannot conscientiously be full and unimpaired with him (as is the case with me), then joining the Anglican Communion might be just slightly awkward.

And there are more than a few in the ANCA who want little to nothing to do with Canterbury. At the same time, many others have placed their hopes in the ANCA as a way to stay in the Anglican Communion outside the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. Can both sides be pleased?

I do not presume to have an easy answer to this issue. And – let there be no mistake – I am no poor-mouther of the ANCA and fervently desire for it to work. But whether we in the ANCA really want to be in the Anglican Communion is an issue we will have to address at some point in time. And that time could be difficult to work through indeed.

The Episcopal Church of Satan Sues Individual Members for Legal Fees

The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles is now suing individual vestry members of St. James Newport for legal fees.

It’s not enough that The Episcopal Church sues to take away parish property from its members. Now it’s suing individual members to pay for the theft.

I’m honestly at a loss for printable words to characterize such evil. Anathema!

Monday, May 04, 2009

ACC Snubs Uganda

The Anglican Consultative Council has refused to seat a delegate from the Church of Uganda on the pretext that the delegate’s relationship with Uganda “is as a result of a cross provincial intervention, and note that such interventions are contrary to the Windsor Report and other reports accepted by successive meetings of the Instruments of Communion, including Primates’ Meetings which you have attended.”

The Archbishop of Uganda sizes this up well in a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury:

At our Primates meeting in Dromantine, Northern Ireland, we asked TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada to voluntarily withdraw from the Councils of the Church until the next Lambeth Conference. In Dar es Salaam, the Primates unanimously agreed that TEC should not be invited to Lambeth until they satisfactorily answered our questions, which most people know they did not do, your judgment notwithstanding. Yet, they have continued to be involved in all the Councils of the Church, and even with undue influence because of their wealth and command of English as their first language. There is a double standard at work here, and it favors the Western world and marginalizes Africa and others in the Global South.

More including relevant documents may be found here.

Thus, the ACC has already succeeded in further alienating the Global South. Way to go!