Bishop Wabukala on Yet More “Conversation”

This may come as a shock but there are Anglican bishops out there who, instead of producing ecclesiastical fog, cut right through the same.  The Primate of Kenya, Eliud Wabukala is such a bishop.

He graciously but very clearly puts the Pilling Report’s call for yet more conversation on homosexuality in its place:

There is urgency about the gospel and it must be proclaimed in word and deed, in season and out of season and it is the same gospel, whether in strife torn nations such as South Sudan or in the affluent but morally disorientated nations of the developed world. 

We cannot therefore allow our time and energy to be sapped by debating that which God has already clearly revealed in the Scriptures. Earlier this week, the English College of Bishops met to reflect upon the ‘Pilling Report’, commissioned to reflect on how the Church of England should respond to the question of same sex relationships. Its key recommendations were that informal blessings of such unions should be allowed in parish churches and that a two year process of ‘facilitated conversation’ should be set up to address strongly held differences within the Church on this issue.

While we should be thankful that the College of Bishops did not adopt the idea of services for blessing that which God calls sin, it did unanimously approve the conversation process and this is deeply troubling.  There has been intensive debate within the Anglican Communion on the subject of homosexuality since at least the 1998 Lambeth Conference and it is difficult to believe that the bishop’s indecision at this stage is due to lack of information or biblical reflection. The underlying problem is whether or not there is a willingness to accept the bible for what it really is, the Word of God. 

Absolutely right.  With few exceptions, calls for the church to have yet more conversation about homosexuality and “homophobia” come from those who either do not hold to the authority of scripture or who are timid about doing so in the face of a decadent and hostile society.  The Lord Himself could tell these people that homosexual conduct is wrong and the church is not to condone it – and he has – and they would not submit or would dither and delay about doing so.

The church has far better things to do than be hectored about the sin of “homophobia” from those who wallow in the sin of rejecting the authority of scripture while pretending to be Christians*.  Such churchly apostates should not be continually listened to; they should be rebuked.  And if they stiffen their necks and refuse to repent, they should be rejected.

You want some “conversation”?  Let’s have some conversation about church discipline and the cowardice and/or apostasy of bishops in exercising it.

----

* IMPORTANT NOTE: Please note that I am talking about those who claim to be Christians, especially leaders in the organized church.  The church should virtually always be in conversation (without compromising or watering down the Faith) with honest non-Christians as Bishop Wabukala himself wrote.  My problem here is not with them at all.

Mrs. Rodgers’ Neighborhood

I somehow endured somewhat sober Obama’s State of the Union address.  So I was looking forward to some clarity and reality from the GOP.

What I got instead was a cloying talk delivered more like children’s programming than a rebuttal.  What I got was Mrs. Rodgers’ Neighborhood.

While the Republican establishment goes hard after the Tea Party, they play patty-cake with Obama, weakly opposing him and even wanting to help him import Democrats with immigration “reform.”

Sometimes I wonder if the GOP establishment wants the rise of a strong Third Party.  Driving out Constitutionalists while going soft on Obama is practically asking for it.

Why I might watch the State of the Union

I’ve made a point not to watch Obama’s State of the Union speeches in the past.  I can predict most of what he is going to say, and I just do not want to get that angry before bedtime.

But I think I’ll watch this year.  Why?  I think it might be a historic moment that marks a lurch towards dictatorship.  And bad history is the most interesting history, is it not?

Oh by the way, any talk from Obama about being oh-so desirous of working with Congress . . . is just talk.

I covered both the Clinton and Bush White Houses. Routinely, with each of them, there was line of cars on the West Wing driveway belonging to members of some committee or faction of Congress that had dropped by to meet the president. If they wanted the gathering to remain below the radar, they “snuck in” the side door, and then the camera guys who were always in a position where they could see the entrance there told us about it.

With Obama, almost never. Nothing. No meetings. If you ask around on Capitol Hill, no phone calls either. Obama, expostulating about the uncooperativeness of Republicans, does nothing to get them to cooperate. It’s not in his character. And then he attacks them for his own paucity of results. He’s like a high school football player who never comes to practice and then whines that he’s warming the bench.

Unfortunately, Obama’s temperament will now have serious consequences for the nation. We’ll be in a constant state of Constitutional subversion for the next three years as Obama issues edicts and bullies the private sector into doing his bidding. At any point, with some particularly outlandish act, he can kick things up to a major Constitutional crisis.

Obama would rather be a Dear Leader than a President who deigns to work with his opposition or with lowly legislators.

Which may indeed lead to a Constitutional crisis.  But, like I said, bad history is more interesting than responsible and accountable governance.

Hey, if the “State of the Union” is “going to Hell,” I might as well enjoy it.

---

MORE: I nearly forgot.  If I do watch, you just know I will be snarking tweeting away.

Obama’s IRS Continues to Target Conservatives

I’m a bit preoccupied this morning.  But I do want to point out that Obama’s IRS continues to target conservatives, Hollywood conservatives to be exact.  Because Hollywood conservatism is such a rampant scourge on our body politic.

And they are not the only government agency targeting conservatives.

We are becoming the totalitarians we defeated.

About Obama’s Roe v Wade Statement

While thousands marched in protest of legalized abortion-on-demand yesterday, Our Dear Leader also marked the 41^st anniversary of Roe v Wade with a statement.  It was only one paragraph, but what a paragraph!

President Obama issued a statement today to mark the forty-first anniversary of Roe v. Wade. A mere paragraph long, it contains enough euphemism, evasion, and outright falsehood to serve simultaneously as a model of dissimulation and concision.

Moreover, Matthew Schmitz counts eight lies in it.  I’ll defer to him in that regard.  But I find two passages particularly risible.

1. . . .every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health.

This old hackneyed rhetoric about a woman controlling her body willfully and completely ignores that (if she consented) she did not exercise needful self-control in the first place, resulting in an unwanted pregnancy.  More importantly, Obama’s rhetoric ignores that abortion involves more than one body and affects the body of the child far more then the body of the woman by obliterating the body of the child.

I can have a civil and polite discussion about abortion with someone who is for legal abortion (as I did yesterday in fact).  But when someone pulls this card, discussion is pretty much over.  Those who use “her body” rhetoric show they are just spouting talking points and/or willfully ignoring the life of the child.  The child is pretty much a non-person to them.  Attempting to discuss abortion or just about anything of import with people that callous and unthinking is usually pointless.

That we have a President who so willfully ignores the life of the child is chilling.

2. And we resolve to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children.

. . . by having permanent open season on unborn children?  Yeah, kill those babies!  It’s for all our children.

If you can stomach the whole statement, you may find that also over at First Things.

Roe v Wade and the Cowardice of the States

Today is the 41^st anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision overturning the abortion statutes of the vast majority of the states (48 if my memory is correct).  Tens of thousands, including several bishops of the Anglican Church in North America, will walk in the snow today in Washington in protest in the 40^th March for Life.

I myself participated in at least two Marches for Life back in the early 80’s.  One of them was in the snow as well.

The damage Roe v Wade inflicted extends far beyond life issues.  It made a mockery of the Constitution, of democracy, and of Constitutional federalism by asserting that the Constitution somehow demanded striking down the abortion statutes of most states and replacing them with a regime of abortion-on-demand virtually all the way to birth.

Roe v Wade was a coup against Constitutional democracy and against the states by men acting as dictators in black robes.  Justice Byron White’s dissent calling it “an exercise of raw judicial power” put it nicely.  He also stated:

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment.

That is because there was nothing.

What is saddest of all is that the Supreme Court got away with it.  Yes, there has been strong movement ever since to undo Roe v Wade in various fashions, from Constitutional Amendments to a Human Life Statute to working for good Supreme Court appointments and more.

But what should have happened was defiance.  The Supreme Court may interpret the Constitution.  But it cannot obliterate it then rewrite it in its own image; or at least it should not be able so to do.  This was an absurd and outrageous ruling, really a coup against the Constitution, and should have immediately been given the respect it deserved – none. 

The states, even states moving toward liberalizing abortion laws, should have told the Supreme Court what they could do with its ruling, with its brazen attack on their rights to defend life, and then defied the ruling and carried on with their own laws as best they could.  This awful ruling was an opportunity to rally the people and the states to put the Supreme Court and the Feds in their place and to revive Constitutional governance.  And if the new President, Richard Nixon, had any principles, he should have encouraged and supported such efforts by publicly and clearly refusing to allow the Executive Branch to enforce the ruling.

But did any state so attempt to defend the Constitution and the lives of the unborn?  Any state?

The answer is what I find saddest of all about January 22^nd.

Mitt Romney’s Pessimism . . . and Mine

It should not surprise that Mitt Romney is not my flavor politically.  He’s too establishment for me.  But my respect for him has increased after reading that he gets it how bad a shape this country is in.  His thoughts on Election Night 2012 stand out in that regard:

As defeat settled in, Romney discussed what to say in a concession speech — which, for all his natural pessimism, Romney had not considered ahead of time. And it was in that moment that some of Romney's passion about the race finally came out, far from the view of voters and television cameras. Stevens suggested that the losing candidate should play an almost "pastoral" role, "soothing" the American people after a long and divisive campaign.

"I don't think it is a time for soothing and everything's fine," said Romney. "I think this is a time for [saying], 'This is really serious, guys. This is really serious.'"

"To get up and soothe is not my inclination," an obviously anguished Romney continued. "I cannot believe that [Obama] is an aberration in the country. I believe we're following the same path of every other great nation, which is we're following greater government, tax rich people, promise more stuff to everybody, borrow until you go over a cliff. And I think we have a very high risk of reaching the tipping point sometime in the next five years. And the idea of saying 'it's just fine, don't worry about it' -- no, it's really not."

Romney was right.  It is not fine.  I fear a coalition of those who loot and/or prefer Latin or European political culture to American has plunged the United States into permanent decline.

I hope I am wrong.  I do see the possibility of a backlash so strong in the 2014 and 2016 elections that it will, like the 1980 election, stop America’s decline for a generation.  In my more optimistic moments, I expect it.  (Hence, my Downfall series.)  But if the next two elections fail to do that, my view of the future is dark indeed.  Moreover, if after the abysmal performance of the Obama Administration, there isn’t the great repudiation of the Democrat Party they have earned so well, it will confirm my pessimism.

And if the establishment Republicans and Democrats succeed in importing more un-American voters and cheap labor with immigration “reform”, not unlike what the UK Labour Party did with immigration there, then America’s decline will be hastened all the more.  Legalization and importation of those who should not be here in the first place must be stopped.

More unhappy thoughts on Romney’s justified pessimism may be found over at Ace of Spades.

But my trust is in a different kingdom.  And prophecies concerning that kingdom, contrary to a few bizarre interpretations, do not seem to say much about the United States of America.  We are not as great as we think we are in God’s purposes.

And we are proving that all too well at the moment.

-----

A trivial but happier note to offset the gloom above:

Yes, I am very happy about the NFL football results this past weekend.  This earlier post will tell you why. 

Unless the refs manage to ruin it, this will be a Super Bowl I enjoy.

BREAKING!!: I don’t know what to think

Yes, I know that headline is shocking to readers.  But I am so not opinionated, don’tcha know.  So sometimes I just don’t know what to think about a matter.

And the appointment of Tory Baucum as a Canterbury Preacher is one such matter.  This appointment makes quite a statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury, seeing that Baucum is an ACNA priest.  But he is also the ACNA priest that rather infamously practiced “reconciliation” with the TEC “Bishop” of Virginia.  So is Archbishop Welby saying ACNA had best do likewise if it wants recognition from Canterbury?

And I have ACNA friends I highly respect with sharply divergent views of this appointment.

But it is significant so I thought it worth noting . . . even if I do not know what otherwise to think of it.

The statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury may be found here.  And here is the statement from ACNA.

And a hat tip to Stand Firm, where some of these divergent opinions may be found.

Germany Persecutes Homeschoolers . . . With Obama’s Help

When I first heard about German authorities seizing the children of the Wunderlich family because they homeschooled, I was horrified.  But I hoped it was an outlier.  Perhaps because of wishful thinking, I did not connect the dots very well although I did remember that it was Hitler who outlawed homeschooling in Germany.

Kevin Williamson does connect the dots.  He points out that totalitarian statists hate homeschooling. For totalitarians seek “to bring political discipline to every aspect of life — and control of education is essential to that project.”

And guess which totalitarian is helping Germany in persecuting homeschoolers? Barack Hussein Obama, particularly in the case of another homeschooling family, the Romeikes:

The Romeike family was granted asylum in the United States because the German government was intent on wresting away the children and putting the parents in cages for the crime of homeschooling their children, which is verboten in Germany, a legacy of the country’s totalitarian past. The Obama administration, which in other notable areas of immigration law has enacted a policy of “discretion” regarding deportations, took the Romeike family to court to have its asylum protections revoked, and succeeded in doing so. The family has appealed to the Supreme Court, which has ordered the Obama administration to respond to the Romeikes’ petition, but the administration has so far refused to do so.   

And it is yet another case of Obama attacking freedom of religion.

Of course it doesn’t help that homeschooling is associated in the public mind with a particular strain of Evangelical Christianity, as in the case of the Romeike family. It is distasteful, but it should not be a surprise that the Obama administration has no objection to the political and religious suppression of such unruly Christians — the Obama administration is doing the same thing to the Little Sisters of the Poor and other Christian groups that it finds inconvenient.

Germany still clearly has a loathsome persecuting totalitarian streak . . . and so does Barack Obama.

Thoughts on Bridgegate (or Now I Annoy Everyone)

First, I should be open and say I used to be a fan of Chris Christie, but that was years ago now.  If, God forbid, he got the Republican nomination for president, I might have to consider voting third party.

Having got that out of the way, I watched most of his marathon press conference yesterday and was impressed.  I thought he handled the situation about as well as it could be handled, and he certainly came across as sincere about it. 

My first reaction afterwards was that he will probably weather this.  But on further reflection, I am not so sure. 

Although closing the I-95 bridge into New York City may be an outlier, it is not isolated.  Christie has a reputation as something of a bully. “I am not a bully” could come back to haunt him.  And his staff. . . .  Let’s just say his staff has a bipartisan reputation for being . . . not nice. (LANGUAGE WARNING)

I have had Congressmen, Governors, and the staffers of Congressmen and Governors tell me horror stories about dealing with Christie’s people. All of them seem to dread it.

One congressman told me he wanted to talk to Christie about a matter and the staff would not put him through and would not even give him the Chief of Staff to talk to.

A Governor told me that Christie’s staff treats incumbent governors as if they are low level staffers there to serve as Chris Christie’s advance team.

A Chief of Staff of a Governor once told me that Christie’s staff began lecturing the Chief of Staff’s Governor about the set up of an event and what that Governor needed to say. Both the Chief of Staff and Governor were rather hacked off by the arrogant tone.

Another senior staffer told me that after dealing with Christie for an event, they decided they’d rather focus on drawing celebrities for instate functions because the riders and demands of celebrities tend to be much easier to deal with.

No wonder Republicans have not exactly been rushing to the microphones to defend Christie.

Christie surrounded himself with . . . not nice people and they have acted not nice.  That is Christie’s fault.  And several in the news media are no doubt sniffing around for other instances of not nice scandalous bullying.  So I doubt the political damage to Christie is done.

And I have no problem with the news media looking into the dealings of Christie and his staff.  If a big state governor and presidential contender and/or his staff is running his state this way, that is indeed newsworthy, and I am glad to see it come out. 

But I do have a big problem with the media double standard here.  Take just one of the Obama Administration scandals, IRS targeting.  Using the IRS to target and muzzle political adversaries is an outrage of much more import than disrupting bridge traffic.  And Obama appointing political thugs to the IRS in large part brought this about, not unlike Bridgegate.  But has the news media gone after that with much zeal?

The Media Research Center has provided a measure of just how enormous the media double standard is here.  In 24 hours, the Big Three networks gave 17 times more coverage to Bridgegate than they gave in the past six months to the IRS scandal.

Again, my problem is not the attention given to Bridgegate.  I am glad to see it.  The problem is with the news media downplaying and enabling the Obama Regime’s IRS abuses.

-----

On a lighter note, there is another Christie quote that will likely be repeated: “I am enormously flattered that folks would talk about me in my party as someone who they think could be a candidate for president.”

Expect slightly edited clips to abound of Christie saying, “I am enormous.”

There.  I think I’ve annoyed everyone now.

“baptism lite”

I am usually skeptical about liturgical revision.  And I’ve long derided mainline churches’ propensity to confess the sins of others rather than their own.  So it will not surprise that I look with a jaundiced eye upon proposed changes in the Church of England’s baptism rite. 

David Koyzis succinctly points out the chief problem with the proposed language – it does indeed enable those who’d rather confess other people’s evil.

I can reject the evil found in oppressive systems out there or in the pettiness of my neighbour next door. But I needn’t look into my own heart. I can, if I like, but the altered rite itself seems not to require it. By contrast, if I am asked, “Do you repent of the sins that separate us from God and neighbour?”, I am compelled to look within, to weigh my own heart in the balance and actively to renounce certain destructive tendencies within myself.

But the one who has opened my eyes to the sheer awfulness of the proposed rite is one with which I have had my disagreements, one who is certainly not a mossback uberorthodox reactionary such as yours truly.  Yet Bishop Pete Broadbent has cut the proposed rite down to size, calling it “baptism lite”. A few highlights:

3. Where is the truth that we are rebels against God expressed? 

4. Where is repentance from sin? 

5. Where is renunciation of the devil and evil? ("reject" is a much weaker word - I can reject your ideas, but I need to reject and renounce the devil and evil)

6. Where is the sense that Christ is Saviour - and that we need saving? 

His whole post is quite short; he cuts apart the proposed rite very well with only a few thrusts of his virtual sword.  So go read for yourself.

FWIW, it would not surprise me to see the proposed language go down in flames.  That is certainly where it belongs.

Next Month . . .

2013 was a good year for me.  I saw God’s providence work marvelously.

This year should prove to be special as well.  For one thing, next month is the 10^th anniversary of this blog.  Yep, I’ve been ranting here that long.  I intend to mark the occasion by using February to look back.  So do come by then.  I don’t think it will be too boring.

If you have any (somewhat polite) questions about this blog or requests for next month, feel free to pass them on in the comments or to tweet them to me.

And I wish all readers a Happy New Year and a blessed Epiphany season.

When to Celebrate Epiphany?

I’ve looked down my nose on those churches that do not celebrate feasts on their proper God-ordained dates. coughRomanscough  But today’s date of the Feast of the Epiphany on a Monday is awkward for my small parish.  We wanted to celebrate the 2^nd Sunday after Christmas as those do not come around every year.  We knew that almost no one would come on a cold Monday night.  (And it is indeed bitter out there by South Texas standards.)  Celebrating it next Sunday would be a bit of a stretch and would cause us to bypass the 1^st Sunday after Epiphany.

So what the Rector decided is to celebrate the Epiphany during our regular Wednesday night service.  And that seems sensible to me as well.  Some do not like octaves.  But one advantage of them is that one can celebrate a major feast for a week.  Or at least that’s our excuse.

If we were a larger parish, I would have preferred today.  But we are not.  It’s better to do it when a few more are likely to come.

NFL Playoffs: Who I’m rooting for (and against) and why.

Inspired by a guide to who to root or in the playoffs for losers those whose teams did not make the playoffs, I have decided to share my all-important and correct feelings about the teams who made it.  You may disagree . . . and be scum.

I’ll do this in order from teams I’m rooting for to the one I so hate, I will probably have to avoid a Super Bowl party if it makes it.

1. Denver Broncos – I’ve always loved this team (with the possible exception of when Mike Shanahan coached it.  Yes, I dislike him that much.) and I’ve always loved Peyton Manning.  I not only expect them to make the Super Bowl; I might pray for it.

2. Seattle Seahawks – I’ve rooted for them since they came into the NFL, in part because my Dad used to live there.  And I still resent the Super Bowl stolen from them by refs, particularly a ref from (S)Pittsburgh.  They are practically owed a Super Bowl.

If these two both make the Super Bowl, I will wish they both could win somehow.  These next three are very close together in my heart.  (And remember, this is who I’m rooting for, not who I am predicting to win.)

3. Carolina Panthers – I have a warm place in my heart for most teams who have never won a Super Bowl.  And I appreciate the character of this team, especially how they turned it around after a bad 2012 and a bad start this year.  And, unless you bellow “Roll Tide!”, ya gotta love Cam Newton.  And it’s obvious he has worked hard on his game after getting by pretty much on pure talent.  Not all talented players have the humility and discipline to do that.

4 .New Orleans Saints – I’ve always rooted for them, in part because I still remember when they were the Aints and their fans wore bags on their heads.  They are fun to watch, at least at home.  I think the NFL singled them out in Bountygate.  The awkwardness if they win the Super Bowl and Roger Goodell and Saint’s Coach Sean Payton are together on the awards stand could be priceless.  Heck, that alone makes them rootworthy.

5. Green Bay Packers – I disliked them as a kid because I was a big Cowboys fan.  I still remember Bart Star making my Mama unhappy.  And I hated Vince Lombardi.  I know – heresy.  I respect him now, but only.

But I came around through the years to like them.  Yes, I can change my mind about a franchise.  They have always been a class act.  And you do not know how much I appreciate them beating the Steelers in the Super Bowl.  (Can you guess yet who I am thankful is not in the playoffs?)  If they manage to beat the 49ers this weekend, I will become that much more grateful towards them.

6. Indianapolis Colts – I don’t like them as much as when Peyton was there.  But I still like them and appreciate their turnaround after Peyton got injured then left.  And their QB Luck is likable and fun to watch.  I even like watching his beard grow.

7. Kansas City Chiefs – Who can dislike a team that has so turned it around?  They aren’t the Kansas City “Chefs” any more.  And I like and respect Andy Reid (See the Eagles below.).  But they did not finish that strong (although their scrubs nearly beat the Chargers last Sunday), and I’m not a long time fan of theirs.  So I’m not that excited about them.

8. San Diego Chargers – I’ve mildly rooted for them a long time.  But I don’t like Rivers’ act.  And they are a most undeserving playoff team.  But I still like them.  Who said football fans are rational?

9. New England Patriots – I know this is probably the most hated team in America.  But I still remember when they rose up from decades of mediocrity and worse to slay the Steelers and the Raiders.  And I still appreciate them for that, a lot.  Yes, it is hard to really love them, but I cannot hate them.

10. Cincinnati Bengals – This is the only team I am truly indifferent about.  One reason is so many times through the years, nay, decades, they had opportunities to stop the 49ers and the Steelers (Yes.  Them again.) and utterly failed.  Even this year, they only split their games with the Steelers, enabling their very nearly successful playoff run.  So thanks for nothing, Bungles.  Eh, I’ll correct myself.  I hope San Diego embarrasses these losers.

11. Philadelphia Eagles – I used to hate this team (and still have contempt for most of their fans).  But I so appreciated Andy Reid telling T. O. to get lost in mid-season a few years ago, I began to respect them that day and still do.  And QB Nick Foles is quite the story and very hard to dislike.  Yes, this is a long time Cowboys fan who doesn’t hate the Eagles.  But don’t expect me to root for them unless they play . . .

666. San Francisco 49ers – There are two teams in the NFL today that, if they make the Super Bowl, I probably will have to forego any Super Bowl parties: Pittsburgh (NOT in the playoffs! Yesss!) and these guys.  For I will be ranting and raving and praying and fasting (Well, maybe not fasting.) for their defeat.  I will not be fit for polite company or even impolite company.

I’ll be honest.  The seeds of my hatred of the 49ers were the years when they again and again beat Dallas and won the Super Bowl, and I got sick of it.  But it’s not just that. (And remember I’ve warmed to other big rivals of the Cowboys.  See above.)  They cheated to win their Super Bowls.  During those years, their crook owner Eddie DeBartolo violated NFL rules.  Under him the 49ers cheated their way to a dynasty, including violating salary caps.

And yet the NFL and the sports news media still fawn on them.  And, yes, ESPN shamed themselves by puffing even DeBartolo during the 49ers’ last game at Candlestick.  Let me vomit.

And I detest that bicep-kissing quarterback of theirs.  I cannot put my finger on it, and I know I shouldn’t feel this way, but – God forgive me – I want someone to break that arm when he runs up the middle.  I don’t even respect him.  Unlike Cam Newton, he has not improved his game.

And you can guess what I think of the city of Sodom San Francisco.

Get the picture?

Now I am in the happy situation that the 49ers are the only playoff team I truly hate.  So if they get beat, I can relax and enjoy the rest of the playoffs . . . and maybe even have a Super Bowl party.  Heck, their elimination would demand a party.

Let us pray…