On the Edge of a One-Party State

How about that debate? :D

Sorry. I know last night’s debate was not pleasant viewing.  I don’t know who said shut up more, Biden at Trump or me at my television.  And, like many, my IQ may have decreased last night.  So forgive me if this post is not my most eloquent. 

Having said all that, there was one moment last night that disturbed me more than the whole rest of the debate, and that was Biden refusing to say whether he would end the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court:

Chris Wallace, in one of the few tough questions he posed to Biden, said this:

So my question to you is, you have refused in the past to talk about it, are you willing to tell the American tonight whether or not you will support either ending the filibuster or packing the court?

Biden refused to answer, something the Trump quickly challenged.  Here's the colloquy:

BIDEN: Whatever position I take on that, that'll become the issue. The issue is the American people should speak. You should go out and vote. You're voting now. Vote and let your Senators know strongly how you feel.

TRUMP: Are you going to pack the court?

BIDEN: Vote now.

TRUMP: Are you going to pack the court?

BIDEN: Make sure you, in fact, let people know, your Senators.

TRUMP: He doesn't want to answer the question.

BIDEN: I'm not going to answer the question.

TRUMP: Why wouldn't you answer that question? You want to put a lot of new Supreme Court Justices. Radical left.

BIDEN: Will you shut up, man?

TRUMP: Listen, who is on your list, Joe? Who's on your list?

WALLACE: Gentlemen, I think we've ended this —

BIDEN: This is so un-Presidential.

TRUMP: He's going to pack the court. He is not going to give a list.

And this is not the first time Biden has refused to answer.  I hope he does not get away with his non-answer.  Given what passes for jurisprudence from Democrat hacks-in-black, if Democrats do pack the Supreme Court, you can pretty much kiss the Constitution and the rule of law good-bye and America with it.  We would be on the road to Venezuela.

Think I’m exaggerating?  Early in the Hugo Chavez regime, the Supreme Court of Venezuela had the temerity to say no to some of his designs.  His response?  He packed the Supreme Court.  He, like the current leadership of the Democrat Party, expected judges to do his bidding regardless of trivialities like a constitution or the rule of law.   So he packed the Court and got just that.  

Should Biden get elected and Democrats win the Senate, we are in serious danger of that happening right here in the United States.  Democrats have already long demonstrated they think the purpose of judges is to do their policy bidding regardless of the Constitution and the rule of law.  Should they gain enough power to pack the Supreme Court, that is what they, and we, will get.  And we will no longer be a Constitutional republic but a Leftist One-Party State.  Why?  Because elections do not matter with Leftist Dictators in Black Robes.  If we are not wise enough to vote for untrammeled Marxism, a Democrat-packed Supreme Court will shove it down our throats . . . for “justice”, of course. 

And, also of course, should Biden be elected, he will reopen the floodgates of illegal immigration (or just make it legal) and give away amnesty and citizenship like candy on Halloween.  Democrats are not pleased with the current electorate, so they will change it by importing a more pliable, less American one.  Even if they do not pack the Court, so changing the demographics of the electorate will make us a Leftist One-Party State just like they did with California.

Democrats make even create two new states from Washington, D. C. and Puerto Rico to pack the Senate with four more Democrat Senators.  I have my doubts whether they will be able to do that in the near future.  But that is on the DemocRAT agenda as well.  And, again, you can pretty much kiss America good-bye if they succeed.

So there is much more on the ballot this year than public policy.  What is on the ballot is whether you will have much say on public policy in future elections.  For if Biden wins, we are in grave danger of being on the road to a Leftist One-Party State.  And if Democrats take the Senate as well, we are practically there.

Brace for a Contested Election

I hesitate to add to the unpleasantness that is 2020.  But I think it likely we will have a contested election fueled by massive fraud.  Before you dismiss my alarm, I am a former election judge with more than an average knowledge of how elections work.

Part of my experience was verifying absentee ballots.  The number of ballots we had to go through is nothing compared to the wave of mail-in ballots on the way this year.  But it was not an easy process; much of the time, we were just guessing which ballots were for real and which were fraudulent.  We gave the benefit of the doubt to questionable ballots, so who knows how many fraudulent ones snuck through.  Thankfully, the numbers were small enough no outcome was affected if memory serves me right.  But this year with mail-in ballots becoming a norm?

With the mail-in ballots regimes in many states this year, it will be too easy and too tempting to commit massive election fraud.  Anyone who tells you that mail-in voting does not enable fraud is naïve or lying.  Adding to its likelihood are Democrat judges extending the reception of mail-in ballots for days and even weeks after Election Day.  Democrat hacks-in-black have long extended elections to enable vote manufacturing.  Some are already doing that on steroids.  So expect convenient Democrat ballots to be “found” well after Election Day accompanied by mindless chants of “Count every vote.”

Speaking of election fraud already in progress, Ilhan Omar and friends have just been caught committing massive vote buying.  And Biden’s Texas Political Director is implicated in a ballot-harvesting scheme.  Yes, we are still over a month away from Election Day, but election fraud is already being discovered.  How much will go on undiscovered?

With this likely to be a close election, the potential for it being contested for weeks at least is great.  First, with many ballots being mail-in, we probably will not know the results on election night.  Trump will probably be ahead, well ahead due to his voters more likely to shun mail-in ballots to vote in person.  But then as mail-in ballots are counted for who knows how long afterward, that lead will grow smaller and smaller.  

One scenario is Trump being successful enough in throwing out questionable ballots to retain narrowly his lead in keys states and win.  Another scenario is that he loses his lead in a crucial state due to questionable mail-in ballots, and you get President Harris, er, Biden.  This could too easily happen in Detroit where incompetence, if not corruption, has already made a hash of this year’s primaries.  Will a likely Trump Michigan lead be able to survive Detroit and its corruption?

Of course, a contested election will severely strain our already torn civility.  How would the Antifa and BLM crowd respond to a Trump victory, much less a close and contested one?  And should there be a widespread perception that Biden stole the election, will red-blooded American Trump supporters continue to be peaceful?  Their votes in 2016 never were respected.  Democrats and RINOs have engaged in a non-stop coup against Trump ever since.  If they then steal or seem to steal the 2020 election and put Harris, er, Biden in the White House, will the Trump people take that peacefully? Frankly, if it weren’t for my faith and trust in God’s sovereignty and justice, I couldn’t trust myself to act peacefully in such a situation.  And even if they do continue to act peacefully, how corrosive to our civil society will it be to have a President that a third or more of the electorate considers illegitimate?

You get the picture.  In just over a month, 2020 may get worse in this country, much worse.

Pray . . . and vote wisely and in-person, documenting your vote as much as possible.

The “Beauty of Holiness” or “Popish Baits”?

When I picked up Graham Parry’s Glory, Laud and Honour: The Arts of the Anglican Counter-Reformation, I expected a heavy academic read, which would have been fine as it covers a subject matter of interest to me.  

Was I wrong!  The book begins with Puritan Peter Smart’s furious indictment of John Cosin and Durham Cathedral in 1630:

…your popish baits and allurements of glorious pictures, and Babalonish vesturs, and excessive numbers of wax-candles burning at one tyme…

Ah yes, the candles.  Always the candles.  Smart was unhappy with much else as well, particularly Cosin’s “upstarting, downesquattings, east-turning, crossings and kissings” and more.

I found myself laughing uproariously.  I was reminded of the Low Churchman’s Guide to the Solemn High Mass except that Smart was quite serious.  Thus I soon discovered that Glory, Laud and Honour is not only scholarly and helpful to further study, but is actually a fun read.

And, yes, much of the fun does come from the adversarial relationship between the Puritans and the Laudians along with others who thought the worship of the Lord called for “the beauty of holiness”.  This holy combat was reflected in church architecture and furnishings and often the destruction of the same.  Parry pays not a little attention to Dowsing’s visitations of Cambridge for one thing.  And he notes that much of what we know about church furnishings under the influence of John Cosin, William Laud and cohorts comes from the Puritans’ disapproving documentation of them.

The Puritans (with an exception or two I will note another time) were rather nasty.  Beheading statues was not enough for them.  They eventually beheaded Laud, Lord of Canterbury and Charles, King and Martyr.  But (And now I will show my talent for alienating just about everybody.) the Archbishop and King in part lost their heads by not following Hooker more closely on the subject of ceremonies and images in worship.  

As Parry points out at length, Hooker approved of traditional ceremonial worship “in the bewtie of holiness,” not unlike the later Laudians, but he considered such to be adiaphora, i. e. among matters on which the faithful can and should be able to agree to disagree.  He thought parishes should be allowed discretion on details of ceremonies and ornaments as long as they stick to the Book of Common Prayer.  Further he thought disputes over such matters risk “a kinde of taking of Gods name in vaine to debase religion with such frivolous disputes, a sinne to bestowe time and labor about them.”

But neither the Laudians nor the Puritans were very interested in allowing discretion in matters of worship.  Instead they bestowed a lot of time and labor and venom upon them indeed, greatly contributing to the ugliness between them.  Many on both sides eventually paid with their lives, both on the executioner’s block and in civil war.

Well, I got rather dark there, didn’t I.  But that does not keep me from having a good laugh or two or three at their liturgical combat.  Yes, I am rather warped that way.

There is much more that is both fun and helpful about Glory, Laud and Honour, to which I may return at a later time.

The Paradox of the Cowley Fathers

I’ve just finished reading Serenhedd James’ The Cowley Fathers which, as the subtitle announces, is “a history of the English Congregation of the Society of St. John the Evangelist.” I found it scholarly and for the most part very readable, even fun in spots.

The Society of St. John the Evangelist was an Anglo-Catholic monastic institution founded in Oxford in 1866 by Richard Meux Benson.  It dissolved with two active resident members in 2012.  For most of its life, it was based in the Oxford suburb of Cowley on the grounds now used by St. Stephen’s House, hence the affectionate moniker the Cowley Fathers.

Two paradoxes of its history struck me as I read James’ book, one positive, one not so positive.  First, the positive and downright Biblical paradox.  During its entire history, the Society of St. John the Evangelist had barely over a hundred members who remained in vows, “professions,” until death.  Yet in spite of its modest size it had a profound international impact, including in India, in South Africa, and in urban communities in the United States.  At home in England, it was a leader in the Anglo-Catholic Congresses and in providing retreats and spiritual direction to many, including C. S. Lewis.  More still can be said about their ministry.  The Cowley Fathers embodied the truth that God can work by many or by few.

The unpleasant paradox is one shared by much of the church during the 1960’s and later, that the Society watered down and cast off more and more of its heritage for a modern porridge, even including eventual majority support for women’s ordination and for the formation of Affirming Catholicism.  The motivation was to become more modern, relevant, and attractive, but the result turned out to be more repellant than attractive.  

While reading James’ narrative, it is not easy to discern just how this sad direction came about. But it is clear that Vatican II’s influence on the Church of England certainly influenced the Society as well.  Internally, much of the responsibility of the descent belongs to David Campbell, “the architect of most of the Society’s reforms of the 1960’s,” in James’ perhaps overly kind words, and then Superior General from 1976-1991.  He led the Society into terminal decline, acknowledging “we do not know whether or not there will be many chapters to follow” yet all the while expressing a positive spin on the decline that is pitiful and tragicomical in hindsight. 

Granted, Anglican monasticism as a whole declined in the post-war years; that decline was under way before the 60’s.  But one would think Campbell and the rest of the Society would have grasped that an attractive strength was its robustly catholic Anglican distinctiveness.  To exchange that for worldliness was foolish at best and surely accelerated the sad decline of the Society.  (Note that is my conclusion, not James’.)

Yes, the history of the Society of St. John the Evangelist has lessons for the church today, does it not?  If only those lessons were learned.

Matt Kennedy Added to ACNA Working Group

I am pleased to hear Fr. Matt Kennedy has been added to ACNA’s Working Group on Race, Racism, and Racial Reconciliation.

I had concerns about the balance of the group but kept them private because I did not know enough about the group members to have a public opinion.  I do know Matt well enough to know he will significantly improve the group’s balance.  And he is an excellent addition regardless.

Even before his appointment I have harbored some hope that the Working Group and the College of Bishops’ response to it would steer ACNA away from the influence of Critical Theory.  That hope is increased now.

The Good Samaritan Revisited

I have a confession to make.  There are a few Bible passages that come up in worship and teaching often and prompt me to think with a tedious sigh, “Oh.  That passage again.”  Yes, that response is sinful and disgusting.  And the parable of the Good Samaritan, which is the Gospel for the 13^th Sunday after Trinity, has been one of those passages.

But I am glad to say the Lord and two excellent sermons on this parable disabused me of that putrid attitude.  First my Rector used the occasion to preach against false notions of social justice prevalent today.  I am encouraged by this and other signs of push back in ACNA.  He also noted that the inn symbolizes the church, something I had either forgotten or missed.

Then I read Sunday’s sermon at Pusey House from the Principal, George Westhaver.  I found it a delight, full of history and interpretation that is new to me.  The significance of traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho, the connection between the Gospel and Epistle lessons for Trinity 13, interpretations of the two denarii – these are among the new (or forgotten) things the sermon taught me.  And, yes, the Principal’s thankfulness for the lawyer’s question also made me smile.

Need I say more?  Read his sermon! (It can also be found at the Pusey House site.  Be aware that his sermons are prepared for delivery more than for reading.  There may be an occasion abbreviation or typo.)

----

TRINITY 13 2020, The Good Samaritan Jesus Christ, Pusey House

Now which of these three was neighbour….

 

The hero of the Gospel story is obviously the Samaritan who cares for the injured man. But the Samaritan is not the only one for whom we may be grateful, we may also be grateful to the lawyer and his questions. People have many jokes about lawyers, but here lawyer is a kind of hero also. Who is my neighbour? The Lawyer’s questions alert us to an important challenge. How do I recognize my neighbour, know the call to love? We’ll look at the answer in a moment, but notice – both the lawyers questions were asked in part for bad reasons. We are told that lawyer wanted to tempt Christ, and that’s what the devil did. And then, we are told that he wanted to justify himself, which is what the Pharisee from Gospel a few weeks ago did, and we know that this is dangerous also. But, in the mercy of God, even these bad motives are turned to good. Thank God for the lawyer, not only for the good in his question, but also for the way the Lord Jesus turns bad to good, death to life. We pray or we ask questions of God for many reasons, and sometimes, with bad and good mixed up in or hopes and in our motives. Yet, if we take questions to Christ, if we persevere in our desiring and asking, we have a good hope that even our confused motives will be turned to good. I may pray for peace of mind, and don’t get it. And then, I am given grace to see that I don’t know the things which belong to my peace, then I see that the Lord is calling me to change so that he can give His peace.^[1]

Some of you will have heard me speak about how his parable is presented in the stained glass of Chartres cathedral. When great Gothic cathedrals were built, filled with stained glass. In golden age of late 12^th and early 13^th, when glass of Chartres and Canterbury was made, most of these cathedrals had a Good Samaritan window. 

The Good Samaritan window is the paradigmatic window of the classic age of stained  glass--why? 

On the one hand, the message of the parable is clear and straightforward. The one who is neighbour to the injured man is an outsider. The Jews looked at the Samaritans with hostility and distrust, and with some good reason. The parable teaches us to see in the outsider our neighbour, one stamped also with the image of God. We are warned about the forms of prejudice or hostility that lead us to deny the common humanity which we share with those different from us. This is of course true, but when the parable was preached on in the ancient Church, most commentators did not begin here. In the Gospels, Jesus is sometimes called a Samaritan, a term of abuse. When we ask who is neighbour to the man in need, the answer the early commentators on this passage gave first was Jesus. They saw in the parable a description the human need, and a description of the fulfilment of the promise in Christ.

 

A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho. 

This is not just any journey. This is a journey from the city of promise, to the city of the curse. Jericho was a cursed place in the OT. It was a favourite retreat of Herod the Tetrach, who killed John the Baptist, and Jericho was near the traditional site of the Temptation of our Lord. The route from Jerusalem to Jericho was notorious as being infested by thieves, a dangerous route. Why would anyone want to leave Jerusalem, the place of the temple, the city of promise, to the city of the curse? If that sounds like a strange question, why would any one of us not chose things which belong to our peace? Well, it’s not so easy is it? We get confused, envy seems like justice, lust seems like love, idolatry seems like enlightened free choice, and even hatred can even dress itself up as hurt feelings. 

We can find ourselves on the way to Jericho almost before we realize it. We may feel trapped, chained. The very things we hate about ourselves come out, again, the very things we confessed and desperately wanted to get rid of, again we find ourselves on the road to Jericho. Sometimes, we don’t think that we’ll go all the way to Jericho, but we can’t stay cooped up in a city of peace, joy, and faith all the time, can we? That wouldn’t be human, or it doesn’t seem that way anyway. This journey describes humankind which fell away from God, and each one of us choosing the wrong thing, finding ourselves, somehow, on the road to Jericho again. This certain man is Adam, every man, and us. When we make that journey, we always fall among thieves. Sometimes we convince ourselves that it won’t work out that way. But, when we give ourselves to hatred, or divisive anger, or contempt, we always loose something of ourselves: the thieves stripped [the man] of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. This is a picture of the life-sapping character of sin, of all choices against the love and wisdom of God. 

 

Next we come to the part of the story where we are most tempted to self-righteousness. 

And by chance there came down a certain priest that way; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite,

On a human level, of course the priest and levite, the religious experts, should stop. We may feel convicted here, and see how we have done the same thing. Ironically, this is a problem more of those who are really trying to live well. The trouble is that our efforts to do the right thing can lead to a certain contempt for those who are in trouble. 

But there is also a deeper truth here. The priest and Levite aren't heartless, they’re just not capable of helping the man. They are the law and the prophets. They can see the man in the ditch, they can see that he has fallen among thieves, they can see that he needs help, but they are not the Saviour. This old interpretation explains what might seem like an odd choice for the Epistle. The Epistle describes the relation of promise and law, what the law can give, and what the Christ will do. St Paul says that the law was a kind of schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. At the same time, it’s not enough  to be given a law, or a code of practice. The law needs to enlivened by the Spirit, by the goodness which the prophets embraced and preached: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the Law.

The priest and the Levites are the Law which reveals why it is a bad idea to go to Jericho, but a law which cannot heal the deep wounds which we get on the way there, they cannot give life to the dead or the half-dead.

But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was; and when he saw him, he had compassion on him

The Good Samaritan is the one who is the perfect neighbour to the man in need, or, to speak more generally, the perfect neighbour to humankind in need. According to the early interpreters of the Bible, Augustine, Origen, Ambrose, for example, this Samaritan is Jesus Christ. The Good Samaritan is the one who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and took the road of this present life. He is the seed of Abraham in whom the law and the promise is fulfilled. In the words of Pusey’s mentor and confessor, John Keble, out of love for us, "He made Himself a Samaritan, one who was despised and an outcast of the people."^[2] Christ took the road from Jerusalem to Jericho to be our fellow-traveller, and he falls among thieves for us. In the great Good Samaritan window in Chartres, the certain man gives his back to the smiters, he opens not his mouth, the thieves are like the vicious soldiers in a passion painting, all the while the cross-shaped tree waits for the noble weight of the limbs of the Son of God. 

The Good Samaritan, Jesus Christ does not pass by. He falls among thieves for us, but the viciousness of this un-love has no power over him. He rises from the dead to come to look for us, wounded, and half-dead (note well – only half dead). He pours in wine: this is my blood of the new covenant which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins. The good Samaritan does not pass by, he finds each one of us, "binds up our wounds, pouring in oil and wine, healing our past sins and giving us grace".^[3]

What happens next? 

The Samaritan puts the man ‘on his beast’.

In the tradition, this beast is the human nature which the Son of God takes on. Human nature had become beast-like, but the Word becomes flesh, and then carries us with this flesh.

Another interpretation is that this beast is, you know this of course, this beast is the clergy.^[4] By the grace of God, our Lord can use the most stubborn animal to serve his purposes of love, even the clergy. 

The fathers heard the inn as a description of the Church. In the two denarii they saw the treasure of the Gospel, the Old and New Testaments, the two great sacraments, baptism, and HC. Our Lord departs, but it is his treasure, his Word, the sacraments of His life, which sustain us. 

This is, of course, a very brief tour of a very rich parable, rich with the treasure of the Gospel.

Which now is neighbour to him that fell among thieves? First, it is Christ. We are blessed to see the love of God which searches out the man in the parable, but which searches out each one of us on the way from Jerusalem to Jericho. It is his love in us which sends us out to love and to serve. 

Who is the Good Samaritan? This is tricky. 

In a phrase worthy of Stalin, Roger Hallam, one of the founders of Extinction Rebellion, was heard telling his followers that 'the people that run society, run big business, run governments, run the elites' are fully responsible for the 'climate catastrophe'. The solution? MPs and business owners who do not support his understanding of caring for the environment 'should have bullet put through their heads'. Hallam presents his work as saving humanity. That sounds like work of Good Samaritan. But his words reveal something more dangerous and dark, a hatred of at least some of the people he wants to save. 

Some of the conversations about race in recent months show the other problems. Martin Luther King and so many of the great champions of racial equality saw this promise as an expression of the Gospel, of the equal but different dignity bestowed on every person made in the image of God, created to love and to enjoy God’s goodness. On the one hand, we are invited to renew this search for the dignity which God intends. On the other hand, some use language which suggests that some have more dignity than others, language which encourages resentment and division, which condemns the past but shows a great blindness with regard to the present. 

We are living through strange political times, and we need the probing questions of the lawyer in the parable, who is my neighbour, and above all the grace and wisdom of GS JC, a love which conquers hatred and death, and which turns the bad in our mixed motives, to the good wine of his grace. Whatever enables us to see one another, to really see, through eyes of GS JC, this comes first. Then, raised up and enabled to see, with ears unblocked and tongue loosed by the grace of God, then  we can, with the lawyer in the parable, Go and do likewise. 

Let us come to have our wounds bound up, to have grace poured in, to have our eyes open, and to see and love one another in the inn to which the Saviour takes us. 

---

[1] Sometimes, if we get exactly what we pray for, it would be like our heavenly father giving us a stone when we need bread. That change is part of how the lawyer’s mixed motives are turned to good, for him and for us. Ask for something, we get something different, important not to go on as if there is no mercy of God, no goodness of God in the different answer, or, from the reading this past week, maybe the struggle is where we find God’s strength in our weakness. Both too simplistic, perhaps. Finding God’s mercy and God’s wisdom in the answer we didn’t want to get is important, key to learning to grow up in our life of prayer. 

[2] Keble Sermons, Trinity XIII-end, p. 22.

[3] Keble.

[4] Thanks to Fr Jonathan Beswick for this.