In one week . . .

One week from today, God willing, I take off for England. First stop: Cambridge.

UPDATE: I just found out I'll get to see the Cambridge Illuminations exhibition.

Q+A session with the Archbishop of Canterbury

I recommend reading the Q+A session with the Archbishop of Canterbury at the recent South-South Encounter in Egypt.

You may have noticed I’ve been . . . perplexed by some of the Archbishop’s actions (or lack thereof) in the past. But I found these answers reassuring.

What I find most reassuring is he comes across as seeking to be a truly catholic archbishop. He doesn’t see forcing controversial innovations on the church as his role at all, regardless of his personal views.

And he doesn’t seem to look fondly on any other bishop who takes on that kind of divisive role.

(I would say ECUSA take note, but I’m sure that would fall on deaf ears.)

Common Cause convention begins today.

My thoughts and prayers are with the Common Cause convention that begins in Pittsburgh today. The past two mornings I’ve prayed this slightly altered prayer from the Reformed Episcopal Prayer Book (also found in the 1928 BCP):

A Prayer to be used at the Meetings of Convention.

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who by thy Holy Spirit didst preside in the Council of the blessed Apostles, and hast promised, through thy Son Jesus Christ, to be with thy Church to the end of the world; We beseech thee to be with the Council of thy Church in Pittsburgh assembled in thy Name and Presence. Save them from all error, ignorance, pride, and prejudice; and of thy great mercy vouchsafe, we beseech thee, so to direct, sanctify, and govern us in our work, by the mighty power of the Holy Ghost, that the comfortable Gospel of Christ may be truly preached, truly received, and truly followed, in all places, to the breaking down the kingdom of sin, Satan, and death; till at length the whole of thy dispersed sheep, being gathered into one fold, shall become partakers of everlasting life; through the merits and death of Jesus Christ our Saviour. Amen.

Andrew Goddard’s Oxford Union speech on practicing gay bishops

Recently the Oxford Union debated the motion “This House believes that a homosexual lifestyle is no bar to becoming a Bishop.” Andrew Goddard of Wycliffe Hall spoke in opposition to the motion and spoke very well. I commend his speech to you.

The most interesting part of the speech to me was his quote from a gay atheist of all people, Matthew Parris:

Knowingly to appoint gay bishops robs Christianity of meaning. It is time that convinced Christians stopped trying to reconcile their spiritual beliefs with the modern age and understood that if one thing comes clearly through every account we have of Jesus’s teaching, it is that His followers are not urged to accommodate themselves to their age, but to the mind of God. When the row over the appointment of gay bishops first blew up I expected, being gay, to join the side of the Christian modernisers. But try as I do to summon up enthusiasm for my natural allies…passion fails me.

Why do so many church leaders not have that much sense?

Al Mohler and Touchstone, am I a second-class adult?

In the past on this blog, I’ve told of my encounters with churches that treat singles as second-class adults. In my last two church searches, it was a priority to find churches that do not do that.

Obviously, I don’t think it wise to encourage churches to treat singles as lesser members. So imagine my reaction when I was reading the latest Touchstone and saw this from Albert Mohler:

The church should insist that the biblical formula is: Adulthood means marriage, and marriage means children.

Well. I guess Jesus wasn’t a full adult then. Nor was Paul. And let’s keep ignoring that weird un-American chapter in I Corinthians that talks about remaining single to focus on devotion to the things of the Lord. No, no. “Adulthood means marriage.”

I guess all those offending churches through the years were right – I’m a second-class adult.

Now to be fair, Dr. Mohler was primarily writing about married couples who refuse to have children. And although I don’t share his conviction that willfully childless couples are all mean and selfish and Unbiblical™?, he makes some good points about sorry attitudes towards children. And I would hope what he meant was generally adulthood means marriage. I would probably agree.

But that’s not what he wrote. Through recklessness (I hope), he wrote that the church should “insist” that “adulthood means marriage.”

No, it doesn’t. That is not “biblical.” It’s just the opposite. It ignores scripture itself. And it’s a smear (though inadvertent I’m sure) on Jesus and all His saints through the ages who have served God without getting married. Putting a “biblical” mantle on such prejudice is flat wrong and offensive.

And it’s a prejudice against singles too many churches exhibit already. They don’t need any encouragement from Albert Mohler or Touchstone.

Achtung! You VILL be inclusive!

I try not to be too cynical and bitter and generally mean. I really do. But when I see the oh-so-inclusive and tolerant crowd prove themselves again and again to be about the most exclusive and intolerant totalitarians on the face of the earth, I just give up my feeble efforts.

And I’m not using the word “totalitarian” idly. Totalitarians tolerate no action, associations, or even thinking that is opposed to the direction of the Benevolent Dictators in charge of their movements. And that describes all too well the most fervent of the “inclusive” libchurch crowd.

Take the People’s Democratic Bishop of the Shiny Happy Gulag of New Westminster, Michael Ingham. This man who is supposed to be a shepherd brooks no Wrong Thinking among the sheep. He was publicly angry when Canada did not enact laws making it illegal for clergy to refuse to conduct same-sex marriages.

And Freedom of Association is just a Capitalist Running Yankee Dog concept to him and his comrades. His diocese just passed a resolution asking the Maximum Bishop to

take such actions as he may consider necessary with respect to any licensed Clergy or any Parish of the Diocese who should choose to declare themselves to be a Member of the Anglican Network in Canada or the Essentials Network or the Anglican Communion in Canada, whether by formal resolution or by other public actions or declarations…

So they’ve asked for Ingham to come down on clergy members of the Network as hard as he wants. And these are among the groups that the Archbishop of Canterbury has publicly recognized as good Anglicans, saying, “There is no doubt in my mind that these networks are full members of the Anglican Communion: that is to say, their bishops, their clergy, and their people are involved with the Communion which I share with them, which we all share with them.”

Think about that again. If you are clergy in the Diocese of Westminster and you become a member of the Network, the official diocese policy, though the Network is recognized by ++Rowan, is for Bishop Ingham to come down on you as hard as “he may consider necessary.” And this bishop is a man who would have the state act against those who refuse to conduct same-sex marriages.

Welcome to the lefty totalitarian “inclusive” “church.”

Liberal Bigots

While driving this week, my head nearly hit the ceiling of my pick-up when I heard the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel had opined thus on the Supreme Court:

In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.

Oh. So Clarence Thomas isn’t a true black man because he’s a conservative.

Yes, suhh. That boy Clarence left the Liberal Plantation before he joined the Supreme Court. So he’s an upitty n____r, not a Good Negro. Darkies need to remember their place and support liberal Democrats. So we need to put that boy in his place.

I am sorely tempted to suggest what the editorial writers of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal can do to themselves. But on second thought, maybe I should thank them for unveiling the depths of their vile bigotry for all to see.

And, as Michelle Malkin well points out, such blatant racism is by no means an isolated case among liberals.