I’m not dead yet . . . but this blog probably is.

I’m not dead yet.  I’m feeling much better actually.  

Seriously, yes, I’m okay.

And I apologize for going silent, especially if I worried anybody.  If I wanted to make excuses for that, they would be 1. I just didn’t have anything I wanted to write here and 2. I got locked out.  Both of which are true.

But now that I finally found my way back in there, I think it’s time to put this blog to bed.  I do reserve the right to revive this blog months or even years from now, but that is unlikely.

I once thought I would surely take this blog to twenty years in 2024.  It was a long-lived blog!  But I am writing so much for other venues, often anonymously, often privately, and more and more under my real life name, that something has to give.  I have never been a prolific writer, and I’ve always had limited energy.  So I think it time to end this blog.

It was a good run, wasn’t it?  I was occasionally wrong, but mostly right on target, even with a prediction or two.  In fact, now that I think about it, I might have a greatest hits post or two.  But I will probably do that on my twitter feed. 

Yes, do follow my twitter.  I remain very active there.

It’s been fun.  And I’m having fun now, just in other venues.  Thanks to all who supported me and prayed for me through the years.  I love you all.

Vagrancy in the U. K.

 Vagrancy in the U. K.

. . . which I guess is cousin to Anarchy in the U. K.

Anyway, yes, I still exist.  I’ve been busy studying, mainly in Oxford, and also busy enjoying my time here.  I am now in York, taking something of a vacation from my studies.

When I came back to England some weeks ago, I feared the problem with panhandlers and other street people would be much worse than my last U. K. sojourn in 2018.  I did not expect it to be as bad as, say, Los Angeles or Seattle, but Oxford and elsewhere in the U. K. have long been very tolerant toward panhandlers and the like.  So I was afraid it would be bad.

In the case of Oxford, I was surprised to find it has not changed much. But an exception to that illustrates that Oxford is asking for it to get much worse.  

(I did have a disturbing episode with an obviously drug-addicted panhandler attacking me while I was trying to eat in peace in Cowley, near Oxford.  But I’ve not spent much time in Cowley in the past, so I’m not in a position to say whether the situation there has gotten worse.  But I can testify firsthand it is bad!)

The exception is three panhandling women regularly in three spots in central Oxford.  All three use the same passive-aggressive tactic.  They pick a narrow place in a busy sidewalk, then sit and block half of it.  All three spots have barriers that make walking around the women difficult if the sidewalks are crowded as they often are.  Their signs (which look suspiciously similar) claiming homelessness are not placed beside them but in front of them thereby assisting them in blocking the sidewalk.  

If you’ve ever walked around Oxford, you would know this is a really obnoxious thing to do as these sidewalks are constantly crowded as it is.  Trying to walk around Oxford can be annoying and even treacherous without panhandlers willfully blocking the way.

Yet these three women, whom I suspect are part of a racket, are allowed to do this every day as far as I can tell.   Of course, when you allow and enable this sort of behavior, you are likely to get more of it as has been the awful experience of American cities . . . any maybe that’s why there are three women doing this already.

Yet, other than these three, the situation with street people hasn’t changed that much in Oxford since 2018.  I cannot explain why it hasn’t gotten worse.  Perhaps some cultural pond differences are in play?  In any case, Oxford is asking for trouble.  But, as historically the case with the city of dreaming spires, they are fortunate . . . for now.

York is a different matter.  There are definitely more street people than in 2018, even “within the walls” in the heart of York. 

York is foolish to allow this as much of their commerce comes from tourists and shoppers roaming within the walls.  At some point, the increased vagrancy has to discourage tourism and shopping, and that point may be near.  

Personally, I am enjoying my stay in York, but the situation has me making a point to retreat to my room well before dark. (I am thankful it takes a long time to get dark this time of year!)  And I will think twice before coming back to York — if the vagrancy situation is getting worse, how bad would it be if I return?  I may not want to find out.

I say this with sadness as I really love York.

York is still far from L. A. or Austin.  But the city seems to be asking for trouble much as Oxford is.  It would be interesting to see how on target my concerns about both cities are, but I won’t be here in the U. K. much longer to find out.

There are surely factors in all this that this Texan is missing.  Feel free to inform me of them in the comments.

You Want Systemic Racism? You Want Systemic Injustice?

You may need to sit down for this.  And this is important enough that I am posting here for the first time in a while.  Ready?

I am a firm believer is systemic racism now.

Yes, it’s true.  And systemic racism is true. I have seen the light, and I am awake to it.

I saw the light yesterday when Jesse Smollett was let out of jail while his conviction is appealed.  He was let out less than a week after he was sentenced to 150 days in jail.

Now, as he wants everyone to know, he is black and gay.  What he wants you to ignore is that he orchestrated fake hate in order to smear Trump supporters and to elevate himself as a victim of those deplorables.

So let’s flip it.  Suppose a very heterosexual white Trump supporter orchestrated a made up black-on-white hate crime on himself in order to smear Black Democrats.  Maybe he would have the fake attackers wear BLM or Biden hats kinda like Smollett had his fake attackers wear MAGA hats.

Do you think such a hypothetical white fake hate artist would be sentenced to only 150 days in jail?  Do you think he would be let out of jail while his conviction is appealed?

Of course not.  Because he is white and straight and Trumpist, not black and gay and Democrat.

So, yes, I believe America has a systemic injustice and a systemic racism problem . . . except it is the opposite of what the woke crowd would have you believe.

I don’t have to make up a hypothetical case to make this point.  Compare the overall absurdly lenient treatment of the diverse Antifa/BLM rioters of 2020 or of the rather monochrome looters/shoplifters of 2021 and 2022 to that of those in jail for January 6th.  Yes, some of those J6 people in jail are rioters, but not all.  Some acted peacefully. But even the rioters did far less damage than the Antifa/BLM rioters.  Yet many J6 people have rotted in jail for over a year without trial.  That is not the speedy trial promised by the Constitution.  That looks more a tyrannical government holding political prisoners to me.  The long sentences Biden’s Justice Department is seeking confirms that.

So yes, the United States has a problem with systemic racism, with systemic injustice.  We have two-tiered “justice” in this country.

And that is exactly how woke Democrats would have it.  That is what woke Democrats have brought about.  Oh yes, they claim to deplore systemic racism and systemic injustice.  They so carry on about how much they hate it.  

But, actually, they love it.

Archbishop Cottrell the Climate Change Clown

Few things are both more contemptible and laughable than church leaders obsequiously aping the agendas of the globalist establishment.  How some clergy make “climate change” more their Gospel than the Gospel itself is certainly part of this sell-out behavior.

Take the Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell.  Please.  The other day he was asked by a Canadian:

The Fifth Mark of Mission of the Anglican Church of Canada is “to strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew the life of the earth.” What’s your advice about how to motivate people in our pews to take positive action about climate change? (and what might that action as a church be?)

A clown question typical of the ACC being far more wedded to leftist ideologies than to the Gospel.  But Cottrell’s answer was even more clownish:

What a good question. Is there a more important question facing the world?  

What the….?  A supposedly Anglican Archbishop suggesting that the issue of climate change may be the most “important question facing the world?”  I think the Bible and the Creeds suggest some slightly more important questions.

It gets worse.  (Emphasis mine.) 

I think I would start by…two things…on the big picture level I think we need to teach much more about this. This needs to be not a kind of add-on to the Gospel; this is the Gospel…how we inhabit the world in the way of Christ…this is the Gospel. So, I’d want to preach and teach about it much more…

So Cottrell wants the church to go even more all in on pushing climate change agendas.  He even says “this is the Gospel.”

This is outrageous is what it is.  It is also puzzling.  Does he not see what an obsequious sycophant he is playing for everyone to see?  Does he not realize he makes a joke of himself when he says such banal blasphemies?  Does he care?

I knew Cottrell was bad news when he was appointed Archbishop of York.  But I did not expect him to be a clown.

This reminds me of another time I saw another Church of England cleric look silly in pushing climate change.  I won’t name names because I respect the woman in question, who has far more intelligence than Cottrell.   But one time, she drank the climate change Kool-aid a bit much and had a bad day. 

I was visiting an Oxford chapel on a Sunday morning back in 2007.  She happened to be the preacher.  And her entire sermon was on global warming.  (That’s what it was called back then.)

Well it so happened that very same Sunday was the most miserably wet and cold day that term.  So when, shivering from a long walk in the cold rain, I later entered her college chapel for Evening Prayer, I smiled and admonished her, “You and your global warming sermon!”

I don’t think she appreciated my humor.

To be fair, she normally led her chapel and preached with wisdom.  I say that although her churchmanship was decidedly different than mine.

Nonetheless, when clergy try to turn secular political agendas into Gospel issues worthy of much pulpit time, they not only do a disservice to the Gospel, they are likely to become silly . . . like Cottrell the Climate Change Clown.

If I were Roman Catholic...

No, I am not becoming Roman Catholic.  I’m a traditional Anglican until I die even if that means starting an Anglican parish in my house.

But I do share a lot with traditional Roman Catholics.  And my heart is with them as the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) is being suppressed by LibPope Francis and his . . . minions. 

Knowledgable readers might think I’m exaggerating by saying the TLM is suppressed.  Fair enough.  Let’s look at the Archdiocese of Chicago under Cardinal Blase Cupich (SPIT).  For the sake of “the unity of the church” deplorable trads cannot have their Latin mass on the first Sundays of months, nor during Christmas, the Triduum, Easter Sunday and Pentecost Sunday.  And among other restrictions is the required permission of the bishop.  Yeah, I’m sure Francis fanboy Cupich will be generous in giving permission for Latin masses.  In any case, during the holiest times of the year, traditional Roman Catholics cannot have their Latin Mass in Cupich’s Archdiocese

This from a Cardinal and diocese replete with enormities, such as this service that began with a “Happy Kwanzaa.”

Yes, not all dioceses are not quite that bad.  But increased restrictions on the TLM are the norm as directed by Francis.

If I were a Roman Catholic I would not submit to having decent traditional liturgy taken away from me.  I will not do that as an Anglican either.  If that means going it alone for a brief time, so be it, but I would hope to find clergy and people with the gumption to rebel against rot in the church.  People like this:

On April 12, 1977, Parisian traditionalists got sick of worshipping in the community hall the petty New Church bureaucrats relegated to them for the celebration of their banned Mass. So they did what any decent, God-fearing Catholics should – they processed into the church of St. Nicholas with priests, occupied it, and stayed there. Every living Trad should know by heart the exchange that occurred between the parish clergyman of St. Nicholas du Chardonnet and one of the occupying priests.

‘By what right do you come here?’ asked one of the parish clergy.

‘We come,’ replied Mgr. Ducaud-Bourget… ‘In Nomine Domini.’[1]

When the police were called by the conciliar priests to expel the invaders, the police showed that they knew more about liturgy than the Congregation for Divine Worship does today. The police did nothing because, as they told the Novus Ordo priests about the Trads: “They’re saying Mass and praying, that’s what a church is for!”

They also displayed that they were inhabiting a more Catholic, and less officious France, when a group of progressive clergy went to a police precinct to complain about the takeover. Requesting to speak with the officer in charge they were told he was unavailable, as he was attending Latin Mass at St. Nicholas.

Yes, I do think it is time for rebellion from faithful Roman Catholics.  For the LibPope and most of their leaders have rebelled against their own history and patrimony.  Francis and his tools are trying to tear the church from the Faith handed down to them.

Those who think I’m overwrought and overstating the situation should remind themselves that lex orandi, lex credendi.  Liturgy and faith cannot be separated.  A crap Novus Ordo liturgy leads to watered down crap belief and visa versa.  Defending and insisting on traditional liturgy is defending and insisting on the Faith.

Those faithful Roman Catholics who are so doing have my respect and prayers.

Boris the Bust

The overnight by-election disaster for Tories in North Shropshire may be the best thing that’s happened to Britain in a while.  

I say that as one who still considers Labour and the LibDems worse than the Conservatives.  And I know very well the by-election was a train wreck.  The district had been Tory for 200 years.  Boris Johnson won it by over 20,000 in 2019.  But a swing of 34 percentage points has handed it to the LibDems.  It wasn’t even close.  To make matters worse, Reform UK (whom I would have voted for) had a weak showing.

So why does this despiser of all things Left think this good nonetheless?  Because it pushes Tory MPs closer to dumping Boris Johnson as Conservative leader and Prime Minister.

Yes, this is all quite a switch not only for many once Tory voters but for me as well.  I once was a great admirer of Boris.  He was an excellent Mayor of London after the insanity of Red Ken Livingston.  He showed political courage in backing Brexit and then insisting it be carried out. He seemed to be politically savvy.  So I expected him to be an excellent Prime Minister, possibly a great one.

But since then, he has been a horrible disappointment.  Look, I know British Conservatives are centrist at best by American standards, and I knew he would be no Margaret Thatcher (still my heroine).  But I did not expect him to be more Blair than Thatcher.  I did not expect him to swallow Climate Change Net Zero madness hook, line, and sinker.  I did not expect him to RAISE taxes.  I certainly did not expect him to persist in COVID lockdowns and then revive restrictions even after it was very clear they do not work and cause far more harm than good.

In short, Boris Johnson began with a remarkable amount of good will as reflected in the 2019 elections and has pissed it all away — and not just by getting pissed at a certain Christmas Party at Downing Street.

Perhaps I should disclose this is personal for me.  I had planned to visit the UK again in 2020.  I then thought I would instead visit in 2021.  Instead I now have bought tickets for 2022 though I fear it will be a sad place thanks to the devastation Johnson’s COVID tyranny has wrought.  If the absurd entry requirements continue, I will cancel those tickets as well.  (It’s a good thing I have travel insurance.)  Not only that, since the UK once looked more sensible and politically stable than the US, I was considering moving there.  Not any more!  I now intend to stay put in Texas, thank you.

Anyway, Boris Johnson has lost most of the good will and patience of the British.  He is worse than a failure.  If Tory MPs have any wisdom, they will turn the big lemon of the North Shropshire by-election into lemonade and use it to dump Boris.

A Reminder About Who is on the January 6th Commission

With the absurd House resolution finding Steve Bannon in Contempt of Congress for his principled refusal to comply with the January 6^th Commission, a reminder about said Commission is in order.

The January 6^th Commission is beyond stacked.  It is entirely appointed by Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and has only two Republicans in Name Only (RINOs), both of whom voted to impeach Trump.  There is a story behind that.

As is customary, Republican House leaders appointed a group of  Republicans to be the minority on the commission.  As is not customary, Pelosi rejected two of those appointments, Jim Jordan and Jim Banks, both of whom are reputable men, both of whom would have surely asked inconvenient and needed questions.  

Rejecting these minority appointments as Pelosi did just is not done.  That is the reason some really vile and untrustworthy Democrats like Adam Schiff and Ilhan Omar get prominent committee positions even when Republicans control the House.  Unless there is serious misconduct, the minority party leaders get to appoint minority party representatives on committees.  Even when there is serious misconduct, as with Schiff and Omar, rejecting or ousting minority party committee members is rare. 

So Pelosi rejecting Jordan and Banks to further stack the January 6^th Commission was an outrage, and Republican leader Keven McCarthy was outraged and immediately pulled all the Republican members from the committee.  Hence the only two Republicans on the commission are the pariah RINOs Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger. 

As if that is not bad enough, Adam Schiff is on the commission.  He has a record of hoaxing, lying and leaking as past head of efforts to impeach Trump.  His presence on the committee makes it even more disreputable.

So the question should not be why Steve Bannon is not cooperating with the January 6^th Commission, but why are any Republicans cooperating with it?  To call it a kangaroo court is not fair to kangaroos.  It is a stacked farce.

Principled people should give it the respect it deserves – zero.

A Strong Letter to ++Kenya from FIF Bishops

Ten ACNA bishops who are also in Forward in Faith, N. A. have written a strongly worded open letter to the Archbishop of Kenya regarding his consecration of a woman as bishop.  

Now it may not seem that strongly worded to those not used to the usual Anglican understatement, but know that it is indeed very robust by Anglican standards, and that from bishops of high reputation.  The conclusion alone calling upon the Archbishop of Kenya “to repent of your actions which have directly harmed your brother and sister Anglican Christians around the world” are the sort of words rarely seen publicly between Anglican bishops.

Do read the whole letter below.  I will add that I am especially glad to see this:

While the Anglican Church in Kenya currently maintains an orthodox understanding of the Gospel, it should be noted that every province that has adopted women into the episcopate has, in time, yielded to the pressures of the culture and left Biblical morality. Listen to the words of Saint Paul to Timothy, “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

 

This reflects what has become the clincher to hardening my opposition to women’s ordination.  WO has been undergoing “reception” in large parts of the church for decades now.  And its fruit has been found wanting to say the least.  There is only one jurisdiction that ordains women as priests that I can recommend for now.  WO almost always comes with baggage the church should not carry.

 

By the way, I’ve seen it asked why more ACNA bishops did not sign this.  Note that the letter is from bishops in Forward in Faith.  Perhaps a better question is why aren’t more ACNA bishops in Forward in Faith? :)

 

The letter follows:

 

Feast of St. Michael and All Angels

 

The Most Reverend Jackson Ole Sapit
Archbishop and Primate of the Anglican Church of Kenya

 

Your Grace, 

We, the bishops and members of Forward in Faith North America, write to express our profound sadness at the decision of the Anglican Church of Kenya to break two thousand years of episcopal principle and practice, the great tradition in Anglicanism since the English Reformation, as well as GAFCON protocol, and consecrate a female bishop. 

 

Your decision to act unilaterally in opposition to the expressed concerns and agreements of the GAFCON Primates Council is a break in the fraternal love and respect that has been a hallmark of GAFCON and witness to orthodox Anglicans worldwide. 

 

Sadly, the actions of your province directly harm Christ’s Church by failing to uphold the “doctrine, sacraments and discipline of Christ, as the Lord has commanded and as this Church has received them.” Specifically, this innovation directly harms the maintenance of the historic episcopate, challenges our missional and ecumenical relationships throughout the world, and opens the door for Satan to divide Christ’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. 

 

The Historic Episcopate 

In a 2017 communique from the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), the Primates noted: “It is our prime recommendation that the provinces of GAFCON should retain the historic practice of the consecration only of men as bishops until and unless a strong consensus to change emerges after prayer, consultation and continued study of Scripture among the GAFCON fellowship.” The historic male episcopate provides the Church a common assurance of sacramental validity. * 

 

Ecumenical Relationships and Christian Mission 

Recently the GAFCON Primates Council has reached out to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, as well as Protestant denominations such as the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, in order to further our relationships and further our common mission in fulfillment of our Lord’s prayer in John 17, 

“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” (John 17:20-21). 

Our ability to fulfill this prayer, heal division, and carry out Gospel mission together will only be further impaired by breaking with the holy Biblical tradition given by all male apostles to all male successors. 

 

Doctrine, Discipline and Division 

While the Anglican Church in Kenya currently maintains an orthodox understanding of the Gospel, it should be noted that every province that has adopted women into the episcopate has, in time, yielded to the pressures of the culture and left Biblical morality. Listen to the words of Saint Paul to Timothy,  “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” (2 Timothy 4:3-4) 

 

Lastly, your Grace, for the sake of the Gospel and our unity in Christ we call upon the Anglican Church in Kenya to refrain from further actions of division and to repent of your actions which have directly harmed your brother and sister Anglican Christians around the world. 

 

Faithfully, 

The Rt. Rev. Eric Vawter Menees, 

Ordinary of San Joaquin and President of Forward in Faith North America 

 

The Rt. Rev. Richard Lipka 

Ordinary of the Missionary Diocese of All Saints and Vice President of Forward in Faith 

 

The Rt. Rev. Ray Sutton 

Ordinary of the Diocese of Mid-America 

 

The Rt. Rev. Walter Banek 

Assisting Bishop of the Diocese of Mid-America

 

The Rt. Rev. Clark Lowenfield 

Ordinary of the Diocese of the Western Gulf Coast 

 

The Rt. Rev. Ryan Reed 

Ordinary of the Diocese of Fort Worth 

 

The Rt. Rev. Jack Iker 

Bishop Emeritus of the Diocese of Fort Worth 

 

The Rt. Rev. Bill Wantland 

Assisting Bishop of the Diocese of Fort Worth

 

The Rt. Rev. Alberto Morales, OSB 

Ordinary of the Diocese of Quincy 

 

The Rt. Rev. Keith Ackerman

SSC Assisting Bishop of the Diocese of Fort Worth 

Diocese of Ft. Worth’s Resolution on GAFCON and Women Bishops

In the aftermath of the latest GAFCON Primates meeting, two responses I have seen stand out for being succinct and on point: Lee Nelson’s excellent article over at North American Anglican and the resolution released by the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Ft. Worth yesterday.

Yes.  Something timely and well written came out of a church committee.  The Diocese of Ft. Worth must be of divine origin!  God be praised!

The resolution points out three things well:

1. The GAFCON Primates have rather blatantly chosen to ignore their own 2017 resolution on the subject of a male-only episcopate. (The Ft. Worth resolution puts it more nicely than I, of course.)

2. Since it pertains to the validity of the sacraments, whom is chosen to be a bishop is hardly a secondary issue.

3. Ideally, bishops are to be bishops for the whole church.  The innovation of women bishops disregards that.

But read the resolution, which follows, for yourself.  Again, it is not long and is very well written.

 

Resolution of the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth 

21 September 2021 

Saint Matthew, Apostle and Evangelist 

“Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). 

In a 2017 communique from the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCon), the Primates noted: “It is our prime recommendation that the provinces of GAFCon should retain the historic practice of the consecration only of men as bishops until and unless a strong consensus to change emerges after prayer, consultation and continued study of Scripture among the GAFCon fellowship.” In 2021, the Chairman of GAFCon, Archbishop Foley Beach, noted: “At our meeting, the GAFCon Primates agreed we have not come to a consensus on the issue of women in holy orders, and specifically women in the episcopate.” And yet, three women have been consecrated in the GAFCon provinces of Sudan and Kenya since the moratorium on such consecrations went into effect, despite the lack of consensus. 

We enthusiastically support the statement of our own Primate, Archbishop Beach, that “we will continue to stand with these brothers and sisters [of GAFCon] to the greatest extent possible to maintain the Biblical Faith in the Anglican Communion and proclaim the saving Good News of Jesus Christ.” And we enthusiastically celebrate the rich contribution of women vitally engaged with significant impact in the ministry of the church throughout her long history. In an effort to strengthen and not to whither our bonds of affection, we also wish to record our strong objection to the recent consecrations of women in provinces of the Global Anglican Future Conference and to the classification of the action as a “secondary issue.” 

Primary and Secondary Issues 

“Speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ . . . Therefore, putting away falsehood, let every one speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another” (Ephesians 4:15,25). 

In their recent meeting, the primates of GAFCon passed a resolution which noted: “In our discussion, the Primates acknowledged that while there is disagreement and ongoing discussion on the issues of the ordination of women as deacons or priests, and the consecration of women as Bishops, we are agreed that these are not salvation issues and are not issues that will disrupt our mission: to proclaim Christ faithfully to the nations.” 

Issues that touch upon the salvation of souls are always primary issues, and certainly not to be considered adiaphora (“things indifferent”). The catechism of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer describes the sacraments of Baptism and the Supper of the Lord as “generally necessary to salvation.” The Jerusalem Declaration affirms as a tenet of orthodoxy (#6), that “we uphold the 

1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer.” The validity of the sacrament of the Supper of the Lord is contingent upon the minister being a valid priest or bishop in Holy Orders. The validity of a sacrament that is generally necessary to salvation is, by definition, a salvation issue. 

The Jerusalem Declaration affirms as a tenet of orthodoxy (#2), “The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading.” The innovation of the ordination of women is not respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading of scripture. 

Bishops for the Whole Church 

“The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task” (1 Timothy 3:1). 

Bishops are consecrated not just to serve a local diocese, but are consecrated for the whole church. What one province does in this matter affects all. 

We recognize that the ordination of women has been a contentious and divisive issue. We urge our brethren and spiritual fathers to move away from divisiveness, not toward it. We affirm the unanimous statement of the ACNA College of Bishops about the subject on 7 September 2017. While acknowledging that the ordination of women is practiced within some dioceses of the Anglican Church in North America, it stated: “we also acknowledge that this practice is a recent innovation to Apostolic Tradition and Catholic Order” and “we agree that there is insufficient scriptural warrant to accept women’s ordination to the priesthood as standard practice throughout the Province.” This standing committee, together with our bishop, believes that the same principle of restraint should be applied locally as well as in the global church. 

In our view, the way forward toward our global Anglican future lies in faithfulness to the Holy Scriptures and the received tradition, not in a theological innovation which would seek to overturn created order by attempting to consecrate women as spiritual fathers. The sacred trust placed in the episcopal office, as successors to the apostles, is to hand on the historic Christian faith and practice to a new generation of believers. 

Adopted unanimously at the 21 September 2021 regular meeting. 

The Rev’d Timothy M. Matkin, President of the Standing Committee 

Watch Checks That Told More Than the Time

Few acts are more mundane that checking one’s watch.  I used to do that a lot.  Now I check my phone.  My, how technology advances.  But before I get distracted by my phone again, my point is that people checking their watches is hardly the stuff of history.  

Or is it?

No, I cannot think of a time when someone checking their watch changed the course of history . . . yet.  But I can think of watch checks that revealed a lot about history before it was history.

 

October 15^th, 1992

During the Second Presidential Debate with Bill Clinton and Ross Perot, President George H. W. Bush checked his watch at the beginning of a question of how the recession affected him.  That told more about him and about his re-election campaign than about what time it was, namely:

1. His disinterest in debating and campaigning, that in contrast with Bill Clinton, who clearly enjoyed it.  The mercurial Ross Perot also enjoyed barnstorming on a good day.  Bush wanted it to be over with. He admitted as much:

Bush later suggested that his gesture may, in fact, have revealed something about his discomfort with the debate. "Was I glad when the damn thing was over?" he said to PBS Newshour anchor Jim Lehrer. "Yeah."

It would be very much over soon.  Bush’s disinterest while Clinton oozed empathy assisted in that.

2. His sense of superiority and overconfidence.  He was a Bush after all.  He was better than that blowhard Perot and that young playboy Governor of Arkansas, of all states.  

It was not just the President who felt that way.  His campaign was hampered by overconfidence that surely he would not lose to Bill Clinton of all people.  Heck, the only reason Clinton got the Democrat nomination was because bigger names did not want to run against Bush.  Adding to the misplaced confidence was that Republicans had won the last three presidential elections and four of the last five.

So it wasn’t just Bush who was ready to get the campaign done with and won.  And it wasn’t just this then Republican Precinct Chairman who did not see the result coming.

 

March 30/31^st, 2013

Elected earlier that month, Pope Francis was in the Vatican presiding over his first Easter Vigil as Pope.  For those unfamiliar with Easter Vigils, they are not services to be done with in less than an hour so one can rush home or to the pub.  The Easter Vigil on Easter Eve is the most solemn occasion of the church year for many traditional Christians.  At their best, they are evocative, glorious, and definitely not rushed.  One of the most memorable services I’ve ever attended was an Easter Vigil at St. Matthias Anglican Dallas in 2005; it lasted well over two hours, and I would not have it a minute shorter.

But Pope Francis apparently did not feel that way about his first Easter Vigil as Pope.  Bishop of Rome only for days, he had already acted to shorten the service.  But it wasn’t short enough apparently.  During the service, he checked his watch, just as he checked his watch during his installation service on March 19^th.

Twenty years older and somewhat wiser, I knew immediately there was something profoundly wrong with Francis long before many whom I respect caught on.

Why? Unless one is hinting to an overly loquacious preacher to wind his sermon up, a priest just does not look at his watch during a service.  It’s not in the rubrics; it doesn’t have to be.  It sends the wrong message to the congregation and to God as well.  For a pope to check his watch during one of the more solemn services of the year . . . .  It was unthinkable . . . before Francis.

Thus in the first month of his pontificate, those with eyes to see could already see Francis was a man of impious priorities who had little respect for the liturgy, for the need of solemn and traditional celebrations of even the Resurrection of our Lord.

The slow motion disaster of the pontificate of Francis should not have afterward surprised anyone, particularly his attempted vandalism of the Lord’s Prayer and his attacks on the traditional Latin Mass.  Early on, his watch check foretold his attacks on catholic worship.

 

Sunday August 29^th, 2021

Joe Biden stands at Dover Air Force Base to receive the bodies of 13 service people killed in the Kabul bombing, an attack enabled by the shambles of his withdrawal from Afghanistan.  As he ends a salute, he quickly checks his watch.  It was so quick that perhaps he caught himself, realizing how wrong that was.  But he checked his watch nonetheless.  (And some reports have him checking his watch additional times during the ceremony.)

At this point, it is unclear just what this watch check tells.  Perhaps it tells that Biden’s cognitive decline is worse than most think.  One system of dementia is socially inappropriate behavior.  But I am not his doctor, and it would be wrong for me to presume that is what is happening.  

Perhaps he did not want to be there at Dover AFB and thought he had better things to do.  He surely wants to move on from his Afghanistan disaster.  Perhaps he was so detached from reality, he did not realize the solemnity of his role.  

It is hard to think that his watch check revealed shear callousness toward the fallen soldiers and their families.  But he has already greatly endangered Americans and allied Afghans.  How much of that disaster is from incompetence and how much from callousness, we do not know. 

In any case, what Biden’s watch check this past Sunday reveals is not good.

----

So the trivial act of checking one’s watch revealed much about these three men and their times, although exactly what was revealed in Biden’s case is not yet clear.  Did the checks also have consequences?

In the elder Bush’s case, probably not.  Yes, it was part of his lackluster debate in his lackluster campaign.  But it was the campaign and the recession and perhaps Ross Perot that brought about his defeat, not a watch check.

In Pope Francis’ case, it had virtually no consequences whatsoever before men.  Just about everyone was too eager to think hopefully about the new Pope.  The consequences before God are another matter best left to Him.

I doubt it will have lasting consequences for Biden either.  But I see similarities with Bush’s watch check in that it reveals traits that will have political consequences.  Bush’s disdain for actual campaigning, partly revealed by his watch check, assisted his defeat.  Whatever the mix of incompetence and darkness revealed by Biden’s watch check, that mix may and should lead to the downfall of his presidency as well.

There is a significant difference with Biden’s watch check.  Bush’s check, though revealing undesirable traits, was not awful or disgusting.   Biden’s watch check is disgusting and adding to widespread disgust with him – as it should.

Why Women Bishops in Kenya Could Be Important in ACNA

As Anglican Unscripted has reported, a diocese in the Anglican Church of Kenya has elected a woman to be the Bishop of said diocese.  The culprit diocese has been something of a pain to the Archbishop of Kenya and to orthodox Anglicans there.  (Hmm, reminds me of a certain diocese in the Anglican Church in North America.)  It is not certain at this time that the Archbishop will recognize the new bishop.  I will defer to Kevin and George for further details.  It’s probably fair to say it’s a mess.

So why do I or anyone in ACNA care about this mess in Kenya?  Well, we place a high value on our relationship with GAFCON, a confederation of orthodox Anglicans mainly from the Global South that includes the Anglican Church of Kenya and ACNA as well.  And there is supposed to be a moratorium on women bishops in GAFCON.  In ACNA, women bishops are prohibited in our Constitution and Canons.  There has been two women bishops before in GAFCON that I am aware of.  But this is the first diocesan bishop.

To give an idea how important this breach in the moratorium could be to ACNA, I will give some condensed and oversimplified history.  After the consecration of Gene Robinson in 2003 – and long before for many of us traditional Anglicans – The Episcopal Church was a no-go jurisdiction due to her brazen apostasies.  But part of our catholicity is we know we are part of something bigger than ourselves, and we want our structures and formal relationships to reflect that.  Some thirty years ago, I saw a sign for an “Independent Episcopal Church” around Paris, Texas; we don’t want that although some have been compelled to do that for a short time.

After 2003, as a stop gap, many of us put ourselves under orthodox Anglican bishops from the Global South.  But several of these bishops eventually let it be known, mostly in private but quite clearly, that they soon wished to be in communion with one orthodox Anglican entity in the United States.  They did not desire to sort through an alphabet soup of jurisdictions.  I know bishops of my Reformed Episcopal Church were politely told that if we wished to continue our formal relationship with the Church of Nigeria, we would have to join a new orthodox Anglican province once it was formed.

This very understandable and even godly encouragement from Global South bishops (who soon formed GAFCON in 2008) was one factor behind us joining ACNA when it was formed in 2009.  We valued our global relationships with orthodox Anglicans and wished to retain them as much as possible.

However, there was an outstanding difficult issue in the formation of ACNA and of GAFCON as well – women’s ordination.  No, I am not going to explain why here, but us traditionalists do not recognize the Holy Orders of women.  For many of us, it is a communion-breaking innovation.  So both sides of this issue had to flex for ACNA to be formed.  The compromise was that it would be up to dioceses whether to ordain women as priests or not, and dioceses who did not ordain women were not obligated to recognize women priests. Further, and most relevant to the current situation, no diocese would ordain a woman as bishop.  This is important as us Anglicans see the office of bishop as a focus of unity in the church.  To not recognize the validity of a bishop is a communion breaker; it is practically the definition of breaking communion. 

Up to recently, GAFCON’s practices on women’s ordination were similar but less formal: different provinces had different policies but women were not to be made bishops until there was a consensus accepting that.

I’ve glossed over a lot of history here.  My erudite readers are welcome to add or correct in the comments.  But I think you see the problems with now three women bishops being in GAFCON.  A big reason many of us traditionalists compromised and joined ACNA was to retain our relationships with those who now form GAFCON.  But what if we can no longer be in communion in GAFCON due to a proliferation of women bishops?

That would be one less reason for us to remain in ACNA.  I don’t want this post to become of litany of grievances, but some of us, even people like me who were excited at the formation of ACNA, have very mixed feelings about ACNA today.  If our relationship with GAFCON is no longer a desirable or even feasible part of the ACNA package, that would make remaining in ACNA itself that much less desirable.

We traditionalists in ACNA do not expect perfect polity; we would not have joined ACNA if we did.  And I know of no one getting ready to leave over this matter.  But we do have our limits.  Many of us have already left churches and suffered loss when those limits were violated before.  And women bishops in GAFCON could become one more test of those already strained limits if this is not dealt with in a timely fashion.

An Open Letter to My Southern Baptist Friends

Last night and this morning, I have been hurting for my Southern Baptist friends who were on the right – and losing – side at yesterday’s Convention.  I felt I should say something, and, after reflection, I’ve decided a tweet or even a tweet thread won’t do.

First, I am indeed hurting and praying for you.  And I am sad for the church as a whole.  For most of my life, the Southern Baptist Convention has been a bulwark of orthodoxy.  For that bulwark to be so weakened and compromised diminishes the whole church.

Second, I advise that you do mourn.  I also advise that you wait awhile before making a decision about your future relationship with the SBC.  Early on after a bad event, both upset and denial can cloud your judgement.  So wait on the Lord, pray, and at least recover a bit first before deciding.

I cannot make that decision for you.  I can see a case for staying and fighting, and I can see a case for moving on.  Know that if you remain faithful, you have my respect along with my prayers.

Also know something that I am hesitant to say for fear of appearing to poach.  Know that IF you decide to leave, there is a place for you in the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) and especially in my jurisdiction, the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC – which has a large degree of independence but is within ACNA – it’s complicated).

You will have to get used to babies being baptized.  You will have to get used to real live bishops with those funny mitres even. You will have to get used to a wide range of orthodoxy under one roof.  We have people who are more catholic than the Pope and people who are more Protestant than Luther.  Our breadth is both glorious and annoying – like the whole faithful church.

But ACNA and the REC are committed to the authority of scripture and to the basics of the Faith as reflected in the Creeds.  AND both the Archbishop of ACNA and the Presiding Bishop of the REC have just made strong statements opposing Critical Race Theory.

We are not perfect.  There are a few dioceses in ACNA I cannot recommend.  And wokeness has infiltrated us as it has the SBC.  (Where has it not infiltrated?)  But unlike the SBC, our two highest bishops along with many other bishops are opposing it.  And it has not and will not gain a stronghold in the REC.

If you do wish to check out an Anglican church or two, feel free to message me for guidance.  You can contact me in the comments (And I will not post your comment unless it’s clear that you want it public.  I moderate comments.) Or you can message me on twitter.

I would prefer Baptist faithful stay in the SBC and take back their denomination from the woke cabal.  I want a faithful thriving SBC.  But if you become convinced that is not your path, you are welcome to help us remain faithful in ACNA.  Let me know if I can help you.