At the TEC General Convention Gene Robinson has exhorted The Episcopal Church to be gay and proud:
Bishop Robinson said he knew that “there are a lot of Episcopalians who say they are embarrassed when people say you are the ‘gay’ church.” To this, Episcopalians should say, “You bet we are.”
Robinson is correct that The Episcopal Church is perceived as a gay church. His happy admission of that is revealing. And his exhortation will only strengthen that perception.
And that makes it that much more urgent that the Reformed Episcopal Church dump the E-word and replace it with “Anglican”. I know personally that the E-word is a burden when attempting to attract people to our church. Normal people do not know the Reformed Episcopal Church is not *that* Episcopal Church with the gay bishop. So one has to explain that to them. And it is difficult to be attractive and winsome when one of the first things you say is “We are not *that* church.” It is awkward to say the least.
That’s not to mention the untold numbers of people who pass on by your church and reject it without a second thought because they see the E-word. And, frankly, I don’t blame them.
My parish is probably about to remove the E-word from its name, and I’m glad of it. Now I will say that there may be legal commitments of the REC that I am not aware of that would make changing the name of the whole jurisdiction difficult. And if we stay the Reformed Episcopal Church, we have overcome worse burdens.
But our bishops have already encouraged us to emphasize our “Anglican” identity. Given the heavy and increasing baggage of the E-word, that is wise and godly council indeed.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Correspondence between Her Majesty the Queen and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans
Correspondence between Her Majesty the Queen and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans has now been published.
I am going to defer comment on this for now as I am not expert on royal protocol. But I covet informed opinion on whether the Queen’s responses are simply pro forma or something more.
Hat tip to Stand Firm.
MORE:
I find Bill in Ottawa’s comment helpful as well as this more detailed comment:
The letter to Her Majesty was a simple three-paragraph affair. I imagine that the letter was intended, primarily, to remind the Queen (in very polite and indirect terms) that all is NOT well in her church and in the Anglican Communion, as a whole.
One assumes that her Prime Minister and/or the Archbishop of Canterbury have already explained some of this to her. But nobody is privy to such conversations as may have taken place regarding these issues, and so we cannot know for sure exactly how well-informed the Queen is on these matters.
This letter from the FCA will act as a fairly gentle reminder that things are NOT getting any better.
The secondary purpose of the letter seems to be to apprise Her Majesty (in very polite and proper terms) that a number of prominent clergy in the Church of England are now prepared to take matters into their own hands, since it is perfectly obvious that the hierarchy of the Church of England are unwilling to address these issues in any meaningful way.
The reference to “loyalty” was NOT (in terms of protocol) necessary—but it is a very nice touch, and it effectively frames the FCA as being an instrument of “loyalty”—and not as some sort of schismatic or dissenting organization. By implication, of course, the letter strongly suggests that the revisionist elements in the C of E are, in fact, “disloyal”—both to Her Majesty (as Supreme Governor of the Church), and to historic and orthodox Anglicanism.
The response that the FCA received from Buckingham Palace may seem a bit awkward and stilted to American ears, But, in fact, it is a fairly straightforward assurance that Her Majesty is well aware of the various issues at play, and that she is not unsympathetic to the FCA.
This was MORE than she needed to indicate.
Personally, I would have anticipated a MUCH MORE lukewarm response. The last sentence of the letter explicitly conveys Her Majesty’s “good wishes.” Which she most assuredly did not need to do, under the circumstances.
In fact, that last sentence will undoubtedly infuriate some of the more radical revisionists currently working hard to transform the C of E into something similar to TEC.
Several key things can be confidently asserted, on the basis of Her Majesty’s reply to the initial letter from the FCA.
1.) She has, in fact, personally read the letter from the FCA. 2.) She is reasonably well-acquainted with the full range of issues that are currently tearing apart both the C of E and the Anglican Communion, as a whole. 3.) She is, to some degree (we cannot know for sure precisely to what degree) in authentic sympathy with the position of the FCA. 4.) She does, in fact, consider the FCA to be “loyal” (orthodox), and that she is, personally, possessed of sufficient Christian faith to welcome the prayers of support from these orthodox Anglicans.
I am going to defer comment on this for now as I am not expert on royal protocol. But I covet informed opinion on whether the Queen’s responses are simply pro forma or something more.
Hat tip to Stand Firm.
MORE:
I find Bill in Ottawa’s comment helpful as well as this more detailed comment:
The letter to Her Majesty was a simple three-paragraph affair. I imagine that the letter was intended, primarily, to remind the Queen (in very polite and indirect terms) that all is NOT well in her church and in the Anglican Communion, as a whole.
One assumes that her Prime Minister and/or the Archbishop of Canterbury have already explained some of this to her. But nobody is privy to such conversations as may have taken place regarding these issues, and so we cannot know for sure exactly how well-informed the Queen is on these matters.
This letter from the FCA will act as a fairly gentle reminder that things are NOT getting any better.
The secondary purpose of the letter seems to be to apprise Her Majesty (in very polite and proper terms) that a number of prominent clergy in the Church of England are now prepared to take matters into their own hands, since it is perfectly obvious that the hierarchy of the Church of England are unwilling to address these issues in any meaningful way.
The reference to “loyalty” was NOT (in terms of protocol) necessary—but it is a very nice touch, and it effectively frames the FCA as being an instrument of “loyalty”—and not as some sort of schismatic or dissenting organization. By implication, of course, the letter strongly suggests that the revisionist elements in the C of E are, in fact, “disloyal”—both to Her Majesty (as Supreme Governor of the Church), and to historic and orthodox Anglicanism.
The response that the FCA received from Buckingham Palace may seem a bit awkward and stilted to American ears, But, in fact, it is a fairly straightforward assurance that Her Majesty is well aware of the various issues at play, and that she is not unsympathetic to the FCA.
This was MORE than she needed to indicate.
Personally, I would have anticipated a MUCH MORE lukewarm response. The last sentence of the letter explicitly conveys Her Majesty’s “good wishes.” Which she most assuredly did not need to do, under the circumstances.
In fact, that last sentence will undoubtedly infuriate some of the more radical revisionists currently working hard to transform the C of E into something similar to TEC.
Several key things can be confidently asserted, on the basis of Her Majesty’s reply to the initial letter from the FCA.
1.) She has, in fact, personally read the letter from the FCA. 2.) She is reasonably well-acquainted with the full range of issues that are currently tearing apart both the C of E and the Anglican Communion, as a whole. 3.) She is, to some degree (we cannot know for sure precisely to what degree) in authentic sympathy with the position of the FCA. 4.) She does, in fact, consider the FCA to be “loyal” (orthodox), and that she is, personally, possessed of sufficient Christian faith to welcome the prayers of support from these orthodox Anglicans.
But I Thought Obama Was a Uniter
Back during the Long March of Obama to the presidency, we heard again and again that The Chosen One was a uniter, not a divider.
Well, the latest Rasmussen Poll shows Obama does indeed excel . . . as a divider. Now, 52% still approve of Obama’s performance. But what is eye-opening (and isn’t getting much attention) is that 37% “strongly disapprove” of his performance (i. e not just “somewhat disapprove” or “somewhat approve”) And that number is rising.
That is a high number six months into a presidency. And it reveals he and his radicalism is far from uniting. Instead he is a polarizing and divisive figure.
Now being polarizing is not necessarily bad. There have been polarizing leaders through the years I greatly respect. Sometimes the simple act of standing up for what is right can be polarizing.
But so can standing for what is wrong. Guess which of the two I think Obama is doing.
But regardless of what I think, to have such high “strongly disapprove” numbers this early in a presidency is remarkable and politically significant. For one thing, those who strongly disapprove of an officeholder are more likely to do something about it and vote. This statistic bears watching.
Well, the latest Rasmussen Poll shows Obama does indeed excel . . . as a divider. Now, 52% still approve of Obama’s performance. But what is eye-opening (and isn’t getting much attention) is that 37% “strongly disapprove” of his performance (i. e not just “somewhat disapprove” or “somewhat approve”) And that number is rising.
That is a high number six months into a presidency. And it reveals he and his radicalism is far from uniting. Instead he is a polarizing and divisive figure.
Now being polarizing is not necessarily bad. There have been polarizing leaders through the years I greatly respect. Sometimes the simple act of standing up for what is right can be polarizing.
But so can standing for what is wrong. Guess which of the two I think Obama is doing.
But regardless of what I think, to have such high “strongly disapprove” numbers this early in a presidency is remarkable and politically significant. For one thing, those who strongly disapprove of an officeholder are more likely to do something about it and vote. This statistic bears watching.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Wall Street Journal Agrees: Franken Stole the Election
For those who think me “extreme and offensive” for insisting that Franken stole the Minnesota U. S. Senate election, then I guess you consider The Wall Street Journal extreme and offensive as well:
The unfortunate lesson is that you don't need to win the vote on Election Day as long as your lawyers are creative enough to have enough new or disqualified ballots counted after the fact.
Mr. Franken trailed Mr. Coleman by 725 votes after the initial count on election night, and 215 after the first canvass. The Democrat's strategy from the start was to manipulate the recount in a way that would discover votes that could add to his total. The Franken legal team swarmed the recount, aggressively demanding that votes that had been disqualified be added to his count, while others be denied for Mr. Coleman.
But the team's real goldmine were absentee ballots, thousands of which the Franken team claimed had been mistakenly rejected. While Mr. Coleman's lawyers demanded a uniform standard for how counties should re-evaluate these rejected ballots, the Franken team ginned up an additional 1,350 absentees from Franken-leaning counties. By the time this treasure hunt ended, Mr. Franken was 312 votes up, and Mr. Coleman was left to file legal briefs.
What Mr. Franken understood was that courts would later be loathe to overrule decisions made by the canvassing board, however arbitrary those decisions were. He was right.
The Journal’s conclusion:
Mr. Franken now goes to the Senate having effectively stolen an election. If the GOP hopes to avoid repeats, it should learn from Minnesota that modern elections don't end when voters cast their ballots. They only end after the lawyers count them.
Now The Wall Street Journal saying something doesn’t necessarily make it so (although this editorial is indeed accurate and on target, and I could add more detail). But they are deservedly well respected and hardly an extremist publication. If they are so convinced Franken stole the election, that should at least get the attention of those who care about democracy.
Hat tip to Bluegrass Pundit.
The unfortunate lesson is that you don't need to win the vote on Election Day as long as your lawyers are creative enough to have enough new or disqualified ballots counted after the fact.
Mr. Franken trailed Mr. Coleman by 725 votes after the initial count on election night, and 215 after the first canvass. The Democrat's strategy from the start was to manipulate the recount in a way that would discover votes that could add to his total. The Franken legal team swarmed the recount, aggressively demanding that votes that had been disqualified be added to his count, while others be denied for Mr. Coleman.
But the team's real goldmine were absentee ballots, thousands of which the Franken team claimed had been mistakenly rejected. While Mr. Coleman's lawyers demanded a uniform standard for how counties should re-evaluate these rejected ballots, the Franken team ginned up an additional 1,350 absentees from Franken-leaning counties. By the time this treasure hunt ended, Mr. Franken was 312 votes up, and Mr. Coleman was left to file legal briefs.
What Mr. Franken understood was that courts would later be loathe to overrule decisions made by the canvassing board, however arbitrary those decisions were. He was right.
The Journal’s conclusion:
Mr. Franken now goes to the Senate having effectively stolen an election. If the GOP hopes to avoid repeats, it should learn from Minnesota that modern elections don't end when voters cast their ballots. They only end after the lawyers count them.
Now The Wall Street Journal saying something doesn’t necessarily make it so (although this editorial is indeed accurate and on target, and I could add more detail). But they are deservedly well respected and hardly an extremist publication. If they are so convinced Franken stole the election, that should at least get the attention of those who care about democracy.
Hat tip to Bluegrass Pundit.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Iran: Key Mullahs Turn Against Khamenei Regime
I did not expect this. An important group of religious leaders, the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qum, have called the Iranian presidential election illegitimate. In effect, now even key mullahs have turned against Supreme Leader Khamenei, who sanctioned the rigged vote count.
For clerics to openly oppose the Supreme Leader like this, well, it’s like the Archbishop of Canterbury telling the Queen to pound sand, except more so:
“It’s a clerical mutiny,” said one Iranian analyst. “This is the first time ever you have all these big clerics openly challenging the leader’s decision.” Another, in Tehran, said: “We are seeing the birth of a new political front.”
Professor Ali Ansari, head of Iranian Studies at St Andrews University, said: “It’s highly significant. It shows this is nowhere near resolved.”
It is certainly not getting resolved in the manner Khamenei and his nut-case “president” had hoped.
Keep praying for Iran. (It looks like it’s working!)
For clerics to openly oppose the Supreme Leader like this, well, it’s like the Archbishop of Canterbury telling the Queen to pound sand, except more so:
“It’s a clerical mutiny,” said one Iranian analyst. “This is the first time ever you have all these big clerics openly challenging the leader’s decision.” Another, in Tehran, said: “We are seeing the birth of a new political front.”
Professor Ali Ansari, head of Iranian Studies at St Andrews University, said: “It’s highly significant. It shows this is nowhere near resolved.”
It is certainly not getting resolved in the manner Khamenei and his nut-case “president” had hoped.
Keep praying for Iran. (It looks like it’s working!)
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Former President of Iran Accuses Mullahs of “Coup Against the People”
The former President of Iran Mohammad Khatami has accused the current regime of a “coup against the people and democracy.”
This has to be significant. Though a respected reformer, Khatami as president was nevertheless a part of the ruling regime. Now he has turned against it.
I had given up hope for Iran, to be honest. But this surprising development can’t be good for the election-stealing thugs. Those mullahs and their nut case president certainly are standing more and more alone.
Keep praying for Iran.
MORE: Meanwhile, Obama has blown it on Iran.
This has to be significant. Though a respected reformer, Khatami as president was nevertheless a part of the ruling regime. Now he has turned against it.
I had given up hope for Iran, to be honest. But this surprising development can’t be good for the election-stealing thugs. Those mullahs and their nut case president certainly are standing more and more alone.
Keep praying for Iran.
MORE: Meanwhile, Obama has blown it on Iran.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Franken Steals Another Senate Seat for Democrats
As expected, Al Franken has succeeded in stealing another Senate seat for the Democrats. Yes, I am being a bit dogmatic there. There is no question in my mind that Franken took this seat not because he received the most votes but because Democrats aggressively and unethically gamed the vote recount, the will of the voters be damned.
And, no, I will not leave the issue of election fraud alone. With the Senate seats already stolen, with Obama and ACORN gaming the Census, and with God-knows-what the Democrats will try to pull in the next two elections, in addition to blatant disregard of the Constitution, we are in danger of having a government without a shred of legitimacy after the next two elections.
I am not predicting that. I expect voter anger will overcome the Democrats’ electioneering in 2012 if not 2010. But with the Democrats being so successful in stealing elections and so willing to do so and now having the added tool of the Census, it is a danger.
Like I said, I will revisit this issue.
And, no, I will not leave the issue of election fraud alone. With the Senate seats already stolen, with Obama and ACORN gaming the Census, and with God-knows-what the Democrats will try to pull in the next two elections, in addition to blatant disregard of the Constitution, we are in danger of having a government without a shred of legitimacy after the next two elections.
I am not predicting that. I expect voter anger will overcome the Democrats’ electioneering in 2012 if not 2010. But with the Democrats being so successful in stealing elections and so willing to do so and now having the added tool of the Census, it is a danger.
Like I said, I will revisit this issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)