When I sleepily flipped on the TV this morning and heard that Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, I had to immediately go online to make sure I heard that right, and sure enough . . . .
It is hard to plumb the depths of the absurdity of this award, but to start: the deadline for nominations was February 1st. So The Dear Leader earned the Nobel Peace Prize after only ten days in office. Sing to The Dear Leader!!
I may comment more later. But I think it best for now to provide some links:
The Times of London has published an excellent editorial. And even the U.S. “mainstream” news media is a bit stunned.
Hot Air and The Corner are following this matter closely.
MORE:
Funny that Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize the same day he bombs the Moon. ;)
O.K., this is really getting silly now. The Democrat National Committee says that if you criticize Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize, you side with terrorists! I. am. not. joking.
Friday, October 09, 2009
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Obama Attacks Freedom of Religion, Belmont Abbey
As many of you know, the Obama Regime is attacking Belmont Abbey for following their Catholic conscience and refusing to provide coverage for contraception.
This is an outrage that calls for action. But it should not be a surprise. Attacks on freedom of religion are to be expected from those of a totalitarian bent.
This is an outrage that calls for action. But it should not be a surprise. Attacks on freedom of religion are to be expected from those of a totalitarian bent.
SEC Goes After Mark Cuban . . . Again. (Or Whatever Happened to No Double Jeopardy?)
When our founding fathers sought to protect our freedom from government abuses, they specifically mandated in the Fifth Amendment that the feds cannot prosecute a man twice for the same alleged crime. In other words, no double jeopardy.
So why the heck is the SEC going after Mark Cuban again for the same allegations after their flimsy case has already been dismissed?
Oh I’m sure there is some lawyerly bull manure excuse as to why this is supposedly not double jeopardy. But I’m not buying it. This is wrong. It’s prosecutorial abuse. And I wish Cuban would be allowed to sue the SEC to Hell for violation of his civil rights.
So why the heck is the SEC going after Mark Cuban again for the same allegations after their flimsy case has already been dismissed?
Oh I’m sure there is some lawyerly bull manure excuse as to why this is supposedly not double jeopardy. But I’m not buying it. This is wrong. It’s prosecutorial abuse. And I wish Cuban would be allowed to sue the SEC to Hell for violation of his civil rights.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Obama Kills Iran Human Rights Agency
The Obama Administration is cutting off all funding for the State Department’s Iran Human Rights Watch Documentation Center.
Mustn’t let uncomfortable facts about the mullahs’ oppression of Iranians get in the way of a good appeasing sell-out.
I wonder if Obama will only bow to the mullahs, or also kiss their butts.
Mustn’t let uncomfortable facts about the mullahs’ oppression of Iranians get in the way of a good appeasing sell-out.
I wonder if Obama will only bow to the mullahs, or also kiss their butts.
CNN = Obama’s Whore
CNN once again acts as Obama’s whore by fact-checking the Saturday Night Live skit lampooning Obama’s lack of accomplishments.
Fact checking . . . a comedy skit. I don’t know what’s funnier, the skit or the fact checking. I do hope SNL comes back and skewers CNN. There is certainly some rich comedy material here.
Can you imagine CNN doing this for Bush? I didn’t think so.
Fact checking . . . a comedy skit. I don’t know what’s funnier, the skit or the fact checking. I do hope SNL comes back and skewers CNN. There is certainly some rich comedy material here.
Can you imagine CNN doing this for Bush? I didn’t think so.
Monday, October 05, 2009
Monte+ Wilson on Evangelical “Worship”
Over the weekend, I came across this piece by Monte+ Wilson critical of evangelical worship. And critical may be an understatement!
His critique of the “worship” time at a typical evangelical church resonates with me.
Some churches will open with a cheery choir special or a hap-hap-happy song sung by the musicians. After all, happiness must mark the service. "We are a happy people. We have something to offer you. We are exciting and positive--and you too can be like us if you join our church!" Compare this with the ancient liturgies that began with, "O God the Father of heaven, have mercy on us miserable sinners." Whoa! That won't do. What a downer. . . .
Now the music leader steps to the microphone to lead the "worship." He is a combination of Pavarotti (albeit without the training), Dick Clark and Liberace. He stands, sometimes with other singers, at the center of the stage. The sound booth has been instructed to make certain that his voice is always louder than all others combined. He cajoles, he exhorts, he waves his arms, he explains the depth of meaning in the lyrics of each song, he cheerleads, he cries--all on cue. . . . By the way, are the people a little dull this morning? No problem. Change keys on each verse, increase the volume and dump all songs in minor keys. What matters is that everyone has a great, happy, ego-renewing experience.
And that sort of “worship” drove me to Anglicanism.
I began to know something was wrong in the early 90’s. It was a time of frequent depression for me. And the last thing I wanted to hear was constant, vacuous, happy, happy music at church. Proverbs 25:20 anyone? I distinctly remember this otherwise excellent Bible study I attended at a large Dallas church. Unfortunately, they always began with the song “Celebrate Jesus Celebrate”. Eventually, I began the habit of arriving late to avoid it.
Now I admit I may have been slightly grouchy. But to begin things this way every time grated on me and was a barrier to worship. Even today, when I’m unusually in a good mood, asking God for mercy on this miserable sinner resonates with me much more. I still may not at times feel like singing happy, happy songs; but I always know I need God’s mercy!
For a thankfully brief time, this Bible study employed one of those worship leaders who was so happy, he looked like he was about to explode. One time, when I particularly depressed, he was particularly happy and garrulous. At one point, he said, “You all probably want me to shut up.” I said, “Yes” and got some interesting looks.
Speaking of garrulous, it also annoyed me when worship leaders preached mini-sermons with their songs, sorely testing my patience and proving they should not be preachers. It prompted me to frequently say at the time, “Singers shouldn’t preach; and preachers shouldn’t sing.” I’ve since seen Anglican priests who can both sing the liturgy and preach the word very well. But cloying worship leaders was my experience during this time.
A few years later, at my Bible church of the time, the soundboards were taken over by people who must have had high frequency hearing loss. For they always pumped up the volume and the treble. It hurt my ears! I was stuffing kleenex in my ears during the worship time. I am not joking. Again, the typical evangelical worship methods made it difficult for me to worship. And this at an age when worship was becoming more important to me. (That subject will have to wait for another post.)
So I began to think that maybe I wanted a different kind of church when I moved to South Texas. And when I finally ventured into an Anglican church (Christ Church Plano to be exact), it was like a new world was opened to me. I thought “This is worship!” And many of you know the rest of the story.
Having said all that, I think evangelicals, especially those in charge of worship, would do well to take Wilson’s critique at heart, though it may be unpleasant reading.
By the way, Monte Wilson is a Reformed Episcopalian priest.
Hat tip to Creedal Christian.
His critique of the “worship” time at a typical evangelical church resonates with me.
Some churches will open with a cheery choir special or a hap-hap-happy song sung by the musicians. After all, happiness must mark the service. "We are a happy people. We have something to offer you. We are exciting and positive--and you too can be like us if you join our church!" Compare this with the ancient liturgies that began with, "O God the Father of heaven, have mercy on us miserable sinners." Whoa! That won't do. What a downer. . . .
Now the music leader steps to the microphone to lead the "worship." He is a combination of Pavarotti (albeit without the training), Dick Clark and Liberace. He stands, sometimes with other singers, at the center of the stage. The sound booth has been instructed to make certain that his voice is always louder than all others combined. He cajoles, he exhorts, he waves his arms, he explains the depth of meaning in the lyrics of each song, he cheerleads, he cries--all on cue. . . . By the way, are the people a little dull this morning? No problem. Change keys on each verse, increase the volume and dump all songs in minor keys. What matters is that everyone has a great, happy, ego-renewing experience.
And that sort of “worship” drove me to Anglicanism.
I began to know something was wrong in the early 90’s. It was a time of frequent depression for me. And the last thing I wanted to hear was constant, vacuous, happy, happy music at church. Proverbs 25:20 anyone? I distinctly remember this otherwise excellent Bible study I attended at a large Dallas church. Unfortunately, they always began with the song “Celebrate Jesus Celebrate”. Eventually, I began the habit of arriving late to avoid it.
Now I admit I may have been slightly grouchy. But to begin things this way every time grated on me and was a barrier to worship. Even today, when I’m unusually in a good mood, asking God for mercy on this miserable sinner resonates with me much more. I still may not at times feel like singing happy, happy songs; but I always know I need God’s mercy!
For a thankfully brief time, this Bible study employed one of those worship leaders who was so happy, he looked like he was about to explode. One time, when I particularly depressed, he was particularly happy and garrulous. At one point, he said, “You all probably want me to shut up.” I said, “Yes” and got some interesting looks.
Speaking of garrulous, it also annoyed me when worship leaders preached mini-sermons with their songs, sorely testing my patience and proving they should not be preachers. It prompted me to frequently say at the time, “Singers shouldn’t preach; and preachers shouldn’t sing.” I’ve since seen Anglican priests who can both sing the liturgy and preach the word very well. But cloying worship leaders was my experience during this time.
A few years later, at my Bible church of the time, the soundboards were taken over by people who must have had high frequency hearing loss. For they always pumped up the volume and the treble. It hurt my ears! I was stuffing kleenex in my ears during the worship time. I am not joking. Again, the typical evangelical worship methods made it difficult for me to worship. And this at an age when worship was becoming more important to me. (That subject will have to wait for another post.)
So I began to think that maybe I wanted a different kind of church when I moved to South Texas. And when I finally ventured into an Anglican church (Christ Church Plano to be exact), it was like a new world was opened to me. I thought “This is worship!” And many of you know the rest of the story.
Having said all that, I think evangelicals, especially those in charge of worship, would do well to take Wilson’s critique at heart, though it may be unpleasant reading.
By the way, Monte Wilson is a Reformed Episcopalian priest.
Hat tip to Creedal Christian.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
++Rowan Snookers the Orthodox . . . Again.
After having proclaimed the diocese the basic organizational body of the church and after having encouraged dioceses to sign up for the Covenant even if their provinces do not, now at the moment when the remaining orthodox TEC dioceses are struggling to somehow stay distinctly orthodox, Rowan pulls away the football by saying only provinces, not dioceses, can officially sign on to the Covenant. Oh, dioceses can endorse the Covenant – and that would be just wonderful! – but it would only be symbolic with no “institutional effect”.
Gee, thanks Your Grace.
This once again confirms Rowan is no friend of the orthodox and is not to be trusted.
As for those orthodox remaining in The Episcopal Church, Texanglican sums up the situation well:
Please, folks still trapped in the these handful of [orthodox] dioceses, it is time to admit the facts. Nothing you can do at the diocesan level will ever make you meaningfully different from the rest of TEC as long as you remain members of the national body. Your bishops are still ultimately answerable to PB Schori. You are still subject to TEC's constitution and canons and to its disciplinary procedures. And most importantly, the heretical majority of TEC's bishops and standing committees will have an absolute veto over whomever your elect to be your next bishop.
Your staunch defense of orthodoxy could evaporate rapidly if your bishop unexpectedly leaves office. The powers that be will insure that your next bishop is "reasonable" and "moderate"--one of those respectable "conservatives" who politely states his traditionalist positions at church meetings and then faithfully implements whatever the decision of the TEC governing body in question are without further cavil. Once such a "reasonable" bishop is in place a majority of your parish clergy will be cut from the same cloth in less than a decade. By 2025 most of the people still left in the once "orthodox" dioceses of TEC will hardly remember what all this fuss was about.
More purely symbolic declarations are pointless at this juncture. Either act to separate from TEC now or come to terms with where your denomination is inevitably heading. Further resistance inside TEC is futile. The TEC ship has left the shore of traditional Christianity and is rapidly sailing away into the brave, new sunset of radical inclusion. Loudly proclaiming that you are not part of the vessel's journey while you still stand on its deck watching the shoreline recede is simply a denial of reality.
And trust in Rowan to rescue you from inevitable shipwreck is also a denial of reality.
Gee, thanks Your Grace.
This once again confirms Rowan is no friend of the orthodox and is not to be trusted.
As for those orthodox remaining in The Episcopal Church, Texanglican sums up the situation well:
Please, folks still trapped in the these handful of [orthodox] dioceses, it is time to admit the facts. Nothing you can do at the diocesan level will ever make you meaningfully different from the rest of TEC as long as you remain members of the national body. Your bishops are still ultimately answerable to PB Schori. You are still subject to TEC's constitution and canons and to its disciplinary procedures. And most importantly, the heretical majority of TEC's bishops and standing committees will have an absolute veto over whomever your elect to be your next bishop.
Your staunch defense of orthodoxy could evaporate rapidly if your bishop unexpectedly leaves office. The powers that be will insure that your next bishop is "reasonable" and "moderate"--one of those respectable "conservatives" who politely states his traditionalist positions at church meetings and then faithfully implements whatever the decision of the TEC governing body in question are without further cavil. Once such a "reasonable" bishop is in place a majority of your parish clergy will be cut from the same cloth in less than a decade. By 2025 most of the people still left in the once "orthodox" dioceses of TEC will hardly remember what all this fuss was about.
More purely symbolic declarations are pointless at this juncture. Either act to separate from TEC now or come to terms with where your denomination is inevitably heading. Further resistance inside TEC is futile. The TEC ship has left the shore of traditional Christianity and is rapidly sailing away into the brave, new sunset of radical inclusion. Loudly proclaiming that you are not part of the vessel's journey while you still stand on its deck watching the shoreline recede is simply a denial of reality.
And trust in Rowan to rescue you from inevitable shipwreck is also a denial of reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)