Great Whore of Pachamama Update

I apologize for not posting and especially for falling behind on news concerning the Church of Rome.  One excuse I have is I am preparing for a lecture next week on the Venerable Bede’s Explanation of the Apocalypse.

I do want to bring your attention to two excellent items. First is a number of faithful Roman Catholics have issued a public rebuke to Pope Francis and a call for him to repent of the idolatrous worship of Pachamama at the Amazon Synod. It is well written and well titled Contra Recentia Sacrilegia.  I you have not read it yet, I urge you so to do.

Second, Taylor Marshall and George Neumayr have given an excellent video summary of the U. S. Roman bishops meeting and of the current state of the Roman Catholic Church particularly in the U. S.  It is an eye-opener.

I wish I could say more and may when priorities allow.

Pushing “Social Justice” in ACNA Disregards Too Many Faithful

Alexander Wilgus has well responded to an article advocating more unity between The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) and The Episcopal Church (TEC). One problem he has with such increased unity and relationships is that it does not give enough weight to the difficult experiences of those perhaps slightly older who fled TEC.  

Ask any of them: it was not a concern for “being right” that caused the men, women, youth, and children to separate themselves from their ancestral congregations which–they assure me–had ceased to partake in Christ’s body, and instead given themselves over to become literal bodies of death. These acts were discerned through years of deep and careful prayer. Besides this, their decision to flee from false teaching, which in so many cases cost them property, friendships and reputations, ought to be honored by those of us in the next generation… 

I think a similar argument can be made against pushing “social justice” political agendas in ACNA and other predominantly orthodox churches. Part of the bad memories of many who fled “mainline” denominations, including TEC, is they saw their churches pushing political agendas they find repugnant. 

I remember being especially offended by my Presbyterian Church in the U. S. (PCUS), into which I was baptized, pushing legal abortion on demand and constantly siding with the Soviet Union against President Ronald Reagan. (Trust that I am notexaggerating.) Such was done in the name of being “prophetic” among other inane rationalizations. 

When I decided to leave PCUS and “mainline” denominations in general behind for that and other reasons, I thought with relief that I was leaving such churchly Leftism long behind as well.

So imagine my chagrin when I began to see ACNA, the formation of which I enthusiastically supported, being used as a venue for “social justice” agendas.  No, the leadership of ACNA is not as whole hog behind lib/left politics as PCUS was and TEC is. But ACNA initiatives behind “social justice” have proliferated and those who are pushing “justice” (a buzzword in ACNA now) keep getting promoted to leadership. 

When I first noticed this tendency, it was the first time I realized something might be seriously wrong with ACNA.  Yes, I had been warned that ACNA had “the Episcopalian virus,” but I disregarded those warnings . . . until I saw ACNA sponsoring “justice” through the Matthew 25 Project, the Anglican Multiethnic Network, The Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others (C4SO), etc.  

Anyway, seeing all this has me considering exit scenarios just ten years after attending and cheering the formation of ACNA.  I never thought I would ever be at this point.  I once would have laughed at anyone who suggested I would be.  Again, I thought I had left such toxic church politics behind.  Of course, I knew that ACNA contains people of differing political views.  But it never occurred to me that those of a more Leftist political bent would so disrespect conservatives and gain so much influence as to push their political agendas under ACNA auspices.

I am not alone. Many now in ACNA and other orthodox churches fled “mainline” churches and their toxic Leftist politics.  They have no desire to see their own churches once again being used to push Leftist agendas they find repugnant.  Using the church to push “social justice” offends these faithful and stresses their loyalty and support.  Disregarding their experiences and consciences by returning to the vomit of LibChurch politics* puts the unity of ACNA at further risk.

*Proverbs 26:11

Schiff Prohibits Witnesses Requested by Republicans

If there is any remaining doubt that the present impeachment inquiry is more an attempted coup than a lawful proceeding, it should be dispelled by Democrat Adam Schiff’s refusal to allow key witnesses requested by Republicans.   (I’ve read that he has denied all Republican witness requests, but I cannot verify that yet.)

Most telling is that he will not even allow Republicans to call the Fake Whistleblower to testify.  The Whistleblower Who Must Not Be Named is how the latest phase of the perpetual coup began – in public at least.  But Schiff will not allow Republicans to call even him as a witness.

I am at the point where I think someone has not to be paying attention to miss that this impeachment inquiry is part of the perpetual coup against Trump that began on Election night 2016 and even before. Democrats like Schiff have never respected that election, and they are not respecting basic principles of law and fair play in still  trying to overturn it.

But with hope I agree with the always colorful Senator John Kennedy (R-La): “The American people are going look at this and go, 'I get it. They're going to give the president a fair and impartial firing squad.'"

But how many are so un-American as to be fine with this unending attempted coup?

----

NOTE: Yes, my recent policy about politics on this blog has usually been that of H. P. Liddon:  “A large number of people came to St. Paul’s this afternoon expecting a political sermon.  I disappointed them.”

However, since several ACNA leaders, such as now C4SO Canon Theologian Esau McCaulley and C4SO Bishop Todd Hunter are supportive of Democrat objectives while being silent about the Democrat coup, I think it is time to speak up about the coup in an Anglican context.  So, with apologies (or not), the ongoing coup will now be one of the subjects I address here for this and other relevant reasons I may address in due time.

---- 

BONUS USELESS PREDICTION:
So far every time accusations against Trump have been aired in public, they have been a bust.  See the Mueller Report, Mueller’s testimony, backstabbing lawyer Cohen, the creepy porn lawyer and Stormy Daniels, and . . . I can hardly remember them all anymore.

When the impeachment inquiry goes public beginning tomorrow, it will be a bust as well and may backfire on the Democrats.  We shall see.

Corbyn Still One of the Comrades of Evo Morales

I am among those thankful that the Leftist supposed President of Bolivia Evo Morales resigned under pressure after a fraudulent re-election. But look who is not thankful: the dictators of Cuba and Venezuela . . . and Jeremy Corbyn.

The Glorious Leader of the Labour Party tweeted:

To see [Evo Morales] who, along with a powerful movement, has brought so much social progress forced from office by the military is appalling. I condemn this coup against the Bolivian people and stand with them for democracy, social justice and independence. #ElMundoConEvo

Never mind Morales’ human rights abuses or his election stealing.

By the way, I wonder what Pope Francis thinks of Morales’ resignation.  Will the LibPope miss him?  After all they’ve met at least six times, including as recently as last year when Francis surely knew the nature of the Morales regime.  And remember Morales gave Francis that lovely Communist cross. So maybe Francis will invite his buddy to move into the Vatican where he will be right at home with any number of Leftist abusers.

More about the Timing of the AND Campaign

I’ve mentioned here that the AND Campaign and its timing reminds me of the Seamless Garment political philosophy pushed during the 80’s. There is one aspect of AND’s timing I have not yet mentioned but have been thinking about.

There are indications that Trump might be gaining more Black support than the usual Republican.  The poll numbers are hard to discern but can be read favorably for Trump.  And there is no question that he is making more of an effort to woo Blacks than past Republicans.  There is a large contingent of Black conservatives backing him vociferously.  And one may not want to underestimate the influence of Kayne West.  Of course, that Black unemployment is now the lowest recorded helps Trump.

I understand if readers think this is all anecdotal wishful thinking.  I guess we will find out in a year, won’t we?  But I predict Trump will get 16% or more of the Black vote.  That may not sound like much, but it would be double his 2016 vote.

Of course, if Trump makes significant inroads with Black voters, it would be catastrophic for Democrats just as Ronald Reagan winning over Roman Catholics was in the 80’s.  From a Democrat point of the view, that Must. Not. Happen.

Now I do not presume to know for sure whether one of the purposes of the AND Campaign is to prevent this and to keep largely Black “Urban Christians,” as they dub them, on board with Democrats.  Just as I do not presume to know all the motives of Cardinal Bernardin when he gave his Seamless Garment lecture in 1983. Still, there is no question a big theme of AND is Orange Man Bad.  They do NOT want “Urban Christians” voting for Trump at a time when more of them just might.

Thus the timing of AND is interesting, is it not?

Is the AND Campaign a Democrat Front Group?

Up to now, I have given the benefit of the doubt to the motives behind the AND Campaign.  They certainly present themselves winsomely and sound earnest.  But after digging a little deeper, I cannot see how I can give the benefit of the doubt any longer.

What I’ve just found out is a bit embarrassing because I should have known before now.  Finding out just who is leading a political campaign is a rather obvious thing to do, but my focus was on what AND was saying, particularly in their 2020 Presidential Election Statement. Nonetheless, I have now looked into their leadership.

The President and Co-Founder of the AND Campaign is Justin Giboney.  I will allow his intro at the AND site to speak for itself (Emphasis mine):

Justin Giboney is an attorney and political strategist in Atlanta, GA. Mr. Giboney has managed successful campaigns for elected officialsin the state and referendums relating to the city’s transportation and water infrastructure.

In 2012 and 2016, Georgia’s 5th congressional district elected him as a delegate for the Democratic National Convention and he served as the co-chair of Obama for America’s Gen44-Atlanta initiative.A former Vanderbilt University football player and law student, Justin served on the Urban League of Greater Atlanta Board of Directors. Additionally, Justin has participated in LEAD Atlanta, Outstanding Atlanta and the Georgia Bar Association’s Leadership Academy. He’s written op-eds for publications such as Christianity Today.

So the President and Co-Founder of AND is a Democrat “political strategist” who was a delegate to the Democrat National Convention in 2012 and 2016. He was surely an Obama delegate in 2012.  He was a delegate for Hillary Clinton in 2016.  So we are supposed to trust the judgement and leadership of someone who still supported Obama after four years of his regime and then supported Hillary in 2016? Really? And he also worked for Obama for America.

Not much Christian judgement and not much non-partisanship there.

Okay, but maybe the Number Two in AND leadership will provide a little bi-partisan balance.  Let’s see…

Michael Wear serves as Chief Strategist and member of the executive leadership team for The AND Campaign. 

As one of President Obama's "ambassadors to America's believers" (Buzzfeed), Michael directed faith outreach for President Obama’s historic 2012 re-election campaign. Michael was also one of the youngest White House staffers in modern American history: he served in the White House faith-based initiative during President Obama’s first term, where he led evangelical outreach and helped manage The White House’s engagement on religious and values issues, including adoption and anti-human trafficking efforts.

He founded Public Square Strategies LLC, a consulting firm that helps religious organizations, political organizations, businesses and others effectively navigate the rapidly changing American religious and political landscape.

Michael is the author of Reclaiming Hope: Lessons Learned in the Obama White House About the Future of Faith in America. He also writes for The Atlantic, Christianity Today, USA Today, Relevant Magazine and other publications on faith, politics and culture. He holds an honorary position at the University of Birmingham’s Cadbury Center for the Public Understanding of Religion. He is also a Senior Fellow at The Trinity Forum. Michael and his wife, Melissa, are both proud natives of Buffalo, New York. They now reside in Washington, D.C.

But of course they do.

So the two top leaders of the AND Campaign are both experienced Democrat political operatives.  Both were all in for Obama, even in 2012.  And Wear directed conning Christians, er I mean, “faith outreach” for the Obama re-election campaign in 2012, again after the nature of the Obama regime was quite clear after four years.

So now he is again directing conning Christians for Democrats.

That may seem harsh.  But that is what Wear has done and is doing. And really, with those two leading the AND Campaign, isn’t that is what AND is doing?  If not, then why the heck are two Democrat political operatives leading the AND Campaign?  Why would you have two Democrat political operatives lead unless you intend to do some Democrat political operating? 

With their leadership and with their 2020 election statement, it is hard to come to any conclusion but that AND’s intended purpose is persuading evangelicals into thinking supporting Democrats is the Christian thing to do. Their supposed non-partisanship is a mask, a front.

As much as they may try not to appear so, AND is beyond a reasonable doubt a Democrat front group with the current chief purpose of getting evangelicals to vote Democrat in 2020.  Do not be deceived.  Do not be conned.

The AND Campaign: “Seamless Garment” Redux?

When I first heard of the AND campaign, I was immediately reminded of the “Seamless Garment” pushed by the late Cardinal Bernardin.

An old Crisis article by Michael Pakaluk goes through the history of Bernardin’s Seamless Garment and the problems with it very well.  A key moment was when the Cardinal brought together liberal Democrats talking points under a “pro-life” umbrella in a 1983 address at Fordham:

If one contends as we do, that the right of every fetus to be born should be protected by civil law and supported by civil consensus, then our moral, political, and economic responsibilities do not stop at the moment of birth. Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker. Such a quality of life posture translates into specific political and economic positions on tax policy, employment generation, welfare policy, nutrition and feeding programs, and health care. Consistency means we cannot have it both ways: We cannot urge rights of the unborn and then argue that compassion and significant public programs on behalf of the needy undermine the moral fiber of the society or are beyond the proper scope of governmental responsibility.

As Pakaluk notes, “this controversial passage, never withdrawn or repudiated by Bernardin, links regard for life with regard for the ‘quality of life’ in a highly dubious moral equation.”  And it is dubious. Say, letting illegals right on in and helping them stay, as the Roman Catholic hierarchy has long advocated and Catholic Charities has long enabled, is in the same category as protecting the unborn? No.  It is not.

For all I know, Bernardin may have had the best of motives. But the timing of the address and how the U. S. Roman Catholic bishops pushed the Seamless Garment is suspicious in light of the politics of abortion, Democrats, and Roman Catholics at the time.  

Democrats used to be a mixed lot on abortion.  Even Ted Kennedy once opposed abortion.  But by 1983, Democrat pols were becoming more and more pro-abortion under deceptive rhetoric such as “pro-choice” and “personally opposed but…”  And more than a few of these pro-abortion Democrats were Roman Catholics, such as Kennedy and New York Gov. Mario Cuomo.  Most U. S. Roman bishops were Democrats, of course, and liberal on social welfare issues while still opposed to abortion.  But with the Democrat Party becoming increasingly pro-abortion, continuing support for them was getting harder to justify.

In addition, Ronald Reagan was recovering well from his 1982 mid-term election setback.  Thanks to a robust economic revival and his social conservatism, he was popular among Roman Catholics and was well on the way to a landslide 1984 victory.  And he was pro-life. On the other hand, all but the gullible were not buying the “personally opposed” bit of Democrats.

This presented U. S. Roman bishops with some quandaries. How to get Roman Catholics to return to the Democrat fold?  How to justify voting for Democrats when they had become more and more pro-abortion?  And how could the bishops justify their own usual support for Democrats or even justify giving pro-abortion Democrat pols communion?

The Seamless Garment came to the rescue, doing far more for Democrats and for the bishops than for the unborn.  Now one could be “pro-life” by being for food stamps for illegals or by being for a “Nuclear Freeze,” a trendy stance back then, or by supporting Democrats on liberal quality of life issues as whole.  Abortion was relegated to one issue among many if even that.

By thereby supporting Democrats, efforts to protect the unborn were undermined. For the days of Democrats embracing the unborn under their liberalism were ending if not already over.  The Seamless Garment gave an excuse to put Democrat political and policy priorities above the lives of the unborn.  Oh, the pro-life rhetoric continued from the U. S. RCC, at least for a time.  But their political actions usually undermined efforts to protect the unborn. The Seamless Garment was a compassionate appearing fig leaf over that.

Obviously, this is a very condensed overview.  But discerning readers may already notice parallels between the Seamless Garment and what AND is promoting.  I see the AND Campaign, particularly their 2020 Presidential Election Statement, and I see Democrat priorities dubbed pro-life. I see an effort to undermine a pro-life Republican President (Reagan then. Trump now.) while wanting still to appear pro-life and non-partisan.  I see an effort to justify voting Democrat to pro-life evangelicals being driven away by Democrat extremism on abortion (and today on many more issues than in the 80’s).  I see once again the “highly dubious moral equation” between quality of life issues with the right to life.  And if AND comes close to succeeding in attracting Evangelical voters to Democrats as well as the Seamless Garment blessed Roman Catholic support of Democrats, I see the unborn as the losers in the end, along with church and country as well.

I see Seamless Garment Redux in the Evangelical Church of What’s Happening Now.

Again, the AND Campaign may be well meaning, but it repeats the errors of the Seamless Garment.  May it not repeat its influence.