Thursday, September 18, 2008

Death to the orthodox...I mean traitors!

The useless body of suppositories that is the HOB of the episcopal sect has just voted on whether to depose Bishop Duncan because he has supported the idea that a diocese can leave.

All in favor?
The ayes have it.

Saturday, September 6, 2008

יּﬣוּﬣ Incarnate

The Pope, or at least the Vatican, has come out with new directives for worship eliminating the use of Yahweh in songs. This sparked an interesting conversation I had about the appropriateness of speaking the Tetragrammaton יּﬣוּﬣ,YHVH, for Christians. One friend said that Jesus would never have said it, being a good Jew. I think there is no record of Jesus ever addressing the Father by this name. But what does this mean? Was Jesus showing us that we could call God, Father, but should not speak His most holy NAME? And what is the relationship of יּﬣוּﬣ to the Name which is above all names? Moreover, if Jesus never addressed the Father as יּﬣוּﬣ, why not?

To me the answer is obvious. יּﬣוּﬣ is not the Father's name. It is God's name. Jesus, as God incarnate, would also be the proper recipient of that name. He would be addressing Himself as much as the Father, so the more intimate title and the one which distinguishes the Son from the Father, is used. Jesus is יּﬣוּﬣ. He has to be יּﬣוּﬣ. It would be impossible for the Father to be known as יּﬣוּﬣ unless the Son were not included.

As to the first of these statements Christians need look no further than John 8:58: “Before Abraham was I AM". Here the Jewish respect for not speaking the NAME is blown out of the water as Jesus clearly identifies himself with that NAME. If Jesus says that he is the One who IS then it is only logical, emphasis on the logos, that He means to be identified by the Name that says the same thing.

But why do I say that it is impossible for Jesus not to be יּﬣוּﬣ?
When this Name was revealed to Moses, who revealed it? Was it an angel, like that which Muhammad claimed to give him the revelation from Allah? No, it was God Himself who revealed His Name. But as Christians we know that no one has ever seen God except through the Son. The Father is invisible, and I would add inaudible. He is beyond the realm of our senses, as our senses only register material things. Jesus is the Incarnation of God the Son so that we created beings can see God with our eyes and hear Him with our ears.

So Who really was Moses hearing when he was given the Name? Logically, it was the One who makes God known and knowable. It was the Son. God, the Holy Triune God of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, was, through the Son, revealing His Name, a Name which distinguishes Him from all creation. He alone is the great I AM. All other beings have a beginning and their being is dependent upon their Creator. Not so with God. He eternally is. The Father is. The Son is. The Spirit is. יּﬣוּﬣ is not the Name of the Father only. It is not the name of the Son only, or of the Spirit only. It is the name of GOD.

But there is another name by which we know God. But this is a name which tells us how He relates to us. This name is Jesus, which lexically means “the Lord saves”. This name is really no less intimate than יּﬣוּﬣ. Rather, it is more intimate. This makes Rome's decision to forbid use of Yahweh in worship entirely appropriate for perfectly Christian reasons. Why address God by a Name which separates Him from us when we have a name, which is above all other names, and which shows that transcendent Lord as One who comes down to us? The common use of Yahweh becomes, from this perspective, a use of a more transcendent name but without the proper respect and awe that should accompany that. If we want to express God's intimacy with us and our intimacy with Him then we should use the Name by which he intended before all time to be known to us as Savior and as Friend.

Monday, August 4, 2008

Is there Kool-Aid in the chalice?

When I see a document from the Global South Primates who attended Lambeth 2008 I anticipate some recognition of what a colossal failure it has been.

Not so fast.

The first paragraph begins with the traditional fluff and then we get this:

In the midst of the current critical crisis in the Communion we strivefaithfully
and honourably to ensure the Communion remains and continues steadfast in and to
the faith once delivered to the saints.

That seems nice. One might expect some concrete details or at least a sketch of a plan how they will ensure this. One would be mistaken. But wait, there's more:

In this, the Holy Scripture – which, as the testimony to God’s workgiven by the
Spirit of God is the written Word of God – is the final authority for Christian
belief, teaching, life and conduct. Authentic traditions of doctrine and
practice acknowledge its supremacy. It underpins all bonds of affection,
expressions of fellowship and shaping of structures in the Communion.

Wow. That seems strong. But, wait a minute. Aren't they aware that American and Canadian liberals pretty much reject that authority? Might one expect that subject to be addressed? Alas, one would be disappointed.

The second paragraph has two statements: fond greetings to the absent GAGCON bishops and “solidarity” with the suffering orthodox in the heterodox west. Might this mean a sympathy and “solidarity” for the more than verbal assistance given to these same orthodox by the GAFCON bishops? (he asked wistfully and oh so foolishly). I am all a tingle to find the answer to that question.
Paragraph three is the standard babble about what was heard and liked, without being specific as to content or reasons for liking anything.

Paragraph four is pretty much a kiss blown to Rowan and Lambeth (though a different kind of kiss comes to mind. Why are they “encouraged” by the ABC's first address when the Communion is “at the brink of collapse”? [Stop asking questions, you fool!] Sorry, sorry, I forgot).

Paragraph five indicates that they have some belief that the “Windsor process” is still actually processing somewhere and they are backing the “Pastoral forum”. Would that be a forum in the sense of an academic roundtable where the actual merits of ideas and actions are reasonably debated, or is it more like a community chat room where everyone get to “tell his story” blah blah blah? When I hear the term pastoral these days I am less reminded of a shepherd guiding his sheep with a staff and maybe a handy sheepdog, than I am of a pasture, a blissful meadow wherein one may take ambling walks to nowhere and frequently step in cow pies.

When I come to the next paragraph I am puzzled:

We expect the Lambeth Conference, as a significant instrument of unityof the
Communion, to give vital leadership towards resolving the present crisis over
faith and order.

WHEN was this written? By this wording I would expect that it was written BEFORE Lambeth 2008, when there was still the possibility for the kind of hope that the Present always has for the Future. But now Lambeth 2008 is Past. How anyone with a scintilla of concern for orthodoxy could, afterwards, call Lambeth “a significant instrument of unity” or think that it would lead to any real resolution of this crisis is beyond me.

What is their idea of resolution, or leadership toward that end. “My advice to you is to start drinking, very heavily”? I've tried that before. It is a tried and not-really-true method. Sure, it helps one forget one's troubles, but in the morning the troubles are still there, along with a splitting headache and sometimes dim memories of embarrassing things done the night before. And what is there to do in that situation, sober up and deal with the problems, or have another drink. I fear this WGC process is just some hair of the dog.

That they embrace the ABC's and the WGC's false equating of gay ordinations and SSBs with border crossing without making any acknowledgment that the border crossing came in response to the first two, as well as to the abandonment of Scripture and creedal orthodoxy in TEC and ACoC, which is the underlying cause of those symptoms (something GAFCON noted and addressed) makes me think that they don't really understand the position of the orthodox in those institutions, despite their claim to be in solidarity with them. What do they mean when later in paragraph ten they state their intention to “work together...with all orthodox groups in the United States of America and Canada”? Will they not work with the heretics? Will they in any way oppose the heretics' claim to authority and power over the orthodox there? If so, how is that significantly different from border crossing? If not, how is it any help at all?

Paragraph seven is simply a justifiable complaint of bad behavior, yet without any threat of negative consequences for it. Been there. Done that. Got the T-Shirt, made in China by slave labor.

There are some nice things embedded in the next paragraph, implications that they see their churches growing because of orthodoxy, which would offer hope that eventually orthodoxy will re-emerge as liberalism dies of its own sterility, that is, if it hasn't destroyed everything of value in the Communion in the process. Two difficulties with this:

1. Why not be more clear in stating what seems to be the subtext? Is there really any virtue in obscurity these days?

2. Their description of themselves as having a “prophetic and priestly a precious gift to the Anglican Communion”, is problematic. First, as to prophecy, are they claiming to possess that spiritual gift, because they have yet to show in this document that they can speak or write like the prophets? Furthermore, the idea of a prophetic ministry within the church has been much abused, and that on behalf of the very same heresy that they are fighting against. it does not seem wise or prudent to justify the flippant use of that term.

Secondly, I suspect that the use of “priestly” is not well thought out. Priests are those who intercede for sinners. They stand as the bridge between God and those who need to be reconciled to Him. The church has always been seen as having a priestly function, but that is by its interceding for the world, not for itself, or parts of itself. Are these bishops claiming that there are elements within the church that need intercession by the Global South churches? Would that not be tantamount to an admission that some in the church aren't really of the church? I would applaud that admission, but how does one practically live out that belief without altering one's ecclesiastical relationship with those in but not of the church?

Paragraph nine is just more needless verbiage, this time about what “encourages” them, as if it were a pressing concern on the church's part to know how it's leaders were feeling.

Having noted the disconnect that paragraph ten has with the preceding I will only add that the saying that they commit to “listen together to what Lord Jesus says to his church today” is poorly worded in that it leaves open the idea that Jesus might say something new, precisely the wedge that the heretics use to justify abandoning revealed truth.

I wish this statement was anything other than the wishy washy Anglican pablum that it is.

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Resistance is Futile

Prepare to be modernized. Obsolete theologies will be disgarded. All will be harmonized. All will submit.

"We are the TEC Demagogic.
Let go of your outdated logic.
Your tradition is doomed.
You will be consumed.
So bow to the new Gynologic."

Friday, April 4, 2008

rules shmules

To no malice will Kate not resort
Nor wording of canon contort
This arrogant witch
Made the bishops her bitch
And their meeting a kangaroo court

The Principal Bozo

Our PB has one great renown
It's a unity in festal gown
Her faith's manifested
In the way that she's vested
For she speaks and she looks like a clown

Tuesday, April 1, 2008

April fool's joke (I wish)

The message she saw fit to impart
Was bereft of the faith from the start
For this Easter week
She saw worthy to speak
Of the threat to the earth when cows fart

Monday, March 31, 2008

Kubla Kate

In San Joaquin did Kubla Kate
Her sovereign diocese decree:
Where Lamb, her stooge, did navigate
Through canons meaningless to state
- Down to a Sonless See.
No legal rules can thus withstand
Their will and lawyers they have at hand.
And there were graying men with modern views
Perfumed by many an incense-bearing priest.
And here was jargon wooden as the pews
Spoken but saying nothing in the least.
- But see ! their hearts' desire by what is treasured
- Through plans they make with pseudo-canon cover:
- A power play ! unholy and unmeasured
- Like an addict's raving 'till at last he's pleasured
- This mitered matron serves her demon-lover!
- And from this Schism, with ceaseless propaganda,
- To say this anal hamster were a panda,
- A thinly veiled and pointed threat was sent
- To dioceses that still will not repent
- Of stubborn clinging to the ancient ways,
- Rejecting all the godly gifts of gays.
- That orthodoxy shall not be permitted
- That to exclusive Truth is still committed.
- “We'll deal with them before they try to leave.
- Ere they try to change their constitution
- They'll be stopped by this final solution.
- For we'll not back down on what we believe.”
- And midst her triumph Kubla Kate dismissed
- The protests of some fools who did insist
- To be the San Joaquin SC.
- That they resigned, they denied.
- To all their claimed authority
- “That's been settled”, she replied.
It was a ruthless scheme of rare device!
Her faithless diocese was oh so N.I.C.E. !
- Apostate with a rainbow cap
- On her head that looked like crap,
- In Zion did she take a stroll
- Pretending she could fill the role
- Of a catholic order.
- Her Easter points imparting
- A warning for the earth
- Of dangers when cows are farting.
That's what her gospel is worth.
We must flee her lawless way
That knows no rule save power alone,
Where all her cronies shout and say,
“You cannot leave. Obey! Obey!”
This is no church in which to stay.
Desolation's on the throne.
And Sin's embraced and flesh adored.
They are not brethren in the Lord
Who think no Sin must be atoned.

Pax vobiscum, or else

In Lodi did she thus opine,
"No need to protest. All is fine.
As elsewhere, here in San Joaquin
We say what the canons mean.
I bid you peace. Now get in line."

Saturday, March 8, 2008

Ozymandias' church

I met a Christian of the ancient creed
He said: A church once sound and orthodox
Stands in the city, decked with dust and weed,
Its windows dark and doors fixed with padlocks
And placard whose authority decreed
That parishes can never TEC depart,
And 'piscopal this church will always stay.
The narrow minds must chose to walk apart,
For those who stay must pay obedience due.
This Church will always make its point to say
To all of reasoned faith “We Welcome You”.
And silence reigned inside as in a grave
As pointless pulpit faced an empty pew.
Why come to churches if they will not save?

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Episcopal sacra-mince

The hotest Episcopal scene
Is a bishop we call Vicky Gene
But when he lays on his hands
To his new confirmands
Does his chrism cantain vaseline?

Monday, February 25, 2008

Can Lambeth be seized by the orthodox?

Well, that's the real question, isn't it?

Actually, I think it isn't the real question at all. It is a distraction from the real question.

If we ask if this Lambeth can be hijacked for orthodoxy the way everything good and decent in this church has been hijacked time and time again by the heretics then we are faced with a simple practical political calculation. Of course this calculation has much to do with the level of optimism one is ready to sustain when considering the potential for success in this venture. But my experience has been that there has been a surfeit of optimism about defeating the liberals in their relentless assault upon the Faith. It seems to me that some optimists are simply not willing to see the facts as they are but insist upon reading them in the most optimistic, by which I mean fanciful, light possible. Since Jesus calls us to count the costs before undertaking some great task there can be no room for approaches which misrepresent the facts.

Now some may counter: “Aren't you opposing optimism with pessimism or even cynicism? After all, with God all things are possible.”

Far be it from me, as one who believes in the Resurrection, to limit my actions based upon what I understand to be possible on my part. I have often trumpeted the example of Gideon against arguments that those leaving TEC or Lambeth are draining the strength from the orthodox fight within TEC or within the Anglican Communion. This is the central thrust of Bishop Wright. The conservative defectors are dividing the conservative side just like Teddy Roosevelt divided the Republican forces with his Bull Moose Party. But this is as much a strategic calculation as those who say the fight is hopeless and already lost. The argument is not an illogical one, if worldly logic is all that is counted. But the force of the Gideon example is that worldly calculations should not be the crucial factor in deciding whether this or that venture will be successful. It is rather meant to strengthen the faith of those already tasked with a seemingly impossible mission.

However, the omnipotence of God should not become a license do anything. God can indeed do all things. But that He can do all these does not mean that He will do them. God could indeed cause me to float in the air. Does that mean that I should defy gravity and jump off a building to show my faith and God's power? (I seem to remember a biblical story about something like this) No. Only lunatics and snake handlers (possibly the same thing) operate by that theologic. God could convert the hearts of all those in 815 and the ACC and give conservatives the control of the Communion. Well, He could. But is it likely, based upon how He has acted throughout the last 1900 years of church history that He will break precedent and act in a way He has never acted before?

I believe a dispassionate examination of the evidence will give small hope for turning TEC around and a little less than even odds that ABC and Lambeth will do anything to effectively deal with the rampant apostasy in the Communion. It may be possible, with a determined unified show of force on the conservatives' part, to wrest the agenda of this Lambeth away from the revisionist aparatchiks ensconced in ACC, but I wouldn't put much money on that bet.

But let us assume that even the small odds of success are not there. Let us say that there is no way short of the Second Coming that anything will turn Lambeth into a vehicle for addressing TEC's abuses, let alone disciplining it to bring it back in line with biblical teachings, or at least with what the last Lambeth Conference claimed it believed. Such an assumption might lead one to conclude that going to there would be a waste of time because it won't accomplish anything. If there is no real chance for success why bother? Would that not be throwing good money after bad, in a sense?

But this flows from the wrong way of looking at things. It is starting with the wrong question. Rather than deciding what is the right course of action by seeing which course will be successful, which will “work”, Christians should instead decide which course is right regardless of whether we think there is any chance of it working. Ethics are governed not by the considerations of the possible and impossible or of the probable and improbable. It is dictated by the knowledge of right and wrong. Christianity especially is not a “practical” or pragmatic religion, not when what is practical is defined by our limited human knowledge of what we think can or needs to be achieved.

Before the Resurrection Jesus' death on the cross could well have been looked at as a failure. What did He accomplish by challenging the religious authorities in Jerusalem except a violent death? But the wisdom of God is built upon the foundation of victory through defeat, life through death. Consider John the Baptist. Could he not have spent his time more profitable supporting Jesus' ministry than challenging the moral habits of a powerful king? What did he accomplish? He certainly failed to turn Herod around and only wound up getting killed himself. Look at Paul. Was he successful in his attempt to win over the Jews in Jerusalem? There is little evidence of it. He certainly failed trying to convince Herod Agrippa and Festus. Was he wasting his breath?
No. It was right to make his witness regardless of the evident success or failure of the endeavor, for the witness itself has a benefit of its own.

The Christian principle of being a witness is, I believe, a strong argument for all conservative leaders going to Lambeth and making a stand, even if they know it will be their last one. I believe I am not simply imposing an idea and dressing it up as a moral imperative based solely upon my own authority. It seems to me we can see a clear Dominical ethic revealed in Scripture in Jesus' commands for dealing with sin in the church. Mt 18:15-17

If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

What is important to see here is that the sinning brother is confronted openly in the church. Before you can break fellowship with him he must at last be dealt with openly before the whole church. Once you have gone that far you can be done with him if he refuses to repent, but you must go that far. This is not just for his sake but for yours and for the sake of the church. By going the distance to the final level before cutting ourselves off we proclaim the importance of our fellowship in Christ. It is not lightly dissolved. Christians are not to take the easy way out.

Yet taking the easy way is a very common temptation for us, and I speak from my own experience. How often have we failed to confront an erring brother, not because we have forgiven him but because we doubt any good will come of it. He won't repent, we think, perhaps based upon plenty of past experience, and so we write him off. We “let sleeping dogs lie”, and buy ourselves some peace, but at the expense of fellowship. What we have settled for is a less Christian and less honest relationship because we are reluctant to suffer the risk of pain in the honest confrontation. Again, I speak for myself first and foremost. Even in the area of witnessing for Christ it is too easy to hold back for fear of an assumed negative reaction. Why preach if people don't want to hear it? This is cowardice and sin, no denying it. It is sin, though not because we are denying the possibility of God accomplishing what we think impossible. There is that, of course. But it is also sin because we are called to bear witness regardless of whether that witness will be “successful” or not. Maybe the only success is that a stand was taken and a witness made.

Back to the issue at hand; personally I believe that the Canterbury based Communion is broken, the rules are stacked and the game rigged and that there is no way on earth the Lambeth conference is going to address, let alone solve the issues that have been ripping the Communion apart. If there is to be a healing for the Communion it will have to come from outside Canterbury and the ACC. The AC will have to be rebuilt from the outside. I could be wrong, but that isn't the point. The point is that despite this pessimistic, but realistic (as opposed to rose colored) outlook, I still think that our orthodox leaders should go to Lambeth. They should go not with the thoughts of capturing Lambeth and of capturing the Anglican Communion but of confronting it. Since the Communion is something of worth its structure are important. That importance means that if we are going to reject them as fatally flawed we owe it to them and to ourselves to make a public announcement of that at the highest level possible.

Now I know some will be thinking, “What is there to announce? It's all over the internet what this Archbishop thinks and what that Archbishop has said about this and that.” That is true. But these things have not been said at the highest level of the church of which we are all a part. What is the forum for Anglicans to make a statement before the entire Communion? It is not a Synod meeting of a local Province. It is where the entire Communion is officially gathered in its greatest numbers. Lambeth is the only contender for that title. For ++Akinola to make a pronouncement from Nigeria is, as far as the Communion goes, no more than for me to privately tell Bob that I have this grievance against him. At most it is to bring another brother into the picture to confront Bob. But I am commanded to go farther. I must make my case before the church. So likewise I believe that our voice should be made at Lambeth if only to say “This game is over”.
This is the price of Christian community. If there is any hope for a non-Canterbury centered Anglicanism it will only be if we take the communion nature of the Communion more seriously than has been done by those who have done what they pleased and those who have looked the other way. This cannot be done if we start out by paying so little heed to the nature of community when it seems difficult or pointless.

Practical questions:

1) What kind of witness needs to be made at Lambeth? Is it necessary to attend all three meaningless weeks of this silly affair?

I don't think more than a day, maybe two or three, would be required. Coming with the express intention of only making a statement and then leaving would also have the beneficial effect of getting the attention of the rest. It would be like one who, while all the other sheep dutifully take their place at tables so that the meeting can progress, insists on standing in the doorway. The impression should be to come as a visible sign of contention and disagreement. If this causes the rest to decide to address the real issues instead of playing parlor games, all the better. If they refuse to heed the no time need be wasted. A swift exit can be made, making the witness all the more potent. The stand will have been made, which can only be done by going.

2)What about the expense, if many leaders are also going to GAFCON?

I Think there is money enough among all the orthodox in America, Canada, Australia and England to pay the fares of the global south bishops. But even if this becomes a real obstacle it isn't necessary for all bishops to go. Even the Pope never went to any of the universally accepted Councils but he sent a legate. The Primates can well represent their churches, and key representatives of the orthodox from within unorthodox Provinces can be selected. If we are not depending upon outvoting the heretics, but simply confronting them, then it doesn't matter if we aren't there in the greatest numbers. But our chief leaders should be.

Skipping Lambeth is no light matter. It may only be an invention of less than a century and a half in age, but the Communion itself is really little older. The Communion is a new and very fragile thing, and it is breaking apart. If it is to be reforged it must be done carefully, and honorably, and honor has been a thing greatly lacking in the present system, a system that a boycott of Lambeth is implicitly rejecting.

Complex Stupidity

The problem with academics is that they often don't know how stupid they really are. They can dress up rampant foolishness in sophisticated verbiage and nuanced constructions such that it will gain the fealty of the great mass of intellectophiles (a term if not already existent I am coining to signify those who so desire to be included in the great ranks of intellectuals that they habitually dress naked emperors out of class loyalty) while the more humble “non”-intellectuals will see through the obvious idiocy even if they can't explain its deficiency in a form acceptable to the ivory tower Magisterium. What the common man sees clearly the “intellectual” is unable to see because he has obscured his vision with needless complexity, the very purpose of which, whether intended or not, seems to be only to present a foolish idea with the image of a credible argument by the sheer mass of its verbiage and mental gymnastics. It is rather like walking into a maze and thinking you have traversed a great distance in it when you have really only ended up a few feet away in another tortuous passage. There is no progression. A smarter man would have walked around the maze, recognizing it for what it was.

Case in point: Rowan Williams' blithering idiocy regarding the inevitability of sharia law. The idea that any portion of this monstrosity of Islam could be permitted on a voluntary basis only shows that Williams has not thought out clearly at all what sharia law is or what is the very nature of Law in a civil society. In ant civilization there can be only one supreme law. All other relationships must be, from a political point of view, inferior and subordinate, and the form of this subordination is directed not by the inferior but by the superior. One cannot have a system that makes the woman inferior to the man with severe restrictions of liberty tolerated under a modern Western legal system which grants equality to the women, unless such inequality is freely accepted by the woman and constantly remains freely accepted. But this would make of the “lesser” legal system nothing more than an individually chosen relationship. Sharia could not be binding in any way because it can be allowed no force to bind. Only the common law of the land can bind. Otherwise there is no common law and hence no common land, no common wealth.

But such an arrangement is exactly what sharia does not permit of itself. It is not a set of principles expressing a cultural variation of a common humanity. Sharia represents itself as the very expression of the law of Allah, a law which is meant to be implemented in human society. Sharia cannot be modified to fit the frameworks of a Western civilization. Sharia is the “natural” law of an entirely different civilization, one which repudiates the legitimacy of all other civilizations. One might as well try to integrate republicanism into a monarchical system. Or one might try too sustain a democratic republic birthed in the recognition of human equality while tolerating the enslavement of a class of men. It doesn't work and civil war is the inevitable result if the attempt is persisted.

Many of the initial defenses of William's statements concerning sharia have taken the standard intellectophile approach. Williams is simply “too smart” for many of us plebes to understand his complexity. “Thinking”, some say, “is hard work”, and we should be thankful we have a leader willing to undertake the enterprise.

Yes, well, this is the very problem. Thinking may be harder than not thinking, but thinking stupidly or half assed is easier than thinking things clearly and thinking them through. It is one thing to “raise the question”. That is the east part. Offering thoughts that productively guide us to a conclusion on the issue is the real hard work that many of our pointy headed intellects seem to eschew. William's may be credited for seeing the difficulties of the relationship of law and religious groups in secular and multicultural society. But beyond raising the issue what has he done to hint at a solution? If there is any direction that his raw and hastily and imperfectly informed comments it is only toward that conclusion which he is distancing himself from now because of the vast negative reaction it is receiving.

If we are to give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't mean what a simple and unnuanced reading of his comments indicate, that he was merely seeking to “open up some of these wider matters” and “tease out some of the broader issues” then he is to be blamed for speaking as if he was saying something definitive when in fact he wasn't. Secondly he is to be blamed for not speaking definitively, for not giving some definitive answer. What is his position as chief cleric in the land if it is not to give concrete guidance? What is the good of opening the issue of the futility of modern life, say for a teenager, if you don't go on to direct him toward something meaningful that will keep him from blowing his brains out? Thirdly Williams is to be blamed for speaking before he has thoroughly informed himself on the matter.

The simple and easily demonstrated matter is that Williams doesn't know what the hell he is talking about when it comes to Islam and sharia. He seems to assume that Islam allows for a “dual identity” of citizen and believer. Nothing could be further from the truth. Islam is a coherent traditional religion in which the politics of the state and its religion are inseparable. Islam is meant to be a spiritual as well as worldly religion. In fact, it is far more intent on being worldly than it is otherworldly. Islam must rule the world, according to its prophet and all his disciples who follow him. This is quite distinct from the Christian witness that the kingdom of this world is fleeting and will pass away. It is the kingdom of heaven, which exists now in heaven in perfection, which will come to reign upon the earth after earthly kingdoms pass away. This picture of the two kingdoms, or two cities, allows for the kind of duality that Williams seems to think possible under Islam but in reality Islam recognizes no two kingdoms. The two realms that do exist in Islamic thought are the two houses, the House of Islam, the dar al-Islam, and the House of War, the dar al-Harb. The latter is wherever Islam is not the ordering principle of society. Williams has been listening too much to liberal Muslims or Muslim apologists smarter than he who know how to tell him what he wants to hear. Muslims only possess this duality, this enlightened idea of religious toleration when they aren't ruling. Williams only demonstrates that he doesn't get around much in the Muslim world or simply doesn't open his eyes. He might as well be defending the Third Reich by saying that Auschwitz was an abuse of Nazism's purer principles.

What is equally bad about Rowan's musing is that in simply seeking to raise a serious issue he unreflectively assumes things he should rather question. He takes it as a given that Britain will not or cannot maintain Christendom and that a multicultural society is inevitable. Let us leave the question of why he does not think a Christian culture can or ought to be defended. What seems remarkable is that it does not occur to him to question the very establishment of a church in a nation no longer dedicated to the faith that church is supposed to proclaim. If Britain is no longer to be a Christian nation, whose laws should all be based upon Christian morality, should the ABC not call for the State to be utterly neutral toward religion and treat it as an irrelevancy in regard to the law? Would this not free him to be freer in preaching Christ and Christian morality and less shackled to defend the politics of multiculturalism and trying to figure how to make discontented Muslims happy? Rather, he should be trying to make Muslims become Christian.

When he defends giving sharia space in order to give freedom to Christians in the realm of abortion and adoption, allowing Christian hospitals not to be forced to perform abortions and Christian adoption agencies not to have to place children with gay couples, why does he not instead question the authority of the State in making rules in this regard. Instead of champoning for more freedom for all he fights for freedom of one group to oppress another. Braindead and shameless. That Anglicanism's chief cleric can't see what an atheist like Christopher Hitchens sees is bad enough. That so many of Anglicanism's illuminatti line up to defend his droolings as being marks of a superior intellect is worse.

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

Lie back and think of the Church of England - or - The ecclesiological rape that is the "reception" of Women's Ordination

The idea that the radical break from 19 centuries of uniform Christian practice, that is the ordination of women to the priesthood and to the episcopacy, is in a process of "reception" presumes that it is being received, that it is being taken on board and tested to see if it is acceptable to the wider Communion. What is not articulated is how any unacceptability would be properly discerned or in turn "received" by this innovation's advocates. Given that there has been a marked departure of many Anglicans from the various provinces that have adopted this change and that such departures are rarely, if ever, held up as any kind of evidence of unacceptability by those promoting the idea of "reception", it seems an obvious conclusion that such reception as we are expected to undergo is that of gradually, and sometimes not so gradually, breaking down resistance, or waiting until all protesters have given up and left.

At the very best, this type of reception is little more than a democratic test of what can be forced upon the collective church. What is a change too far? This seems to be the operative question in the minds of our process oriented churchmen. Certainly the advancement of homosexual activity as tolerable within the Christian church, and especially within the clergy, is for many Anglicans a change too far. The vast majority of Anglicans worldwide reject the normalization of sodomy. But the rejection of WO has not been so strong. Therefore, argue many moderate evangelical and pseudo Anglo-catholics, WO is acceptable and not a communion breaker. But that is a democratic argument. Should we suppose that if the objection to the gay agenda were less strong that that also should be "received" by the church? Perhaps it is just a question of timing. The church is not now ready to receive this new understanding of sexuality.
Give the homosexualists a little more time.

Why not? Why should the church's No to homosexuality now be permanent when the 19 centuries of the church's No to women in orders was thrown over so easily?

This imposition of democratic processes to implement change within the church is nothing less than a spiritual rape of the body of Christ. It is the kind of rape that takes place subtly but all too commonly in the "dating" scene today where, absent hard and fast rules, boys and girls are left to fend for themselves and the desires of the males are too easily imposed upon the feeble resistance of the girls. Sure, it may take some coaxing and pressure, accusations that she doesn't really love you if she doesn't give in, but eventually the odds are she will submit herself more and more. Boys who pressure their girlfriends into giving up what virtue they have, merely because they want it and the girls don't have the strength of character to keep resisting, may not be the kind of rapists we should throw in prison, or in a shallow grave in the woods, but they are rapists of the sort who, in a more civilized society, were presented with an option to marry or bury.

So-called conservatives who support altering the universal priesthood of the church, merely because they want to or because they don't see what the problem is, may not be the same kind of defilers of the church as those who seek to rob any clear sense of sexual morality from the church by enshrining that which God repeatedly has condemned into the priesthood and episcopacy, but they are still guilty of raping the bride of Christ buy making her something to be altered to suit their desires. Rather than cherishing the church they have made her a harlot.

But only a little bit. Just like Bill Clinton didn't have sex with Monica because it was just oral.

Monday, January 7, 2008

Lambeth Follies

Our ABC right now is Rowan
But I can't tell if he's comin' or goin'
His leadership's risible
And intention invisible
But I believe it's a schism he's sowin'

It seemed appropriate to begin this new venture
with something silly that yet presumes to also be serious, for what could be sillier than posting thoughts on the ether.

If I have not either gotten a life or a girlfriend, or a good case of beer, I will in a little while post my likely irrelevant argument as to why all the conservative bishops who can should go to Lambeth regardless of what can be realistically achieved.