Sunday, June 27, 2010

Will The REAL Chaplain to the Commons Please Stand Up

Well, if we needed further proof that the Church of England has somehow slipped back into the 19th Century, we now get this wonderful donnybrook:

Clash over historic promotion for female cleric

Westminster Abbey is so far out of touch with reality that they are now fighting over an appointment of a woman to the position of Chaplain to the Commons.

The Speaker of the House was apparently tired of old, middle-aged white guys that were predictable in out look.
Speaker John Bercow and wife Sally: Sources say he objected to appointing 'another predictable middle-aged white man'


The Reverend Rose Hudson-Wilkin primary offense seems to be that she is a woman, followed by the fact she is black, followed by the fact that she is slated to be one of the first consecrated women bishops in the Church of England.

The Dean of Westminster Abbey wants to have 46-year-old Andrew Tremlett, currently a Canon at Bristol Cathedral appointed. Tremlett's current duties are as follows:

The Canon for Development is responsible for the pastoral care and growth of the congregations of the Cathedral; using the historic buildings to serve today's needs; and informing the Chapter's strategic planning, so that the Cathedral becomes an effective centre of Mission.
I translate this into "takes care of the rich folks."

He is, quite typically, Westminster Abbey "material", especially based on the stuff that has been emanating from there of late.

The Reverend Hudson-Wilkin has worked long and hard in areas where diversity is the rule and the need for pastoral care was significant. here is one attendee's comment: "Rev. Rose Hudson-Wilkinson who lead worship with grace, preached well, and was approachable and encouraging." She raised up one congregation from a handful to over 200 attendees on Sundays.

So, what is the knock on the Reverend Rose Hudson-Wilkin? Well, appears she is "too liberal".
A controversial figure, she led calls for the Church of England to apologise for its role in slavery and has lambasted racism in the clergy. A friend said her views were ‘radical, Left of centre’.


So, the real story beginning to come out on the Church of England is one that is not very pretty. They clearly do not like women, well unless they are barefoot and pregnant. They seem to be building a case against any diversity but especially LGBT members and they are leaning toward a new Archbishop/Pope. Not a pretty picture my friends.

Sidebar: When I was reading the amendment presented to the House of Bishops by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York I thought of the Wilberforce speech during the debate in the House on abolishing slavery.

Once again a HatTip to Simon Sarmiento.

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Over at Thinking Anglicans we find this little slice of heaven:

That document includes the following (paragraph 6):
On the Anglican Communion Covenant, the House agreed
(a) to commend it for adoption by the Church of England;
(b) to invite the Business Committee to schedule the beginning of the adoption process for the inaugural Synod in November 2010, with a view to final approval in February 2012;
(c) not to propose special majorities for its adoption; and
(d) to authorise the House’s Standing Committee to oversee the production of necessary material for the Synod.


Of course, this is from the Church of England's House of Bishops,who else?!

Since this "disagreement" began at least 10 years ago and probably more like 20 or thirty years ago, it has been (predominantly) about clergy, and more specifically in and between bishops. While we argue about sex: full inclusion of LGBT and full inclusion of women and prayer books, and who has the greatest God and who has the right Scriptures and who has the lovingest God the real issue has been prestige and power and control. Yep, we have so many priests that want to be bishop and so many bishops that want to be archbishops and so many archbishops that want to be pope that it just ain't funny no more! Way back when William White (see my picture) was writing and organizing for the Protestant Episcopal Church In America there was a strong feeling that we did not need bishops. Then, when Connecticut some how talked the folks into adding bishops they were originally just part of the overall single cameral house. Somehow, some silly person decided to have a bicameral arrangement that then set up the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies. Boy, sure would like to have that one back! John Guernsey and Martyn Minns and Robert Duncan and all the rest just wanted to get to whatever mitre level they could wear. Conversely, they do not want LGBT to be priests and women to be priest or bishops because - - - he**, I am not sure but it must be because they would have equal say in matters and that irks them.

The best I can understand, we the laity, only count for counting purposes. See, ACNA is a real province because it has laity in the thousands. Ya'll don't get any say in anything (check out your Constitution and Canons), ya just get be raw numbers. TEC counters with you don't have as many laity as we got so there! Then, of course Archbishop Akinola has said that they have over 35 million Anglicans in the GAFCON so they are right and we (and everyone else is wrong) because of the numbers. Laity is good for one thing, being counted, understand we don't count for anything except being counted. Don't we all like to be "patted on the head" and told we are "good boys and girls" now go outside and play while the grown-ups (clergy) figure this out.

So why shouldn't the House of Bishops vote in favor of the "Covenant", it gives them more power and prestige.

Maybe we need a shift in paradigm. Maybe we need to eliminate the House of Bishops and make bishops pastoral only. Maybe the "Presiding Bishop" for The Episcopal Church needs to be a presiding layperson. A bishop could be chaplain to the Episcopal Church. Maybe we need to strip bishops and archbishops and wannbe popes to a mere pastoral level and let all the decisions on prayerbooks and rituals and Constitutions and Canons be done by the laity. Maybe we could convince the world wide Anglican Communion to do the same. Certainly worth thinking about.


Hat Tip To Simon Sarmiento

Thursday, June 24, 2010

A Message To The Presiding Bishop from Across The Years

No man thinks more highly than I do of the Anglican Communion, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have addressed the The Episcopal Church of late. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.

This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to our church. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our beloved Episcopal Church. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my diocese, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly bishoprics.

Madame Presiding Bishop, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?

For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth -- to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of scripture. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the Church of England for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the Episcopal Church?

Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, Madame; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our beloved Presiding Bishop comports with these warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are covenants and punishments necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation -- the last arguments to which tyrants and popes resort. I ask gentlemen, Madame Presiding Bishop, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it? Has the Church of England any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of covenants and compacts?

No, Madame, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the narrow-minded Anglicans have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Madame, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing.

We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, madame, deceive ourselves longer.

Madame, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the Archbishop of Canterbury, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the Southern Cone and the AMiA.

Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the Archbishop. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.

If we wish to be free -- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending -- if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, Madame, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally invaded, and when an Anglican Bishop shall be stationed in every Episcopal diocese? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Madame, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, Madame, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over our destiny, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.

The battle, Madame, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, Madame, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable -- and let it come! I repeat it, Madame, let it come!

It is in vain, Madame, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, "Peace! Peace!" -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

See Anyone You Know?

As you watch this video I am convinced you will see many a cleric that is currently engaged in the Anglican Communion. I have sorted them out and I hope that you can also. The first five that do will win a free mitre and crosier complements of the AMiA.

Monday, June 21, 2010

Will The Real Archbishop of Canterbury Please Resign

We have now discovered, as if we needed any further enlightenment, what the Archbishop of Canterbury "thinks" of cross border incursions. Not only does he not care, but now is making them a matter of routine. In his (and the other guy's) amendment on women bishops in the Church of England, he promotes alternative oversight so that "wimmen" do not have to be taken seriously.


The issue that has proved most difficult to resolve in securing these two objectives has been that of ‘jurisdiction’. Once women become bishops, it will be possible to maintain something like the present ‘mixed economy’ in the Church of England only if there is provision for someone other than the diocesan bishop to provide episcopal oversight for those who are unable to accept the new situation. The need for such provision is widely accepted. But what is still much debated is what should be the basis in law for the authority exercised by a bishop in this kind of ministry.


The amendment goes on to explain the legality of it all but see, the issue of cross-border incursions is now legalized in the Church of England. What has happened to the leader of the Anglican Communion?

This means if we (TEC) are waiting for sanctions on the Southern Cone of any of the various provinces in Africa the idea of "go pound sand" comes to mind real fast. BTW, see Real Anglicans for a little more on this.

Time for a new paradigm. time for a new Archbishop of Canterbury.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Big Butter Jesus is Melted

This line appeared in the RNS:


A six-story statue of Jesus in Ohio was struck by lightening and burned to the ground.

Before that, there was this:

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

++Rowan Williams Tells Us How He Really Feels

Hey folks, I found the ++ABC commenting on other topics in which he has an interest. I really did not know that the ++Williams looked like Pat Paulsen but remember, +++ABC now has a beard.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Just For Rowan (and John David, Jack Iker, et al)

Do you suppose ++Rowan objects to ++Katherine "havin' a good time"?