Remember Jefferson?

Food for thought --

"Dear Sir,

My last to you was of the 16th of December; since which, I have received yours of November 25 and December 4, which afforded me, as your letters always do, a treat on matters public, individual, and economical. I am impatient to learn your sentiments on the late troubles in the Eastern states. So far as I have yet seen, they do not appear to threaten serious consequences. Those states have suffered by the stoppage of the channels of their commerce, which have not yet found other issues. This must render money scarce and make the people uneasy. This uneasiness has produced acts absolutely unjustifiable; but I hope they will provoke no severities from their governments. A consciousness of those in power that their administration of the public affairs has been honest may, perhaps, produce too great a degree of indignation; and those characters, wherein fear predominates over hope, may apprehend too much from these instances of irregularity. They may conclude too hastily that nature has formed man insusceptible of any other government than that of force, a conclusion not founded in truth or experience.
Societies exist under three forms, sufficiently distinguishable: (1) without government, as among our Indians; (2) under governments, wherein the will of everyone has a just influence, as is the case in England, in a slight degree, and in our states, in a great one; (3) under governments of force, as is the case in all other monarchies, and in most of the other republics.

To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the first condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has its evils, too, the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs.
I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.
If these transactions give me no uneasiness, I feel very differently at another piece of intelligence, to wit, the possibility that the navigation of the Mississippi may be abandoned to Spain. I never had any interest westward of the Allegheny; and I will never have any. But I have had great opportunities of knowing the character of the people who inhabit that country; and I will venture to say that the act which abandons the navigation of the Mississippi is an act of separation between the Eastern and Western country. It is a relinquishment of five parts out of eight of the territory of the United States; an abandonment of the fairest subject for the payment of our public debts, and the chaining those debts on our own necks, in perpetuum.
I have the utmost confidence in the honest intentions of those who concur in this measure; but I lament their want of acquaintance with the character and physical advantages of the people, who, right or wrong, will suppose their interests sacrificed on this occasion to the contrary interests of that part of the confederacy in possession of present power. If they declare themselves a separate people, we are incapable of a single effort to retain them. Our citizens can never be induced, either as militia or as soldiers, to go there to cut the throats of their own brothers and sons, or rather, to be themselves the subjects instead of the perpetrators of the parricide.
Nor would that country quit the cost of being retained against the will of its inhabitants, could it be done. But it cannot be done. They are able already to rescue the navigation of the Mississippi out of the hands of Spain, and to add New Orleans to their own territory. They will be joined by the inhabitants of Louisiana. This will bring on a war between them and Spain; and that will produce the question with us, whether it will not be worth our while to become parties with them in the war in order to reunite them with us and thus correct our error. And were I to permit my forebodings to go one step further, I should predict that the inhabitants of the United States would force their rulers to take the affirmative of that question. I wish I may be mistaken in all these opinions.
Yours affectionately,
Th. Jefferson"

Jefferson liked to borrow from the likes of John Locke and I know John Boehner has tried to cite this as his reason for doing some of the most atrocious things to the middle class on down, but this brand of Republican is scared - that's why they do what they do.  They are in effect scared to death of change.  Progrssives/liberals can only be pushed so far- particularly those who marched in the 60's (wink wink nod nod).

Are We Tired?

I am tired of all the "grab-ass". We have lost our vision and with it I fear the high ground.  Where is the love?

FOR THE LOVE OF IT ALL Noel Paul Stookey- ©1991 Neworld Media Music Publishers, ASCAP In the beginning, as life became form, The oceans heaved, the mountains were cleaved, The firmament stormed. At the center of being, immensely small Was the master of now, don't ask me how The Love of it all And the seasons were many. Creation was new. And there on a tree (deceptively free) A forbidden fruit Upon leaving the garden, after the fall, One thing was clear; we chose not to hear The Love of it all But for the Love of it all I would go anywhere. To the ends of the earth, What is it worth if Love would be there? Walking the thin line between fear and the call One learns to bend and finally depend On the Love of it all "Irresistible targets" I heard someone say. They were speaking of angels Who are so courageous day after day Gunned down on a highway (as we often recall) I hear a scream; I have a dream The Love of it all Still the world is in labor, She groans in travail. She cries with the eagle, the dolphin, She sighs in the song of the whale. While the heart of her people Prays at the wall. A spirit inside is preparing a bride For the Love of it all For the Love of it all, Like the stars and the sun, We are hearts on the rise, Separate eyes with the vision of one. No valley too deep, no mountain too tall, We can turn back the night with merely the light From the Love of it all. And so we are marching to 'to give peace a chance' Brother and sister as one in this mystery dance. Long ago on a hilltop where now the curious crawl A man on a cross paid the ultimate cost For the Love of it all For the Love of it all We are gathered by grace We have followed our hearts To take up our parts In this time and place. Hands for the harvest, Hear the centuries call: It is still not too late to come celebrate The Love of it all "Eli, eli, lemana shabakthani" The Love of it all VIDEOS:LifeLines Live Guitar Chords  l



SPREAD IT All Around

Well folks, here is the GAFCON latest idea on what constitutes an Anglican Communion.  Let's start with their statement, written by Charles Raven.

Events between the 1998 and 2008 Lambeth Conferences demonstrate decisively that the Communion's present "instruments of unity", including the See of Canterbury itself, are no longer fit for purpose when confronted with deep theological confusion in which evil is held out as good and good as evil. A merely institutional unity not firmly rooted in the revealed truths of God's Word written is not only counterfeit but also toxic, exposing the whole Communion to the false teaching and immorality absorbed by the Western Churches. SPREAD seeks to guard against this danger and to encourage the emergence of new Anglican structures able to support a coherent and confident proclamation of the gospel around the globe.

Two key elements are attacked here by those revisionists that would fashion an Anglican Communion in the image of peter Akinola, or perhaps more to the point, Michael Nazir-Ali.  Notice that the "see of Canterbury is no longer fit for purpose"   Conveniently, GAFCON now takes on the titular head of the Anglican Communion, the Archbishop of Canterbury.  These folks have lost all moral compass, at least in so far as the Anglican Communion is concerned.  My feeble brain with my minimalist logic says: The Church of England, founded by the English, also known as Angles (hence Anglican) was the originator of the the Anglican Church.  I think my history calls me to account for Henry the VIII, Elizabeth the I, Cranmer, Richard Hooker, etc.  When the British, also known as Angles, created their empire away back when, they brought to all the new lands, the English Church, that is, the Church of England.  This happened in as unusual a place as the 13 colonies, India, Nigeria, Australia and so on.  As these countries became independent such as Canada, they formed their own variation of the Church of England, in this case called the Anglican Church of Canada.  The archbishop of Canterbury, appointed by the crown in England, has been the titular head of this loose confederation of provinces including the Episcopal Church of the United States.  How can the head of the Church of England, the tree from which all the branches have grown, suddenly not be "fit for purpose".  Nothing has changed in a thousand years.


Then, Mr. Raven goes to the what ought to be the first argument but turns out to be his second argument.  A merely institutional unity not firmly rooted in the revealed truths of God's Word written is not only counterfeit but also toxic,  Just what the heck is going on?  It appears Mr. Raven and the fellow Conelonialists want to move this loose confederation of provinces gathered under the titular head, the Archbishop of Canterbury, into a clear, top don, organizational structure with like rules and regulations and a magisterium and everything roman.  After all, how can any province be punished if we can all think for ourselves?  How can there be any sense of unity unless we can snap a string and straighten out the entire communion.  Why do we need to talk and  discuss when all we really need to do is have Mr. Akinlola, Mr. Nazir-Ali, Mr. Jensen, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Orombi et al make these decisions for us.  Boy, how much pressure can we take off all the provinces.

What a crock!  First, one cannot change facts and one cannot change history.  The Anglican Communion is a confederation of provinces that celebrate diversity and welcome discussion and discernment.  If we do not ask questions, if we do not posit interpretations, how does the living word of God stay alive? 

What SPREAD/GAFCON/FCA/CANA/AMiE/AMiA and all the other groups want is a new church built on new "standards", pillars if you will.  Well, no one is stopping you all, go ahead.  Create a "new communion" that has all the trappings you like but, please do not call it Anglican and please do not include me.

Moving Toward A New Anglican Comunion

In a recent post by Tobias Haller our good friend says,

But it is the idea of being a fellowship, a communion — not a "church" or a "federation" — of self-governing churches whose individual decisions do not bind the others, even as they cooperate in mission and ministry, that forms our only peculiar offering to the tapestry of world Christendom. It is a model of service and fellowship, of work with rather than power over, commended by Christ himself as a model of churchly governance. If that is not worth preserving, then we have little else to offer.

The highlights are mine.  The words, the very capable words, are Tobias'.

Then, in a recent post here at Off-Topic Allowed, Mad priest and I had a heartfelt exchange that cut to the quick of this communion issue.    Here is where it drew to a point:  This is MadPriest writing:

It is my contention that the New World is no longer geographically located in the same way that the Kingdom of God is not geographically located. But, in respect of New Anglicanism the main locus is in the Americas and is strongest in the USA. In fact, I do not think it is strong enough anywhere else to survive, let alone thrive. Outside of the Americas the "New World" is dependent on its success in the USA and this is why we absolutely need TEC to include the rest of us within its God-given destiny. Of course, this will be painful for the Church in the US, and like Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane you can choose to accept or reject this role. But the goal, if eventually achieved, will bring TEC far more joy than breaking away and going it alone ever would.

In other postings at other times  many have put an emphasis on "saving the Anglican Communion".  I have contended from the beginning that the Episcopal Church just move forward and if any other province wants to tag along, then fine otherwise -- oh well.

Tobias Haller and MadPriest along with Mark Harris The Pluralist and a few others have made an impression to the point I have reconsidered my approach.  The basic facts remain the same, the implementation of those facts is what becomes a little different.


So, what do we do?  Well, we call a "special plenary session" of bishops and lay leadership to meet in a neutral site, say, New Orleans, Louisiana (you are welcome Mimi) to consider a New Anglican Covenant.  This special session will be hosted by the Episcopal Church of the United States and chaired by a group from The Episcopal Church of the United States, The Anglican Church of Canada, The Church of England, and the Anglican Church of New Zealand.  Everyone is invited from all corners of the world.   The sole purpose of this special session is to create:  a model of service and fellowship, of work with rather than power over, commended by Christ himself as a model of churchly governance.


No one leaves the conference until a new Communion is born that allows for inclusion of all God's children and an approach to modeling Christ like behavior that involves resolving issues within one's own province prior to telling other provinces what needs to  be done in their province.  The honors each other's decisions as appropriate for them though not necessarily appropriate for all.  That embarks upon the worldwide work of eliminating hunger, disease, child abuse and torture and terror.  That we live those goals at home as we seek to eradicate them abroad.  That those who can fund and finance do so and those who can staff and work do so in a spirit of love and forgiveness.  This is not just our God-given destiny but all those who claim Christianity as their own.

The Cornerstone has been laid -- And it Ain't Jesus

Our favorite miscommunicator which shall remain virtueless, has opened up his pulpit to one Charles Raven. Mr. Raven takes the opportunity to espouse more of the stuff that the Anglican Mission in England is all about.  And, what it is all about is supplanting the existing Church of England, and therefore by extension the Anglican Communion, with their own branded Anglican Communion.

Read this my friends and tell me if I am wrong.

There are no direct answers in the AMiE press release which has of necessity to be brief and there is no doubt much detail to be worked out, but I think we can join some of the dots. The logic seems to be the same as that of the Jerusalem Statement and Declaration which affirmed that the GAFCON movement was very firmly staying within the Anglican Communion, but would not allow biblical conscience or mission to be held captive by the discredited Lambeth governance structures. It is worth quoting a section of the Jerusalem Statement at length:

'Our fellowship is not breaking away from the Anglican Communion. We, together with many other faithful Anglicans throughout the world, believe the doctrinal foundation of Anglicanism, which defines our core identity as Anglicans, is expressed in these words: The doctrine of the Church is grounded in the Holy Scriptures and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular, such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal. We intend to remain faithful to this standard, and we call on others in the Communion to reaffirm and return to it. While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury.'

There is no doubt that virtually everyone can and should be able to read the handwriting on the wall -- The Church of England and the Anglican Communion as we know it and have known it for centuries is about t o disappear.  Our friend stationed in Canterbury has lost his battle.  It is now time to turn to a new partnership -- that of the Church of England and The Episcopal Church in the United States and the Anglican Church of Canada to lead us into a more complete and inclusive communion.

Much more later.

A Manifesto and A Course of Action

The multi-pronged assault on both the Episcopal church in the United States and the latest incursion into jolly old England is part of an unfolding plan by the Global South and the Conelonialists to literally reshape the face of the Anglican Communion.  The British, from the Archbishop of Canterbury down to the nice little publications on the web seem to want to alternating discount what Robert Duncan and Peter Jensen and Peter Akinola et al are doing and help them.  The help is not unlike climbing on the boxcars back in 1939 Since the AMiE is now in their backyard.  The help them also is sitting on the fence and not resoundingly denying any and all priestly/episcopal actions of those that have been deposed a way back when.  Help them is sending "observers" to a convention of a province that does not exist the view something that has no real bearing on the Anglican Communion and will not play nice even if the silly British think that is the civilized thing to do. 

This would be laughable except many of the Episcopal writers, blog and otherwise, have a longstanding history of wanting to appease -- can't we all just get along.  Those of us in places like San Joaquin and Pittsburgh and Fort Worth and Qunicy have seen first hand the utter devastation of people places and things that these folks have brought down all the while they lust after more and more power.  The comments like we need to move slowly, they mean us no harm, the Covenant needs to be thoroughly reviewed are all delaying tactics designed by the Conelonialists to confuse, distract and diffuse any opposition while their plan is put in place.  Well Jim and Mark and Lionel and Tobias the time is now upon us and we as well as the Anglican Communion as we know it is about to cease to exist.  Please do not "pat me on the head and send me on my way" once again -- the writing is on the walls. 

We need to come to grips with the facts of Anglican life.  We need a course of action that will steer us through these waters with or without the Archbishop, Rowan Williams.  We need to stop playing with the godforsaken Anglican Covenant and unbury ourselves long enough to face facts.  We are being attacked from all sides and must do something soon else we shall cease to exist -- at least as we know us now. 

First, and foremost, we need to grab ++Williams by the lapels and tell him life is not "a bowl of cherries" and you are not Neville Chamberlain so stop acting the part.  If everyone is so desperate to keep the Anglican Communion, and it seems the majority of the Episcopalians here seem inclined to do so,  then lets officially be rid of those in ACNA and tell GAFCON/FCA/CANA/AMiE/AMiA and all the other alphabet soup folks to get with the program or get off the damn bus, now!

(I have no idea why we are so struck with the Anglican Communion.  We went from 1786 to about 1868 or so without them and I think we can probably do it all over again.  When they come to their senses about women and LGBT participating fully in the life of the church then we can talk but not till then).

We, the Episcopal Church, needs a reformation of our own and it needs to start now.  Everyone needs to know what we stand for, why we stand for it and we need to get about our Father's business, like right now.  Leave these other poor fools to play with each other.  Let's get on with a new course of action!

The Chickens Come Home To Roost

Just a short period  of time ago, Father Mark Harris asked this question/made this statement,

I have heard nothing of the CofE sending anyone from Faith and Order to ask The Episcopal Church what it thinks of ACNA in its midst. One day, when the CofE finds its own Anglican Church in England, Scotland and Wales (ACESW) claiming to be the Province of record in the Islands off the coast of Europe, they will understand.

Well, Father Mark, it did not take long --


AMIE has been established as a society within the Church of England dedicated to the conversion of England and biblical church planting. There is a steering committee and a panel of bishops. The bishops aim to provide effective oversight in collaboration with senior clergy.
The AMIE has been encouraged in this development by the Primates’ Council of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (GAFCON) who said in a communiqué
The AMIE is determined to remain within the Church of England. The desire of those who identify with the society is to have an effective structure which enables them to remain in the Church of England and work as closely as possible with its institutions. Churches or individuals may join or affiliate themselves with the AMIE for a variety of reasons. Some may be churches in impaired communion with their diocesan bishop who require oversight. Others may be in good relations with their bishop but wish to identify with and support others.

Sure, sure, sure, they "said" they will do this all "within the Church of England" but I am from the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin and I say, if you believe that I have some swamp land in Florida just for you!