Pretty Harsh For A Thursday!

Well, the Anglican Covenant thingy continues to live a life of its own.  How, I am not sure.  It makes little or no sense.  The covenant was born out of the desire by the Global South to punish the anyone in the "Anglican Communion" who transgresses.  The idea of transgresses is one in which I do not know how to define it but "I know it when I see it" -- just ask the Primates, they would judge who is or is not transgressing.  And pray tell, how is the actions of first the Global South and then the Archbishop of Canterbury different from say, Germany grabbing the Sudetenland in 1938?  The Chancellor simply wanted to relieve the privations suffered by the German people at the hands of the Czechs.  And this differs from the Global south wanting to relieve the privations of Anglicans in Nigeria and other places?  And, the rest of the world giving in to them figuring that all they really wanted was to "relieve the privations".  So let's all debate and discuss the Anglican Covenant in order to relieve the privations of certain Anglicans throughout the world?  Are we absolutely sure appeasement is the answer?  Or appeasement is even the question?  Do you all believe that?

Those who continue to debate this question, for real or for imagine, strike me as helping load the boxcars.  Surely no one knows what is at the end of the line, right?  No one knows exactly how this Covenant thingy will play out?  Could be good for all of us, right?  Just like it could be good for the LGBT folks of the world, right?  We know better, at least I think we do?!  Why help load the boxcars when we know exactly what is at the other end of the rail line, especially for the LGBT community.  How do we know this?  Because the folks that took the Sudetenland told us so.  Just ask Bobby Duncan or Mr. Orombi or Mr. Venables or old what's his face from Nigeria. 

If the content of this post is pretty harsh it is only because the Anglican Covenant was conceived and born out of hatred. Is being pushed to suppress women and LGBT and others under the guise of Communion (appeasement) and the net result is a form of death to those who do not conform to the guidelines devised and administered by a bunch of ruthless Primates who wish nothing more than as much power as they can possibly muster in this world (and how is that different from 1938).

Prince of the Church versus Prince of Peace

I have watched and read as several new bishops were consecrated.  The writings they use and the verbiage in their applications seems to be mimeographed (copied for you all too young to remember mimeograph machines) and circulated among those who lust for the office.  Frequently heard and copied are "I am not worthy but I am willing to heed the call.  The spirit moves within me to make this journey, and a host of other trite and trivial phrases that merely smacks of a fake sense of humility and godliness in order to gain power.

I got to thinking and this brief blog is the result.  For some reason, mostly medieval, many of these would be power grabbers are enamoured with the concept of the "Prince of the Church".  This medieval term that allows them to believe that somehow they have this great political power that allows them to roam around their "fiefdoms" unfettered and unmuzzled and with some false sense of royal blessing.  These folks do not seem to care as much for the idea of the shepherd as they do for the idea of the politician.  They want the power and seem to ignore the real work they are supposed to do, "feed my sheep." 

Let's look for just a moment at the Prince of Peace, yep that would be Jesus.  He simply went about his business of feeding the hungry, healing the sick, clothing the naked and occasionally ridding the world of a demon.  The real "political" reference that sticks out in my mind is when Pilate asks him if he is king and Jesus replies that his kingdom is not of this world.

So, why the disconnect between the Prince of Peace and the Prince(s) of the Church?  Can we get back to the idea the bishops are shepherds and not princes?  The shepherds crook is a good reminder but it seems to not have any impact on bishops anymore.  They lust after the power that comes from the office and the ability to fly around the country, the world and play at being royalty.   Isn't it time for a change?

MADPRIEST NEIGHBORHOOD DAY

After much soul searching and, according to Madpriest, JCF was his kabillionth hit I have decided to arbitrarily and capriciously declare May 31, as Madpriest Neighborhood Day.  From henceforth and forever (with all the power vested in me as a blogger) I dub May 31st of each year Madpriest Day.  Everyone must go to his neighborhood and at least say hello to our favorite Church of England blogger, Madpriest.

To start the festivities off I offer the following specially created song just for Madpriest and his Neighborhood. (actually I borrowed it but Fred and I went to the same school)

This Twists My Knickers!

Writing in his own blog Bishop Nick Baines from the diocese of Bradford in the Church of England writes the following:

Christian Church, in the UK as well as here in Switzerland and Germany, needs to recover confidence in the church itself and the vocation of the church to serve its society.

Now, there are those in England who like to think (in a rather uncommitted liberal way) that if we could only shake off the institution of the church, we could create a new way of being church without all the stuff we find embarrassing or shaming. I recognise that what I am about to say goes wholly against the grain of the self-fulfilment, instant-gratification culture we now inhabit, but such attitudes are naive. They ignore the massive achievements of the church in our cultures – intellectually, socially, educationally, politically, morally, etc. – and collude in the selective memory that encourages costless fantasy.

Find Bishop Baines "work" here:
The Wrong Question by Nick Baines

Now, let's compare that deeply moving and heartfelt comment to this one from the Archbishop of Canterbury:

However, Dr Williams told The Daily Telegraph: “Of course, if people behaved morally there would be no need for super-injunctions. But how many of us actually would be comfortable about the ceaseless scrutiny of every aspect of ourselves?

“This is a culture so obsessed with transparency that it can confuse that, I think, with this universal miasma of gossip and prurience.”

And that comment was  made a few days after the now famous Colin Slee memorandum in which we find this little ditty:

Slee described Williams shouting and losing his temper in last year's Southwark meeting, which left several members of the crown nomination committee, responsible for the selection of bishops, in tears.
Slee also in effect charges the church with hypocrisy, stating that there are several gay bishops "who have been less than candid about their domestic arrangements and who, in a conspiracy of silence, have been appointed to senior positions". The memo warns: "This situation cannot endure. Exposure of the reality would be nuclear."
Slee said of the meeting: "We had two very horrible days in which I would say both archbishops behaved very badly. The meeting was not a fair consideration at all; they were intent on wrecking both Jeffrey John and Nick Holtam equally, despite the fact that their CVs were startlingly in an entirely different and better league than the other two candidates …

And then let's add to the fact that GAFCON/FCA will not take communion with the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America. 

Let's add to that that the Global south refuses to recognize those children of God who wish to participate fully in the life of the church and cannot in places like Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda, Australia, South America, etc.

Let's add to the fact that despite the apparent disregard for LGBT persons in Nigeria the Archbishop continues to do absolutely nothing about those foreigners being held captive in the oil rich region of the country and who have done nothing but work and be kidnapped while the Archbishop flies around the world condemning everyone else.

No one wants to "shake off the institutional church" we want it to live up to all that it can be through the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ.  We want the Trinity to shine through everyone that comes into our church.  We want the church to accept as full members the LGBT community.  We see hypocrisy at the very top levels of our churches and our Communion and we want it to stop.  We see men more worried about their next promotion than the people who come to them for inclusion.  We see men wanting to keep women "barefoot and pregnant"  ("even women have a place in our church." John David Schofield, former bishop of San Joaquin).   We see men too wrapped up in getting their purple shirts from Uganda or Rwanda or wherever they can beg borrow or steal one just so they too can feel important.  We see entire organizational structures more concerned with setting up shop in England and Jerusalem than in making their organizations look like what Jesus commanded us to do.

When those things are corrected perhaps the "liberal arm of the church" will look more favorably upon the institutional church, Bishop Baines.

A Walking PR Disaster

Well folks, the Slee Memo brings not an ounce of remorse or even a thought of how that might affect the rest of the Anglican Communion. It brings (courtesy of The Lead) this comment from Archbishop Rowan Williams:


Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams was quoted in British press yesterday speaking in support of the need for information to be restrained in the case of high-profile people attempting to keep their public personas intact.

“Of course, if people behaved morally there would be no need for super-injunctions. But how many of us actually would be comfortable about the ceaseless scrutiny of every aspect of ourselves?
“This is a culture so obsessed with transparency that it can confuse that, I think, with this universal miasma of gossip and prurience.”

He begins with "if people behaved morally" , well Archbishop Williams, how about YOU!  There is an old adage that says "when you point a finger at someone there are four fingers pointing back at you."

But the really outrageous part of this is that here is a person who occupies the highest office in he Anglican Church, appointed by the Queen, serves not only all of England but to some extent the entire world and his press people allow him to say this tripe right after he was exposed by the Colin Slee memorandum?  He. the archbishop may be incompetent, I am unsure, but this really tells me his staff is incompetent.  What staff would allow a person who has already euphemistically "stepped in it big time" to allow the boss to make such a bold and incredibly stupid statement as that? 

Not just this time but his public persona is a shambles and the staff continue to allow the Archbishop to look like he has "lost all sense of political acumen".  In effect, it looks as if he wants to be replaced.  It looks as if he has decided to do everything in his power, short of the  honorable thing, step down, to kill his waning career.

Does anyone disagree there is a bumbling fool at the helm of the Church of England?

H/T The Lead/Torey Lightcap

The 40th Anniversary of "What's Goin' On"

Marvin Gaye was great!  This song ranks right up there as must listen to.  For those of us that lived this it is good to remember.  For those for whom this is only a history lesson read the lyrics and see if it does not apply, like right now!




What's Going On lyricsSongwriters: Benson, Renaldo; Cleveland, Alfred; Gaye, Marvin;
Mother, mother
There's too many of you crying
Brother, brother, brother
There's far too many of you dying
You know we've got to find a way
To bring some lovin' here today, yeah

Father, father
We don't need to escalate
You see, war is not the answer
For only love can conquer hate
You know we've got to find a way
To bring some lovin' here today

Picket lines and picket signs
Don't punish me with brutality
Talk to me
So you can see
Oh, what's going on
What's going
What's going on
What's going on

Right on, baby
Right on
Right on

Mother, mother
Everybody thinks we're wrong
Oh, but who are they to judge us
Simply because our hair is long
Oh, you know we've got to find a way
To bring some understanding here today

Picket lines and picket signs
Don't punish me with brutality
Come on talk to me
So you can see
What's going on
What's going on
Tell me what's going on
I'll tell you ya, what's going on

Right on, baby
Right on, baby
Right on, baby
...

We Are Debating their Issues and their Issues are the WRONG Issues!

We are debating/discussing/deciding the wrong question.  That is correct, the Anglican Covenant is truly the debate set up by and for those who wish to hijack the Anglican Communion.  That too strong a wording?  How about those who wish to do the devil's work?  Whoops?  Are you kidding me?!#!  Well, actually not.  The Anglican Covenant sets up a false and erroneous dichotomy.  The folks that wrote the Anglican Covenant cannot take on the issue of baptism, LGBT, and who is/can be saved,  so they set up their own question that only has a limited number of responses.  They have effectively limited the argument and the rest of us have bought into their circumlocution.

The Global South, GAFCON and the Fellowship (their is a euphemism if I ever heard one) of Confessing Anglicans really wants to dictate who can be "saved".  The leadership of these groups has set themselves up as the only true interpreters of scripture.  It is not solo scriptura per se, but rather purple shirts versus the rest of the world.  It is not a question of the three legged stool but rather who gets to set/interpret the concept of reason and tradition.  Their goal is the hijacking of the Anglican Communion.  So what they have done is develop this odd way of putting/holding the Anglican Communion together, i.e., the Anglican Communion.  At least that is what it started out to be.  After four iterations and real dialogue the Covenant was rejected by the GAFCON/FCA/CANA etc. because it lacks the clarity of making certain folks the "boss" of us all.  Now they have set up an office in England and a requirement that real Anglicans will adopt sign on to the Jerusalem Declaration.  But, they have continued to distract from the real issue and that is the power to determine who is and who is not to be Anglican -- that is in my humble opinion, who is and is not to be saved. 

We, on the other had, continue to dink around with the Anglican Covenant.  Fiddling while Rome Canterbury is burning.  Yep, we are once again distracted from the real issues by those who do not wish to deal with the real issues and we refuse to challenge them directly and forcefully o n the issues that matter to us most -- full inclusion.  Ultimately, the Anglican Covenant will be adopted/adapted and GAFCON/FCA/CANA will have created their own "Anglican Communion" and we will be left with a hollow shell and a really dumb piece of legislation and once again our LGB T brothers and sisters will be put on hold while everyone tries to figure out just what the heck went wrong!