Archive for July, 2009


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Friday, July 31st, 2009 | Uncategorized | 23 Comments

I don’t want to hear any more CRAP from Episcopalians, liberal Anglicans or anyone else about the “three Abrahamic religions”.  I’ve got NOTHING in common with these people and I want nothing in common with these people!!  Got it?!!


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Friday, July 31st, 2009 | Uncategorized | 51 Comments

I found another Kate Klassic.  She wore this at Trinity-Wall Street a few years ago and almost everyone knows what they’re famous for so I guess it fits.

I got to wondering why atrocities like that bothered me so much that I started a web site devoted to making fun of them.  I don’t have a store yet since I don’t know what I’d put on the T-shirts and coffee mugs(Jesus wept…when He saw what Bishop Schori was wearing?)

But why does this sort of thing irritate me so much?  I’m formulating what will eventually be known as Johnson’s Theory of Liturgical Vestment Semiotics.  It’s a work in progess and will, no doubt, change over time but right now, it goes something like this.

During public worship, what is the duty of the Christian minister?  Whether he wears vestments or whether he doesn’t, his duty is to direct attention toward God and away from himself.  He can accomplish this in any number of ways.

If he’s a Reformed Protestant, he can preach a sermon which illuminates the Word of God for his audience.  If he’s Roman Catholic, Orthodox or classical Anglican, he can perform his tradition’s liturgies.  Either way, attention is directed toward heaven.

Ironically, vestments like these and these, elaborate and expensive as they are, deflect attention away from themselves.  What’s going on here, their wearers communicate, is of the utmost importance.  We are worshipping the Creator of the everything that exists and everything that exists includes you so it would probably be a good idea to adjust your attitude accordingly.

What Kate’s vestments communicate, on the other hand, is simple.  What does Kate think about stuff?  What does Kate want you to know?  In other words, Kate is Making An Important Statement.

And there’s the difference.  I’m not in the least bit interested in what Kate Schori thinks I should know.  I’m interested in what God wants me to do.

Kate?  I care what God thinks, not what you think I should think that God thinks which you communicated to me solely on the basis of your costume leaving me to figure the whole damned thing out.

Give it up, Kate.  Your uniform changes nothing.  Your high-church Unitarianism is not a viable option for serious Christians and it’s never going to be.

But go nuts.  I need the material.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Thursday, July 30th, 2009 | Uncategorized | 25 Comments

If the Episcopalians are relegated to second-class status in the Anglican Communion, might they and their allies around the world decide to go it alone?  Some in Britain consider it possible:

Different visions of the future Communion have been provoked by the response of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, to the Episcopal Church’s recent convention.

Debate has intensified over whether TEC should be given the green light to establish itself in the UK, following the two tracks of the Communion referred to by the Archbishop.

Reflecting on the Archbishop’s response [the Rev Giles Fraser, chair of Inclusive Church and soon to be canon chancellor of St Paul’s Cathedral] said there was now an increasing demand for TEC to be further represented outside of the US and in the UK. “If members of the Episcopal Church in London find that they are not welcome in Church of England parishes then I guess the Episcopal Church has to respond pastorally to their needs.” He added that TEC had representation in Europe with a strong centre in Paris.

Commenting on the Lambeth response Canon Chris Sugden, of Anglican Mainstream, said: “I have been speaking to senior colleagues in different parts of the world and it is clear that they have seen, possibly for the first time, that the rubicon has now been crossed.”

Canon Sugden also agreed that a UK-based TEC might be a possibility. “Bishop Schori made a very important point in Jamaica that the Episcopal Church is not just in the US but is in Mexico, Venezuela, Puerto Rico, Costa Rica and Europe,” he said. “TEC is certainly an Atlantic-based fellowship. This is not fantasy I think”

This is something that the Archbishop of Canterbury is going to have to consider and may be one of the reasons why his GenCon response was as nuanced as it was.  The threat, that if you insist on pushing the two-tier idea, we’ll take our money and cross a border ourselves, may have been implicitly communicated to Dr. Williams during his stay in or shortly after he left Anaheim.

TEO certainly has the financial resources to establish itself in England and, if Fraser’s right, has a ready-made audience for its product.  I don’t know what the legal ramifications would be for any English clergy who decided to sign on but I can’t see how Dr. Williams could see such a move as anything other than a formal declaration of war.

Will it happen?  If it ever does, a huge if at this point, it’s probably a good ways off.  But the fact that the idea is being bandied about, if only speculatively, means that it should not be automatically dismissed.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Thursday, July 30th, 2009 | Uncategorized | 26 Comments

The Bishop of Durham comments on Rowan Williams’ General Convention statement.  Selections follow:

Many will not regard the language of a ‘two-track’ Communion as a strength. Some have objected that this is forcing apart what ought to be held together. Others, conversely, have sneered that ‘two-track’ sounds like a vote for pluralism pure and simple, a kind of ecclesial version of ’70s pop-psych ‘I’m OK, you’re OK’: you go your way, we go ours, and we’re both just fine as we are. But the ‘two-track’ option is not intended as an indifferentist, shoulder-shrugging thing (though no doubt some who find themselves in the incipient Track Two will want to see it like that). To say ‘two-tier’, as some have done at earlier stages in the discussion, implies that the two are still ‘tiers’ of the same thing, whereas ‘tracks’ may be going in quite different directions. And it is one ‘track’ rather than the other which will possess the coherence to work together in full solidarity, not least in ecumenical relationships.

The question presses, as in the ABC’s paragraph 25, as to how dioceses, parishes and individuals within TEC will be able to sign the Covenant and thus not only align themselves, but be recognised by the wider Communion as aligning themselves, with that wider Communion itself. The ABC is certainly here referring to the ‘Communion Partner’ bishops, and to the parishes and individuals who take the same line that they do. As the ABC says, ‘there should be a clear answer to this question’, and actually the ABC himself is now the main person, if not the only person, in a position to give a clear and authoritative answer. But some proposals here may perhaps help.

In his second paragraph, the Archbishop notes that a substantial minority have indicated their dissent from the position taken by TEC as a whole. The document they have produced (‘the Anaheim Statement’) could now form something of a bridge between the present confusion and the not-too-distant future when the full Covenant will be available for signature. Some reports indicate that bishops who voted with the majority in Gen Con are now realising the predicament they’ve put themselves in and are starting to sign up to Anaheim instead.

But here’s the problem: it is one thing for bishops and their dioceses to be ‘Communion Partners’, recognised by Lambeth and the wider Communion as full ‘Track One’ members. (That carries its own problems, but if the diocese is the primary unit, as the ABC has insisted, it is clearly possible.) But how a parish in a non-signing diocese, or an individual in a non-signing parish or diocese, can become a ‘Track One’ Anglican, recognised as such globally, remains to be seen. Many in that position neither want nor intend to join a movement like ACNA, nor should they be put in a position where they have no other option. But a way forward must be found.

All this raises, then, the question of ACNA itself (and, indeed, other would-be Anglican bodies). Without some kind of clear steer on the issues just raised, we can expect that ACNA will continue to attract individuals, congregations and perhaps even dioceses. This is, indeed, already happening. However, though the situation on the ground is often confused, ACNA has expressed a clear willingness to work with the Communion Partner bishops towards whatever greater good may come. And ACNA itself has shown itself eager to sign the Covenant when it is complete. All this will go into the melting pot of whatever new alignments the Communion will discover over the coming months. It is important that bridges, not fences, be built during this period.

A year ago, I probably would have been persuaded by Wright’s suggestions.  Now I think they are far too little, far too late and avoid the underlying problem.  Greg Griffith:

Two tiers, two tracks, doesn’t make a difference. Whether Canterbury tries to set up a system that seeks to withhold legitimacy from TEC’s heresies, or tries to set up a system that simply seeks to offer other provinces the appearance of a quarantine from those heresies, does not address the core issue, which is: Will Canterbury tolerate, in any way, competing and mutually-exclusive truth claims on what Christianity is? Will it continue to lend its imprimatur to something that is not remotely Christian? That’s the only question.

Let’s face it: If TEC didn’t have any money, we wouldn’t be debating any of this. This “crisis” would be a blip on history’s radar screen, and we’d be on to other things. The only reason Rowan Williams is giving this gay nonsense the time of day is because without TEC’s money, he’d have a hard time keeping the lights on in the Anglican Communion’s ivory towers.

Face facts.  As long as the Episcopal Organization and the Anglican Organization of Canada are allowed to call themselves Anglican, in however diminished a capacity that eventually turns out to be, the Christian witness of Anglicans will be fatally weakened.

Better to cut ties immediately, get on with the Master’s work and let TEO and the AOoC wither into crypto-Unitarian irrelevance.  Will that happen?  Probably not.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Thursday, July 30th, 2009 | Uncategorized | 46 Comments

Let’s see now.  You can justify it in the Scriptures?  Check.  Scripture only condemned abusive relationships and didn’t know anything about the kind we have?  Check.  Many great figures in the Bible were?  Check. 

All-inclusive love of God?  Check.  No outcasts in this church?  Check.  Jesus associated with society’s outcasts and never directly condemned the practice?  Check and check.  Well, everything seems to be in order.

Gene Robinson, Susan Russell, Louie Crew, Katharine Jefferts Schori, Bonnie Anderson, J. Jon Bruno, John Chane, Jim Naughton, Mark Harris, Tracey Lind, Bonnie “It’s a Doorbell, Not An Architect It’s a River, Not a Pie” Perry, Integrity, Chicago Consulation, etc?  Have fun turning these peeps down:

Terisa Greenan and her boyfriend, Matt, are enjoying a rare day of Seattle sun, sharing a beet carpaccio on the patio of a local restaurant. Matt holds Terisa’s hand, as his 6-year-old son squeezes in between the couple to give Terisa a kiss. His mother, Vera, looks over and smiles; she’s there with her boyfriend, Larry. Suddenly it starts to rain, and the group must move inside. In the process, they rearrange themselves: Matt’s hand touches Vera’s leg. Terisa gives Larry a kiss. The child, seemingly unconcerned, puts his arms around his mother and digs into his meal.

Terisa and Matt and Vera and Larry—along with Scott, who’s also at this dinner—are not swingers, per se; they aren’t pursuing casual sex. Nor are they polygamists of the sort portrayed on HBO’s Big Love; they aren’t religious, and they don’t have multiple wives. But they do believe in “ethical nonmonogamy,” or engaging in loving, intimate relationships with more than one person—based upon the knowledge and consent of everyone involved. They are polyamorous, to use the term of art applied to multiple-partner families like theirs, and they wouldn’t want to live any other way.

Terisa, 41, is at the center of this particular polyamorous cluster. A filmmaker and actress, she is well-spoken, slender and attractive, with dark, shoulder-length hair, porcelain skin—and a powerful need for attention. Twelve years ago, she started dating Scott, a writer and classical-album merchant. A couple years later, Scott introduced her to Larry, a software developer at Microsoft, and the two quickly fell in love, with Scott’s assent. The three have been living together for a decade now, but continue to date others casually on the side. Recently, Terisa decided to add Matt, a London transplant to Seattle, to the mix. Matt’s wife, Vera, was OK with that; soon, she was dating Terisa’s husband, Larry. If Scott starts feeling neglected, he can call the woman he’s been dating casually on the side. Everyone in this group is heterosexual, and they insist they never sleep with more than one person at a time.

It’s enough to make any monogamist’s head spin. But the traditionalists had better get used to it.

Taking into account the fundamental law of the universe which, not to brag or anything, I discovered, I say it becomes an issue by GenCon 2015.  But I’m open to arguments for taking the under.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Wednesday, July 29th, 2009 | Uncategorized | 11 Comments

Occasional MCJ commenter Connie Sandlin gets a letter into the back pages of Episcopal Life Online:

The slippery language and spin control of the letter purporting to explain D025 is belied by the witness not only of those who attended General Convention 2009, but also by those who watched and heard the proceedings on the Internet as they were live-streamed. We who actually heard the discussions for and against D025 and C056, as they happened, don’t need an interpretation from the leaders of The Episcopal Church to explain what these resolutions mean or don’t mean. They signify that TEC is moving ahead in pursuing its inclusivity agenda in disregard of Scripture and the historic teaching of the Church Universal and despite the warnings from Windsor Report, the Dar es Salaam Communiqué, and even the Archbishop of Canterbury’s own plea.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Wednesday, July 29th, 2009 | Uncategorized | 17 Comments

Me yesterday:

When they approach a theological question, most honest people try to discover what the Word of God says and conform themselves to it.  You Episcopalians, on the other hand, decide in advance what you want Scripture to say and then have your house “scholars” back you up through various clumsy, inept and idiotic rhetorical devices.

The Chicago Consultation:

The Episcopal Church has a long, albeit imperfect, history of developing theology and doctrine to support fully including women, people of color, and GLBT people in the life of the church.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Wednesday, July 29th, 2009 | Uncategorized | 21 Comments

The Episcopal Public Policy Network wants you all to get behind the health care reform bill currently before the Congress:

The Episcopal Public Policy Network issued a Policy Alert July 29 asking Episcopalians to contact their elected officials and urge them to pass legislation that would provide affordable health care to all Americans.

The bill, H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, would “provide access to affordable health care insurance for every person regardless of age, income, or health care status.”

The Episcopal Church’s Office of Government Relations (OGR), based in Washington, D.C., lobbies Congress and the president in response to legislation passed at General Convention. The 76th General Convention recently passed several health care-related resolutions, including CO71, in support of universal access to quality, affordable health care in the United States and calling on Congress to pass comprehensive health care reform this year.

I suspect that nobody at EPPN has any idea what’s inside that “comprehensive health care reform” bill they’d like you to urge your congressman to support.  Other people have begun reading the thing and so far, this is what they discovered.  As of Page 498, the bill in its current form contains the following provisions:

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill – THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments and benefits you get

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill – YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!

Pg 42 of HC Bill – The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have no choice!

Pg 50 Section 152 in HC bill – HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise

Pg 58HC Bill – Govt will have real-time access to individuals’ finances and a National ID Healthcard will be issued!

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access to your banks’ accounts for election funds transfer

Pg 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community orgs (ACORN).

Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating a HC Exchange to bring private HC plans under Govt control.

Pg 84 Sec 203 HC bill – Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs for private HC plans in the Exchange

Pg 85 Line 7 HC Bill – Specs for Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration your Healthcare!

Pg 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill – Govt mandates linguistic-appropriate services. Example: Translation for illegal aliens

Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups (i.e., ACORN & Americorps) to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan

Pg 85 Line 7 HC Bill – Specs of Ben Levels for Plans. #AARP members – your health care will be rationed.

Pg 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill – Medicaid-eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.

pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No “judicial review” against Govt Monopoly.

pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill – Doctors/ #AMA – The Govt will tell YOU what you can make.

Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST automatically enroll employees into pub opt plan. NO CHOICE

Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for health care for part-time employees AND their families.

Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY employer with a payroll of $400k and above who does not provide pub opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll

pg 150 Lines 9-13 Businesses with payroll between $251k & 400k who don’t provide pub. opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll

Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesn’t have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income

Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay)

Pg 195 HC Bill – Officers and employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access to ALL Americans’ financial and personal records.

Pg 203 Line 14-15 HC – “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax” Yes, it says that.

Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected

Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill – Doctors will all be paid the same, regardless of what specialty you have.

Pg 253 Line 10-18 Govt sets value of doctor’s time, professional judgment, etc. Literally value of humans.

Pg 265 Sec 1131 Govt mandates and controls productivity for private HC industries

Pg 268 Sec 1141 Fed Govt regulates rental and purchase of power driven wheelchairs

Pg 272 SEC. 1145. Treatment of certain cancer hospitals. Cancer patients: welcome to rationing!

Pg 280 Sec 1151 The Govt will penalize hospitals for what it deems preventable readmissions.

Pg 298 Lines 9-11 Doctors who treat a patient during initial admission that results in a readmission will be penalized by the Govt.

Pg 317 L 13-20 PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells doctors what/how much they can own.

Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand

Pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input required. Can you say ACORN?!!

Pg 335 16-25 Pg 336-339 – Govt mandates establishment of outcome-based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing

Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Adv Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing peeps into Govt plan

Pg 354 Sec 1177 – Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of special needs people.! WTF. My sis has down syndrome!!

Pg 379 Sec 1191 Govt creates more bureaucracy – Telehealth Advisory Committee. Can you say HC by phone?

Pg 425 Lines 4-12 Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life

Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory!

Pg 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Govt provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death. Excuse me???!?!?!?

Pg 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The Govt has a say in how your life ends

Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An “advance care planning consult” will be used frequently as patient’s health deteriorates

Pg 429 Lines 10-12 “Advance care consultation” may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV

Pg 429 Lines 13-25 – The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.

Pg 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life

Pg 469 – Community Based Home Medical Services=Non profit orgs. Hello, ACORN Medical Svcs here!!?

Pg 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG. One monthly payment to a community-based org. Like ACORN?

Pg 489 Sec 1308 The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt into your marriage

Pg 494-498 Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, rationing those same services

On the bright side, this will give some aspiring Episcopal liturgist the opportunity to come up with a Liturgy for Having Grandma/Grandpa Put Down.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Wednesday, July 29th, 2009 | Uncategorized | 18 Comments

From the Rev. Robert G. Hewitt of Westcliffe, Colorado:

I believe that The Episcopal Church has, at the present time, broken free from the terrible mistake of most of the rest of Christendom by recognizing the equality of men and women in Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension. The judgment of God at the “Fall”, placing men in a superior position to women, has been rescinded in the incarnate actions of God the Son. The disobedient actions of both Adam and Eve have been absolutely voided and forgiven in Christ! But the Church has, for over a thousand years, acted as though they, Adam and Eve, our mythical and original ancestors, could not, and were not, forgiven!

Beats me.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Wednesday, July 29th, 2009 | Uncategorized | 57 Comments

As always, the Vatican has Rowan Williams’ back:

The Roman Catholic Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity said it shares the concerns of Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams that the Anglican Communion’s unity be maintained through common faith and practice based on scripture and tradition.

The July 29 statement from the Vatican office came two days after Archbishop Williams issued his reflection on actions taken at this month’s General Convention. The statement said the Vatican “supports the archbishop in his desire to strengthen these bonds of communion, and to articulate more fully the relationship between the local and the universal within the church.

“It is our prayer that the Anglican Communion, even in this difficult situation, may find a way to maintain its unity and its witness to Christ as a worldwide communion,” the statement concluded.

What Dr. Williams will do with Vatican support remains to be seen since, from 2003 to the present day, my gracious lord of Canterbury has displayed a pronounced aversion to actually doing anything at all about the Current Unpleasantness.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Tuesday, July 28th, 2009 | Uncategorized | 33 Comments

Uncle Di on why “two-track” Anglicanism is a sick joke:

A full generation has passed since another wag, at National Review, observed that the remarkable thing about Anglican statements of faith was that they were couched in language so vague that no one, from Pope Paul VI to Mao Xedong, could say with any certainty that he disagreed. Now we’ve moved beyond that level of incongruity, approaching the limits of the absurd.
Today’s headlines bring the news that the Archbishop of Canterbury foresees a two-track future for the Anglican communion.  Anglicanism and Anglicanism Lite, so to speak. But the implied comparison with popular beverages does not hold up. Bud and Bud Lite are recognizably products of the same brewery. The tastes are similar; the marketing campaigns are coordinated. Consumers of each product are looking for the same thing: the taste of beer. 
With the Anglican communion, on the other hand, the “consumers” of the two different types of Anglican religion are looking for radically different things. No; more than that: the two types of Anglicans want to eliminate each other! Since the difference is most evident on the question of homosexuality, we could say that one “track” envisioned by the Druid Archbishop sees homosexual unions as an abomination, while the other sees them as a sacrament.
An abomination, a sacrament. A toxin, an antitoxin. The Christ, the Antichrist. You can choose sides, and cheer for your favorite. But really, folks, don’t claim to be on the same team. Or, if you must, don’t ask me to take you seriously anymore.   

Let me bottom-line it for all you Anglican theorists out there who are still relentlessly trying to parse your way through this situation.

Any Anglican settlement which includes American and Canadian liberals in any capacity whatsoever, even an entirely theoretical one, is the worst kind of theological fraud.  If the Archbishop of Canterbury won’t accept this most basic of facts, then His Grace as well as those Anglican “conservatives” who insist on the importance of an organic relationship with him and his see must be abandoned.

Grow up.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Tuesday, July 28th, 2009 | Uncategorized | 37 Comments

Although this sort of thing really isn’t within the purview of this site anymore, I thought I’d post this picture(which was e-mailed to me today as a contribution for the other site) here as an illustration of the vital importance of having someone close to you in your life who is willing to tell you no from time to time.

Or how foolish you can look if you don’t. 

Props to Wyatt.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Tuesday, July 28th, 2009 | Uncategorized | 6 Comments

The Yoopers are not at all happy that Kevin Thew Forrester was shot down:

The election of the Rev. Dr. Kevin Thew Forrester to be our bishop has not received the required consents from diocesan bishops and standing committees across the Episcopal Church. Elected at a Special Convention of the Diocese of Northern Michigan held on February 21, 2009, Thew Forrester received 88% of the delegate votes and 91% of the congregational votes. We are disappointed and saddened by the outcome of the consent process.

Odd that 9% of the congregational votes and 12% of the delegates voted Present since Genpo was the only one running.  But you know whose fault this really was, don’t you?  The Inner Tubes.

We invite the wider church to reflect with us on what this experience can teach us about the episcopal search and consent process. Among the issues ripe for discussion are how bishops and standing committees can best be made aware of the particular needs of individual dioceses, and how new communications technologies affect the consent process. We hope that out of our disappointment can come a deeper understanding of the ways in which we can all be accountable to one another as members of the body of Christ.

In other words, stop posting stuff that our next guy says or writes and then allowing other people to read it.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Tuesday, July 28th, 2009 | Uncategorized | 9 Comments

Stay on Dale Price’s good side.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Tuesday, July 28th, 2009 | Uncategorized | 38 Comments

On the other hand, you have to give my gracious lord of Canterbury this much.  Pope Susan I is not a happy camper:

Integrity regrets the Archbishop’s categorization of TEC’s commitment to full inclusion of the LGBT baptized as a “rights” issue rather than a “theological” issue — believing that it falls sadly short of recognizing all the theological reflection that has both moved and motivated this church over the years.

“We are frankly tired of being told we ‘haven’t done the theology,'” said Integrity President Susan Russell, “when the truth is that there are those in our wider Anglican family who do not agree with the theology we have done. But what we can do is keep doing it. We can keep reaching out. We can keep working together with our communion partners on mission and ministry all over this Worldwide Anglican Family of ours with those who will work with us. And we can stay in conversation with those who won’t.

Susan?  One time when I was a little kid playing behind the wheel of the family’s Ford station wagon, I somehow released the parking brake and managed to roll the thing out into East Rose Avenue.  I’ve got to tell you, my dad was a tiny bit miffed.  But Susan?  What I was doing wasn’t driving.

When they approach a theological question, most honest people try to discover what the Word of God says and conform themselves to it.  You Episcopalians, on the other hand, decide in advance what you want Scripture to say and then have your house “scholars” back you up through various clumsy, inept and idiotic rhetorical devices.

Once again, I go back to Kierkegaard:

The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.

You and the rest of your “church” know what those words mean, Susan.  To declare that they don’t really mean what they clearly do requires a dishonesty of which I would like to think that actual Christians should be incapable.  And that’s why, in 2003, I finally left the institution into which I was baptized 48 years before.

Support The MCJ                        

Email the editor-in-chief                    
©2016 Christopher Johnson                                
                        Email about Website issues

Recent Comments