Archive for June, 2010
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Wednesday, June 30th, 2010 | Uncategorized | 11 Comments
Sometimes snap judgments are not a good idea. Case in point.
You have to live around here to understand this but the most important office in eastern Missouri, Arkansas, western Tennessee, Mississippi and other parts of the Mississippi Valley is not elective. It is the manager of the St. Louis Cardinals.
That’s basically why the Cardinals still exist. Their fans came from all over the South and West and still do while their former American League counterparts, the Browns, drew fans only from the St. Louis area. When they played the Browns in the 1944 World Series, the Cardinals were, from everything I’ve read, the only team who ever had to play every World Series game on the road.
Anyway, the current occupant of the see is Tony LaRussa. Tony’s had a great run since he’s been here. We’ve seldom been completely out of things and we’ve gotten to the playoffs a number of times.
We got to the World Series in 2004 where the Sawks swept us(no hard feelings, Little Myrmidon; nobody could have stopped you guys that year). We somehow got there again in 2006 and took down the Tigers in five; I still can’t figure out how in the name of Stan Musial that we managed that.
What’s your point, Johnson? My point is this. Tony LaRussa lives in the Bay Area in the off-season(one of the reasons why some people here have never been on board with him; the cult of Whitey Herzog but that would take too long to go into), he’s a vegetarian and he’s seriously into animal rights.
So he’s a hard-core liberal, right? Apparently, not so much:
Cardinals Manager Tony LaRussa says he stands behind what Arizona is doing in terms of immigration.
He…voiced his support for Arizona’s new approach to immigration. “This is America. You are supposed to have opinions and disagree,” he said. “I’m actually a supporter of what Arizona is doing… you know if people don’t fix their problems they have to take care of it themselves.”
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Wednesday, June 30th, 2010 | Uncategorized | 29 Comments
Down among friends in New Zealand, Katharine Jefferts Schori gets a few lame leftist bumper stickers in:
Disagreement with The Episcopal Church about gay bishops is one thing: but why have those two ordinations provoked such intense antagonism?
Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori told yesterday’s Q&A session at Te Hepara Pai that she figures that’s about loss of power.
“I think it represents the pain and discomfort of people who used to be at the centre, and who are now finding themselves being moved to the margins.
“In my context, 200 years ago the landed white gentry were in control of a monoculture. ‘Now all of these people have come along and messed with that: how dare they?’”
Power. For God’s sake, woman, could you at least try something more original than that? Yeah, that’s exactly what all this has been about.
Power? Please. Kate, that’s your stupidest idea since the last time you said something. The left and the Laodiceans been running this “church” since Pike and Episcopal conservatives haven’t had any influence at all so here’s an idea, Kate. STFU, as the kids say, and go play the victim someplace else.
She told the Tikanga Maori hosted forum that wide swathes of US society were living in anxiety. People who’d once held down jobs for life had seen their employment being exported to China and India, they were enduring economic meltdown – and now the focus of their anxiety was shifting to immigrants from Central America.
Wrong again, brainiac. The Current Unpleasantness started when [IF YOU HAVE A SENSITIVE NATURE, IMMEDIATELY AVERT YOUR EYES] George W. Bush was the President. Back then, the economy was still in good shape so what any of this has to do with people getting bent out of shape about the Episcopal Organization going Scripture-optional escapes me and anyone else who can think.
Bishop Katherine said that she hoped that “somewhere down the road” TEC and its most hostile critics “will discover the gospel in a new way” that allows them all to find common cause.
Don’t wait up, Kate. Most of us don’t need to “discover the gospel in a new way” since we think the Gospel is fine just the way that it always has been and always will be. But if you guys in TEO discover the Gospel, give us a call.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Wednesday, June 30th, 2010 | Uncategorized | 7 Comments
David Wilson has gone over to the Dark Side.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Wednesday, June 30th, 2010 | Uncategorized | 21 Comments
The Anglican left is still completely and utterly bat crap over the idea of an Anglican Covenant. Savitri Hensman writes in the Guardian:
The Church of England’s House of Bishops is urging it to accept an Anglican Communion Covenant. This would give top leaders of overseas churches more power over the C of E and (strictly in theory) vice versa. The Archbishop of Canterbury has been a champion of greater centralism among Anglicans worldwide, supposedly to strengthen unity. But recent events have exposed the tawdry reality behind talk of “interdependence” and “bonds of affection.”
The Communion has long been a family of churches in different parts of the world, with a common heritage of faith but able to make their own decisions. The 1878 Lambeth Conference resolved that “the duly certified action of every national or particular Church, and of each ecclesiastical province (or diocese not included in a province), in the exercise of its own discipline, should be respected by all the other Churches” and “no bishop or other clergyman of any other Church should exercise his functions within that diocese without the consent of the bishop thereof.”
Unlike any other Lambeth resolution, 1.10 in 1998 – which rejected “homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture” and advised against blessing same sex unions or ordaining partnered gay clergy while urging Anglicans “to listen to the experience of homosexual persons” and “minister pastorally and sensitively to all” – was treated as binding, though even then selectively. Leaders like Akinola scorned any pretence of pastoral sensitivity or willingness to listen to “deviants.”
In power-play of the type the Covenant encourages, global church politics will trump love, justice and even logic. This is a poor substitute for freedom in Christ.
All of which makes the following news rather…interesting.
The Anglican Church of Mexico, which was part of the Episcopal Church until 1995, has become the first province to adopt the Anglican Covenant.
“We are delighted to hear that Mexico has agreed to adopt the Covenant,” said the Rev. Canon Kenneth Kearon, Secretary General of the Anglican Communion. “Provinces were asked to take their time to seriously consider this document, and we are glad to hear from recent synods that they are doing just that.”
Especially considering the nature and leadership of Mexican Anglicanism.
The vote also is significant because Mexico’s primate, the Most Rev. Carlos Touche–Porter, has frequently stood with pro-gay advocacy groups within the Anglican Communion.
The archbishop became one of four patrons of Inclusive Church in 2007. He said then that his province would accept clergy involved in same-sex partnerships, adding: “Mexican society is open and tolerant and our church reflects this.”
Is Mexico a provincial test case? Will Mexico sign on the dotted line, bring in homosexual clergy, perform homosexual marriages, dare Lambeth Palace to come down hard on some Third-Worlders and show the world what a sham the Anglican Covenant really is?
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Tuesday, June 29th, 2010 | Uncategorized | 31 Comments
Conscious that the lesbian only cost them a couple of slots on a couple of ecumenical gabfests, the Episcopalians push all-in:
The Episcopal Church Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music June 28 announced the names of task force leaders charged with leading the development of theological resources and liturgies for same-sex blessings, according to a news release.
The church’s General Convention in 2009 passed Resolution C056, which authorized the House of Bishops, in conjunction with the SCLM, to devise an open process that would invite church-wide participation in collecting and developing the resources.
The commission is to report its efforts to the next meeting of General Convention, in 2012.
Let’s see. Assuming Dr. Williams asks her why her “church” relieved itself over yet another of the moratoria, how does Mrs. Schori spin this? They’re same-sex “blessings” and not Holy Matrimony, they’re descriptive of where we are as a church and therefore we haven’t breached the moratorium even though it looks like we have.
Same as last time, basically.
Greg Griffith wonders why there hasn’t ever been any meaningful resistance.
It’s a source of frustration for me – and no doubt a source of joy for our Worthy Opponents – that no matter how brazen or successful or disruptive they are in advancing their agenda, there seems to be nothing that triggers any sort of pushback from the Beloved Moderates – on whom, like their counterparts in secular political elections, the ultimate outcome of changes such as these rest.
But there we are: In about 20 years, the Episcopal Church has gone from a few rogue priests doing gay “marriages” disguised as home blessings, to a task force that in two short years will develop and present for approval by General Convention, liturgies for same-sex blessings.
I think I know the reason for that. Pushing back means taking a stand, causing controversy, arguing with people, maybe even getting them mad at you. In the Episcopal case, it also means being referred to as a bigot if you refuse to robotically accept the Episcopal left’s entire program or demand actual Scriptural backing for leftist innovations.
None of that is terribly pleasant. It’s far easier to stay where you are, lie low, and don’t make too much of a fuss. You can express regret or even open disagreement with this or that Episcopal action. You and your parish or diocese can even go on record as officially repudiating it and disassociating yourselves from it.
And it won’t cost you; far from it. In a way, this kind of “opposition” makes the Episcopal job much easier. If the Episcopal left knows that all the Episcopal right will do is express disagreement and nothing more, it can pass any innovation it likes along with the added advantage of being able to claim that it is a church with a wide variety of opinions.
Of course, what Episcopalians call “a church with a wide variety of opinions,” intelligent people call “window dressing.” If you’re content merely to express your disagreement, disassociation, disavowal or repudiation of your church’s heretical action and leave it at that, rest assured that disagreement, disassociation, disavowal or repudiation is something that you’re going to be doing a lot of.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Tuesday, June 29th, 2010 | Uncategorized | 9 Comments
Speaking of messages, my gracious lord of Canterbury just received another one:
The Bishop in Iran has quit the Anglican Communion’s ‘Standing Committee’.
Bishop Azad Marshall’s decision to stand down will come as a blow to the Archbishop of Canterbury who has sought to vest an unprecedented degree of authority in the new entity—formed by the merger of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Standing Committee of the Primates Meeting.
The vote of ‘no confidence’ by yet another leader of the Global South group of Anglican churches serves to isolate Dr. Williams from the conservative and liberal wings of the Communion—diminishing his authority as the political centre collapses from under him.
To say the least. Along with that comes word that the Episcopalians are once again deciding that Anglican rules don’t apply to them.
On June 18 the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church elected Bishop Ian Douglas of Connecticut to succeed Bishop Catherine Roskam as its episcopal representative to the ACC. Bishop Douglas had been a clergy representative from the Episcopal Church to the ACC and at last year’s ACC meeting in Kingston Jamaica was elected to the Standing Committee.
Asked by CEN in March whether he would continue as a member of the ACSC following his April 17 consecration to the episcopate, Bishop Douglas said “election to the Standing Committee by the ACC is irrespective of orders. Therefore, if I am elected the episcopal ACC member from TEC by the Executive Council in June, then I remain on the Standing Committee.”
However, the Anglican Communion Institute (ACI) has objected to Bishop Douglas’ continuing membership on the ACSC, noting it violates the language of the ACC constitution and bylaws.
In a paper released last week, the ACI argued that Bishop Douglas gave up his clergy seat on the ACC when he was consecrated a bishop. His “membership on the ACC ended on April 17 when he retired from his presbyterial office and was ‘translated’ to a new order” of ministry, they said.
The ACI further stated that the ACC bylaws require a member of the Standing Committee to be a member of the ACC, and due to his consecration and subsequent loss of clergy seat on the ACC he “also ceased to be a member of the ACC standing committee at that moment,” under Article 2(f) of the bylaws.
Even assuming that Bishop Douglas could be re-appointed to the Standing Committee after he changed his clergy seat for an episcopal seat, the ACC bylaws require a replacement member be drawn from the “same order” of ministry as his predecessor. Bishop Douglas could not, under the ACC bylaws the ACI said, replace the Rev. Douglas.
Mouneer Anis has stepped down from it, Henry Orombi has apparently decided that participation in it is a waste of his time and now Azad Marshall has quit. So from the conservative or roughly-conservative end of things, the credibility of the Anglican Communion Standing Committee is pretty much shot to pieces.
Meaning what? Who knows? One more pillar of the Anglican Communion is shown to be either a tool of the Americans or a pointless irrelevance. Either way, I don’t like the Communion’s long-term chances.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Monday, June 28th, 2010 | Uncategorized | 2 Comments
Concerning the Search problem I posted about a few days ago, Greg Griffith reports:
Turns out this is a nasty little attack targeting WordPress blogs. This is one of many pages describing what’s happening: http://bit.ly/cmZvXD.
The Search function has always worked, but in this version of WordPress the operation isn’t like Google or Yahoo: Search results are returned as a page full of complete entries.
At any rate, search is functional again but I’ll be keeping an eye on things over the next few days.
If you use it and you notice any problems, let me know and I’ll pass them on to Headquarters.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Monday, June 28th, 2010 | Uncategorized | 20 Comments
It’s time for the game that has become an international sensation. Where’s Robbie? Where the heck is wacky homosexual Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, who is both a homosexual and the Bishop of the Diocese of Someplace-Or-Other-It’s-On-The-Tip-Of-Our-Tongues-Don’t-Tell-Us, this week?
The rules couldn’t be simpler. Guess before you start reading. And you must be specific. “Nowhere near New Hampshire” is not an acceptable answer:
The assisting bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande asked Bishop Gene Robinson of As-If-Anybody-Gives-A-Crap-Anymore to reconsider his decision to participate in Santa Fe’s Gay Pride Parade on June 26.
Robinson is the first openly gay, noncelibate priest to be ordained a bishop in the Episcopal Church.
In a telephone interview, Robinson said that he heard from the retired Rev. William C. Frey, the assisting bishop, as well as some members of the diocese, who cautioned him against appearing in the June 26 parade as the honorary grand marshal.
“He’s of a mind, as many good people are, that participation in such a parade means that you condone and approve of every person that’s in the parade — the way every person is dressed, the way every person acts. I understand that, but I’m there to proclaim God’s love for all of God’s children.”
Content slightly edited. In other words, screw collegiality. Which, when you think about it, is probably the wrong way to phrase that.
Robinson said he also heard from several people thanking him for agreeing to be in the parade.
Like this poser.
The Rev. Dr. Richard Murphy, who is hosting Robinson at St. Bede’s Episcopal Church (with HaMakom), said he disagrees with those who say church leaders should not participate in the parade. He and his wife, Carol, have marched in the parade in the past. “I’ve worn my clerical collar and will do so this year. It is a place where the church should be present. Jesus stood with those on the margins, those who are so often disenfranchised from society’s mainstream. We are called to be imitators of Jesus,” he said.
Remember this? Do you know the real reason why that woman was crying and kissing Jesus’ feet? Because contrary to the Biblical text(an obvious later revision by bigots and homophobes), Jesus had, in fact, told that woman that she could keep right on sinning. Indeed, she wasn’t sinning enough.
Here’s another Santa Fe New Mexican story on this travesty parade. Seems Robbie was honorary grand marshal of this thing.
Saturday’s Gay Pride Parade had two grand marshals — the official one and an honorary one.
Donald Stout, a founder of the Santa Fe Human Rights Alliance and a parade organizer for seven years, was the real one.
And Gene Robinson, an Episcopal bishop from Seriously-Why-Do-You-Bigots-Keep-Bringing-Up-That-Irrelevant-Crap, served as the honorary grand marshal.
Robinson helped lead the parade Saturday against the advice of the assisting bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande. The parade was one of a number of events at which Robinson, the first openly gay, noncelibate priest ordained a bishop in the Episcopal Church, appeared in Santa Fe and Albuquerque. He said he wanted to participate to “proclaim God’s love for all of God’s children.”
Content slightly edited. VERY next paragraph.
Then there was Tyler McCormick, the first female-to-male transgender person to win the International Mr. Leather competition. McCormick, of Albuquerque, took home the title at the 32nd annual event in Chicago last month.
Congratulations there, T. I don’t know what winning involves and I don’t want to know. Robbie? Count on the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence dropping a serious lawsuit on your ass one of these days. Why care about homosexuals who dress up like nuns to piss off normal people when you’ve got actual ordained Episcopal “clergymen” ready, willing and enthusiastic to do it themselves?
Mad props to Greg Griffith.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Sunday, June 27th, 2010 | Uncategorized | 17 Comments
Australia’s Anglican Primate Philip Aspinall is going to have one of his BFF’s over:
We note with profound sadness that the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, Katherine Jefferts Schori, has been invited to preach in a Brisbane church in early July. This invitation shows an appalling lack of judgment and contempt for those who have suffered at the hands of the revisionists in The Episcopal Church.
The Presiding Bishop has defied the vast majority of the Anglican Communion, and even the Archbishop of Canterbury, by pursuing a program of moral and doctrinal revision, endorsing homosexual behaviour and approving the appointment of a lesbian bishop. Her actions have been taken in full awareness of the widespread international concern which has led to an official call for a moratorium on any such measures.
This alarming behaviour has been compounded by a virulent attack on Anglicans in America who wish to remain faithful to the teaching of Scripture. The Presiding Bishop has been responsible for pursuing, in the secular courts, those who oppose her program of revision, as her agents seek to remove orthodox clergy and take over the property of faithful, Bible-believing congregations.
Is Aspinall sending a message? Possibly. Who’s he sending a message to? Rowan Williams. Aspinall is essentially telling my gracious lord of Canterbury that he, Aspinall, doesn’t care in the slightest what sanctions are or may yet be imposed on the Americans and that as far as he, Aspinall, is concerned, the Episcopal Organization is Anglican and always will be.
Does that mean that Australia will automatically follow the Americans out? I don’t think so; what would be easy for TEO would be enormously difficult for British Commonwealth places like Canada and Australia for both legal and emotional reasons.
I think what’s in play here is my liberal GAFCON scenario. That is, leftist Anglican entities will officially remain a part of the Communion while aggressively cultivating their own identity and aggresively fighting within the Communion for their own interests. Mrs. Schori will probably be the initial leader of that group.
TEO by itself doesn’t matter much(except for its money). TEO, its money and its friends, organized and with the secular press enthusiastically behind them, matter quite a bit.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Saturday, June 26th, 2010 | Uncategorized | 40 Comments
The US government may be hiring soon:
As concerns mount about the presence of Asian carp near Lake Michigan, U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin today urged President Obama to appoint a carp czar to oversee efforts to keep the invasive species out of the Great Lakes.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Saturday, June 26th, 2010 | Uncategorized | 28 Comments
Kathy Shaidle to homosexuals: get your stories straight:
Gays are marginalized victims who live in the shadows — with their very own corporately sponsored parades and festivals that shut down major cities once a year.
There is a “gay gene” — BUT “everyone is really bisexual” and “sexuality is fluid” — BUT despite said “fluidity”, gays cannot and do not “recruit” or “groom” straight young people, ever.
All the great people who ever lived were “secretly gay”, like Shakespeare. No bad people like Hitler were “secretly gay” — unless the pent up pain caused by their “secret gayness” was what really made them crazy murderers!
Religious “gay to straight” treatments are considered a sinister, existential threat to gay culture — AND can’t possibly “work.” Anyone who turns “straight” after therapy was never “really” gay anyhow, even though sexuality is fluid etc. The half dozen “gay people” I’ve known in my life who later “turned” straight (none of whom underwent treatment of any kind, but just… grew up) were also “not really gay” during the years they were having sex with same sex partners, coming out to their parents with mixed reactions, marching in the Pride Parade, taking “queer studies” and so forth. They were just “going through a phase” — even though a perennially popular queer t-shirt proclaims “It’s Not Just a Phase!”
Movies like All About Eve and Johnny Guitar, which feature no gay characters, are all “really” about gays. However, overwhelming evidence of actual gay behaviour in real life (such as the sexual abuse of teenaged boys by Catholic priests and Buddhist monks) is NOT gay, even a little tiny bit.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Friday, June 25th, 2010 | Uncategorized | 14 Comments
You know something? Discovering a fundamental law of the universe is not the high you’d think it might be. It permeates one with a sense of heavy and sometimes overwhelming responsibility along with a sense of one’s own ultimate irrelevance in the long-term scheme of things.
This isn’t going to be yet another disquisition about how awesome I am since there’s really no point in repeating what most people already know. It will be yet another illustration of Johnson’s First Law of Episcopal Thermodynamics; every joke you make about Episcopalians or Anglicans eventually comes true.
Case in point: driven by their intense desire to be helpful to the Anglican Communion, the good people at Creative Minority Report(“We Laugh Because We Believe”) worked up a number of church signs for the possible use of the various permutations of Anglicans extant these days. Here’s one of them.
I’m sorry but I deserve an adjunct professorship somewhere.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Thursday, June 24th, 2010 | Uncategorized | 14 Comments
For the time being, don’t use the Search function on this site at all. It’s got some kind of infection that can prompt a spyware attack on your PC so I’m going to have Greg Griffith take it out completely until we figure out what’s going on. You can search this site by doing an advanced search on Google and just searching the themcj.com domain.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Thursday, June 24th, 2010 | Uncategorized | 40 Comments
Should the Episcopal Organization end the charade? Lionel Deimel’s down:
Rowan Williams has expressed concern about our partners in ecumenical discussions knowing who speaks for the Communion. He doesn’t want to confuse our sister churches, and he doesn’t want Episcopalians expressing views to outsiders that misrepresent the mind of the Communion.
It is important that we unpack this point of view. First, it presumes that there is a mind of the Communion, at least in the sense that the Anglican Communion has an agreed-upon mechanism to articulate such a thing. This has not been the understanding within the Communion heretofore, and anyone advocating such a thing now—Rowan Williams, for example—is trying to implement a radical innovation under the guise of defending the status quo.
Also implicit in the archbishop’s position is the radical and destructive notion that Anglicanism is all about creating doctrinal uniformity, rather than providing space for exploring theological possibilities under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that might lead to a fuller understanding of God’s plan for our world.
From my perspective, the very notion of an fixed Anglican orthodoxy is antithetical to the spirit of Anglicanism. If this is how the Communion is representing itself to the world, The Episcopal Church should want no part of it. Perhaps Rowan is doing us a favor by relieving us from having to misrepresent who we really are. He certainly is telling us by his deeds that his words about the value of The Episcopal Church are just so much empty rhetoric.
The biggest question, of course, is this: If the Anglican Communion is abandoning Anglicanism as we understand it (and as it has been understood in the past), why do we want to be involved in the Communion at all? Do we really believe that being a part of the Anglican Communion is advancing Christ’s mission to the world as we understand it? How does that work, exactly?
There are, of course, two difficulties here. Lie-Die’s “Anglicanism” is a figment of his imagination. Anglicanism was an attempt to reconcile high-Church “Catholic” CHRISTIANITY and low-church evangelical Protestant CHRISTIANITY. It was never ever an effort to reconcile actual Christianity with people who wanted the right to decide for themselves just what sins Jesus did and did not die on the Cross for.
The other problem here, of course, is much simpler. What Deimel calls “Anglicanism,” other people call Unitarian-Universalism. And most intelligent people see no need to reinvent the wheel. Still, it’ll give Lie-Die and his “church” a place to go if Canterbury eventually throws them out.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010 | Uncategorized | 27 Comments
Obama: Hey, you know what would really be cool? Instead of saddling people with onerous nursing home or hospice expenses, why couldn’t we just give them the option of having Grandma put down?
Controversy is mounting over Dr. Donald Berwick, President Obama’s nominee to run Medicare and Medicaid — and for good reason. Berwick’s writings reveal that he would make radical changes — seniors beware.
Berwick laid out his “Triple Aim” plan in an article he co-authored in Health Affairs (May-June 2008), advocating widespread government use of the “medical home” model. The Congressional Budget Office says that’s a version of HMO-style medicine, with a primary-care provider to oversee your access to costly services such as visits to specialists and diagnostic tests. But in Berwick’s plan, many — perhaps most — primary-care providers would not be physicians.
In his Triple Aim plan, Berwick laments that US health care is “designed to focus on the acute needs of individual patients.”
Damn whining sick people.
He argues for a different focus,
Attention, Glenn Beck.
Wow. Never saw that coming.
Instead of doctors making decisions autonomously in the interest of their own patients, he wants a nationwide plan allocating resources “to anticipate and shape patterns of care for important subgroups.”
Also known as registered Democrats.
These subgroups — which can be defined by age, disease affliction or socio-economic status — should be the “unit of concern,” not the individual patient.
In other words, affirmative action medicine. How…typical.
Will the elderly be a favored subgroup? Not under the Obama health law. An April 22 report by Medicare and Medicaid chief actuary Richard Foster shows that the law nearly doubles Medicaid rolls at a cost of $410 billion over the next decade.
Remember. There are no such things as “death panels.” Sarah Palin is an idiot and totally unqualified to be president.