PROMISED LAND

Thursday, January 26th, 2012 | Uncategorized

Jonathan Clatworthy of Modern Churmosqagogue, the Church of England’s Spongian wing, attempts to refute a pro-Anglican Covenant paper, “Anglican Covenant – Bishop’s Council” by Peter Doll(PDF file), Canon Librarian at Norwich Cathedral, and falls flat on his face.  Selections follow.  The bolded quotes in italics are from that paper.  Everything else in bold is Clatworthy’s ludicrously inept and thoroughly mendacious response:

There is more than an element of cultural imperialism in these American attitudes. Ironically, they resonate strongly with the gung-ho combination of domestic isolationism and foreign interventionism of American political life which so many American liberals deplore, and yet they don’t seem to be able to see the parallels here.

As it stands this is a common criticism of American culture. However it loses its force when one remembers which American action is being condemned. The imperialist intervention, in this case, is the refusal to condemn same-sex partnerships. It is difficult to imagine anything less imperialistic, and less interventionist, than the refusal to condemn other people’s lifestyles.

“The refusal to condemn other people’s lifestyles” had and has absolutely nothing to do with the Current Unpleasantness.  The fact that one branch of the Communion unilaterally changed Anglican theology without so much as a by-your-leave from the churches with which they claim to be in communion is the crux of the matter and Clatworthy knows it which is why he had to so ineptly change the subject.

The American church is not prepared to accept further consultation or dialogue over this issue nor to wait for the rest of the church to catch up with its own understanding of the place of same-sex relationships in the life of the church. Whatever is acceptable and right in a particular American cultural context must be universally applicable to every other culture and context.

This complaint, though often made, misinterprets the nature of the Anglican Communion in two ways: firstly by describing it as a church when it is in fact a communion of churches, and secondly by presuming that what is decided in one part of this ‘church’ must also apply in the rest of it.

The Episcopal Church (TEC) made no attempt to make its actions ‘universally applicable’ or apply them to ‘every other culture and context’. Its understanding of Anglicanism was (correctly) that other churches, like TEC, were free to make their own decisions. It has no intention to act in an imperialist manner towards other churches, but conversely it does not want to be itself the victim of imperialism by other churches.

Interpreting the American actions as a pan-Anglican change was a mistake by TEC’s opponents, some of whom are uncomfortable with the prospect of a group of churches being in communion with each other while having different policies on some issues. If Doll wishes to resist imperialistic impositions, he should address his complaints not to TEC but to its opponents.

Oh my dear Lord.  If Clatworthy actually believes those words, he is a sociopath, a liar or both.  It is Clatworthy who has no Earthly conception what Anglicanism means.  Or he knows full well what Anglicanism means and so he desperately needed to invent a mythical “Anglicanism” to cover his tracks. 

“The Episcopal Church (TEC) made no attempt to make its actions ‘universally applicable’ or apply them to ‘every other culture and context’?”  Guess what, Clatworthy.  They did too.  The Episcopalians knew exactly what they were doing.

Under the rules of the Anglican game, Gene Robinson became an Anglican bishop the moment he received his pointy hat and hooked stick.  There was no opt-out clause and the Episcopalians never considered providing one.

If they had, things would have been different.  If the Episcopal Organization had declared, “The consecration of Bishop Robinson has no meaning outside the State of New Hampshire.  Gene Robinson is the Bishop of New Hampshire and only New Hampshire and will take no part on Communion affairs,” I might still be an Episcopalian today.

But they didn’t and the idea never seems to have occurred to them.  TEO expected the rest of the Anglican Communion to roll over, play dead and meekly accept Robbie as an Anglican bishop regardless of what the rest of the Communion thought about it.  Thus their shocked surprise when much of the rest of the Communion didn’t accept Robbie at all and began cutting all ties with the Episcopalians.

The fact that then-Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold signed his name to this statement, went home, consecrated Robbie anyway and started all the trouble completely cuts the ground out from under Clatworthy’s idiotic claims about “imperialism.”  By the way, we don’t have “different policies on some issues.”  We have mutually-exclusive theologies.

The Episcopalians imposed Gene Robinson on the rest of the Communion, Clatworthy, which really is a “pan-Anglican change” whether you believe it is or not.  And when the Episcopalians did that, then under the rules of the Anglican Communion, 2,000 years of Christian teaching were jettisoned without the input of the churches with whom the Episcopalians claimed to share a tradition.  That is what actually happened, Clatworthy, not your deliberately hallucinatory version of events.

America is a self-referring cultural power; it does not occur to most Americans to consult others, politically or spiritually, to arrive at an understanding of truth and right.

Again this is a common criticism of American culture. It characterises empires at their height; a hundred years ago the British thought of themselves as the pinnacle of civilization, thereby convincing themselves that the brutalities their troops were inflicting on others would benefit the victims. In this instance, however, the boot is on the other foot. Given that the criticism of Americans is centred on their toleration of same-sex partnerships, any serious attempt to consult others must surely pay close attention to the experiences of gays and lesbians. It is the Americans who have done this, and it is their opponents who exclude the supporters of gays and lesbians from Anglican decision-making bodies.

Once again, Clatworthy evades the question.  As difficult as this might be for Clatworthy to accept, the Episcopalians did not consult the rest of the Communion before imposing Gene Robinson.  They just established a fact on the ground and essentially told the other Anglican churches around the world to deal with it.

As for this notion about paying “close attention to the experiences of gays and lesbians,” a question.  How does Clatworthy know that other Anglican provinces haven’t done it?  Perhaps they have and decided that “the experiences of gays and lesbians” does not and should not trump the clear Word of the living God. 

The matter is simple.  Jonathan Clatworthy and the rest of the Anglican left know that they are obviously right about The Issue and people like me are obviously wrong.  Therefore, “consultation” means that we keep talking until people like me realize that. 

True consultation, on the other hand, means that both sides must be willing to admit that they might be wrong.  I’ve said in this space many times that if the Episcopal left ever provides me with a solid, Scriptural case for consecrating an unrepentant sinner as a bishop, I’ll go back to my former Episcopal church this coming Sunday.  But they never have and they never will because they never saw the need to.

What with being right and all.

The great American literary scholar Harold Bloom, a secular Jew, has argued that virtually all Americans, whatever their religious disposition or denominational label, are Gnostics. What does he mean by this? 1) That there is no higher religious authority than the private individual. 2) That every individual can reach religious truth by his or her own efforts. 3) External expressions of formal religion (churches, worship, creeds) are unnecessary, and potentially a harmful block to true spirituality. 4) Any attempt to tell me what to believe is a threat to religious freedom.

However, when Doll appeals to the weaknesses in early Reformation theology he should take care whose side he is on. Today the different Protestant theories have polarised into two opposing camps, usually called ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’. It is those who are opposed to same-sex partnerships who still defend the view that God’s will can be ascertained by individuals reading the Bible, without needing support from other Christians. It is those who accept same-sex partnerships who appeal to new insights arising within Christian communities where believers share their understandings and consciences with each other.

If you have a few minutes, Clatworthy, read the one about Elijah at Mount Carmel.

The Episcopal Church has in practice refused to be bound by communion-wide restrictions. I would argue that if the principles of communion are right, if the Gospel calls us to be subject and accountable to one another, then we must be obedient and patient and trust in the rightness of the outcome under God and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It may mean that we won’t have what we want when we want it.

This text illustrates Doll’s rhetoric at its most inventive. The ‘communion-wide restrictions’ which TEC refuses to be bound by do not as yet exist: the Anglican Covenant would create them for the first time. To say that ‘we must be obedient and patient and trust in the rightness of the outcome’ means no more than ‘we must accept the Anglican Covenant’, and ‘through the guidance of the Holy Spirit’ means, of course, ‘through the guidance of the Anglican Covenant’. This text is an excellent example of the rhetoric oppressors use to persuade the oppressed that they have a moral duty to accept their fate. When we notice that the repeated word ‘we’ in the last sentence really means ‘gays and lesbians and their supporters’, the argument loses its devotional aura; instead it is revealed as just a way of telling people to do as they are told.

Body of work.  The Episcopalians treated the Windsor Report and the various primates communiqués as so much toilet paper.  As for the rest of that paragraph, Clatworthy, which, once again, has absolutely nothing to do with what Canon Doll wrote, you could feed a very large herd of cattle for a year on all those straw men of yours.

Bottom line, Clatworthy.  The Anglican Covenant is a weak, flawed and probably useless attempt to declare that for the first time in their 500-year history, Anglican Christians actually believe something.  Not everything.

34 Comments to PROMISED LAND

Daniel Muller
January 26, 2012

Hmm … Clatworthy does not seemed to be into precisely ordained ministry anymore. However, he does “contribute to the leadership of the services” at a Liverpudlian “creative progressive inclusive” space that promotes … Celtic spirituality !

:D

Sunday 8 January
10.00am Morning Prayer
Focus on St Bride’s Community Work Pt1

6.30pm The Well – Celtic worship community.
St Columba – Starting Afresh
Refreshments and welcome from 6.00pm

Wednesday 11 January
9.00am Morning Prayer
A gentle Celtic liturgy, some silence, a little music. Coffee after.

Sunday 15 January
10.00am Holy Communion
Focus on St Bride’s Community Work Pt2

6.30pm Open Table LGBT Worship Community
Refreshments and welcome from 6.0pm

FW Ken
January 26, 2012

I heavens! Don’t anyone tell Fuinseoig!

Muerknz
January 26, 2012

I think Anglicanism worked when it was within a society that was essentially Judeo-Christian but because it isn’t anchored to anything it fails to remain Christian in substance when society becomes something else. Catholicism and Orthodoxy have the teachings and traditions of the Church and scripture. Sola scriptura protestants have scripture but Anglicanism has nothing to measure itself by other than the general feelings of its members who are informed by the fashionable ideology of the times.

Anglicanism works in Africa because African Christians are conservative about sexual morality and African Christians seem to take the Bible as a serious religious text inspired by God. Whereas the West seems to regard the Bible as a historical text sitting there waiting to be deconstructed and analyzed rather than lived.

Anglicanism seem to have lost the substance of Christianity given they have a gay man looking to sue to become a bishop, they have a lesbian ‘priest’ who is involved in running the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, they have Spong who I don’t think even believes in God…

To be fair, Catholicism has leaders who have jumped the shark too, but I don’t think the rot is as deep in Catholicism. Not that we can be complacent though. Thank God for Benedict XVI!

Fuinseoig
January 27, 2012

“It is difficult to imagine anything less imperialistic, and less interventionist, than the refusal to condemn other people’s lifestyles.”

Unless those lifestyles include being rich, or being wasteful of Gaia’s resources, or committing the sin of racism? Because I’m fairly sure I’ve stumbled across some mild reprehension of those lifestyles by The Episcopal Church.

Fuinseoig
January 27, 2012

Daniel, FW Ken – too late.

I will just irenically remind Mr. Clatworthy that, by invoking St. Bridget and St. Columcille, he may have bitten off more than he can chew:

From a life of St. Bridget –
“Shortly after that came a certain man of good kin unto Dubthach to ask for his daughter (in marriage). Dubthach and his sons were willing, but Brigit refused. Said a brother of her brethren named Beccán unto her: ‘Idle is the fair eye that is in thy head not to be on a pillow near a husband.’ ‘The Son of the Virign knoweth,’ says Brigit, ‘it is not lively for us if it brings harm upon us.’ Then Brigit put her finger under her eye, and drew it out of her head until it was on her cheek, and she said: ‘Lo, here for thee is thy delightful eye, O Beccán!’ Then his eye burst forthwith. When Dubthach and her brethern beheld that, they promised that she should never be told to go unto a husband. Then she put her palm to her eye and it was quite whole at once. But Beccán’s eye was not whole till his death.”

Fuinseoig
January 27, 2012

As for “a gentle Celtic liturgy”, from a life of St. Columcille:

“Now there never was born to the Gael offspring nobler, not wiser, nor of better kin, than Colombcille. There hath not come of them another who was meeker, or humbler, or lowlier. Surely it was great lowliness in Colombcille that he himself used to take off his monks’ sandals and wash their feet for them. He it was that often carried his quota of corn on his back to the mill, and ground and brought it home to his house. He it was that never put flax not wool against his skin. He it was that slept not until his side came against the bare mould: nought was under his head save a pillar-stone for a bolster. And he slept only so long as Diarmait his fosterling used to be chanting three chapters of the Beatus. He would rise up after that, and would cry and beat his hands together like a loving mother lamenting her only son. He would chant thrice fifty (psalms) after that, till morning in the sand of the strand, ut dixit poeta

The three fifties—sore the watching—in the night—great was the pain.
In the sea beside Scotland before the sun had risen,
Clear … in the sand, it was great labour,
The trace of his ribs through his raiment was manifest when the wind blew.

That was his nightwork. In the daytime he attended to the canonical hours: he offered Christ’s Body and his Blood: he preached his gospel: he baptized: he consecrated: he anointed; he healed lepers and the blind and lame and folk of every disease besides: he raised the dead to life.”

LaVallette
January 27, 2012

COMMUNION: Obviously a meaningless word!

Allen Lewis
January 27, 2012

They are still arguing about an Anglican Covenant? How quaint!

What, exactly, is the point? The Anglican Covenant is so weak, it is laughable!

Sybil Marshall
January 27, 2012

Go, Fuinseoig! Love it!…..The weather is perfect for a stint standing chest-deep in the lake/river to watch the sun rise– do you suppose maybe if these people would do that, it might cool the regions of themselves they do their thinking with into some dormancy and free up their minds? (I know, never happen.)

Barney
January 27, 2012

I have no idea what Clatworthy said, but he do talk pretty… and that is the sum of his remarks…

Christopher Johnson
January 27, 2012

The thing I find hysterical about the Anglican Covenant is how hysterical the left gets about the next-to nonexistent sanctions the thing has in it. Given its performance over the last 8-1/2 years and given how much money the Episcopalians have, does anyone anywhere seriously think that the Communion would EVER sanction TEO in any meaningful way?

Dale Matson
January 27, 2012

It seems unnecessary to enumerate all the different alterations and
amendments. They will appear, and it is to be hoped, the reasons of them
also, upon a comparison of this with the Book of Common Prayer of the
Church of England. In which it will also appear that this Church is far
from intending to depart from the Church of England in any essential
point of doctrine, discipline, or worship; or further than local
circumstances require. 1979 BCP preface excerpt page 11.

Dale Matson
January 27, 2012

I assume the preface to the 1979 BCP will be relegated a place in the historical document section of the next prayer book since it is even now obsolete.

Dale Matson
January 27, 2012

Muerknz,
Correction. Anglicans are not sola scriptura protestants. We use Scripture, Tradition and Reason. TEC’s problem is that it is no longer using any of these measures.

F. Hugh Magee
January 27, 2012

The real problem is that Christianity itself is obsolete.

Christopher Johnson
January 27, 2012

If you say so, F. Hugh. As for me, I’m good, thanks.

Allen Lewis
January 27, 2012

@ Dale Matson -

Good catch! :-P

Allen Lewis
January 27, 2012

@ F. Hugh Magee -

I am sure the Son of God will be glad to know that. I am sure he has better things to do with his time than to wipe our bums and clean up our messes.

Allen Lewis
January 27, 2012

Clatworthy sez :
It is those who accept same-sex partnerships who appeal to new insights arising within Christian communities where believers share their understandings and consciences with each other.

It is not the understandings and consciences which bother me; it is the other stuff which is being shared which is repugnant, both to me and to God.

Allen Lewis
January 27, 2012

By the way, Mr. Clatworthy, heresy has always regarded itself as being new and fresh, while orthodoxy is always depicted as “moldy,” or “stale,” or “dusty and dry.”

Dale Matson
January 27, 2012

F. Hugh Magee,
Ah yes, a little self promotion perhaps? I see John Shelby Spong has endorsed your book. That tells me to dismiss it out of hand. And here’s something else to consider, maybe your “upgrade” has more bugs than features.

FW Ken
January 27, 2012

Christianity is true or false. If true it can’t be ”obsolete”. If false, then it’s not ”obsolete”, it’s false and always was.

Sinner
January 27, 2012

“The consecration of Bishop Robinson has no meaning outside the State of New Hampshire. Gene Robinson is the Bishop of New Hampshire and only New Hampshire and will take no part on Communion affairs,” I might still be an Episcopalian today.

That’s not possible – a bishop is a bishop for the whole church. In fact, that’s precisely what the Primate’s statement said – VGR would not be recognised as a bishop. Of course, what’s happened now is that VGR, Griswold, Shori and entire the remnant of TEC are no longer recognised as Christians let alone Anglicans, let alone priests or bishops.

Once again, Clatworthy evades the question. As difficult as this might be for Clatworthy to accept, the Episcopalians did not consult the rest of the Communion before imposing Gene Robinson.

Nope, again worse than that. Whether they initiated any “consultation” or not, they certainly were told quite clearly that first electing, and then consecrating Vicki – or holding gay weddings was outside the bounds of Christian faith. By everyone from Rowan WIlliams on down.

I’ve said in this space many times that if the Episcopal left ever provides me with a solid, Scriptural case for consecrating an unrepentant sinner as a bishop, I’ll go back to my former Episcopal church this coming Sunday. But they never have and they never will because they never saw the need to.

Then more fool you – you would be damned with them! No such scriptural case can be made because it is impossible to make such a case not because they didn’t try (and, again, in fact they did). Even to suggest it is possible is a damnable heresy.

They are heretics and will burn: we rejoice when they close churches and dioceses, indeed we pray they may burn in this life as well as the next, so that by their example they may be a warning to many!

The matter is simple. Jonathan Clatworthy and the rest of the Anglican left know that they are obviously right about The Issue and people like me are obviously wrong. Therefore, “consultation” means that we keep talking until people like me realize that.

The matter is indeed simple; Clatworthy and the “Anglican left” are surely damned beyond hope of repentance: they have committed the unforgivable sin. The GAFCON bishops will not even remain in the room with such people – neither should we! Indeed to engage in any form of dialogue with them, to have any kind of cooperative arrangement (like Duncan’s disgusting operation in Pittsburgh) , is to risk eternal unforgivable damnation oneself.

LaVallette
January 28, 2012

“Modern CHURMOSQAGOGUE” Absolutley Brilliant!!!!
Far more accurate and evocative then Unitarian Universalist. Well past the “prayerful conversation” but here we stand: living in tension for everything at the same time regardless of inherent contradictions and intellectual dishonesty.It is the “state of things” that comes closest to my image of what Hell must be: Completley opposte to the Mind and Realm of the Holy Spirit.

Sinner
January 28, 2012

living in tension for everything at the same time regardless of inherent contradictions and intellectual dishonesty

Yeah. But in fact TEO does stand for something – three things really, it’s new trinity is Rum, Sodomy & Child Sacrifice.

In heathen Jerusalem, as parents dragged their children down to the tophet, the heathen priests played drums to drown out the screams. In today’s ECUSA, doctors and anesthetists ensures there are no screams – but they sacrifice children just the same.

Geoff
January 28, 2012

Doll’s paper largely refutes itself, in that many of the criticisms he aims at ECUSA are actually for actions being taken *against* it. For example, this gem:

“Whatever is acceptable and right in a particular American cultural context must be universally applicable to every other culture and context.”

Because of course, the current troubles came about when American Anglicans refused to maintain communion with the Global South unless the began to consecrate gay bishops. Oh wait …

Does your willingness to uncritically repeat this lie make you “a sociopath, a liar or both”? (“Guess what? They did actually” is neither a refutation of Clatworthy’s “lie” nor a vindication of Doll’s patently untrue assertion)

Nobody is “unilaterally changing” Anglican theology. Only if and when the Covenant is adopted will every local application of the CLQ have to be zero-sum change-for-everyone. The American church has set one biblical standard for sexual ethics for everyone, but it has not penalized those bodies which continue to apply a double standard (fidelity within marriage and celibacy without for straights, no chance of salvation for gays unless they can clear the hurdle of heroic ascetic feats we would not demand of ourselves).

All of this is leaving aside the fact that there are plenty of gay and lesbian Christians outside the US, who would not be fighting for a seat at God’s board if all they wanted was a “religion of personal fulfillment,” and whose motives cannot be ascribed to some stereotyped American mindset.

FW Ken
January 28, 2012

it’s new trinity is Rum, Sodomy & Child Sacrifice.

Don’t be silly: I can’t imagine Episcopalians drinking Rum when they could have a really good Chardonnay, Chablis, or Cabernet, depending on the main course. And a fine sherry with dessert!

Muerknz
January 28, 2012

Dale:

Yeah that was my point. Whilst I disagree with sola scriptura it does keep the protestant sects who stick with it clear on moral teachings. Sola scriptura means that you have to take the Bible seriously.

Sinner
January 28, 2012

FW Ken – I stand corrected!

Dale Matson
January 29, 2012

Geoff,
“Because of course, the current troubles came about when American Anglicans refused to maintain communion with the Global South unless the[y] began to consecrate gay bishops. Oh wait …”. [liberal]American Anglicans did not officially break fellowship because they figured that they were on the cutting edge and their new thing would eventually be embraced by the rest of the Anglican Communion. Additionally, they wanted to maintain the Anglican pedigree while rejecting Anglican theology. Liberal American Anglicans have in fact broken communion with the Global South. It is they who have departed the faith once delivered.

Therese Z
January 29, 2012

Oh heavens, I am starting to feel sorry for Bishop Gene. He has been thrust into a figurehead position of this insane agenda (yes, I know, he probably pointed to the part of him on which to apply the pressure and he surely got thrusted willingly) and things continue to splinter around him in an exciting way as the agenda plows on through the ECUSA.

Whose head would not be turned a little if one became identified so completely with such a historical moment?

He’s been fawned over for so long and so thoroughly I doubt he can think clearly. I have no doubt that he thinks that even his breakfast cereal choice is a useful endorsement.

I suddenly feel moved to pray for him. Is it likely that he can hear the Truth in the noise of his celebration?

Dale Matson
January 29, 2012

Therese Z.
I suddenly feel moved to pray for him. Is it likely that he can hear the Truth in the noise of his celebration? Rice Krispies could offer that still small voice.

Sinner
January 29, 2012

I suddenly feel moved to pray for him. Is it likely that he can hear the Truth in the noise of his celebration?

No it is impossible.
It is completely and utterly impossible.
Those who call “blessed” what the Holy Spirit has cursed and those who curse what the Holy Spirit have blessed are damned for all eternity with no hope of redemption.

Blessing sodomy; Ordaining gays; Blessing abortion; this is the unforgivable sin.

In the words of inerrant scripture:

“It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. Heb 6:4

For we, sinning wilfully after receiving the full knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and fiery zeal about to consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think those deserve to be punished who have trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has considered as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who have insulted the Spirit of grace?” Heb 10:29

Or in the direct words of our LORD:

“Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven all their sins and all the blasphemies they utter. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin. He said this because they [the Pharisees] were saying, ‘He has an evil spirit’.” Mark 3:28-30:

“Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy. But the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” Mark 3:28-30:

“I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.” Luke 12:8-10:

So there it goes. Damned forever. Now should we pray for one such as him?
Again. No, of course not. Do you pray for Lucifer? for Baal? for Dagon? of course not: that would itself be blasphemy against the holy spirit – blessing that which GOD has cursed.

Do you pray for Hitler? for Mao? for Stalin? for Kennedy? for Carter? for Obama? Of course not – but which of them ever totally opposed the natural order as much as Robinson and so-called “liberal Christians” (really fundamentalist Dagon worshippers) have done.

Roll out the Tophet! Bring your babies and throw them into the fire!

Dale Matson
January 29, 2012

Sinner,
Of course we pray for Obama. It’s part of our “prayers of the people” in the daily office and the lectionary to pray for our leaders. This includes our governor and the mayor of our city. I saw our former mayor on the bike path. He was not wearing a helmet and I warned him that as our ex mayor (Allen Autry, AKA “Bubba”) he needed to buy a bike helmet b/c we were no longer praying for him. He went to the local bike shop near the park and had his flat tire fixed (he didn’t carry a spare) and bought a bike helmet.

Support The MCJ

Search

Links

Meta