AND NOW…IDIOTS

Wednesday, December 16th, 2009 | Uncategorized

Glynn Cardy, Anglican vicar of St. Matthew-in-the-City, Auckland, New Zealand, may have written and spoken the single most offensive Christmas message that I’ve ever read.  Let’s start with Cardy’s crude, brain-dead and borderline-pornographic caricature of his opponents’ theological position:

Christian fundamentalism believes a supernatural male God who lived above sent his sperm into the womb of the virgin Mary. Although there were a series of miraculous events surrounding Jesus’ birth – like wandering stars and angelic choirs – the real miracle was his death and literal resurrection 33 years later. The importance of this literal resurrection is the belief that it was a cosmic transaction whereby the male God embraced humanity only after being satiated by Jesus’ innocent blood. 

By “fundamentalism,” Glynn means anyone who believes the Christian religion so Cardy’s talking about serious Roman Catholics and Orthodox as well.  But God as “male?”  The Holy Spirit as “sperm?”  I thought it was us fundies who were obsessed about sex.

Glynn, have you ever heard the one about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit because it seems to me that you’re awfully close to…oh, never mind.  We have some really stupid “theology” to get to.

Progressive Christianity believes the Christmas stories are fictitious accounts designed to introduce the radical nature of the adult Jesus. They contrast the Lord and Saviour Caesar with the anomaly of a new ‘lord’ and ‘saviour’ born illegitimate in a squalid barn. At Bethlehem low-life shepherds and heathen travelers are welcome while the powerful and the priests aren’t. The stories introduce the topsy-turvy way of God, where the outsiders are invited in and the insiders ushered out. 

Progressive Christianity doesn’t overlook Jesus’ life and rush to his death. Rather it sees the radical hospitality he offered to the poor, the despised, women, children, and the sick, and says: ‘this is the essence of God’. His death was a consequence of the offensive nature of that hospitality and his resurrection a symbolic vindication. 

Dumbass, er, Glynn?  Some of us have two questions.  Why would the Romans care about some really nice guy in a really obscure portion of the Empire?  I’m not that versed in Roman history but I don’t think the Romans executed people simply because they hung out with low-lifes.  I could be wrong and if I am, please correct me in the comments.

And let’s revisit that “God embraced humanity only after being satiated by Jesus’ innocent blood” line above, shall we?  Which is worse, Glynn? 

God Incarnate dying an agonizing death on the Cross for the sins of the world?  Or your deity allowing a really nice guy to die an agonizing death on the Cross to provide people like you with a REALLY bitchin’ metaphor 2,000 years later?

But Glynn’s not done.  Accompanying the message is a picture which Cardy says is a billboard outside St. Matthew-in-the-City that his “church” seems to have paid for.

If you want to look at it, click on the link at the top of this post.  If you don’t, just know that as far as I’m concerned, this might not be “Piss Christ” but it’s about as close as you can possibly get.

And alleged “Christians” thought it would be a good idea to turn it into a billboard to be seen by any Aucklander driving by.

UPDATE: Here’s Dumbass’s, er, Glynn’s actual sermon in which he says all this crap with an apparently straight face.

63 Comments to AND NOW…IDIOTS

dwstroudmd
December 16, 2009

Eoowwww! Glynn’s giving anyone a difficult follow up in this rush to stupidity in the name of “intelligence”. By comparison, Joseph had it easy. To use Glynn’s own line.

Paolo
December 16, 2009

Progressive Christianity = symbolism happened

Dave
December 16, 2009

Chris -
You’ve got a stronger stomach than I have. I gagged after the first few seconds of this guy’s tripe and moved on to other things.

Wonder which box of Cracker Jacks has the seminary diploma in it? This bozo seems to have found it!

goddessoftheclassroom
December 16, 2009

When I recite the Creed, I mean every word of it, literally. How can one call himself a Christian and NOT do so?

FW Ken
December 16, 2009

I’m not putting the number on their website, so forgive me if I miss something, but…

The fundamental (pardon the term) flaw in this goofus’s reading is that to separate symbol from historical fact is basically gnostic.

It’s the same sort of thing that Catholics, Anglo-catholics, some Lutherans, and Eastern Orthodox mean when we talk about sacraments (particularly the Eucharist). The connection of grace to material things (bread, wine, water, oil, hands-laid-on, and so forth) derives from the Incarnation itself and to make the Incarnation some sort of spiritual event divorced from historical fact is not an Incarnation at all, which makes the Passion and Resurrection immaterial and Christianity a waste of time.

Floridian
December 16, 2009

I am so angry about this priest, his sermon and the billboard that if all three are not removed, repudiated and renounced before the first of the year, by his Bishop, Primate, the Global South Primates and the ABC, I can no longer consider remaining Anglican.

Paula Loughlin
December 16, 2009

Eww, he just Schoried all over the place. Someone get a hose and bucket.

Dale Price
December 16, 2009

The anti-church strikes again. I’d be more impressed with them if they ever outgrew the smugness that suggests not one of them felt the need to learn a thing after their sophomore year. All the advanced degrees are just certifications of an egocentric worldview.

Oh, and this is hilarious:

“Progressive Christianity believes the Christmas stories are fictitious accounts designed to introduce the radical nature of the adult Jesus. They contrast the Lord and Saviour Caesar with the anomaly of a new ‘lord’ and ‘saviour’ born illegitimate in a squalid barn. At Bethlehem low-life shepherds and heathen travelers are welcome while the powerful and the priests aren’t. The stories introduce the topsy-turvy way of God, where the outsiders are invited in and the insiders ushered out.”

Forgive the language, but this translates as “progressives believe that the only way to describe God’s awesomeness is just to make up shit.”

With that logic, who’s to say Jesus ever shared a table with an outcast/woman/Judean analogue to approved modern victim group? Those are just more stories about how cool Big Topsy is.

The faster the progressive mindset dies out, the better.

M. L. Martin
December 16, 2009

Dale–The ‘anti-church’ comment may be more on the nose than you think. From later in the screed ‘sermon’:

Progressive Christianity however emphasizes behaviour above belief. How one treats ones neighbours, enemies, and planet is the essence of faith. The celebration of the birth of Jesus is a celebration of God in every birth and every person.

For fundamentalist Christians the incarnation is about the miraculous arrival of a baby soon to die and by his blood save us. For progressive Christians the incarnation is about the miracle of this planet earth and all life that exists here.

If this isn’t pure self-worship, it’s approaching it at rapid velocities. When do they intend to ‘engage’ with Muslims with the progressive creed of “There is no god but Us*”?

“* and Obama is Our Prophet” clause still under review for international usage.

The Little Myrmidon
December 16, 2009

Well, I am reading this just moments after replying to one of my “liberal” Christian friends, who found fault with a joke that I sent on to a bunch of people, including her. Now, this happens all the time and I’m pretty fed up with the fact that liberals (1.) can’t take a joke, (2.) wouldn’t know a joke it it reared up & bit ‘em in the butt, (3.) fell they HAVE TO REBUT every single thing that doesn’t fit their theology, politics or world-view.

I mean, seriously, I just can’t send most jokes to these people because it NEVER OCCURS TO THEM TO JUST LET IT SLIDE. Every single G-D thing has a political aspect and they have to CORRECT my thinking.

THESE PEOPLE ARE ON A MISSION FROM GOD!!!

Take a giant chill-pill already.

The Little Myrmidon
December 16, 2009

“the anomaly of a new ‘lord’ and ‘saviour’ born illegitimate in a squalid barn.

Since when was Jesus illegitimate?

I’m surprised he didin’t drag out the old canard about Jesus’ family being homeless.

Sheesh.

Jim McNeely
December 16, 2009

If this clown was before me as I sat on a COM, he would be denied ordination for as long as I lived.

I won’t subject lay people to this kind of blithering idiocy and ignorance.

-Jim+

Fuinseoig
December 16, 2009

Why do I get the very strong impression that it’s time to play another round of “Name That Heresy!”? Any takers on Adoptionism?

Although the article doesn’t say it (I have no idea what the sermon says, because I don’t think I want to waste however many minutes of my life would be involved in watching the video), I get the very strong impression that Glynn does not believe that Jesus was the Son of God in the sense of “no human father”.

He may accept Joseph as the natural father; by the “illegitimate” concept (which let me swerve off at a tangent and say “Historically wrong, Glynn because (a) pregnancy during the betrothal period was not considered out of wedlock, although it was considered jumping the gun a bit and (b) have you never read any Victorian novels, for cryin’ out loud? Legally, the child of a married woman is considered the legal offspring of her husband, regardless of whether or not he is actually the natural father.”)

Where was I? Oh, yeah: by the “illegitimate” comment, he probably goes along with the “Jesus was the son of some Roman soldier” notion, which is rather comic if you think about it; we can’t trust the infancy narrative in the Gospels about the angel and the Holy Spirit and all that, because that was all invented to pretend that Jesus was a divinity, but we can trust them when they say Joseph wanted to divorce Mary quietly because she was pregnant and it wasn’t his child.

Oh, and I think Glynn probably threw in as a bonus, free gratis and for nothing, the denial of the Resurrection as well: at least, that’s what “symbolic vindication” sounds like to me. “Yeah, you killed me horribly, but my followers feel all warm and tingly when thinking about me, so nyah! nyah! nyah! I win!”

Stephen
December 16, 2009

Progressive Christianity believes the Christmas stories are fictitious accounts designed to introduce the radical nature of the adult Jesus.

Well, the second paragraph sounds spot-on, until you realize that he’s endorsing the Progressive Christianity view, not presenting it for must-justified ridicule.

Dale Price
December 16, 2009

“Any takers on Adoptionism?”

I respectfully disagree. In light of the section M.L. Martin quotes, how can you adopt yourself?

Don Janousek
December 16, 2009

I just knew that the favorite liberal word, “radical,” would be in there someplace. So…Christ got Hisself killed for bein’ just too darn radically hospitable, huh? That’s a highly unexplored branch of the Atonement theory. And the Resurrection was a “symbol?” A divine bumper sticker that said “Jesus (hearts) you guys!” would have done the job, and with alot less hassle and bloodshed. I once had an English professor who said that words are invented to fulfill a need to give something a name. After reading what this fool had to say, I now know the reason why the word a**hole was invented.

Truth Unites... and Divides
December 16, 2009

Floridian: “I am so angry about this priest, his sermon and the billboard that if all three are not removed, repudiated and renounced before the first of the year, by his Bishop, Primate, the Global South Primates and the ABC, I can no longer consider remaining Anglican.”

Floridian, if all that you stipulated does not occur in your specified timeframe, what C/church or denomination will you join next? Or what’s on your short list?

Fuinseoig
December 16, 2009

Dale, I agree it’s a bit hard to get a handle on Glynn’s opinion of God; does he believe such an entity exists (see all his sneering about a “supernatural male God”) or does he think it’s a kind of immanent divinization within us all?

He does throw around the word, in such phrases as “the topsy-turvy way of God” and “God is and has always been in the poor”, in such a way that it is possible to both take it that he does believe in some deity, entity, or external being that could be classed as “God” or that he does not.

I plumped for Adoptionism on the basis of the line “The celebration of the birth of Jesus is a celebration of God in every birth and every person.” That is, Jesus was a normal human born in the normal human way who won the favour of God by his virtuous obedience and was ‘adopted’ as a son of God by declaration. But I’m not rigid on this; after all, that’s half the fun of playing “Name That Heresy!” since these kinds of statements are so wishy-washy and fuzzy any number of contradictory heresies could be derived from them.

:-)

Fuinseoig
December 16, 2009

While I’m at it, isn’t “supernatural…God” a tautology? Does anyone know of any natural gods?

M. L. Martin
December 16, 2009

Fuinseoig–There is a way in which the Judeo-Christian (and yes, on this point, also the Islamic) understanding of God can be said to be ‘supernatural’, in that He is radically transcendant and on a wholly different level from the world, in contrast to pagan understandings of gods that place them as simply the highest and most important parts of the same ontological world-structure. (Fr. Robert Sokolowski is good on this point.)

But ‘supernatural God’ is, I believe, also used by progressive Christianity as a way to belittle this same transcendant understanding of God in comparison to an immanent ‘God’ who manifests/acts/emerges from us. Then again, progressive Christianity isn’t really my strong suit.

Katherine
December 16, 2009

This guy is a combination Muslim/Mormon. Muslims abhor the idea of Jesus as “Son of God” because to them that means exactly what Glynn says — that God physically impregnated Mary in a sexual act. That’s not what the Scripture says, of course, and not what Christians believe. Mormons, on the other hand, think that is what happened, and it was a good thing in their eyes.

Dale Matson
December 16, 2009

Glynn Cardy has been refuted but at a terrible price. We Deacons have suffered calumny from a bishop. (notice he also spelled deacon with a small “d” and Bishop with a capital ‘B”.
Bishop Ed [Eastern Seaboard USA] 17 Dec 2009 08:27:33
“Your billboard is blasphemy, your theology is trash, and you can’t spell hors d’oeuvres. Typical deacon”
Wait just a darn minute, most of us can spell.
Dcn Dale Matson

DeeBee
December 16, 2009

“. . . [Progressive Christianity] sees the radical hospitality . . ., and says: ‘this is the essence of God’.”

Why does the sentence above sound familiar?

muerknz
December 16, 2009
Flambeaux
December 17, 2009

Archdeacon Cardy hits it out of the park:

The archdeacon said St Matthew-in-the-City was at the progressive end of the Christian continuum, and that he believed God was “more like a force but not a being in any sense”.

Wow. Isn’t stupidity of this sort a criminal offense?

JM
December 17, 2009

This guy is a mole, not a priest in any Christian religion.

Allen Lewis
December 17, 2009

The celebration of the birth of Jesus is a celebration of God in every birth and every person.

Fuinseoig –
That smacks of Gnosticism to me – the “divine spark” in all of us – rather than Adoptionism. But then again, as Bishop Allison pointed out in his book The Cruelty of Heresy, most modern hereises are composites of the two basic ones of Adoptionism and Docetism Cardy’s view is more Docetic than Adoptionist because he keeps emphasizing the “God within us” aspect of things and he cannot be bothered with physical realities such as blood, sweat, tears and death.

The man is a coward who runs away from life while claiming to embrace it.

Such a dweeb.

HokiePundit
December 17, 2009

That billboard is way, way worse than “Piss Christ,” which actually has some artistic merit and, if the artist is to be believed, was meant to shock not in order to get a cheap thrill but to make a statement about the sacred and the profane. The work itself denies nothing of the Christian faith, although it treats it rudely.

The billboard is simply a sex joke that involves blasphemy (of two kinds if you’re Catholic). I could understand, if not condone, an ignorant young atheist doing this, but Christians? It’s shenanigans like this that caused me to leave the Episcopal Church (I’m now quasi-Catholic).

[...] 17, 2009 by Scott W. Chris Johns sends us the story of Vicar Glen Cardy abusing his listeners with a freezing bucket of f…: Progressive Christianity believes the Christmas stories are fictitious accounts designed to [...]

The young fogey
December 17, 2009

The thing is: this is not news. Anglicans have been saying and doing things like this long before YouTube, since Thomas Jefferson cut up the Bible to fit his unbelief. The only difference is since James Pike and John A.T. Robinson what their ministers used to privately think is now more out in the open. Their national churches still give lip service to orthodoxy (the US 1979 BCP has the creeds). In one of the white countries like NZ that may change some day (they’ll stop pretending to be orthodox).

The young fogey
December 17, 2009

P.S. And more and more, these are the churches people don’t go to any more as our host has rightly noted of the World Council of Churches.

Chris M
December 17, 2009

“(I’m now quasi-Catholic).”

Hokie, you know we don’t give out the secret handshake or the Vatican Mind Control Chip until you go all the way.. Also, we don’t give out the cookies until then, either! ;)

Floridian
December 17, 2009

TUAD – Matthew 8:28; Luke 9:58

diane in nc with a small d
December 17, 2009

he believed God was “more like a force but not a being in any sense”.

Hmmmm, but can this Cardy dude handle a light saber or do Jedi mind tricks?

Truth Unites... and Divides
December 17, 2009

Floridian,

Too cryptic.

Janjan
December 17, 2009

Paula Loughlan, could you warn us first? I nearly wrecked a perfectly good keyboard and a great cuppa joe!

[...] December 17, 2009 in Death of Common Sense, Environmentalism, Government Ruins Everything, Hypocrisy Watch, Nanny State, Politics, Stupid People, Wisconsin * [...]

Fuinseoig
December 17, 2009

“His birth was just an h’orderve before the main Calvary course.”

Now, is this typo a result of whatever lowly peon transcribed the great man’s words onto the website (should Glynn himself not have done all the keyboarding with his own fair hands), or was it present in the original written work?

If so, can he really be considered an Anglican if he can’t even spell hors d’oeuvre? Or is this merely down to him being a Colonial and thus doing his best, poor chap?

;-)

;-)

Fuinseoig
December 17, 2009

Allen, that’s a good point, but Flambeaux’s quote about “a force not a being” could, depend on his strength of feeling, range from Glynn being a Deist to an Ontological Naturalist (thank you, Wikipedia!)

So, ladies and gentlemen, in tonight’s episode of everyone’s favourite Anglican panel game, “Name That Heresy!”, on the board we have:

Adoptionism
Gnosticism
Deism
Metaphysical Naturalism

And of course, the perennial favourite Bonus Box:

Simply Being A Prat

Well, a good range of choices there, so let’s see which gets the most votes. As always, in the case of a tie, we use the Archbishop of Canterbury Rule for the deciding factor; that is, if any thing is judged to be “theologically rather eccentric” then it can’t be truly Anglican and is probably Roman Catholic in disguise, which of course means it’s not heresy at all!

So, if you’re all ready, let’s spin that wheel and play “Name That Heresy!”

:-)

SouthCoast
December 17, 2009

As I read it, the man has willingly and knowing dedicated his life to the service, and in the employment, of a lie. The question then is, “Hey Glynn, who’s your daddy?”

Wynston
December 17, 2009

Fuinseoig, as a citizen of an independent country with a wide ethnic heritage, I object strongly to your referring to us as “colonials” and your inference that we are therefore of somewhat lower intellect!

The majority of Christians here in New Zealand do not concur with the Ven. Glynn Cardy!

FW Ken
December 17, 2009

Wynston, Fuinseoig is Irish and, I’ll bet, making fun of English (i.e. Church of England) attitudes rather than New Zealanders.

I’m sticking with gnosticism as the principle heresy involved, although were I willing to read the whole thing I might change my mind.

But as someone said above, the time I spend on this is time lost I’ll never get back.

Wynston
December 17, 2009

I also have Irish heritage but don’t make a habit of demeaning others (Australians excepted of course, for that’s our true national sport [and vice versa]). Anyone Irish needs to remember that there are far more “jokes” about them than there are about New Zealanders!

Peyton
December 17, 2009

Wynston,

Thank you for clarifying things. We here in the Colonies are often confused by the differences between Australia and New Zealand, even though a casual look at a map reveals them to be clearly separated. Besides, a New Zealander (is that the right term? I daren’t use the one I have heard) once explained the difference to me in no uncertain terms!

Now if only I could remember how Fuinseoig pronounces her name!

Peyton

Christopher Hathaway
December 17, 2009

While what this clown believes is pure crap, at least he is clear about what it is and about what we “fundamentalists” believe. I actually pretty much recognized my theology in his description. Plus, did anyone else continue to the end where he heaps scorn on the mushy middle that tries to hold onto both contradictory theologies? At least he is honest enough to know that that approach is intellectually and spiritually barren.

I like my enemies up front.

Wynston
December 17, 2009

Peyton, I have heard we New Zealanders (or “Kiwis” as we more generally use) described as being “cultured Australians”.

Fuinseoig
December 18, 2009

Wynston, as bog-Irish and proud of it, never let it be said that I look down my nose at my fellow-oppressed by the British colonial power.

Of course, New Zealand could be considered more fortunate than Australia in that it never occurs as the favoured transportation site for criminals, rebels, malcontents and assorted others of my nationality. Locally there is a famous song called “Na Connerys” about bringing home transported prisoners from New South Wales, but I’ve never heard any about exiles in New Zealand.

This must mean that either (a) there never were any Irish transported to New Zealand or (b) any Irish who ended up there never wanted to come home, thus proving that it is indeed God’s Own Country.

:-)

And in the interests of international harmony between our proud nations, I will tactfully decline to mention 1978, the All Blacks tour of Britain and Ireland, and the Munster (my province!) victory, still the only time your lads ever lost to an Irish side.

Sinner
December 18, 2009

John A.T. Robinson…

was at least a biblical scholar. That Robinson (and, in fact, Gene too) would not have fallen for this sort of claptrap.

The only good news is: once the covenant is accepted – churches will be able to lodge a formal complain about this kind of behaviour – and get the NZ church thrown out of the communion

You may not believe it – but a “plain reading” of the covenant & Kearons press release says directly this.

Any church can complain about actions of any other church.

Two thirds of primates can throw a church out.

Wynston
December 18, 2009

So Sinner, you would have the Anglican Church in New Zealand thrown out of the Anglican Communion merely because ONE parish presents a view contrary to that of its own Diocesan Bishop and the vast majority of New Zealand Anglicans?
Given thinking like that we may well be better off without you and your church!

Wynston
December 18, 2009

Fuinseoig, the only transported Irish, Scots and English who made it to New Zealand were escapees or those who had been granted their parole.The bulk of the Irish who came and stayed here came in search of gold in the 1860s or as assisted immigrants (mainly “labourers”, “tradesmen”, or “domestic servants”) in the 1870s.
While its no longer ‘God’s Own Country’, I believe New Zealand is still a better place to live in than any I’ve seen around the world.
The UK, largely burnt its bridges with us when it showed its appreciation for our strong support in two wars by leaving us in the lurch by joining the EU.
As to rugby, I’m glad you mentioned the Munster defeat of our 2nd Fifteen … one has to have something to cling to!

Christopher Johnson
December 18, 2009

Wynston,

I apologize for “Sinner.” And by way of explanation, it’s the consensus among most people on the conservative Anglican side in this country who read Anglican blogs that “Sinner” is actually an agent provocateur. That is, he’s a leftist Anglican who pretends to be orthodox and proceeds to make the orthodox look as bad as he possibly can. Most of us generally ignore him.

Wynston
December 18, 2009

Many thanks for the explanation Christopher.

Sinner
December 18, 2009

The billboard has now been removed. After cleaning or replacing it twice, Cardy decided it was too dangerous when another protestor attacked it with a machete.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/12/19/1245d9fa1a5e

It’s good to know there are still some true Christians left in New Zealand!

Sinner
December 18, 2009

So Sinner, you would have the Anglican Church in New Zealand thrown out of the Anglican Communion merely because ONE parish presents a view contrary to that of its own Diocesan Bishop and the vast majority of New Zealand Anglicans?

Oh let’s see, no that was “Floridian” who wrote: “I am so angry about this priest, his sermon and the billboard that if all three are not removed, repudiated and renounced before the first of the year, by his Bishop, Primate, the Global South Primates and the ABC, I can no longer consider remaining Anglican.”

Be that as it may: the new covenant will allow another church to protest against these issues; then it goes to mediation; and then the standing committee can throw the NZ church out. That’s what the covenant says.

Wynston
December 19, 2009

A somewhat simplistic interpretation Sinner!

Sinner
December 19, 2009

Seems the bishop – gay ordaining liberal Paterson – actually weighed in against the billboard.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10616487

of course, he’s still an heretic. The real damage was done by the “elderly woman with a large knife”

Wynston
December 19, 2009

In the words of Mark Twain, Sinner, “First get your facts right, then you may distort them as you choose”.

Christopher Johnson
December 19, 2009

Wynston? There’s another Internet rule that comes into play here. Don’t feed the trolls. Don’t encourage guys like Sinner by engaging with them.

While I’ve got you and since you’re from NZ, would you happen to know of a place online where you can order a Kiwis rugby uniform? Cuz they’re like the coolest sports uniforms EVER and they kick the crap out of whatever it is that we wear. Of course, we suck at rugby so it doens’t matter all that much.

;-)

David Fischler
December 19, 2009

Fuinseoig: I’m late to this discussion, but I did want to weigh in on the “Name that Heresy!” question. As much fun as it might be to try to figure out where someone like Cardy is coming from, in this instance I don’t think there’s a recognizable, coherent heresy involved so much as just flat out, ignorant stupidity. He has no clue what orthodox Christianity teaches, and no coherent idea of what he himself believes, except that it isn’t “fundamentalism.” Mostly, he believes in keeping his phony-baloney job, and presumably his employers are content to have a time-server occupy their pulpit.

Wynston
December 19, 2009

Thanks for that Christopher. I’ve had my say now and won’t rise to any of his future baits.
As to New Zealand rugby gear try:
goingtothegame.co.nz, rugbypostnz.com, or champions.co.nz

The Little Myrmidon
December 20, 2009

I tried reading the actual article from the St. Matthew-in-the-City webpage and was brought up short by this:

“His birth was just an h’orderve before the main Calvary course.”

Hors D’oeuvres anyone?

And, he was called on it in the comments below the article. Heheh. Apparently he knows as much about theology as cuisine.

[...] MCJ SPOTS THE IDIOTS– “Glynn Cardy, Anglican vicar of St. Matthew-in-the-City, Auckland, New Zealand, may [...]

Rebekah
December 30, 2009

Linkback from missmarprelate.blogspot.com

….(Beautiful and not to be missed commentary by MCJ, follow the links for more)….

http://missmarprelate.blogspot.com/2009/12/assorted-anglicans-and-episcopalians.html

Support The MCJ

Search

Links

Meta