STILL ON PATROL

For My Friends in DioLex - In Case You Were Wondering...

To those remaining Episcopalians in the Diocese of Lexington, from Gen Con 09, in the Committee hearing on changes in the liturgy to include same-sex and gender neutral marriage rites, which to all observers was packed with pre-planned revisionist speakers including Katherine "Abortion is a Blessing" Ragsdale and Susan "Integrity" Russell, I give you your own Bishop, Stacy Sauls, speaking in favor of Resolution 41, for creation and inclusion in the BCP of same-sex rites for marriage:

"I rise as a pastor and a canonist to speak in favor of advancing on same sex unions. 30 years ago we created the pastoral exception for divorce and remarriage. We did so despite the apparently clear teaching of scripture. We did it despite tradition. We must free the church from under the hypocrisy it is laboring. We must cease heaping burdens on others we would not lift a finger."

This, of course, should come as no surprise, but I wanted to make sure there was no doubt in DioLex of where their Bishop stands.  Add this to his statement that "the Bible is a nice book of history with some poetry", and to all else we know about Sauls that has previously been posted on this site, and well, is there any doubt of why DioLex has seen rapid decline of ASA, pledge & plate, and membership, and has lost multiple parishes?

UPDATE:  Speaking in a presser, Sauls has now also said that TEO is prepared to "accept the consequences" of a decision to adopt same-sex marriage rites, etc.  This is a most interesting statement from a Bishop who, in essence, has little idea of what "accepting consequences" means, given his history of pointing fingers and placing blame for all of the errors and failings in his own Diocese on others, many of whom his temper tantrums and bad behavior has caused to leave TEO altogether.

Besides, what "consequences", Stacy?  There have never been any "consequences" visited upon TEO from the Anglican Communion in the form of an ecclesiastical discipline.  And those who have declared themselves in "broken communion" with TEO are looked upon by the elitist leadership of TEO as ignorant savages who are not worthy of TEO's concern.  The only "consequences" there will ever be for TEO will happen when it collapses under its own weight from declining membership and giving. 

Presiding Bishop Describes Confessional Christianity as "Idolatry" and "Heresy"

I started picking up the threads and comments this afternoon, that the Presiding Bishop High Priestess had gone and done it again.  Rather than relying on others' descriptions and comments, I chose to read the speech for myself, at Pravda Episcopal Life Online. 

I will give her some credit for finally recognizing that TEO is in "crisis", because she talked about "crisis" in the beginning of her speech.  AS I continued to read, however, I do not think that losing membership, declining finances, and the absolute wreck she has made of TEO were what she saw as a "crisis."

If nothing that has transpired before this day has caused good Christians, who happen to also be Episcopalians, to run for the door, this might just do the trick:

The crisis of this moment has several parts, and like Episcopalians, particularly ones in Mississippi, they’re all related. The overarching connection in all of these crises has to do with the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of use alone can be in right relationship with God. It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus. That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of all being. That heresy is one reason for the theme of this Convention.

"Particularly ones in Mississippi"?  Was this a gratuitous shot at Greg Griffith?  Sorry, but I don't get this little reference.

Continuing in her insulting, condescending choice of words and tone, following on her description last week of Jesus Christ as a "tribal savior", the Priestess flatly declares the Christian belief in a personal relationship with God, and our personal confession of our sinful nature and request for God to enter our lives, to be a "Western heresy", a "caricature", and "idolatry."

Do you see what is going on here?  The Priestess, in her elitist, racist view of the world, equates western orthodox Christians with her view of African Anglicans as somehow sub-human, ignorant people who are 40 years behind her in their thinking on Christianity.  Much as does a person suffering from dementia, the Priestess continues to lose her social inhibitions and is stepping further and further into some undescribed form of secular deism, and further away from the Christianity it is her duty to profess.

From the inception of her term as Presiding Bishop, the Priestess has looked down her long, bulbous nose from her perch on what she believes is the higher ground of Christian understanding.  Her perch, however, is instead a Satan's broomstick of intellectualism upon which she has decided that her level of enlightenment allows her to disregard the historic faith of Christianity altogether.  The Priestess appears to think all that "old stuff" is "tribal" and not sufficient for her enlightened existence.

While she was at it, the Priestess tore down another central tenet of Christianity:

We Christians often think the only important part of the Jerusalem story is Calvary, and, yes, suffering and killing in that place still seem to be the loudest news. But Calvary was a waypoint in the larger arc of God’s dream – it’s on the way to Jerusalem, it is not in Jerusalem.

Unh-huh.  Calvary is a "waypoint in the larger arc of God's dream."  Jesus' death on the cross is nothing more than another act in the play, or chapter in the book?  Again, as we have seen time after time with the Priestess, she seems to have a substantial "ick" factor in reconciling herself to Jesus brutal, messy death for our sins.  So, she marginalizes His suffering and atonement for the sins of man, and relegates it to but a "waypoint" in the greater picture of Christianity.

In other words, the High Priestess simply does not get that Jesus' death upon the Cross, and his resurrection as our living Saviour, are the single most important thing we as Christians must understand and accept.  She does not get why Holy Week and Easter are the single most significant time of the church year for Christians.  And, based upon her rejection of individualistic beliefs in God and Jesus Christ earlier in her speech, she does not comprehend that each and every Christian can declare, with utter faith and belief, that "Christ died on the Cross for remission of my sins and so that I can achieve eternal salvation."

The High Priestess additionally makes it abundantly clear the she thinks any of us who do believe in traditional Christianity are idiots - idolatrous, tribal, heretics who do not have her expansive mental capacity so that we, too, can set ourselves above the Word of God and claim to have a higher understanding of God, moreso than any of the Apostles and Saints, and moreso than anyone else in the last 2000 years.

Friends, the decline of TEO has accelerated.  Not only is cafeteria Christianity the order of the day, but the High Priestess has put her heresies on the open, global market for all to see.  I have predicted that this General Convention will result in a heavy load of destruction for TEO; this speech by the Priestess almost guarantees it.

UPDATE:    One of the passages apparently now rejected by TEO is Romans 9: 8-10:  ⁸ But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): ⁹ that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. ¹⁰ For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

What Exactly Was / Is Sarah Palin Thinking?

I am still shaking my head over soon-to-be-former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's resignation from the governorship of Alaska this past weekend.  What, if anything, was she thinking?  Maybe we will come to know this in the near future, and maybe it will even make some modicum of sense.  Maybe.

Coming at a time when the GOP is beaten down, disorganized, and increasingly politically marginalized in the face of the Democratic juggernaut in Washington, but yet also at a time when there is significant opportunity for an opposition party to make hay, the recent performances of GOP "leaders" leave much to be desired.  Mark Sanford sacrificed his political career to a Latin lover.  Nevada Senator John Ensign has likewise fallen to the wayside in the aftermath of a public admission of an affair.

Newt Gingrich, who in his wildest dreams will not be a viable candidate, is nonetheless seen by many as the political leader of the GOP.  When, of course, they are not listening to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.  Newt was effective during his stint in Congress until the very end, but his time is well past.  The GOP needs to do better, and soon.

And now, Palin is simply quitting as Alaska governor.  At first, I thought maybe she was going to admit that it was actually she who had been with Sanford in Buenos Aires, but her reasons were not even that clear, nor that interesting.  She thinks she can do more for the country if she is not bogged down with being a lame-duck Governor?  What about all those Alaskans who voted her into office?  Don't they deserve that she fulfill her commitment made when she was asking for their votes in the first place?

Palin was attacked last go-round for lack of experience.  Now, she has jettisoned her opportunity to gain more experience in governing.  Regardless of her course over the next few years, this is an opportunity lost to demonstrate the ability to be a political leader.  I cannot imagine anything she could do privately over the next few years that would better suit her for the Oval Office.  Not to mention that the label of "quitter" will be affixed by such as Dem attack dog James Carville.

If, of course, there is some pending investigation or some charges that wll be made, which Palin's lawyer denies, is this some sort of informal "plea bargain" under which Palin resigns in exchange for the charges going away quietly?  Possibly.  But the likelihood of ever keeping anything totally quiet in this media age is, in my opinion, slim and illusory.  Plus, if she gets caught in a cover-up, it is always worse than the original offense - just ask Nixon, Clinton, Sanford, et al.

While I hope we have not seen the last of Sarah Palin on the political stage, today her stock is not looking too good from this perspective.  Somewhere, Mitt Romney is smiling.

Back From Gettysburg

Corinne and I just returned home from a magnificent long weekend in Gettysburg - the annual  reenactment of the July 1, 2, and 3, 1863 battle.  The time spent with our colleagues in Lee's Lieutenants was, as always, priceless, and the spectators were, as they always are at this event, engaged, well-informed, and loaded with great questions.

I want to particularly report on our three, one-hour-long sessions in the Activities Tents.  Each one was packed, the seating full and 3-4 deep standing around the exterior of the tent.  Our group marches to and from the tents, escorted by our diligent security detail, became Pied-Piper like in their draw of spectators in to meet with us, and I don't think we disappointed in any way.  Instead of a pre-prepared spiel, we treated the guests as if they were the Press Corps, and allowed them to direct the subject matter by their questions, all of which, from both young and old, were excellent.

We opened by walking up through the crowd shaking hands, as Private "Nate" Greene of the 2nd Florida Infantry played a beautiful banjo accompaniment of "Dixie."  General Lee then briefly spoke of his background of having been in the U.S. Army, even donning, briefly, a blue Colonel's coat to the consternation of many in the crowd.  His return to grey always brought applause.  Once the Generals were introduced, the press was offered their opportunity to question.

The questions of how we chose to go South, many of us West Pointers, always took us into the defense of the Constitution as opposed to of the Union, and thence to the entire Constitutional question of secession.  The point of the existence of state sovereignty vs. limited Federal power had great resonance with every crowd, and people began to see that many of the seminal issues of the War Between the States are still with us 145+ years later.

I give great thanks to and for my friends and colleagues in Lee's Lieutenants.  They are all serious historians who regularly breathe life into the often dry bones of history by their portrayals of historic figures as real people with senses of humor, and all the trials and tragedies of life, as do we all today.  All of them, particularly our nonpareil General Lee, Al Stone, are great historians, actors, and friends in their own right.  But taken together, Lee's Lieutenants is most definitely greater as a whole than the sum of its parts. 

High Priestess Repeats Heresies in Nashville

A tip o' my kepi to Baby Blue and Stand Firm for sending us to the coverage of the High Priestess's visit to Nashville in The Tennessean newspaper.

In the run-up to Gen Con 09, the High Priestess has reminded all of us, once again, that she just does not see the need to be guided by those pesky old Scriptures in her theology or in her position as titular head of TEO. 

First, the Priestess refers to orthodox beliefs that Jesus Christ is the only savior as making Jesus into a "tribal savior", which she describes as the belief that Jesus will only save those who share the Christian theology.  She says there has to be room in TEO for differing theologies; she said, "How people get saved is really a matter for God to figure out, not for me to figure out. My job is to figure out how to be the best follower of Jesus that I can."

By "differing theologies" does she mean Islam and Buddhism?  Recent evidence would seem to say, "Yes."

As for being "the best follower of Jesus that I can", well, gee, Kate, I guess in your Church that means the Bible is on the cafeteria plan - you only have to pick what you like.  What about  John 14:6?  Does TEO under your leadership reject this passage:  "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me"?  Apparently so.  If you don't believe this, Priestess, you're nowhere near being a "follower of Jesus." 

The Bible nowhere says anything about Jesus being a "tribal savior", and I frankly find that statement as patently offensive as anything the Priestess has said to date.  It is offensive to Jesus Christ and his Holy Word, and offensive to true Christians everywhere.  It is offensive to all who have found the transformative power of God and his Son, Jesus Christ, through the words of the Bible.

The Priestess then claimed to consult the Scriptures on the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage.  Huh?    She made reference to "messy" human relationships in the Bible, and said the concept has changed over the years.  She said, "That's not in our prayer book now.  We say that the primary goal and good of marriage is companionship. That's different from even what the first Anglicans said. If our goal is to help people live holy lives, which I think is the church's function, maybe we could think about people of the same sex living holy lives together."

Let's see:  how much of the Bible does that statement reject, not to mention that marriage has always been for procreation and building a family?  As Greg Griffith said, "Studying the Scriptures evidently doesn't include the books of Genesis, Leviticus, Romans, I Corinthians, or I Timothy."  Notice she switches references to the Prayer Book, not the Bible.  As her lap-dog Stacy Sauls once said, these people actually consider the Bible to be a "nice book of history and poetry", and that "all you need for salvation is in the Book of Common Prayer."  Nice philosophy, that, when you can and do change the BCP every General Convention to make it say what you want from your secular, political agenda.

Does it make an impression on anyone that not only does the High Priestess not retract her statements about John 14:6 "putting God in an awfully small box", but that she continues to not only repeat her heresies, but is making them more and more offensive every time she speaks on the subject, and does so to media outlets who are sure to disseminate this tripe?  "Tribal savior"?

My wife, who still attends the TEO church she has attended all her life, is disgusted by all of this but asked me the other night why I still blog about TEO even though I've been gone since 2007.  This is why.  I feel compelled to let anyone who cares to read this blog see the truth about TEO and its leadership.  To again steal the plane crash analogy from Greg Griffith, I am not one who has stayed aboard to help others off the sinking plane, but I do feel as if I am one who is manning the lifeboat, tossing lifelines to those still aboard.  I hope there is some value to this effort.

I also do this, to be completely honest, not through some altruistic belief, but because this brand of heresy makes me angry.  The High Priestess and her ilk have taken a denomination which was once a bastion of Christianity, one which helped spread the Good News to the four corners of the Earth through English exploration, and thrown it on the theological trash heap.  Members are fleeing in droves, and many who stay do so out of habit, or personal loyalty to fellow parishioners, and not because TEO is providing them with the "spiritual food" they seek.

But don't believe me - the evidence is right in front of all of us.  Presiding Bishop (High Priestess) Katherine Jefferts Schori regularly and repeatedly espouses a theology that is wholly inconsistent with Christianity as it has existed for 2000 years.  She and her ilk hold themselves above the Bible and believe they are smarter and more perceptive than millions of faithful Christians who do believe in the Bible as the Word of God.  They are heretics, and they have stolen our Church.

There's enough steam coming out of my ears right now, Kentucky Utilities ought to hook me up to a generator.  Can I get some carbon credits for that?

 

Throwing the Constitution Out With the Bath Water

The oath of office prescribed by the U.S. Constitution for Presidents states as follows:  "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."   Notice it does NOT say "protect my political agenda", but "protect the Constitution."

The more I follow what is coming out of the Obama Administration, I think BHO himself must believe that the flubbed oath by Chief Justice John Roberts at the inauguration was a license to ignore the oath altogether, because BHO and the Congressional Democrats, in the rash of orders, legislation, and other actions taken in the last six months, has discarded the Constitution as if it were nothing more than a piece of greasy paper from the fast-food trash.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution specifically lists the powers assigned to the Federal government.  Article I, Section 9 specifically lists those powers prohibited to the Fedral government.   Article I, Section 10 specifically lists those powers prohibited to the states.  Then, to wrap things up, the Tenth Amendment states that all powers not specifically assigned by the Constitution are reserved to the states, or to the people.  BHO claims to have been a Constitutional law professor, and should know this.  Apparently he doesn't - what the *&^%$# was he teaching?

The BHO health care proposal is a great example.  Where, exactly, in the Constitution does it say that the Federal government has any right, or power, to make the most intimate and personal decisions any of us make, those of choosing our physician and deciding the course of our health care and medical treatment?  I'll save you some time - it does not say this anywhere, in any form or fashion.

The concept of “socialized medicine”, a term that President Obama tries to avoid even while he tries to force the country in that direction through his so-called “reforms”, is named that for a reason – “socialized” = “socialist.”  This step by the Federal government, inserting itself into one of the most personal decisions we get to make in a free society, is unquestionably un-Constitutional.

 

Likewise, "Cap & Trade" is well outside the scope of Federal Constitutional authority.  This legislation, designed openly to drive up the cost of energy to force us to make certain choices about our homes and automobiles, is but the latest example of BHO meddling in our personal lives.  He buys the myth of global warming, and thus wants to force all of us to buy tiny electric cars, and put solar cells on our roofs, or else he will tax us into bankruptcy.  As I have demonstrated in this blog before, there is no "energy shortage" if we will just use what we already have in place and available.  BHO, I like trees and all, but you cannot under the Constitution make me hug one.

 

The government take-over of GM and Chrysler is another thing you will not find in the Constitution.  The "commerce clause" in Article I, Section 8, is the victim here; it says the Federal government may regulate commerce with foreign nations, between the several states, and with Indian tribes.  This does not allow BHO to tell me what car I can buy, nor who will be the CEO of GM, nor what foreign company can buy Chrysler.  Merely because a car made by Chrysler in Michigan now resides in my garage does not ipso facto mean the Feds have carte blanche right to regulate everything to do with the auto industry.

 

(Didja see that?  A Latin phrase and a French phrase cheek-by-jowl!  This blatant abuse of the Constitution really gets me amped up!)

 

Americans have been trained to the Federal trough for a dangerously long period of time.  We line up and joyfully accept road money, schools money, Federal benefits, and so on by the bucketsful.  What we don't see is the fine print, all the strings and conditions attached to that money by the Feds.  Now, we are getting bitten by an unprecedented course of Federal intervention in our lives, intervention for which they have no legal or Constitutional authority whatsoever.

 

What is the solution, when BHO is President, and Congress has a filibuster-proof majority of Democrats?  Short of a wholesale change at the next elections, Acorn's gerry-mandering and voter fraud notwithstanding, our only defense is to resort to Court challenges, and the hope that BHO doesn't get to change any of the conservative seats on the Supreme Court before those cases get there. 

 

The Court today rejected the Second Circuit's ruling in the Ricci case, in which prospective Justice Sotomayor has thus been reversed.  You may recall that Ricci involved a qualification test in the Hartford, Connecticut Fire Department, that was tossed out by the city because not enough minorities scored well wnough to get promotions.  The Supreme Court today ruled that was not a reasonable basis to discard the test.  But, more on Ricci later.

 

The point here, in this discussion, is that the Supreme Court is still in a position where it might just throw out these socialist pieces of BHO's agenda as un-Constitutional.  There is ample precedent in the rejection of much of FDR's "New Deal", which used some socialist principles to address the financial collapse of the Great Depression.  Where BHO has "czars", FDR had "dictators", running private industry with the heavy hand of government.  BHO may say "it worked before", but in truth we will never know how much it worked because our economy came under the massive influence of World War II, not just social legislation.  I doubt we want to have the global war economic stimulus this time around, do we?

 

There is, however, a significant difference between FDR's programs, and BHO's.  FDR tried many devices to put people back to work.  He gave the unemployed and down-on-their-luck something positive to do.  BHO?  All he wants to do is tell us what doctor to choose, what car to buy, how we should outfit our homes, and sooner or later what we can eat, who we can marry, and how many children we can have.  And then tax us into bankruptcy on all of this.

 

Americans these days tend to want to make fun of conservatives, sort of kicking us while we are down.  Too bad, because I fear the dire warnings about where BHO wants to take this country are falling largely on deaf ears.  Too many people will only "get it" when it is too late and we have to drive away from our foreclosed homes in our electric putt-putt cars, penniless after we've spent our last dime to pay the tax bill.

 

UPDATE:  More information on cap & trade: 

 

The bill would give the federal government power over local building codes. It requires that by 2012 codes must require that new buildings be 30 percent more efficient than they would have been under current regulations. By 2016, that figure rises to 50 percent, with increases scheduled for years after that. With those targets in mind, the bill expects organizations that develop model codes for states and localities to fill in the details, creating a national code. If they don’t, the bill commands the Energy Department to draft a national code itself.  Once the national code exists, the states will have to comply or have their own codes overridden by the national one.  If the latter occurs, the states will be docked/fined either cash or the ubiquitous "carbon credits", which amounts to a new kind of security that can be bought, sold, or traded.

 

Friends, this is boldly, blatantly un-Constitutional for the Federal government to override state and local building codes.  I cannot be more clear on this.

 

Next for TEO - An Obama Bailout?

The Chair of the TEO Joint Standing Committee on Program, Budget & Finance has stated that TEO's income over the next triennium (2010-2012) is now projected to be as much as $9 million BELOW that projected in the draft budget already approved in January 2009.  The $9 million deficit consists of $7.7 million less in anticipated Diocesan commitments and $1.3 million less in interest income on TEO's endowments.  These new figures are based upon an ongoing survey of Diocesan Bishops and financial officers.  Also, certain expenses such as the offices of the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies, as well as the General Convention office, are as yet "unfunded", which I suppose means they have not yet been included in the budget.

The report did not specify why interest income on endowments has fallen, but the likely primary reason is that the financial markets tanked and took investment income with them.  But it would also be interesting to see, if TEO would ever make full and honest disclosure, just how much of that interest income loss has been and will be based upon endowment money being withdrawn to fund litigation.

Here's my suggestion to Gen Con 09 delegates:  Cut the litigation budget by eliminating all the lawsuits being instigated by TEO, and fire the High Priestess's new, high-paid litigation coordinator and her staff.  Those two cuts alone would whittle down the projected deficit by more than half its $9 million total, not to mention be a highly Christian thing to do.

But we all know the High Priestess will never let that happen.  So, just keep on re-arranging those deck chairs.

Bishop Lawrence Letter to Dio SC

There are some very interesting posts at Stand Firm and Titus 1:9 today about a letter written by Diocese of South Carolina Bishop Mark Lawrence to his clergy.  In this letter, Bishop Lawrence advises that he and Kendall Harmon have adopted a very realistic attitude toward the upcoming TEO General Convention:

In numerous conversations, Kendall and I have felt that the strategizing and networking to pass or defeat resolutions, for most of us in the conservative or reasserting cause, is no longer anything for which we have passion or, for that matter, any hope of success—even if we should attempt it. The cause of biblical orthodoxy within TEC is no longer a realistic thing to strive for through the councils of TEC. Politically speaking, we have lost the day.

Rather, Bishop Lawrence plans to attend and act as a faithful witness for orthodox Christianity.  As Sarah Hey said in a later comment, this letter is proof that Bishop Lawrence "gets it."  He also addresses, head-on, what he sees as the real and useful meaning of an "inside strategy":

If we could be said to be carrying out an “Inside Strategy” it is not towards TEC: it is toward the Anglican Communion. Put simply, we remain inside the structures of the Communion to help shape the emerging Anglicanism of the 21st Century so long as we are able. It is ironic that as one of the few dioceses of The Episcopal Church with documented growth in every significant metric of measurement ... we can influence the developments within global Anglicanism more effectively than we can influence our own Church! ... But, irony aside, getting back to my main point, our “Inside Strategy” is not to tilt at windmills in Quixotic fashion thinking we can turn back the clock to some prior age; it is to help shape the future that is emerging in global Anglicanism from within the Communion.

This statement, to me, makes a lot of sense - Bishop Lawrence has his eye on the prize, which is Anglicanism as it evolves into the future.  He knows that TEO as it is presently constituted is lost, at least to any semblance of orthodox Christianity.  He believes he can most effectively work towards a better tomorrow for Anglicanism from a position still nominally within TEO, and I applaud his courage and conviction to openly take that position.  In a sense, having this sort of "inside strategy" working cooperatively within global Anglicanism with entities such as ACNA may well be just the sort of two-front war against secular revisionism that will eventually prevail.

His letter does, however, give me concern for Bishop Lawrence, Kendall Harmon, and others similarly situated.  As I have written in this space before, there are two separate lines of attack that are going to happen at Gen Con 09.  One is the entire LGBT agenda, ranging from same-sex blessings and broad recognition of all sorts of LGBT "rights" and "rites" to changing the Book of Common Prayer.  Once passed all of these will become part and parcel of the "Doctrine, Discipline and Worship" of TEO.  The second line of attack is the loosening of the disciplinary Canons, not the least of which is the addition of the language "or in any other way" to the definition of "abandonment of communion." 

Thus, if Bishop Lawrence declines to allow same-sex blessings in DioSC, or even speaks out against them, by opposing what will almost certainly become part of the "Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship" of TEO, he renders himself susceptible to charges of "abandonment of communion" and eventual inhibition and expulsion from TEO.  I am certain he knows this, and suspect he has chosen to risk exposure to the High Priestess's disciplinary machine, perhaps rendering himself a political martyr for orthodoxy, as opposed to outright departure from TEO.

Regardless of how this plays out, and regardless of how much us "outsides" would love to see Bishop Lawrence, and others still within TEO, lined up with Archbishop Duncan and ACNA, as I said before we must applaud his courage, his strength of conviction, and his adherence to the one true faith handed down from the Saints. 

Godspeed, Bishop Mark.

Healthcare Reform...Be Very Afraid

I've been trying to keep an open mind about Barack Obama's healthcare reform proposals.  Really, I have.  Then, I read the text of his speech to the AMA, and it sounded like he was back on the campaign trail, pandering to everyone and making promises he simply cannot keep.  He had to have every appendage crossed behind his back when he spoke to the doctors.  Last night, a few tidbits from his so-called "town meeting" about his proposal last night on sell-out  ABC were highly revealing about the approach BHO and his cohorts will be taking.

At one point, BHO said, "I'm going to allow you to keep your doctor."  That, my friends, says it all.  Where exactly does BHO get off thinking it is in his power, or even should be in his power, to "allow" us to go to the physician of our choosing, even if that choice is made within the scope of our employer's group health insurance plan?  This one statement betrays so much of BHO's disdain for the Constitution and the Constitutionally-prescribed limits on Federal power.  To BHO and his radical-liberal-socialist friends, it is their right to tell us how to live our lives in every material respect, and the Constitution be damned.

In a nutshell, the BHO plan is little more than a re-packaged Cinton health plan that this country so soundly rejected about 15 years ago.  BHO, however, believes he can surf the wave of Federal dominance spawned by the economic bailouts he has engineered to push socialized medicine upon us while our guard is down.  He is also banking on his cult of personality to gain our trust, where formerly a hard-edged Hillary Clinton turned off everyone from so-called healthcare "reform", apparently even Bill.

My sister lived under socialized medicine for over ten years in Australia and England, and she has no shortage of nightmare stories from that experience.  One I can remember is when her daughter had a severe sinus/ear infection, and was in a great deal of pain.  Due to their having private health insurance, they got to go to the head of the line for a doctor's appointment, only to be told that while, yes, she had an infection, they would not prescribe her antibiotics because only so many doses had been allocated for the year and someone else down the road might need them worse.  My niece suffered on for another week, when the family was serendipitously due to travel to the States.  A North Carolina physician prescribed antibiotics, and within a few days she was fine.  Is this sort of system what we want?  Why do we think people from Canada still come to the U.S. in droves for medical care?

Healthcare reform is truly a dangerous topic with the Democrats in power.  Why?  Not only the above issues, but the simple fact that once a socialized system such as BHO is proposing is put in place, it will be virtually impossible to restore anything such as a free enterprise system.  In fact, it is likely to destroy any free market healthcare system by using government-subsidized plans, to the tune of several trillion dollars, to drive for-profit healthcare systems completely out of business.  BHO's plan is more anti-competitive than anything he has yet done in the financial sector, and the inevitable end result is socialized medicine.

Another reason to fear and distrust the BHO plan is the haste with which they are pushing this thing to a Congressional vote.  Why?  Because they do not want to allow the time for anyone to truly study the plan and project its likely effects.  Any more, Senators and Congressmen and women often do not even read what they vote on, instead relying on leadership to tell them what to do.  This is magnified by smooth operators such as BHO that do all they can to prevent private sector and un-elected political opposition from mounting any effective counter-analyses.  Later, when the problems do arise, we are left with our representatives whining, "I didn't realize that was going to happen."  This is too big, too momentous, and affects too many of us, to be hustled through a no-nothing Congress.

Speak up, my friends, and do it now, before it is too late and we are all beholding to the government for our health care.  The Federal government cannot even now run any program it has efficiently and effectively.  Why should we delude ourselves into thinking health care would be any better?  Don't drink BHO's Kool-Aid on this one.

Here We Go Again... Or Not

In an interview with the BBC, Anglican Church of North America Bishop Bob Duncan revealed that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has "encouraged" ACNA to apply for membership in the Anglican Communion as soon as ACNA is "organized", and that +Williams would "support" such a move.  Had we not fallen prey to +Williams' obfuscations and stilted use of the English language before, this news might seem "encouraging" to an orthodox, dis-affected former Episcopalian such as myself.

Do "encouraged" and "support" mean the mere filing of the application, which may or may not ever reach any serious vote given the way the Communion, as most often urged by TEO, "listens", "Indabas", and generally stalls making any momentous decisions?  Or do they really mean +Williams would support ACNA as a full member Province of the Anglican Communion?  Merely typing that last sentence, and the science-fiction feeling having done so gives me, tells me a lot about how I will tend to see this pending more action on the subject.

Having seen +Williams, again and again, fail to support the orthodox in the face of the Windsor Report, the Dromantine communique, and the Dar Es Salaam communique, not to mention the recent debacle of the Anglican Consultative Council-14 meeting, there is little cause to place much hope in his comments to +Duncan.  Rather, I suspect +Duncan is reporting accurately what he believes he heard from +Williams, but what +Williams will eventually own up to, particularly once he has his ears burned by the High Priestess, may be markedly different.

It has been suggested by some commenters on this site that perhaps +Williams is, under his befuddled and confused appearance, in reality a brilliant manipulator who has managed to avoid outright schism and keep most of the principal players arguably "at the table."  I've given this theory a lot of thought, and I just cannot buy into that.  I am more inclined to believe that those who remain "at the table", even those Dioceses who have left TEO for the Southern Cone and then ostensibly on to the ACNA, remain so because of their historic ties to Anglicanism, and reluctance to relinquish the Anglican brand name in their overriding goal to establish an orthodox Anglican presence in North America.

My goal, were I involved in creating ACNA, would be to create an Anglican-style denomination that is spiritually and theologically faithful to the historic Anglican Church dating to the time of Elizabeth I.  ACNA should be certain in its faith, in its belief in and reliance upon the scriptures, and in its teachings to the world at large.  +Duncan is claiming 100,000 members thus far, and my suspicion is that those numbers will expand considerably once ACNA is organized and functioning as a church, regardless of whether it has the "approval" of the Anglican Communion, or not.  I just do not see the imprimatur of Canterbury as being that much of an issue for those who are longing for a "safe haven" orthodox Anglican presence in America.

Ideally, and I am probably really dreaming here, I would love to see ACNA keep its powder dry, and devote its energy to becoming the denomination I described above, and in so doing build its numbers, strength, and presence in the Christian community.  A too-early head-to-head confrontation with TEO and its money over membership in the Communion could be wasteful and damaging regardless of the eventual outcome.  ACNA can, and perhaps should, build itself to the point where the Anglican Communion feels it necessary to extend an invitation to ACNA, rather than ACNA standing in the cold, hat-in-hand, begging to be let inside.

In my opinion, the shenanigans of the last several years within TEO, CoE, and the Communion as a whole have done grievous damage to the "Anglican" brand name.  In many religious circles, on the outside looking in, "Anglican" and most especially "Episcopalian" are no longer respected, but have become the punch line of too many bad jokes.  Why does ACNA necessarily want to buy into that mess? 

Perhaps the answer to +Williams' "encouragement" should be, "Thanks, Rowan, but no thanks."