Category Archives: Anglican Angst

Patience and Urgency Lambeth Conference 2008

Posted on by
Reply

From Graham Kings at Fulcrum

This was a clear sign, very early on, that not all were likely to agree to the Covenant. Its content would not be just bland – there would be ‘teeth’ – and eventually a ‘two tier’ Communion would be likely to emerge, of those in the centre who will sign, and of those on the edge who will not. The Anglican Communion is involved in ‘intensifying’ its current relationships and those who do not wish to continue on that ‘intensifying’ trajectory may remain where they are – there is no force – while the centre of the Communion moves on. Not exclusion, but intensification and no group can veto this movement forward.

He mentions two categories: those who sign on to the Covenant and will be a full part of the Communion and those who don’t – and won’t. I can’t help thinking that there will be a third category: those who sign, but have no intention of living up to what they just signed.

And what is this obsession with the word ‘trajectory’; it makes it sound as if we are trying to hit the moon with a firework. Oh right, we are. This ‘trajectory’ abomination is scattered abroad by liberals and conservatives with equal abandon: it’s overused, overworked, half dead on its feet and I’m sick of reading it.

‘Intensify’  appears to be the latest euphemism for ‘exclude’. I admit, I can see potential here: orthodox parishes will belong to Intensified Provinces, while liberal parishes will have their Enervated Provinces.

Further down in the complete article, there is mention that  the ‘interventions’ were only ever intended to be temporary (true) and that they will be no longer needed once the Pastoral Forum is in force (highly unlikely to be true).

How can anything useful come of all this waffle?

c/p on Essentials blog

Have you heard the one about the Vicar, the Lapdancer, the Muslim and the Lesbian?

Posted on by
Reply

No? Then the Telegraph will enlighten you. The gullible Rev. Joanna, the vicar in question, is Anglican, naturally.

The vicar starring in a new Channel Four reality show has accused the programme’s makers of deliberately making Christians appear obsessed with sex.
“There was clearly an agenda behind making the programme designed to make Christians look obsessed with people’s sex lives and intent on imposing Christian behaviour on everyone else,” she said. “Christian behaviour is only possible after a spiritual transformation. We were encouraged to take part on the understanding that we were dealing with a group of people who genuinely wanted to embrace Christianity. But that was clearly not the case.”

Making Anglicans appear obsessed with sex is hardly an innovation of Channel 4: the notion was clearly lifted straight from Lambeth.

One has to admit, though that the “intent on imposing Christian behaviour on everyone else” while a startlingly fresh idea, is one entirely foreign to Anglicans, who are even unwilling to impose Christian behaviour on themselves.

Fake Olympics

Posted on by
Reply

We know that the fireworks were faked, the little girl singing actually wasn’t and the ethnic minorities on display weren’t – ethnic minorities, that is. The smiles are fake, the ages of the Chinese athletes are fake, the audience is fake, freedom of reporting is fake and the Internet access is fake.

I am half expecting to wake up to the morning headline that the whole thing was computer generated; no such luck, I fear. Instead, we have given one of the most repressive, societies on earth a means of trumpeting forth its sordid and transparently ridiculous propaganda.

Much of the government hatred is directed against Christians:

China’s human rights record is one of the worst in the world, with a system of “re-education through labour” which detains hundreds of thousands each year in work camps without even a court hearing. There are more Christians in prison in China than any other country in the world. The only legal churches are those strictly controlled by the government of China. Those who do not wish to follow government policies on religious practice and beliefs must meet in homes and risk being labeled as “evil cults.” Such a designation can result in closing down the church, confiscation of property, and charges against the leadership, often resulting in torture, imprisonment and death.

When was the last time you heard one of our illustrious Western Anglican bishops express his concern over this? Do they find it Deeply Troubling™, I wonder? We will probably never know.

Hip-hop style diplomacy

Posted on by
Reply

What I want to know is, how many of the bishop’s wives bonk their beloved over the head with a frying pan on his returning home late after too much partying and too many martinis.

From Here

The career of Bishop Catherine Roskam of the Diocese of New York has been built on her skills as a cross-cultural ambassador for the modern Episcopal Church.

She led the International Concerns Committee of her denomination’s executive council, helped create her diocese’s Global Women’s Fund and has worked as a consultant on issues of cultural sensitivity. In some circles, she is known as the bishop who dared to rap during a “Hip-Hop Mass” a few years ago in the Bronx.

“My sistas and brothas, all my homies and peeps, stay up — keep your head up, holla back and go forth and tell it like it is,” proclaimed the bishop, in her benediction.

“We have 700 men here. Do you think any of them beat their wives? Chances are they do,” argued Roskam, in The Lambeth Witness, a daily newsletter for gay-rights supporters in the 77 million-member Anglican Communion.

“The most devout Christians beat their wives. … Many of our bishops come from places where it is culturally accepted to beat your wife (an excellent illustration from Catherine on how to demonstrate cultural sensitivity). In that regard, it makes conversation quite difficult (I might add that this is the only known example of a bishop – while still living – having difficulty in conducting a conversation).”

Desmond Tutu is confused

Posted on by
Reply

Desmond Tutu weighs in on the Gene Robinson fiasco (be warned, this is a link to a pro-gay site). By saying “I could not stand by while people were being penalised again for something about which they could do nothing – their sexual orientation” he is confusing – using standard Anglican obfuscation – sexual orientation with sexual practice. The fact is, it is not Gene’s sexual orientation that is the problem: the problem is his acting on it by leaving his wife, setting up house with his gay partner and proclaiming to the world that this is not only socially acceptable (which it may be), but fully in line with Christian teaching – which it isn’t.

Also of note is that fact that Obama has met with Gene 3 times already! What more can one ask.

Influential figures within the church, such as Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu, the former Archbishop of Cape Town, strongly support Robinson. Tutu even penned the foreword in Robinson’s book.

“Apartheid, crassly racist, sought to penalise people for something about which they could do nothing,” he wrote. “I could not stand by while people were being penalised again for something about which they could do nothing – their sexual orientation … Gene Robinson is a wonderful person and I am proud to belong to the same church as he.”

Robinson also enjoys powerful support in the wider community. While the Archbishop of Canterbury has only acceded to one meeting with him – and then under such secrecy that he was told the venue at the last possible moment – Robinson has already had three one-on-one meetings with US presidential candidate Barack Obama, the man many believe will be the next President of the United States.

What people like Obama and Tutu realise, says Robinson, is that far from being dependent on texts from thousands of years ago for God’s word, the human relationship with God is a living, breathing, ever-evolving one.

Or, to put that last sentence another way: “since the Bible is really, really old, we might as well ignore it and make this up as we go along.”

The Lambeth Walk

Posted on by
Reply

The song goes like this:

Hello Dalida!
Hello

What are you doing?
I’m dancing
Dancing the fox-trot, the polka?
No, no, i’m dancing the lambeth walk

What?

The lambeth walk!

Which makes a lot more sense than the escapades of a bunch of ponced up in purple, middle-aged, ersatz hippy pseuds.

I would be marginally more convinced of the good intentions of the the illustrious enpurpled participants if, after exerting themselves (well most of them – Ralph Spence had to be carried in a rickshaw) on behalf of the world’s starving, they had not settled down at a marquee at Lambeth Place to gorge themselves on cold lemon and thyme scented breast of chicken with fresh asparagus and porcini mushroom relish, summer bean and coriander, tomato, basil and mozzarella served with hot minted new potatoes. To follow: dark chocolate and raspberry tart with raspberry ripple ice cream, topped off with coffee and white chocolate raspberries. To drink: Pino Grigio or Shiraz, or cranberry and elderflower fruit punch.

It’s hard being a bishop, especially when you are trying to convince the government of a secular society to spend more of their taxpayers’ money on the poor. Burp.