A metaphor for contemporary Anglicanism: a cardboard cathedral

Posted on by
3

From here:

The idea may sound flimsy, particularly given that cathedrals tend to be known for their solid presence: the flying buttresses, the soaring domes, the Gothic grandeur. But in the earthquake-devastated city of Christchurch, Anglican leaders believe it will deliver both a temporary solution and a statement about the city’s recovery.

On Monday, they announced plans to build a 25-meter (82-foot) high cathedral constructed with 104 tubes of cardboard. The structure will be a temporary replacement for the iconic stone Christ Church Cathedral, which was ruined last year in an earthquake that killed 185 people and destroyed much of the downtown.

The Rev. Craig Dixon, a church spokesman, said the temporary cathedral would seat 700 people, cost up to 5 million New Zealand dollars ($4.1 million), and would be used for 10 years while a permanent replacement is designed and built.

This year a cardboard cathedral, next year cardboard cut-out bishops. There is nothing new under the sun.

 

The Diocese of New Westminster doesn’t know what “scorched earth” means

Posted on by
1

At a recent diocesan council, the following comments were made about the three buildings that were awarded to the diocese as part of its legal action against ANiC:

Bishop Michael pointed out that DC has spoken in the past and made decisions about the three parishes that are the subject of this plan; St. Matthew’s, Abbotsford, St. Matthias and St. Luke, Oakridge and St. John’s Shaughnessy, primarily regarding funding.

Bishop Michael reminded DC of Assistant Treasurer Jim Stewart’s words that no diocese has ever planted three churches on “scorched ground”.

What Jim Stewart and Michael Ingham meant was that there are no people in the parishes that reverted to diocesan ownership. That is because the congregations decided that it is better to follow Christ than Ingham and so forfeited their buildings.

Stewart misquoted: he meant “scorched earth”. “Scorched earth” is “a military strategy or operational method which involves destroying anything that might be useful to the enemy while advancing through or withdrawing from an area.” Had the parishes adopted a scorched earth policy, they would have set fire to, or otherwise demolished their buildings before they fell into the hands of the enemy. But they didn’t – they just left.

Even Jesus left with congregations; not that the diocese would miss him. All that remains is – as Stewart himself noted – a mausoleum: death and the stench that accompanies it.

Diocese of New Westminster to spend $4.5 million in an attempt to revitalise seized parishes

Posted on by
2

Having won the court battle for the buildings of St. John’s Shaughnessy, St. Matthias and St. Luke, and St. Matthew’s Abbotsford, the Diocese of New Westminster must decide what to do with them. Since it has no substantial congregations in the buildings, the diocese has concluded that it must “plant three new churches” to “establish Diocese of New Westminster, Anglican Church of Canada worship” in the parishes. The diocese makes no mention of worshipping Jesus.

The money is to come from “the assets of the parishes returned to the diocese by the courts of Canada” along with funding from the diocese.

In any other circumstance the diocese would quietly close non-viable parishes but, in this case, there would be too much loss of face and Bishop Michael Ingham is prepared to spend $4.5 Million to make sure that doesn’t happen. I expect that it will anyway.

The whole document is here.

Note the last sentence: the parishes have a limited time in which to spend $4.5 million to “become vital and sustainable” before they are put on the chopping block.

Rev. George Pitcher likens Anglican Mainstream to racists

Posted on by
7

Rather than address the actual point that Anglican Mainstream is making, Pitcher has chosen to make the grotesquely bigoted assertion that Anglican Mainstream is populated by people who are no better than racists – it must be so because he disagrees with them. This probably explains why he didn’t last long as the Archbishop of Canterbury’s public affairs secretary.

From here:

I do see that the banned ads – ‘Not gay! Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it!’ – could have caused offence. But I tentatively suggest that the offence may have been worth it if Anglican Mainstream were forced to try to justify its ‘reparative therapy’ for homosexuality and, in doing so, were examined for the type of people they are. That worked at the last election with the BNP, which was blown away in the media airspace and is now electorally nowhere to be found.

And I do see that had our racist political parties (you know the ones) clubbed together for a campaign that read ‘Not black! Post-black, ex-black and proud. Get out!’, then it wouldn’t and shouldn’t have seen the light of day.

 

 

Is there a bra under that niqab?

Posted on by
1

From here:

A photo of a Muslim woman wearing full Islamic dress and holding up a bra as she sorts laundry is stirring controversy in Kamloops, B.C., and the Saudi Arabian Embassy is now involved.

The photo, taken by Thompson Rivers University fine arts student Sooraya Graham, features one of Graham’s friends wearing a niqab, a veil covering the face, and an abaya, a full-body cloak.

The picture was a class assignment and was originally displayed with other student photos in mid-March, until some students complained and a staff member tore it down a week later.

[….]

But the Saudi Education Centre in Kamloops, which is funded by the Saudi Arabian government and provides support to Saudi students and their families, is taking issue with the photo.

“The artist didn’t approach the artwork let’s say in a very professional way that can state and can clarify the information and clarify the idea behind the picture,” said centre president Trad Bahabri.

It goes without saying that anything that upsets the Saudi embassy must have something good about it. The photographer wants us to interpret the photograph for ourselves, so here goes: judging by the bemused way the young lady is staring at the bra, it is apparent that she has never seen one before and doesn’t know what to do with it. In the same way a Scotsmen wearing a kilt stares at underpants.

 

Mayor of London censors ex-gay ad

Posted on by
1

From here:

Boris Johnson, the Conservative mayor, has pulled an “offensive” Christian campaign advertising “gay conversion” which was due to appear on London’s buses next week.

Revelations that adverts asserting the power of therapy to change the sexual orientation of gay people were due to be driven around the capital came as Johnson, who is seeking re-election in May, was due to appear at a mayoral hustings organised by the gay campaigning group Stonewall on Saturday.

The mayor immediately put the wheels in motion to halt the campaign after being alerted to the plans by the Guardian, and made clear that such advertising had no place in a tolerant city.

A clearly angered Johnson said: “London is one of the most tolerant cities in the world and intolerant of intolerance. It is clearly offensive to suggest that being gay is an illness that someone recovers from and I am not prepared to have that suggestion driven around London on our buses.”

A few points:

This is censorship of a message that is not illegal, hateful, pornographic or harmful to anyone: it simply goes against the Zeitgeist and that, it seems, is all it takes to justify state censorship.

The fact that there are some people who used to experience same-sex attraction, now don’t and are happy about it, means that the ad is true: it is not false advertising.

There is nothing in the ad that suggests homosexual acts are wrong (I think they are, but the ad doesn’t imply that), merely that it is possible for a homosexual to change his experience of sexual attraction. How is that intolerant?

Why is Boris Johnson’s intolerance of the ad more palatable than the imputed intolerance of the ad itself – especially since the ad is not intolerant and Johnson’s banning of it has been done in the name of tolerance?

When does diversity become uniformity?

Posted on by
Reply

In the case of London Metropolitan University, when Muslims are involved. The university is considering banning alcohol to accommodate the sensitivities of Muslim students – all in the name of “diversity”. Real diversity would allow those who want drink alcohol to do so and those who don’t, not to. What is being considered here is totalitarianism. Before anyone else says it: teetotalitarianism.

A university is considering ending the sale of alcohol on campus due to concerns from Muslim students.

London Metropolitan University could take action because a ‘high percentage’ of its students thought drinking was ‘immoral’, according to its vice chancellor.

Professor Malcolm Gillies raised the prospect of an alcohol-free campus after gauging the changing values from the influx of new students.

He said it would be unwise to ‘cling’ to a ‘nostalgic’ view where the vast majority wanted alcohol to be available and instead take account of diverging views.

He told MailOnline: ‘I was raising the issue of changing values in student populations and the question of how a responsible university responds.

‘London Metropolitan University is a highly diverse university ethnically and in religious terms. ‘

‘Our students come from all over the world and they come with changing balance of values.

 

“Clergy for Choice” pray to support abortion

Posted on by
2

From here:

40 DAYS of PRAYER and CONTEMPLATON

Humboldt County Clergy for Choice invite you to set aside time with your family and community to support women and reproductive justice for 40 days from March 18th through April 27th.

The flyer has a prayer for each day. Here are some of my favourites:

Day 1: Today we pray for women for whom pregnancy is not good news, that they know they have choices. [like killing your unborn baby]

Day 3: Today we pray for our daughters and granddaughters, that they will always know the power of making their own good decisions. [and be grateful that they were not aborted by their parents].

Day 4: Today we give thanks for the doctors who provide quality abortion care, and pray that they may be kept safe. [so they can kill more babies.]

Day 14: Today we pray for Christians everywhere to embrace the loving model of Jesus in the way he refused to shame women. [after all, when he wasn’t busy healing people, Jesus aborted babies as a side-line. I’ve forgotten which Gospel that is in] .

Day 18: Today we pray for all the staff at abortion clinics around the nation. May they be daily confirmed in the sacred care that they offer women. [how to show you care: abort someone – sacredly].

Day 29: Today we pray that all women will know that they are created in the image of God, good and holy, moral and wise. [unlike unborn babies who were not created by God and are a just meaningless clump of cells].

Day 36: Today we pray for the families we’ve chosen. May they know the blessing of choice. [We mustn’t forget that abortion is a blessing]

To whom are these clergy praying? Moloch.

An Easter of contrasts

Posted on by
6

Easter, as a celebration of the resurrection of Jesus– and let’s be clear, I mean the historical fact of his bodily resurrection – brings the hope of life everlasting to all who believe in his atoning sacrifice and rising again.

This year was bitter-sweet: not a sour disagreeable bitterness, but a tinge of sadness that, by being starkly opposed to the trite cheerfulness that so often accompanies the celebration of a holiday, made the hope shine more brightly.

Our first Easter service was at Coronation Park at 6:00 a.m. – a time of day that feels like the middle of the night to me. The exquisite  sunrise made it seem a little less like the middle of the night and brightened the sadness of missing an old dear friend who no longer attends the sunrise service because he forgets to come – he has Alzheimer’s disease.

After the sunrise service and a quick trip home to splash cold water on my face, my wife and I set off to church for an Easter breakfast; we left early because my wife, an accomplished organiser, had to be there first to – organise. After eating too many just-baked croissants, I wandered into the sanctuary to tune my guitar and check the sound levels; as I looked around the familiar sanctuary and inhaled the unique aroma of cedar and carpet mould, I remembered that this would be the last celebration of Easter in our building.  The negotiated settlement with the Diocese of Niagara means we will relinquish the building to them in June. In spite – or perhaps because – of this, the worship during the service was particularly moving.

Once the main Easter service was finished, a few of us drove to a local youth prison for a monthly chapel service: I supply the musical part of the worship. We have been conducting this service for over 20 years and, during that time, have had the pleasure of trying to sing above a row of Satanists chanting curses, ducking to avoid hurled projectiles, studied indifference and the occasional intervening of the piercing light of God’s grace. This time it was in the form of a young man who asked us to pray for him after the service. He was clutching a Bible and told us he was getting out soon and was looking forward to the birth of his new baby. I don’t know how old he was – he looked about 15. While we prayed, I tried not to think “he doesn’t stand a chance” – because, with God’s grace, he does. And the one thing in his favour was that, like the tax collector in Luke 18:9-14, he knew he was a sinner.

It’s always a relief to exit the prison and feel the cool air. It’s too hot in there: I keep thinking that it’s because the flames of hell are licking at the foundations. Arriving home, all I really wanted to do was lie on the bed, but the house was filling up with people for Easter dinner. After a few massive hugs from my grandchildren, I revived somewhat, settled down to eat, drink, be merry and regale my son with all that “has been happening at church”. He was especially interested in this photo.