Wednesday, October 04, 2017

You might be a babykiller if . . .

Back in the 70’s I remember pro-lifers often called pro-abortionists “babykillers.”  Because of fears that was rubbing potential allies the wrong way, that term became more rare in the early 80’s.

But I am less concerned with rubbing people the wrong way and more concerned with reality checks, which brings me to House passage of a bill to virtually outlaw abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

Now, for those who are math or biology impaired, 20 weeks is five months (or just under five 30 day months) and more than halfway through a typical pregnancy.  The child is very well formed by then; you have a very recognizable baby that simply needs to grow a bit before saying, “Hello, world.”

And most of the world’s abortion laws recognize that and outlaw abortions after 20 weeks.  So this is a common sense reform all reasonable people can support….

But then there are Democrats.  Most Senate Democrats are expected to filibuster this bill.  To which I say you might be a babykiller if . . . you oppose efforts to protect unborn children after 20 weeks of gestation.


Really, if Democrats block this bill, the mask is off, is it not?

Thursday, September 28, 2017

Michaelmas Eve

As I’ve mentioned, I need to give studies more priority and this blog less at this time.  But I cannot let this Michaelmas pass without note.  Yes, again my thoughts turn to Oxford and Cambridge as they did last year and years before.


I will say there is a difference from last year.  One of the possibilities I obscurely mentioned has been taken off the backburner.  But more on that in due time.

Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Gavin Ashenden Consecrated as Missionary Bishop to UK

Briefly, I am very pleased to hear this.  I’ve become quite a fan of Rev. Ashenden.  For one thing, he has a remarkable talent for being both soft-spoken and straight-speaking at the same time.  Watch him on Anglican Unscripted or watch his own YouTube videos to get a taste of that.

The Christian Episcopal Church is definitely punching above their weight to bring Ashenden on!


And, in case any wonder, I think working both inside and outside the Church of England is appropriate now.  There is still some excellent ministry going on in the CofE.  But the Philip North affair revealed the Church of England cannot be trusted to provide faithful traditionalist bishops like North and Gavin Ashenden.  And being an orthodox Anglican without those is problematic indeed.

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

Back to Studies

I have been sorely tempted to post on a number of items the past few days.  But I’m in the midst of stepping up my studies in hope of completing a Patristics course by Thanksgiving.  That is a big ask but I’m going to do my best to finish by then anyway.


Therefore I will become even more selective in my blog posting well into November at least.  Some may rejoice in that.  But my apologies to the rest of my forbearing readers.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

A Revealing Statement on the Conclave from Forward in Faith N. A.

Overnight, Forward in Faith North America (FIFNA) released a statement on the ACNA Conclave and its decision on womens’ ordination.  This statement finally answers some questions I and others have raised.  The beginning should not be skimmed past:

Beloved in Christ,
As the Council of Forward in Faith, North America we have discussed with the six FiF NA bishops who have just returned from Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, where they met in Conclave, the implications of the Message from the College of Bishops. They have been very clear that the agreement of the College is that individual statements, and, in particular, attributing to individual bishops, their comments cannot occur. Moreover, any comments that would appear to suggest some form of “victory” would be highly inappropriate. 

Thus the quiet from anti-WO bishops is explained – the College of Bishops agreed that there would not be individual public statements afterward from bishops.  (That begs the question of why at least three bishops from dioceses that recognize the Holy Orders of women have made statements.  But I will just leave that question out there for now.)  But FIFNA has discussed matters with the six FIF bishops, who all oppose womens’ ordination of course.  So Forward in Faith’s statement should give some insight into what happened at Conclave and into the thinking of the six and likeminded bishops.

And these six may think that the result of the Conclave may not be as bad or as final as some think.  First, they are making a point to avoid and to urge others to avoid “any comments that would appear to suggest some form of ‘victory.’”  Second, “the College understands that the January meeting in Melbourne Florida will be the next opportunity for them to meet and prayerfully proceed.”  And later (Emphasis mine.): “This Conclave was designed and reported to be the very first time that serious theological conversation has occurred regarding the nature of Holy Orders as an innovation in the Episcopal Church in 1976.”  So it may not be as over as it seemed at first.

I had suggested that the Conclave was not all that unanimous.  I appear to be correct: “We also acknowledge that the Statement was unanimously endorsed, but that this endorsement does not imply that Traditionalist Bishops have reached any conclusion other than the one that has been articulated for 2000 years.”

FIFNA puts a positive face on the current situation and emphasizes conciliarity but then acknowledges, probably also reflecting the mind of the six FIF bishops:

…we are disappointed. We wonder if this would not have been an excellent opportunity for those Bishops who ordain women to recognize that this action continues to cause division. We wonder if it would not have been possible for those bishops to announce a moratorium on the ordination of women, rather than continuing to contribute to the potential of an Ecumenical crisis. We wonder if those bishops would recognize that female clergy cannot function in most of the Dioceses of the ACNA and in the vast majority of Christian churches throughout the world. In that regard they have intentionally or unintentionally effected a state of impaired Communion, whereby not all Clergy are in Communion with one another. We further recognize that many Forward in Faith Bishops are put in an awkward position regarding their ability to participate in the consecration of Bishops who fully intend to contribute to disunity by virtue of their willingness to ordain women.

It is hard for me to improve on that.  Thus Forward in Faith North America has issued a very helpful statement.  They have provided some clarity on what happened at Conclave and on the mind of traditionalist bishops.  Since the Conclave there has been not a little unhappiness among traditionalists, particularly clergy.  And the quiet from traditionalist bishops certainly taxed the patience of some.  Hopefully this statement and bishop-clergy meetings and communications in the dioceses will calm things down.

However, peace and unity are not one-way streets as the statement itself notes in its irenic way.  Pro-WO bishops and dioceses also need to make a point to calm matters, not inflame them with the usual baggage that so often accompanies WO in the West, such as using the auspices of ACNA to push a so-called “social justice” agenda.  Nor should there be a rush to ordain women as there was immediately after the formation of ACNA.


But I am nonetheless thankful for this statement from Forward in Faith North America.  While not telling everything, it provides some needful clarity and perspective.

Monday, September 18, 2017

Maria - Worst Name for a Hurricane Ever

Come on.  Whose idea was it to name a Hurricane after Mary?  And is the National Hurricane Center so clueless that no one said, “Hey guys, about that “M” name for 2017…”?

Well, I guess when people get visited by Mary lately, she does often seem a bit ticked.  So maybe naming a hurricane after her isn’t that off.


Now that I think about it, the Second Coming won’t be a picnic.  So how about Hurricane Jesus?

Thursday, September 14, 2017

AMEN Drags ACNA Further into Immigration Politics UPDATED

I’ve noted that some in ACNA are dragging us into divisive immigration politics.  The Anglican Multiethnic Network (AMEN) and Caminemos Juntos, self-described as “entities of the Anglican Church in North America dedicated to helping the province better reflect the diversity of North America in our local churches” are among the culprits.  The latest from them explicitly asks for citizenship for “dreamers”:

We therefore ask those entrusted with the role of governing and legislating to provide a comprehensive solution to the wider immigration issue that includes a path to citizenship for those children raised here who only know this place as their home.

Leaving aside the question of whether the federal government should do this (Except for those who serve in the military, I am adamantly opposed to citizenship for illegals.), this is not appropriate for a church organization to do.  If individuals in ACNA want to push for - or against -amnesty on their own time and without ACNA’s name being attached to it, fine.  But AMEN’s act is as inappropriate and divisive as, say, me and the likeminded in ACNA forming the REAL Anglican Massive Edifice Network (REAL AMEN), associating ourselves with ACNA as AMEN and Caminemos Juntos does, and agitating to Build the Wall.

I very much want to “build the wall” and secure our borders.  But I have enough discernment and concern for unity not to push for that under ACNA’s auspices.  I do that on my own time and without attaching ACNA’s name to it.

Should the church ever intervene in politics?  Yes, when there are biblical principles that clearly apply and when there is a church-wide consensus on how to apply them.  Such areas are freedom of religion, abortion, and the persecution of Christians. 


Whether illegals should have a path to citizenship is not such an area.  There is not a consensus in ACNA about that.  Therefore what AMEN and Caminemos Juntos just did puts secular political preferences above the unity of ACNA.  Sadly, this is not the exception but a pattern from some of ACNA’s leadership.


UPDATE: I may have been overly charitable in saying ACNA was dragged into this.  They have posted this statement on the church website itself. (You may have to scroll down.)


MORE: And on ACNA’s twitter feed, too: