Truth

C.S. Lewis: The Necessity of Chivalry 

An Episcopal Priest Says. . .

"This is a Gospel issue", with respect to the meme below:

My response, No, that is not a Gospel issue.  It's an old lefty "social Gospel" issue.  Whether or not to build a wall has nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with the real Gospel.  Rome has it wrong.  Again.

ACNA Clergy Losing Their Minds Over Trump's Executive Order

In keeping with his campaign promise, President Donald Trump has signed an executive order that temporarily bans some Muslims entering the country until they can be vetted more thoroughly than they currently are.  The order, according to the New York Times, “suspended entry of all refugees to the United States for 120 days, barred Syrian refugees indefinitely, and blocked entry into the United States for 90 days for citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.”  We will see what the courts do with this, but Trump executive order is being hailed by millions both here in the States and in Europe.

Predictably, Christianity Today, at one time a periodical that was solidly Evangelical and conservative but has followed Neo-Evangelicalism’s drift toward the left, published an article  reporting that certain “Evangelical experts” have condemned the executive order.  To its credit, the author of the article posted comments from Evangelicals who agree with the executive order, such as Franklin Graham, but the thrust of the article was decidedly against Trump’s action. 

The argument of the pro-immigration folks cited in the article was wrong on so many levels that it’s hard to know where to begin:

“'Our concern is that this action really does further traumatize a group of people that have already borne so much tragedy,' said Scott Arbeiter, president of World Relief, one of nine agencies that partner with the federal government to resettle refugees. 'The human toll is really crushing.'”

Yes, well, not on Mr. Arbeiter’s radar screen, apparently, is how the Ummah’s appearance in the West has led to nothing but trauma to Westerners.  Acts of Islamic terror are so numerous now, with no prospect whatsoever that they will let up, that many Westerners are simply inured to it all, thinking that it is simply part of the “new normal.”  Back in 2006 columnist Diana West penned in an article entitled Connecting the Dots on Islam what have become some of the most powerful, succinct and haunting thoughts on the matter: “Whether most Muslims wouldn't hurt a fly is an increasingly irrelevant footnote to the hostile aggression of other Muslims who, in a very short time, have actually transformed civilization as we used to know it.”  She concludes,

If the will to resist allows us to manage the threat of violence, the will to connect the dots would compel us to eliminate it. How? By carefully examining and, I would hope, reconsidering and reversing, through foreign, domestic and immigration initiatives, what should now be seen, gimlet-eyed, as the Islamization of the non-Islamic world. Such an assessment, however, is all too vulnerable to catcall-attacks of "bigotry," even "Nazism" -- a deceptively inverted assault given the doctrinal bigotry and similarities to Nazism historically promulgated by the Islamic creed.

And that, of course, “Nazism” is the tag that the Left hopes to pin on all of us who agree with West.  Her retort, however, does an absolute demolition on that bit of idiocy:  if any religion is Nazi-like, it is the imperialistic and totalitarian religion of the false prophet from Mecca.  Look at its books; look at its history.

Here’s another plank of the pro-immigration argument cited in the CT article:

Tim Breene, CEO of World Relief, acknowledges the security risks, but believes the administration’s action goes overboard.

"We live in a dangerous world and it is right that we take security seriously. The American people are rightly asking for transparency on the measures taken to safeguard our homeland,” Breene said. “However, World Relief does not believe compassion and security have to be mutually exclusive. While it is wise to always work to increase effectiveness, a lengthy and complete ban is not necessary to meet our commitment to security, transparency and compassion."

Which is of course shameless question begging.  It is quite clear that the Western nations accepting Muslim refugees have heretofore not been able to adequately screen terrorists out, not to mention the niggling issue of those who become radicalized after they gain entry to our countries.  Mr. Breene needs a little lesson on the petitio principii fallacy. 

Here’s another gem from the article, this one from National Association of Evangelicals president Leith Anderson:

“Would we be willing to accept giving up a 1 in 3 billion chance of our safety in order to make room for them?” he continued. “Or would we say, ‘I am not willing to give up even the smallest fraction of my safety to welcome people who have been vetted very carefully, who have been proven as a remarkable population of people. Will I not make room for them?’”

Not only does Anderson beg the question regarding the quality of vetting in the same way Tim Breene does, but he cites some questionable statistic put forth by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank which in keeping with its libertarianism supports open borders.  However, let’s assume the statistic is accurate for the sake of argument.  There are two responses as I see it.  The first one is that just because the odds of some terror event is one in three billion, it doesn’t follow that the state has no obligation to be as thorough as it possibly can in screening out potential terrorists.  The chances of dying in an airliner crash is 1 in 11 million.  Nevertheless, the airlines are subjected to strenuous safety regulations to ensure that everything that can be done to guarantee a safe flight will be done.  This is just what the public expects, however irrational it might seem from the perspective of statistics.

My second response, and the weightier one as I see it, is empirically based, to wit, an argument from demographics.  We in the West are now seeing, up close and personal, just what an existential threat the existence of the Ummah in its midst poses to the West.  It is likely that many if not most of the Muslim refugees that have come to the West will not be repatriated.   And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a ticking time bomb, ultimately even more  destructive to Western, Christian civilization than the aggregate of the individual terrorists shooting and blowing up this and that.  Mr. Anderson and his friends are simply not looking at the long-term ramifications of their position.

Lastly, the article quotes Matthew Soerens, World Relief’s church training specialist.

“We have never had an opportunity like we have right now to reach people who are coming to our shores, in many cases from places we have no access to,” said Arbeiter. “The risk that we have right now is that we are closing the doors to the very people that we say we want to share the gospel with.”

I always marvel at the shoddy theology displayed by Evangelicals who think that the success of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is contingent upon our plans and schemes, and not ultimately upon the sovereignty of God.  The Gospel is, in fact, making its way into the Muslim world, oftentimes miraculously.  God is not hampered, ultimately, by the laws of the Dar al Islam, and it is not necessary for the West to allow the Trojan Horse of Islam into its midst in order to evangelize Muslim people.

Anyway, so much for CT’s report about the anxieties of Neo-Evangelicals.  I mentioned Anglicans.

Over at the ACNA’s unofficial discussion page today, a priestess named Heather Jean Bakker Ghormley, who occasionally takes up center-left causes at that page in the attempt to baptize them, posted the Christianity Today article referenced above and commented as follows: "Many wonderful Anglican saints serve the refugees of our world. Please keep them and those they serve in your prayers during this time of hardened hearts."

Well, at least those of us who support Trump’s executive order aren’t Nazis according to Mrs. Ghormley.  We simply have “hardened hearts”, doncha know, which is Christian code for lovelessness, something that ranks way up at the top of the things Christians consider sin.

In response to her post, I provided a link to a blog article entitled "Trouble" that I published last year, which takes to task the Neo-Anglican ministries to immigrants with which Ghormley and others in the ACNA are involved.  I would encourage you all to read that article before reading further in this one.  I also posted a comment to the effect of what I said above about the CT article being riddled with weak arguments.  Both posts were summarily deleted by a moderator, and when I asked publicly why the posts were deleted, I received this private message from Mrs. Ghormley:  “I think one (of the moderators) thought is that you are no longer a member of the ACNA and that your views are attacking our actual ministries and thus causing a hindrance to the Gospel and creating dissension from the outside, but I'm not really sure.”  The moderator who actually deleted my comments has thus far had nothing to say to me, however, publicly or privately.

So, in addition to being “hard hearted”, I am hindering the Gospel.  Strike two.  One more strike and you’re out, headed to hell, Embryo Parson.

Chatter on certain ACNA clergy pages since the executive order was also predictable, as it contained the same question-begging, virtue-signaling, breast-beating sanctimony, effectively consigning those of us who agree with Trump’s executive order to the nethermost regions of lovelessness.  That, and they trotted out those old, carelessly-exegeted texts about the “foreigner” and the words of Our Lord in Matt. 25:35 ff., a text that has **nothing whatsoever to do**, actually, with the issue at hand. 

So here’s my question:  is it too much to ask that our Anglican clergy: 1) know how to exegete Scripture responsibly; 2) know how to avoid common logical fallacies; 3) reckon responsibly with the news stories pouring out of Europe with respect to how well the European elite’s “compassionate” policies are working there; and 4) not be so quick to judge those of us who take a contrary position?  More importantly, are these clergy willing to own their error if it turns out that the policy of allowing the Ummah into the West will eventually plunge it into chaos, civil war, and desolation?  Because I’m telling you now, and you heard it here first, that’s exactly what’s going to happen if we do not adopt, and yesterday, the policy Diana West recommends of “reversing, through foreign, domestic and immigration initiatives, what should now be seen, gimlet-eyed, as the Islamization of the non-Islamic world.”

As one of the best political commentators around puts it, himself a traditional Anglican, "We won't save refugees by destroying our own country."

ACNA's "Dual Integrities" Policy Continues to Roil

The moderator of this unofficial ACNA discussion group has just announced that the topic of women's ordination will no longer be tolerated, to the chagrin of its traditional members and to the glee of members there who are priestesses or who support women's ordination.  On this unofficial ACNA group, it is nearly impossible to get the moderators to accept a post against women's ordination, and when that topic does make its way onto the board, certain moderators try to quash discussion and have even been know to delete the comments of those defending the Catholic view of holy orders.  A few days ago, I wrote here that it seems certain Powers That Be inside ACNA may be responsible for getting one fellow to remove a thread containing over 300 posts from the second discussion group referenced above.  ACNA continues to melt down over this issue, but that is because it sowed the seeds of its own destruction when at its inception it adopted the dual integrities policy.  I've heard through the wire that we may hear something official this summer about the women's ordination issue.  It seems that, for the time being anyway, several interested parties are concerned more about damage control than anything else.  Tsk.

Last month I created this Facebook discussion board mainly for clergy and laity from the Anglican Communion and the Anglican Realignment within it who might be thinking more seriously about realigning with the Anglican Continuum rather than with jurisdictions that allow this uncatholic monstrosity.  It is a closed board for obvious reasons, but feel free to apply for membership and add others you think might be interested.

Five Ways to Live Like a Monk in the World

Here are five tenets of Benedictine monasticism that you can cultivate in your life.

Yea, Verily

Apropos of the Post Immediately Below

I.e, this one:

I mentioned that a long discussion on ACNA's "dual integrities" policy at the "unofficial" ACNA page had been taken down due to what appears to be force being brought to bear upon the original poster.  That this appears to be the case is evident in a follow-up discussion there on why that long discussion vaporized.  Here's the original post from one of that page's moderators, Fr. Ed McNeill:

A little earlier a post with over 300 comments was removed from the group. It was a very good conversation marked by civility and passion. It was well done and everyone who participated on it is to be commended for their behavior.

So who removed it? Well, the only people who can remove a post are the moderators and the person who made the post. It does not appear that a moderator removed it. If I find out otherwise I'll let you all know.

The first comment elicited was from Fr. John Linebarger and was followed by a reply thereto by yours truly, the Embryo Parson:

John M. Linebarger It was removed? Wow ... some people put a lot of thought into their responses. And it was indeed marked by passion yet civility. I'm glad as a ref you just let the players play. It was quite informative.

Christopher Clark Indeed, Fr. Linebarger. I lament the fact that such a substantive and relevant discussion vaporized. If the original poster just willy-nilly took the thread down, that possibly says something about his stability. If on the other hand someone made him take it down, well, that's a more interesting hypothesis.

Later in the discussion, I reiterated the possibility that he was compelled to take it down:

Christopher Clark Maybe someone brought the wrath down on the poster.

Which elicited this response from Cindy Larsen and my reply:

Cindy Larsen Why would you say that, Christopher Clark? The conversation was polite and informative.

Christopher Clark I agree that the conversation was polite and informative, but it was also, arguably, controversial. I'm just speculating that someone might have brought force to bear. I guess we'll never know. ;)

Indeed, as is clearly evident in the discussion, the conversation was "polite and informative", "indeed marked by passion yet civility", and to which several contributors "put a lot of thought into their responses."

So why did it disappear?  Fr. McNeill speculated:

One of our moderators is at the College of Bishops. It is possible that the poster's bishop asked him to take it down, but also unlikely as there was little to be offended by in the post or the discussion.

Prompting my question:

Perhaps you could ask him?

To which no response was made.

Near the end of the discussion, Fr. Linebarger reported in with some information, and the following exchange between him and me ensued:

John M. Linebarger The original post was not removed by a moderator, nor was it removed under any external pressure. I'll just leave it at that. No conspiracy or muzzling at play in any way.

Christopher Clark So someone has told you something that you're not at liberty to share?

John M. Linebarger I am a priest, dontcha know ...;)

Christopher Clark John M. Linebarger A priest in ACNA. Got it.  That's not a slam, BTW. Just saying I hear ya.

Katherine Harris Rick then suggested we ask the original poster.  This is what followed.

Katherine Harris Rick well let's ask him!

Katherine Harris Rick Okay I just messaged him but he doesn't know me from Eve so if anyone knows him, ask him yourselves!

And three days later, she reported in:

Katherine Harris Rick He is not responding.

So, the upshot of it is that the original poster is not saying whether or not he deleted the thread, but Fr. Linebarger reports that "the original post was not removed by a moderator, nor was it removed under any external pressure", but as he is a priest under authority, he can't say any more.

Which I think answers, with a high degree of probability,  the question of why the thread vaporized.

You know, I understand the dilemma that ACNA's Bishops currently find themselves in with respect to the dual integrities policy.  I suspect that right now it's all about damage control: trying to keep the ACNA as intact as it can be kept when the official word comes down on women's ordination.  So, I can understand why pressure was brought to bear on the original poster, if that is what happened (and I believe it is what happened).  However, it was ACNA officialdom's addled policy of dual integrities that has caused all the strife in the first place.  Neither the original poster nor anyone else who desires to publicly air their concerns and theories about what’s going on behind the scenes are culpable, and IF pressure was brought to bear on this poster from somewhere inside ACNA officialdom to delete the discussion , and as I said I believe that this is precisely what happened, well, that's as unconscionable as it is futile  .

Just this blogger's humble opinion.

ACNA: Trouble in Paradise?

UPDATE:  It would appear from certain communications I have received today that this post has caused quite a stir in ACNA and REC circles.  Good.  Soon it will be time for the charismatic/neo-evangelical/egalitarian/"Reformation Christian"/TEC Lite wing of ACNA to go its own way, and for ACNA/REC traditionalists to seek communion with those of us who represent classical, orthodox Anglicanism. Those on the fence need to poop or get off the potty, if you'll excuse the mixing of metaphors.  Let the true Realignment begin.

___________________________________________________

The ACNA College of Bishops meeting was held last week, and word is they received the final results of the ACNA Task Force on Holy Orders,  which is centered on the question of women's ordination.  Chatter on ACNA and ACNA-related Facebook pages reveals a strong sense of despair among conservatives that the ACNA will do nothing, nothing whatsoever, about the practice of women's ordination in certain of its dioceses.  I was able to capture most of one such Facebook discussion before pressure was apparently brought to bear on the original poster from somewhere inside of the the ACNA to delete his original post and hence the ensuing discussion.  Here is the link to what I saved.  Note especially the highlighted comments.  The gist of it is that ACNA's irrational "dual integrities" arrangment, as it was written into the ACNA's Constitution, can only be done away with by a revision to the Constitution, which apparently will be almost impossible to effect.  What this may mean is that the Task Force's study was all smoke and mirrors designed to create the impression that the traditionalists' concerns were being taken seriously.  A task force full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, in other words.

Now, I say "may" mean, because this is all still very hypothetical at this point.  The speculations above and below might turn out to be unwarranted. We obviously won't know what the upshot of it all  is until something official is made public.  When this happens, the question is what the traditional dioceses will do if the dual integrities policy is retained.

I have information from sources inside ACNA who have said that their understooding was that the ACNA would meet, with integrity, to study the issue of WO, and that there was no pre-determined answer, and that those bishops who ordain women have shown bad faith in ordaining women not only when the issue was being determined but also when there was supposed to be a moratorium on new ordinations. If the ACNA decides to keep the dual integrities, these sources opine, it will institutionalize itself as an anti-catholic group and prevent it from ever achieving a true communion, remaining, at best, a loose federation.  Some dioceses like Fort Worth, and other churches, will likely withdraw.  If the ACNA decides to normalize dual integrities, they believe it will make it even more imperative that Fort Worth, the REC, and the Continuum seek and achieve unity, for the good of the Anglican way of being a Christian in North America.  These sentiments are beginning to be aired more publicly now that some believe the fix is in, or perhaps was in from the get-go.

Meanwhile, these bishops in REC and the Anglo-Catholic dioceses of ACNA are seen rubbing shoulders and having long discussions with bishops in the Continuum at FIFNA meetings and elsewhere. So pass the popcorn, ladies and gentlemen.  It's bound to get interesting in the days ahead. 

Is Secession Legal?

Interesting article from The American Conservative on the question.  The question has always been a live one in American politics, and is especially so now that even liberals (e.g., in California) are agitating for secession.  And here is attorney and politicla writer James Ostrowski on the legal arguments for Lincoln's invasion of the Confederacy in 1861, which, like the TAC article linked above, takes up the US Supreme Court decision Texas v. White, in which SCOTUS ruled that no right to secession exists.

Two famous American Anglicans, General Robert E. Lee and General Leonidas Polk (aka "The Fighting Bishop") fought for the cause of secession in Mr. Lincoln's illegal war.  This exchange between Lord Acton and Lee after the war suggests that the cause for traditional English culture was dealt a deadly blow by the Union victory, and events since That War, both here in North America and in England, have only confirmed the fears expressed in the Acton-Lee correspondence.

Two on Manhood

Whatever Happened to Manhood?

Catholic Churches to Men: "You're Not Welcome Here"

7 Ways Contemporary Worship Is Starving the Church

From Ponder Anew.

Patristic Exegesis and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

"Preachers shall behave themselves modestly and soberly in every department of their life. But especially shall they see to it that they teach nothing in the way of a sermon, which they would have religiously held and believed by the people, save what is agreeable to the teaching of the Old or New Testament, AND what the Catholic fathers and ancient bishops have collected from this selfsame doctrine." - Canon 6, Convocation of 1571, Church of England

It seems that this canon prevents using Article VI in such a way as to allow exegesis that is untethered to the previous exegetical work of the Catholic fathers.  In other words, Anglican clergymen are not permitted to be like Presbyterians,  Baptists and free-church Evangelicals, where everyone in effect becomes his own pope. 

An Anglo-Catholic priest shared this canon with a bunch of "Reformation Anglicans" on a Facebook discussion page, when a number of them were arguing against the doctirne of the perpetual virginity of Mary.  You should have heard all the heads exploding, since this was a canon that dated back to the Edwardine and early Elizabethan phases of the English Reformation.  I complemented this by asking the question of which Anglican divines, prior to modern times, ever denied this doctrine.  Both the priest and I were soon disinvited to this particular Facebook page, for this challenge and for pointing out related pathologies of Realignment Anglicanism in general, and in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) in particular.

E.J. Bicknell on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

Here is Bicknell on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It's long, but it's worth the read:

Click to read more ...

Personal News

On Dec. 11, I was incardinated as a deacon into the Orthodox Anglican Church - North America.  I am very happy with my new home and to contribute to the missionary vision of the OAC.  Pictured here with me are Archbishop Thomas E. Gordon, Presiding Bishop of the Orthodox Anglican Church and Metropolitan of the Orthodox Anglican Communion, and Canon Rusty Marts, Archdeacon of the Orthodox Anglican Church.

Dead Anglican Theologians Society

Good source for summaries of Anglican divines.

The Nine Laws of Liturgy, Especially in Advent

Great article by Philip Jenkins.

Protestantism & Anglican Origins

It is, one would think, reasonably clear that the English Reformation was somewhat different in character to those in Europe and Scotland. There was a greater respect for Tradition both in basic doctrinal epistemology and in actual practice. And for those who view Elizabethan Church of England as radically different in character and self-understanding to the later period of the Caroline Divines one must ask: If they were so incompatible and discontinuous, how on earth did the “more Catholic” Caroline Divines come to be? From whence did they arise? They come straight after the Elizabethan period, and some were educated by the Church of England during this time. Does it not it make more sense to posit that there were genuine Catholic qualities and Ecclesial “substance” in the post-1559 Church of England (albeit often seemingly overwhelmed by the heat of early controversy and over-reaction against Rome) just waiting to be developed and made more explicit by the Jacobean and Caroline bishops and theologians?

Are Calvinists Also Among the Gnostics?

"A fair question and one that in recent weeks 'as been much on my mind." - Graham Chapman, Monty Python's Flying Circus, "Flying Sheep" skit

Crusaders v. Philosophes

Yes, that's philosophes.   

       

Supplement to the Lectionary of the 1928 American Book of Common Prayer

For those of you who want to read the entire Bible in the course of a year, St. Matthew's Anglican Church in Newport Beach, CA (ACC) makes this available.