43 thoughts on “New angles on Anglicanism”

      • BTW…
        At this blog, MCJ, people also discuss the Liturgy for Divorce, which blasphemously argues thus:

        “In creation, God made the cycle of life to be birth, life, and death; and God has given us the hope of new life through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, our Savior. The Church recognizes that relationships follow this pattern. While the couple have promised in good faith to love until parted by death, in some marriages the love between a wife and a husband comes to an end sooner. Love dies, and when that happens we recognize that the bonds of marriage, based on love, also may be ended.”

        Love does not die! Love always perseveres; love never fails.

  2. They seem to have taken the page down!
    I got a “sorry this page cannot be found when I clicked on the link. The content was memorialized though, and biblical cross-references added, at Christianity Today. It’s worth a read!

    Rem tene, verba sequentur.

  3. Talk about having to be seen to be believed!
    That article is just incredible. Reading it, you have to pinch yourself to make sure you’re not dreaming. You really have to wonder what kind of epoch we’re living through, when what was once the foremost Mainline Protestant denomination in the U.S. now approves of nonsense like that described. If the Episcopalians don’t watch out they’re going to join the Unitarians in ceasing to be a religion at all. (Maybe they already have…)
    ________________________

    “If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.

      • “African culture”?
        The piece refers the the effort as “establishing a theology that conforms to the continent’s culture, including prevailing beliefs against same-sex unions.” From that it appears that what’s in question is particular local folkways, to which theology is expected to conform. I hope that’s mostly spin provided by the journalist.

        Rem tene, verba sequentur.

        • My sense is: Akinola is pointing to our embrace of homosexualism
          My sense is that in talking about “African culture” he’s talking about homosexuality almost exclusively. He’s saying the West now draws no distinction whatsoever between homosexuality and heterosexuality (we can no longer draw any such distinction because the market forces, bureaucracies, and alienated, detached élites that now rule us with an iron—and I mean iron—fist don’t see a need to recognize any such distinction and therefore will not permit any such recognition), to the point where Western culture has actually changed. (And assuming this is what he’s saying, he’s right, isn’t he? Our culture has now changed.) He’s saying African culture is still such as permits some sort of direct or indirect, explicit or implicit official/public recognition of a distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality rather than forcing any such notion to remain confined strictly to family dinnertime conversation within the four walls of private domiciles, not daring to show its face in the public square in any way, shape, or form on pain of draconian penalties ranging from social marginalization and ostracism (for the offender and, likely, his family and friends), to hard prison time.
          ________________________

          “If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.

  4. The only word for that article is un-fuh-RICKING-buh-LIEV-able!
    The “pentagram in the air”? The “fivefold kiss”? You don’t know whether to burst out laughing or be gravely concerned—scared stiff, even. It’s just—this stuff is just beyond words at this point. This gets into what Mark Richardson often explains about one of the pillars of liberalism being this insistence on defining and creating oneself entirely, rejecting all notions of conforming to any well-defined thing external to one’s own shallow, unbelievably ignorant, self-centered, usually infantile desires, caprices, and weaknesses.

    Incidentally, notice where the article mentions how certain stock phrases which appear in this sort of literature amount to a heads-up that something weird is about to happen: “[P]hrases like ‘a gathering of voices’ and ‘begin a conversation’ are very common in the Episcopal Church, and are usually used when it’s about to do something very unorthodox.” Well, for me there are yet other stock phrases, words, or ways of saying things that usually mean the lesbians (and/or their weak-minded hetero dupes and fellow-travelers) are in control and doing their thing: it’s when they couch things in terms of women to the exclusion of men when there’s no reason to separate the two. If what’s being discussed is women’s underwear or sanitary napkins or something then yes, let them explicitly include only women. But when the discussion is about things that fundamentally concern both sexes equally—and not only that, but which cannot really be discussed without including both sexes—such as love, marriage, and so on—and yet you see these issues being couched in terms of “women writing for women,” “women writing for or supporting one another,” and so on, that’s usually a tip-off that you’re reading a lesbian “women’s-lib” screed of one kind or another. Here’s an example from the linked article:

    “This is a grassroots, organic, interactive process in which we want to help lift up the voices of women who are creating liturgies, rituals, and rites for one another and their communities.”

    ________________________

    “If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.

    • Wiccan witness
      I was a Wiccan for 8 years, until my conversion to the RCC.
      I can attest, from experience, to the Wican nature of the linked liturgy. It is kind of ironic – Wicca, as it is practiced today (we have no clue about any so-called ancient rituals, don’t let anyone convince you otherwise) was invented by a British civil servant named Gerald Gardiner in the 1950s. If you study the rites he created which form the basis for almost all modern Wiccan ceremonies you’ll find they are heavily influenced by High Anglicanism. So they have now come full circle to enter the Anglican church.

  6. her majesty endorse it!
    > Liberal bishop to be next leader of the Church of England.

    Liberal bishop to be next leader of the Church of England
    ——————————————————————————————

    Quote:
    ——————————————————————————————
    Liberal Bishop Chosen As Next Anglican Leader

    By Mike Wendling
    CNS London Bureau Chief
    July 24, 2002

    http://www.CNSNews.com – A liberal Welsh bishop was appointed to be the next leader of the Church of England on Tuesday, a decision that worried evangelical groups but was welcomed by homosexual organizations.

    The Archbishop of Wales, Rowan Williams, will become the church’s next leader and will take up the post of Archbishop of Canterbury when George Carey retires in October.

    Unlike Carey, who is seen as a traditionalist, Williams holds outspoken liberal views on a number of issues, including the ordination of homosexuals and women.

    British Prime Minister Tony Blair chose Williams from a list of two names put forward by Church of England bishops.

    “An enormous trust has been placed in my hands, and I can only approach it with a degree of awe as well as gratitude that I have been thought worthy of it,” Williams told a press conference shortly after the announcement.

    “Archbishop Carey has set a very high standard in his selfless work for unity and understanding,” he said. “I shall have a fine example to follow as I learn how to approach this task.”

    Controversial bishop

    In a recent interview, Williams admitted knowingly ordaining a man who had had a homosexual encounter in the past, but said he was convinced that the man would remain celibate in the future.

    He has been an active campaigner within the church for the ordination of homosexual and woman priests.

    Last month, a group of evangelical Anglican leaders in Britain, the United States and other countries warned against selecting Williams as the next Anglican leader.

    The clergymen wrote in a letter to Blair that his selection would “fly in the face of Holy Scripture” and could lead to a split in the church.

    “Rowan Williams would not have the confidence of the vast majority of Anglicans in the world, who are now in the third world and who, as loyal Anglicans, take the holy scriptures as their supreme authority,” their letter read.

    The London-based Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM), on the other hand, welcomed Williams’ appointment.

    “We are tremendously excited,” said the Rev. Richard Kirker, the LGCM’s general secretary. “We applaud the courage and vision of those who have made this bold and brave decision. Williams’ demonstrable commitment to justice and dignity for all people, including lesbians and gay men, gives us great heart.”

    Kirker called Williams a man of “intellectual rigor.”

    “The new Archbishop’s intellect is outstanding … his gifts as pastor and teacher are universally admired,” Kirker said. “The whole church can be encouraged at the prospect of being led by a man of his stature.”

    Conservative groups were less enthusiastic, and evangelicals planned to meet with the Archbishop at the earliest opportunity to discuss his policies and beliefs.

    “We recognize his good qualities, but leaders of the church need to uphold the Bible,” said The Rev. David Philips, general secretary of The Church Society, an independent evangelical group within the Anglican Church. “We do have some concerns.”

    “On some important issues facing the church, Williams holds views which are unscriptural and divisive,” Phillips said.

    Williams also caused controversy earlier this month when he it was revealed that he will be inducted into a Welsh order of druids next month.

    The dawn ceremony, which has pagan roots, will include prayers to druid deities. Members of the Gorsedd of Bards, a Welsh society of poets, writers and artists, say their organization is a fraternal society rather than a religious cult and includes several religious leaders along with Queen Elizabeth II.

    The explanation didn’t satisfy conservative groups, however.

    “His decision to take part in a pagan druidic festival, with prayers to pagan deities, calls into question his commitment to the exclusive truth of the Christian faith,” Phillips said.

    Williams has also said he would give his blessing to the marriage of Prince Charles and his long-time partner, Camilla Parker Bowles.

    The prince, who divorced Diana, Princess of Wales, would not ordinarily be eligible to remarry within the church. But Williams says new rules governing the remarriage of divorcees would allow Charles to have a church wedding. The prince has refused to comment on whether he intends to marry Parker Bowles.

    Williams, a married father of two, is also a prolific author and poet. In a new book seralized in The Times newspaper, he attacks “corruption and premature sexualization of young children” in consumer society. He singles out Disney Corp., talent shows and computer games for corrupting youth and creating “a marketing culture that so openly feeds and colludes with obsession.”

    Although liberal on homosexual issues, he holds conservative views on abortion and has criticized the British government’s attempts to make the emergency contraceptive or “morning-after” pill more available.

    Williams has also been critical of the war in Afghanistan and has signed a letter warning against U.S. military action in Iraq.

    http://www.crosswalk.com/partner…%2C00.html

    ——————————————————————————————

    dwellerABC
    Returning Friend
    Posts: 28
    (7/29/02 2:55 pm)
    Reply Re: Liberal bishop to be next leader of the Church of Englan
    ——————————————————————————————
    about bloody time too in my opinion. I just hope he doesn’t take a backseat and allow government to put him down at all.

    Oh, he’s got a cool beard too … I did hear that some group or another within the UK were demanding that he shave it off… why I don’t know, but I was definately laughing too hard when I heard that.
    He who forgets is destined to remember.
    (Ament)

    dwellerABC
    City Resident
    Posts: 41
    (8/6/02 10:14 am)
    Reply Re: Liberal bishop to be next leader of the Church of Englan
    ——————————————————————————————
    Quick update for you:

    One small community of devouts has critisised the induction of Bishop Williams on the grounds that he is a pagan. Last year he was given the position of honourary white druid.
    He who forgets is destined to remember.
    (Ament)

    chaelosm voice
    Keeper of the Gate
    Posts: 587
    (8/6/02 10:16 am)
    Reply
    Re: Liberal bishop to be next leader of the Church of Englan
    ——————————————————————————————
    I hadn’t heard that. Thanks for the update.

    -chaelosm voice

    “She called out a warning: don’t ever let life pass you by” – Incubus, Warning

    The City Gate
    life as a butterfly

    chaelosm voice
    Keeper of the Gate
    Posts: 659
    (8/15/02 1:23 am)
    Reply
    not so liberal on homosexual issues after all
    ——————————————————————————————
    I have a news article saved on my computer that I’ll share tomorrow (I’m at the kids’ now), but it seems he’s done an about-face on gay issues and has proclaimed belief in traditional church teachings regarding homosexuality.

    -chaelosm voice

    “She called out a warning: don’t ever let life pass you by” – Incubus, Warning

    The City Gate
    life as a butterfly

    chaelosm voice
    Keeper of the Gate
    Posts: 664
    (8/15/02 11:05 pm)
    Reply
    Re: not so liberal on homosexual issues after all
    ——————————————————————————————
    the article:

    Quote:
    ——————————————————————————————
    Anglican leader backtracks on gay issues

    The new Archbishop of Canterbury has reversed his position on gays and lesbians in the church and cautioned churches about performing gay commitment ceremonies.

    Dr Rowan Williams, a longtime supporter of gays, now says he supports church doctrine which condemns gay relationships and rejects the ordination of gay priests.

    Williams becomes leader of the worldwide Anglican and Episcopal Church this fall.

    In a letter sent to all 38 primates of the Anglican Church, Williams said that the 1998 Lambeth Resolution “declares clearly what is the mind of the overwhelming majority in the Communion and what the Communion will or will not approve or authorize. I accept that any individual diocese or even province that officially overturns this resolution poses a substantial problem for the sacramental unity of the Communion.”

    In June, an Anglican diocese in British Columbia voted to allow its churches to perform commitment ceremonies. Several weeks ago, moves were made in both the Toronto and Ottawa dioceses to also consider allowing priests to perform the ceremonies.

    Dr Williams’ letter is believed to be directly pointed at the Canadian churches.

    In London, the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association accused Williams of a “shocking betrayal” of gay people and of “throwing his hat in with bigots.”

    “This has an impact way beyond the confines of the Church—it is something that affects all gay people, whether they consider themselves Christian or not,” said George Broadhead, secretary of the group.

    “In every case the religious are trying to have themselves exempted from anti-discrimination legislation so that they can continue to discriminate against gay people.”

    story.news.yahoo.com/news…gay_issues

    ——————————————————————————————

    Mrs Chang
    Every You, Every Me
    Posts: 150
    (8/21/02 7:57 am)
    Reply
    Re: not so liberal on homosexual issues after all
    ——————————————————————————————
    Grrr. Most likely, he made liberal claims to get the support of the left-wing church community, and now that he’s in, he’s dropping the fakeness.

    -Ty

    Carve your name into my arm.
    Instead of stressed, I lie here charmed.
    Cuz there’s nothing else to do,
    Every me and every you…
    I serve my head up on a plate.
    It’s only comfort, calling late.
    Cuz there’s nothing else to do,
    Every me and every you.

    • How prophetic Vivianne’s 2002 article has proven to be!
      “Unlike Carey, who is seen as a traditionalist, [Rowan] Williams holds outspoken liberal views on a number of issues, including the ordination of homosexuals and women. British Prime Minister Tony Blair chose Williams from a list of two names put forward by Church of England bishops. […Williams] has been an active campaigner within the church for the ordination of homosexual and woman priests.”

      He’s certainly lived up to his reputation! By the way, I did not know it was the Brit PM who made the final selection of the Archbishop of Canterbury from a list handed him by the bishops. Blair being a Bill Clinton clone, of course he’d choose the most liberal candidate on the list (who I assume was Williams).

      “Last month [this article was written in July, 2002] a group of evangelical Anglican leaders in Britain, the United States and other countries warned against selecting Williams as the next Anglican leader. The clergymen wrote in a letter to Blair that his selection would ‘fly in the face of Holy Scripture’ and could lead to a split in the church. ‘Rowan Williams would not have the confidence of the vast majority of Anglicans in the world, who are now in the third world and who, as loyal Anglicans, take the holy scriptures as their supreme authority,’ their letter read.”

      Look how prophetic the words in that letter have proven to be: Williams’ appointment “could lead to a split in the church”; Williams “would not have the confidence of the vast majority of Anglicans […] who are now in the thirld world […].” The writers of that letter knew exactly what they were talking about! Too bad Blair didn’t have half their sense.
      ____

      Then of course the article contained this wholly unexpected piece of news:

      “The London-based Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM), on the other hand, welcomed Williams’ appointment.”

      Gee, you don’t say! What a surprise! Will wonders never cease! Who’d have guessed?

      ________________________

      “If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.

  7. anglican hero dies
    Aelred Stubbs, Spiritual Mentor and Editor, Dies november 18,2004.
    When nine leaders of the black consciousness movement were put on trial in Pretoria in 1975, many of them far from home, and public interest ebbed during the protracted State case, a tall, spare, even ascetic-looking, white man was a dedicated supporter.

    Day after day, Aelred Stubbs, clad in the black and white robes of a monk of the Anglican religious order, the Community of the Resurrection (CR), kept vigil in the sparsely-occupied public gallery of Court C of Pretoria’s Palace of Justice. It was one of few occasions when Stubbs was seen on a public stage in his role as spiritual mentor and personal friend to many of the leaders of the South African Students Organisation (SASO) and the Black People’s Convention.

    Stubbs was, in the description of Nyameko Barney Pityana, now principal of the University of South Africa, a quiet, unassuming man, and his approach contrasted with the assertive public stands in support of the ANC of his brother monk, Trevor Huddleston. It is a mark of Stubbs’s willingness to work backstage that his death in Mirfield, England – the home of the community – on Sunday October 17 has drawn comparatively little attention.

    At a memorial service in the CR’s old priory church in Rosettenville on November 13, Dr Mongezi Guma, rector of Christ the King Church, Sophiatown, suggested that few people had influenced a generation of leaders as much as Stubbs had without seeking recognition for it.

    Early Years

    Anthony Richard Peter Stubbs was born in the United Kingdom in 1923, and educated at Eton College, at Balliol College, Oxford, and at the College of the Resurrection at Mirfield.

    He was ordained priest in 1954 and professed his first vows as a member of the CR, taking the name Aelred, the same year. He first worked in dioceses in the United Kingdom. In 1960, he was sent to Rosettenville as principal of the College of the Resurrection and St Peter, the seminary in which the CR fathers trained almost all black priests for the northern dioceses of the Anglican Church for most of the 20th century.

    There Stubbs identified Desmond Tutu as potentially the first black principal of the college, and worked diligently to have him sent to King’s College, London, to be prepared for the post.

    Tutu was, Stubbs said in a recent interview, “head and shoulders” above his fellow students. “Lawrence Zulu (later Bishop of Zululand)… was the original thinker [but] didn’t have the incisiveness or ambition. Desmond had an extraordinary power of assimilation… and a real feeling for people and their goodness or otherwise.”

    When the college was forced from Rosettenville by apartheid, Stubbs became an enthusiastic proponent of its relocation to Alice in the Eastern Cape as part of the multi-denominational Federal Theological Seminary. There he and his fellow teachers welcomed, and nurtured debate among not only their own students but others, such as Barney Pityana, facing persecution by authorities at the neighbouring University of Fort Hare.

    In the words of Bishop Malusi Mpumlwana of the Ethiopian Episcopal Church (EEC), another BC activist, “the reflective space that Aelred made possible was very important at that early time of BC.” St Peter’s College “became an oasis of sanity in the middle of a desert of indescribable folly,” said Bishop Siqibo Dwane of the EEC, preaching at Saturday’s memorial service.

    Among those Stubbs met was Steve Biko, the first president of SASO, who visited Alice as he travelled the country building the organisation.

    Stubbs said later that he came to realise that Biko, Pityana and others “had the key to the future in South Africa… [and] that I was almost uniquely privileged in having gained their confidence…” Of Biko, he wrote: “…I remember so well the physical presence of Stephen at that time. Tall, and big in proportion, he brought to any gathering a sense of expectancy, a more than physical vitality and power… But his soul was in his eyes, which were brown liquid and infinitely expressive…” And, “There was a burning inner spirit which filled his limbs, so that he always met you with his own powerful presence.”

    Editing Biko

    In 1972, Stubbs left the college and returned to the CR priory in Rosettenville. As the government tried to crush BC, he began a new ministry which became “my chief service and joy for the next five years”—visiting the banned and the banished. He “went out of his way,” says Pityana, driving around the country to visit people such as Biko, Pityana, Mamphela Ramphele, Malusi Mpumlwana, Thenjiwe Mtintso, and, from a previous generation, Robert Sobukwe.

    In 1977 the apartheid government withdrew the exemption which allowed Stubbs as a British subject to enter South Africa without a visa. He withdrew to a hut on the grounds of a convent in the foothills of the Maluti mountains in Lesotho.

    Three weeks later, the Port Elizabeth security branch killed Biko. Stubbs told Donald Woods of the Daily Dispatch that “I can no longer recognise Vorster and his gang as fit to govern South Africa.” In Father Guma’s telling, Stubbs responded with “James Bond-style manoeuvring” to collect and smuggle into Lesotho as much of Biko’s writing as he could find.

    He went on to edit a widely published edition of Biko’s work under the title, “I Write What I Like.” It has been republished a number of times since, with recent editions including an introduction by Malusi and Thoko Mpumlwana identifying themes still relevant to the remaking of South African society.

    Aelred Stubbs was not blindly supportive of Biko. In 1974, he tackled him over an extra-marital relationship (about which Mamphela Ramphele has subsequently written in her autobiography). Biko responded by emphasising his respect for Stubbs as “a pastor, a ‘missionary’, and elder and my dear priest,” but rebuffed the rebuke.

    Early in his stay in South Africa, Stubbs was not above racial characterisation of behaviour. He once implied to one of Desmond Tutu’s sponsors in London that he should watch the young student’s spending. Handling money badly was, “… as no doubt you know… the besetting fault of Africans,” he said, attempting but failing to soften the comment by adding “and not only Africans!”

    And as an unmarried member of a community largely made up of upper middle class Englishmen, whose basic needs were all provided for, he was sometimes insensitive to the pressures on a married student responsible for the upkeep and education of four children. He was also furious with Tutu for departing from the carefully scripted plan to appoint him principal of St. Peter’s to lecture at the Roma campus of the then University of Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland.

    Yet in years to come he promoted Tutu to Leslie Stradling, bishop of Johannesburg, and seconded a proposal that Tutu be elected to replace Stradling upon his retirement in 1974. The attempt failed but led directly to Tutu’s return to South Africa as dean of Johannesburg a year later.

    It is as editor of Biko’s writings that Aelred Stubbs will best be remembered. In the final months of a long illness, one of those portraits in which Biko’s eyes stand out with startling clarity hung over the foot of Stubbs’s bed. In an interview about Tutu, his mind kept returning to Biko. Gesturing at the portrait, he said: “I always look at Steve when I go to bed.”
    His hero’s widow, Ntsiki Biko, and their son, Nkosinathi, were at Mirfield for his funeral.

  9. No suprise from a church that made Britney Spears a saint!
    I have no respect for the Anglican church, and not just because Im Catholic and the Anglican church was founded by a man who just wanted to divorce his brothers’ widow. The Anglican church has really sunk lower and lower in terms of its theological understanding of things. A perfect example of this sinking was their canonization of Britney Spears as a saint, and no Im not making this up!

    http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_141917.html?menu=

    Church hails virgin Britney a saint

    Britney Spears has been hailed a saint by churchmen – for staying a virgin.

    The Church of England has praised the pop star as a great ambassador for virginity, and has included sexy pictures of her in its latest glossy magazine, according to press reports.

    A spokesman for the church magazine Celebrate said Britney is very sexy but has strong principles and religious views, and the Church wants to show readers that there are famous people who have religious beliefs.

    Some church leaders have previously criticised Britney for preaching virginity but flaunting her sexuality, the Daily Star reports.

    But Britney said: “What’s the big deal? I have really strong morals and just because I look sexy on the cover of Rolling Stone doesn’t mean I’m a naughty girl.”

    She added: “I’m a Christian, I go to church – but mom taught us ‘Don’t be ashamed of your body, it’s a beautiful thing’.”

    Britney said she prays every night, and before she goes on stage. She said: “I find a lot of comfort and strength in knowing I can talk to God and He’s listening. That’s the way we were raised, and my family still goes to church on Sundays.”

    The Celebrate spokesman added: “Britney has been criticised for being a hypocrite and some of our readers will be up in arms that we have featured her.”

    • actually, she wasn’t officially canonized…
      … nevertheless she was highly praised, and like you, I believe, as I believe most Turnabout regulars would, most inappropriately… I read that Ananova piece back when it was published; not long after that, Britney succumbed to temptation with then-boyfriend, N’Sync popstar Justin Timberlake – so she didn’t manage to wait – so much for her considering herself, in her own words, “a good Baptist girl”…

      • Whether she was officially ca
        Whether she was officially canonized or not, any church that praises Britney Spears a role model for young women today is clearly a church that is totally F**ked up to put it nicely!

        And Spears’ influence on young women has not been one of viriginity, but quite the opposite. It’s not uncommon to see pre-teen women dressing up like little hookers, and thats only the tip of the iceberg! Of course it’s not all Spears’ fault, but she clearly is the main symbol for the degraded state of femininity in this day and age.

        • I agree, Perun…
          The C of E leadership is smoking something strong…

          You’d think they’d be able to make the connection between how a young woman dresses, and her character, but they were too impressed by a woman who could look slutty and still loudly proclaim her virginity – evidently making virginity “hip”. Except it didn’t work out that way – she succumbed in spite of her loud public proclamations that she was going to wait.

          I remember, a decade and a half back, when Christian pop singer Amy Grant achieved “crossover” (i.e. mainstream, secular) success with a mostly secular album, “Heart in Motion”, with her hit single “Baby, Baby”… When some evangelical Christians were shocked at her flirting in the video with an actor (she was married, and the male lead in that video wasn’t her husband), and in general, her sexy image, she defended herself by saying, basically, “Hey, Christians can be sexy, too!” A few years later or so, she’d started an affair with country singer Vince Gill, and shortly thereafter left her husband for him…

          And we all know about Madonna – mixing crucifixes with scanty outfits, acting slutty while maintaining she was still a good Catholic, posing nude… And eventually completely breaking with Roman Catholicism for Kabballah… (Though she still likes to attend costume parties, like recently, dressed as a nun…)

          It ought to be clear – “sexy Christian” is an oxymoron; the one is opposed to the other…

          • >The C of E leadership is smo

            >The C of E leadership is smoking something strong…

            Well as Rick James would say, “Cocaine is one hell of a drug.” LOL

            >You’d think they’d be able to make the connection between how a >young woman dresses, and her character, but they were too impressed >by a woman who could look slutty and still loudly proclaim her >virginity – evidently making virginity “hip”.

            Well as Pat Buchanan stated in his Death of the West, the more the churches try to be “relevant” the more they actually become irrelevant. Anglicanism is a clear example of this. I say the Anglicans need to take a lesson from Father Michael Azkoul of the Orthodox Church:


            http://www.stvladimirs.ca/library/what-is-secularism.html

            The Faith we preserve has not developed or changed. The Church has not been seduced by Plato or Aristotle or Freud or Darwin or Marx. She has never found it necessary to follow current trends and fashions to make Her Message appealing. Indeed, She is no beggar of souls. Moreover, She belongs to no century. She is not, therefore, a Twentieth century Church, but the Church in the twentieth century. She exists to change, not to be changed. The Orthodox Church has a Message for the modern world, the same one Christ preached almost two thousand years ago—“Repent! The Kingdom of God is at hand!” Here is the essence of the Gospel, here is the answer to poverty, crime, racism, war, leadership, mores and manners, sex and feminism, egalitarianism, fraternalism and supposed liberty—to all the human problems, national and international. The Church’s answers are sacred not secular, because Her voice is the voice of eternity.

            >It ought to be clear – “sexy Christian” is an oxymoron; the one is >opposed to the other…

            Indeed. Christianity stands up for true sexuality within the context of geniune love and marriage; the other stands up for a completely degraded and void form of love and sexuality.

          • absolutely…
            > Well as Pat Buchanan stated in his Death of the West, the more the churches try to be “relevant” the more they actually become irrelevant. Anglicanism is a clear example of this.

            Absolutely; as was the mainline Protestant denomination I grew up in, the United Church of Canada. They have hemorrhaged members at an astounding rate over the last decade and a half, and continue to fail to appreciate that the more they try to be “inclusive”, ostensibly to draw new people to them, the more they both lose older members, and fail to attract anyone new… It’s actually quite amusing…

            I contend that the same is also true for many ostensibly conservative denominations which try to be too hip, too with-it, too relevant – some of them may attract lots of people, but what is the quality of their theology, their doctrine? Often, they’re http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/May2002/0502Wolf.html a mile wide, but only an inch deep… Serving coffee and bagels / donuts during services (instead of after) and having a rock band and drama team may attract some young people, but it isn’t going to do anything much other than entertain. I used to worship in those churches, and found them so empty… If it weren’t for the genuine community that exists in the “small groups” or “cell groups” that those churches have, I doubt they’d be able to hold on to many of their people for all that long, before they moved onto the Next Big Thing, whatever that may be…

            That Fr. Azkoul speech you quoted is spot on… This evening, I listened to a female liberal journalist on CBC Radio ask a Roman Catholic priest and church historian if he thought the next pope might be a liberal, and whether we might see relaxing of standards as regards divorce, unmarried clergy, and perhaps even female clergy. He set her straight – no way; truth is not something you take a vote on, etc.; much in the same spirit as the Azkoul speech you quoted. The journalist quickly moved on before one could notice her certain disappointment… {Sigh} Liberals just don’t get it, and never will…

          • Well last night on MSNBC ther
            Well last night on MSNBC there was a discussion on Scarborough country with Pat Buchanan vs. some casually dressed nun. And of course they got heated in debates about church doctrine and Buchanan’s thesis was very simple that the church’s doctrine cannot change when they’ve been consistently upheld over the centuries and entered the tradition of the church. Sadly the discussion was being interrupted by commercial breaks so not much was accomplished. But I did notice that the nun was getting a little desperate at times. Her only argument was about segregated seminaries and how those were done away with as proof that church doctrine can change(indeed I love how Liberals use these types of examples to prove their case, which very rarely if ever involve actual doctrine and dogma).

            She pointed out that Jesus sent a woman out to heal a community as proof that women can be priests, Buchanan replied that women can be saints, doctors of the church, mystics, etc. but they can’t be priests. Buchanan wasnt able to mention that the priest is supposed to be a representive of God/Christ who is male. You cant have a female representing God in the mass. But as Buchanan said, women can and have fufilled many roles within the church; so it’s not like women are being neglected by the church as feminists claim.

          • I’ve watched a lot of the cov
            I’ve watched a lot of the coverage of the Pope’s death during the past four days. Within 24 hours of his death, the media had lost interest in the Pope and had taken up “issues,” those issues being those in which liberals had an interest. They dug up a host of disaffected nuns and ex-nuns, liberal theologians, etc., to come on to discuss gay marriage, celibacy, women in the church, and so forth, the anchor feeding the guest soft balls to hit out of the park. Interestingly, they usually avoided abortion like the plague, but they never failed to mention the Pope’s opposition to the death penalty. Michael Novak and Buchanan are the only orthodox Catholics that I’ve seen on screen. Neuhaus lives in New York, and apparently no one has called him to appear. Fox did send Amy Kellogg to Krakow and she did some good background reporting on the Pope’s youth and his early career as a priest and as bishop of Krakow. I’ve heard news readers say repeatedly: “These people disagreed with the Pope on a host of issues, but they admired him as a man, and are now showing their affection and admiration in the hour of his death.” Whaaaaaa. Evidently, people are now compartmentalized, and separated into pieces, and those pieces we don’t like are repressed or ignored, and no connection is made between the goodness of a man and the quality of his beliefs and convictions, as if beliefs and convictions were ephemeral concoctions with no relation to character.

            I apologize, but watching the babble on TV does this to me.

          • yes, this compartmentalization is curious…
            … I guess it’s because no liberal journalist (except Christopher Hitchens) wants to look like they’re against the likes of the late Mother Teresa or the late Pope John Paul II – they know they can’t get away with directly attacking such well-loved individuals (without being dismissed by those they wish to influence), while they want very much to still stand against everything Mother Teresa and the Pope stand for… So, emboldened and aided by the culture’s promotion of the concept of religion as a purely private matter (and only the kind nebulously called “spirituality” do they truly approve of and affirm), they proceed to compartmentalize the man or woman, and separate the parts they like from the parts they don’t, and pretend the two are unrelated…

            This irks me to no end… It’s like the mushy liberal sentimentalists who http://spectator.org/util/print.asp?art_id=5733 claim to love bluegrass or http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/register.cgi/tablet-00954 claim to love all things Celtic (free registration may be required to read the article just linked) – except, of course, the presence of Christianity in such, and its effect on such… They would compartmentalize the music and culture on one side, and the Christian cultures / subcultures which generated it on the other, and ignore the latter, as if they were unconnected…

          • You’ve fleshed it out pretty
            You’ve fleshed it out pretty good. I would like to hear Mr. Kalb’s take on this phenomenon.

            A similar phenomenon was observed during the Reagan funeral week as well.

          • thanks…
            > A similar phenomenon was observed during the Reagan funeral week as well.

            Oh yeah? I hadn’t noticed that happening during the time right after Reagan’s death – probably because I don’t have TV, and so some events I miss altogether – but I was surprised when Canadian neoconservatives held memorial services for him, as if they knew him… I can understand the importance of Reagan to some American conservatives, same as I can understand the importance of the Pope to Roman Catholics, worldwide… I have trouble understanding the significance of Reagan to Canadian conservatives – he wasn’t one of us, and I can’t see any lasting effects of his term that are still with us today, so I can’t understand it… Perhaps I’m just an insensitive clod, too stoic and sober-minded for my own good. 😉 (Actually, I’m more of a cynic than a stoic. 😉 )

            > You’ve fleshed it out pretty good. I would like to hear Mr. Kalb’s take on this phenomenon.

            Thanks! So would I…

          • And the words “Soviet Union” says something to you?
            Soviet funds to terrorist Quebèc Liberation Front,KGB spionage against Windsor family, conditions exemplified by Berlin Wall that forced east european emigration to Canada,etc. everything it is no more,because a man created a hard strategy from facing to socialist serpent,no any coward canuck politician can never creates.

          • Celtic Christianity

            This irks me to no end… It’s like the mushy liberal sentimentalists who claim to love bluegrass or claim to love all things Celtic

            Speaking of Celtic Christianity, Im so tired of it this movement dominanted by the New Age/Neo-Pagan types who basically try to de-emphasize the Christianity of the Irish and protray it as some gloss over their pagan heritage. Ted Olsen does a good job debunking these myths in his Christianity and the Celts. This actually goes back a little to the main issue of this thread.

          • hey Perun,
            ditto! check out the link I provided in my last comment in this thread (http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/register.cgi/tablet-00954 here it is again), to an essay on this very topic, the trendiness of all things “Celtic” amongst neopagan liberals who know nothing about what is truly Celtic…

            and ditto, the liberals who like bluegrass but not the uncomfortable Gospel message in much of it – http://spectator.org/util/print.asp?art_id=5733 see here…

          • Thanks
            that was interesting. I actually like bluegrass, even some bluegrass gospel. But traditional gregorian chants are what needs to be sung during the mass. Outside of the official mass ceremony, Im not against other forms of reverent folk music. Of course I cant stand Christian rock.

          • Traditionalist dissent

            These people disagreed with the Pope on a host of issues, but they admired him as a man, and are now showing their affection and admiration in the hour of his death.” Whaaaaaa. Evidently, people are now compartmentalized, and separated into pieces, and those pieces we don’t like are repressed or ignored, and no connection is made between the goodness of a man and the quality of his beliefs and convictions, as if beliefs and convictions were ephemeral concoctions with no relation to character.

            Well there was much I disagreed with the Pope as well on theological matters. Although my beef was that the Pope wasnt traditionalist enough and reeling in the Liberals with more force. http://www.sspx.co.uk/articles.php?articleid=203 The Society of Pius X gave a good and fair assessment of the man that reflects my own feelings towards him.

            But overall I agree with you. The mourning of the Liberals is basically a huge farce. I heard this morning that Bill Clinton will attend the Pope’s funeral. What a terrible joke!

          • Will, I saw that post also.
            Will, I saw that post also. I also saw some of Amanpour’s coverage on CNN, or at least as much as I could bear (she is generally more than any adult should be asked to bear).

            Liberals are constitutionally incapable of seeing anything outside their bubble. Their senses and their minds are on autopilot; confronted with contrary evidence, they recite by rote their liberal tripe.

            Amanpour was hardly the only media-type who expressed these sentiments; they were ubiquitous. Truly amazing. I’m reminded of Groucho’s question: Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?

          • So is Orthodoxy…
            Please Perun no let`s to be lured by Orthodox propagandists,preying on American’s ignorance,Orthodoy is a mess,reads posts on it here,use search engine. And Platon,Aristotle,Marx are better influences than the people influencing Orthodoxy.

          • exactly, Perun…
            … let’s not feed the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll trolls, shall we? Though I haven’t always avoided doing so, I’m going to try to resist doing so henceforth; I think it’d be good if all of us did…

            I’m putting up a virtual sign here, a plea, to and on behalf of all the regulars who like to engage in polite, productive exchange, healthy debates, and not unnecessary provocations, personal insults, vindictiveness, and/or lack of comprehension of the English language:

            PLEASE DON’T FEED THE TROLLS!

            Thank you.

      • Rightly praised and good “baptist” girl…
        As gays Andrew Sullivan and Dennis Raimondo,free-massons George Beverly Grant and Sir John Anthony MacDonalds,cocaine addict John Taki Teodoracopoulos,Comunists Robert Mugabe-he forbides homosexuality-, and Hugo Chàvez-he forbides abortion-,etc. are praise-worthy when them makes right things,the Holy Bible tell us to give honour to everybody with merits to get it,every good thing is no autonomous -human in origin, it is from God,and because it MUST to be praised. And NOBODY is baptist only because be raised in a Baptist home,you can be a Baptist only exclusively trough a personal experience of Conversion. There are no any so experience registered in Britney’s life,and because it she NEVER has been a Baptist,and last but no least the Pastor from the church where she go every weekend,prays in a daily basis for salvation from her soul,are you making it too?.

        • you’re misunderstanding me, Andre – we actually agree…
          Notice what I said in my original quote: “so much for her considering herself, in her own words, “a good Baptist girl”…” That phrase means, I don’t take seriously her claims to be a Bible-believing, justified, being-sanctified, Baptist… (The phrase “So much for…” is a sarcastic colloquialism we English-speakers employ, to mean that we no longer accept the previous claims that the subject in question made about something they were doing or not doing, due to their now quite visibly not adhering any more to the standard they claimed previously. For example, if an alcoholic said he was quitting drinking, yet we saw him the next night at the bar consuming alcohol, we’d say, “So much for him quitting drinking!”)

          For once we are agreed – my point is exactly that – she doesn’t seem like a practising Baptist; if she were, she wouldn’t act like that… (I’m criticizing HER for not living up to the standards of the tradition she claims to belong to; I’m NOT criticizing the Baptist tradition…)

          • I understand you Will…
            Rest assured,I was understanding your post,I was only clarifying Baptist doctrine. And I understand “So much” phrase too,some days ago I used it in an e-mail to my sister,criticizing zero tolerance policy,but she reacted against it,because she is a teacher and supportive of it!…

    • You are out of date and misinterpretating things…
      When Britney was a virgin,many years ago she was praise-worthy because as an artist it is near impossible to stand decent. She get married! later. And rumors on Justin Timberlake and she was denied by the man himself,but remember it catholic Madonna in 93 made a song “Papa don`t preach” AGAINST abortion and get because it praises from clergymen and prolife groups;although her career has been everytimes very corrupted. Catholic and darling from right-wing in Florida Gloria Estefan made a video with transvestites,but nowithstanding was invited by POPE himself to sing in a mass in Vatican City. In another order of ideas, Sexual sins are soft thing for Anglicans,remember perversed Elizabeth Windsor is her leader;and because clergymen in the article are from England,I imagine they no know everything on Britney’s life;and last but no least there are no saints or canonization in Anglicanism,although some parrish pray letanies to Catholic saints.

Comments are closed.