In celebration of Dr. Schori's pleading of a "scheduling conflict" to avoid the reception by the pope of American religious leaders in New York this past April, I bring you:
THE EPISCOPAL ORGANIZATION
-- Office of the Supreme Leader, Fuhrer, and Executive Autocrat
Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Presiding Oddly Mitred Person and Gorilla
Announcement of the Deposition of Pope Benedict XVI
The Title IV Review Committee having certified to me on April 19, 2008 pursuant to Canon IV. 1(1) of the Hermetic-Samaratine Corpus of the Secret Laws of Episcopal church (whose glorious contents are known only to those initiated into the mysteries of the goddess under the aegis of Simon Magus by archierophant Beers) that the Rt. Rev. Joseph Alois Ratzinger, sometimes known as Benedict the XVI, bishop of Rome, has abandoned the communion and teaching of this organization; and the three senior individuals of my personal coffee & martini klatch (the Rt. Rev B. Harris, the Rt. Rev. J. Spong and the Rt. Rev. V. G. Robinson) having consented to this inhibition on that same day, I hereby inhibit the said Bishop Ratzinger and order that from and after April 19, 2005, he cease and desist from exercising the gifts of ordination and ministry; and pursuant to Canon IV.15 of that same Hermetic legal corpus, I pronounce him deposed and order that he cease and desist such acts in any jurisdiction, country, monastery, pub, auditorium, sports arena, or ecclesial location.
I further order and decree that, pursuant to Canon IV.23a and to the Denis Canon, that all monies, properties, parishes, buildings, endowments and any other temporal or secular possessions heretofore belonging either to his see of Rome or to any diocese, religious house or institution which owes affiliation to that see is now forfeit to the Episcopal Organization and I direct that all titles, funds, leases, liens and endowments be transfered forthwith to this office after which transfers, pursuant to section 23b of that same canon, I direct him to cease and desist exercise of all matters temporal as well.
I call upon this former bishop of Rome, now deposed, to apologize to the world for being accused of supporting Nazism, for belittling Islam, for denigrating European secularism, for causing global warming, for eating beef, for rejecting homosexualism and women's ordination, for encouraging prayer, for having nicer vestments than I do, and for upholding Christian teaching.
I hereby direct that notice of this Inhibition and Deposition be expiditiously sent to the college of Roman cardinals, Louis Crew, the New York Times, the Ecumenical Patriarch (you're next, mister!), the Dalai Lama, Barbara Streisand, Muqtada al-Sadr and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may-he-live-forever-and-be-blessed-with-1000-camels.
Signed,
Katharine J. "Kitty Cat" Schori
a.k.a. Donnette Schorlione
Presiding Administrator of the Episcopal Organization
Revered and fully-participating member of the Canturbury Anglican Communion.
First posted on the MCJ blog
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Affirmation vs. Declaration
For those who are interested in how GAFCON's Jerusalem Declaration compares to the Continuing Church's Affirmation of St. Louis, here are some main points:
SIMILARITIES
1. Continuing Anglicanism
Affirmation:
Declaration:
2. Rejection of Apostasy
Affirmation:
Declaration:
3. Lordship of & Salvation through Christ
Affirmation:
Declaration:
4. Authority of Scripture
Affirmation:
Declaration:
5. The Three Creeds
Affirmation:
Declaration:
6. Marriage
Affirmation:
Declaration:
7. Ecumenicism—though Affirmation is clearer in what the essentials are, they both state that ecumenical relations are based on such standards:
Affirmation:
Declaration:
DIFFERENCES
1. Ecumenical Councils—Affirmation accepts all seven; the Declaration only four.
Affirmation:
Declaration:
2. Thirty-nine Articles—for the Affirmation, these are less authoritative than the Creeds, Councils and the patristic consensus; for the Declaration, they come second only to Scripture:
Affirmation:
Declaration:
3. Historic and traditional norms of Scriptural interpretation are “required” by the Affirmation, merely to be “respected” by the Declaration.
Affirmation:
Declaration:
4. Liturgical Norms
Affirmation:
Declaration:
5. Ordination—Affirmation explicitly defines the clergy with apostolic succession and the Eucharist, rejects lay presidency, and requires a male-only clergy; Declaration only speaks of “historic succession” (could mean the same thing of course) and doesn’t forbid W.O. or lay presidency:
Affirmation:
Declaration:
First posted on SFiF before I was banned there for being articulately anglocatholic (like so many other anglocatholic former members).
THOUGHTS
Similarities: the first thing to notice about these similarities, laudable as they are, is that they are very basic. Other than the commitment to the Anglican Communion (point 1), there is nothing here which any minimally Christian organization (Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox) could not agree with. (Much of the Anglican Communion in the first world, of course, therefore will have trouble with those points, but that should come as no surprise by now.)
The similarity of the language desiring to remain in the Anglican Communion (aka the Lambeth Anglican Federation) is noteworthy. Remember, the Continuing Church movement only intended -- for the sake of remaining faithful Christians as well as Anglicans -- to break away from apostate PEcUSA, not from the Anglican Communion as a whole. But the Anglican Communion chose not to disassociate itself from PEcUSA's apostasy but, at least in many places, to follow it. Those who are confident that the same won't happen again should take heed to this history and plan accordingly. Keeping the "GAFCon movement" within the "Anglican Communion" may prove to be more difficult than some think... and some of the "institutionalist" reactions to GAFCon in the days and weeks after that meeting should increase these concerns.
Among the differences between the Affirmation and the Declaration is how the Affirmation is a much more robust and comprehensive statement of basic norms. The Affirmation, for examples, mentions the sanctity of life -- the Declaration, by contrast, takes no position (implicit or explicit) on pressing issues such as abortion. Of course, this merely indicates that the framers of the Affirmation chose to address a slightly larger range of basic concerns than the Declaration; I mention it just to point out a difference between the documents, not as a criticism of the Declaration.
But by far the biggest difference between the two is how firmly the Affirmation remains in the Anglican catholic tradition and how aggressively the Declaration departs (at least implicitly) from it. At every point at which the Declaration had to chose between the catholic and protestant traditions it chose the protestant.
This self-consciously protestant identity is clear in the points of difference mentioned above. The Affirmation affirms the normative interpretive authority of Tradition; the Declaration does not. The Affirmation recognizes all seven Ecumenical Councils; the Declaration does not. The Affirmation acknowledges the primary authority of Scripture and the Tradition of the undivided Church over subsequent formularies; the Declaration, by contrast, elevates the 39 Articles to a confessional status they have never had in any Anglican church (except, at least nominally, in the Church of England) by making them second only to Scripture in binding authority. And while the Affirmation sets forth the balanced 1928 BCP as a liturgical norm, the Declaration reaches back to chose the most protestant option among the BCPs, making the 1662 book its norm. And, of course, while the Affirmation explicitly rules out both women's ordination and lay presidency at communion, the Declaration (whose supporters include those who practice the first and are, at least, open to the possibility of the second) does not.
In short, the Declaration is implicitly setting up norms of an angloprotestant belief which looks to be, at best, only grudgingly tolerant of any sort of "theological anglocatholicism". (By which I mean an anglocatholicism which holds to the traditional norms of Faith and Order outlined in the Affirmation, not the "liturgical anglocatholicism" of mere high-church worship or the "false anglocatholicism" of the so-called 'Affirming Catholics' in England.)
I'm not the only one who immediately noticed this clear protestant bent. From within the ranks of the GAFCon supporters, bishop John Rodgers of the AMiA notes:
And Archbishop Haverland of the ACC has likewise commented:
Obviously, the GAFCon ramifications are not yet over... it remains to be seen what the coming months bring, as well as the promised follow-up meetings. Nevertheless, from what we've seen so far, it should be increasingly clear to those few theological anglocatholics who still remain either in the Lambeth Anglican Federation or in GAFCon circles that the future of a genuine anglocatholicism -- if any -- does not lie in those affiliations, but rather among those Anglicans who maintain the traditional Anglicanism which was affirmed (not created) in the Affirmation of St. Louis.
SIMILARITIES
1. Continuing Anglicanism
Affirmation:
We, being moved by the Holy Spirit to walk only in that way, are determined to continue in the Catholic Faith, Apostolic Order, Orthodox Worship and Evangelical Witness of the traditional Anglican Church, doing all things necessary for the continuance of the same. We are upheld and strengthened in this determination by the knowledge that many provinces and dioceses of the Anglican Communion have continued steadfast in the same Faith, Order, Worship and Witness.... We affirm our continued relations of communion with the See of Canterbury and all faithful parts of the Anglican Communion.
Declaration:
We cherish our Anglican heritage and the Anglican Communion and have no intention of departing from it.
2. Rejection of Apostasy
Affirmation:
We affirm that the ACoC and the PECUSA, by their unlawful attempts to alter Faith, Order and Morality (especially in their General Synod of 1975 and General Convention of 1976), have departed from Christ's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church... We affirm that all former ecclesiastical governments, being fundamentally impaired by the schismatic acts of lawless Councils, are of no effect among us, and that we must now reorder such godly discipline as we strengthen us in the continuation of our common life and witness... We affirm that the claim of any such schismatic person or body to act against any Church member, clerical or lay, for his witness to the whole Faith is with no authority of Christ&'s true Church, and any such inhibition, deposition or discipline is without effect and is absolutely null and void.
Declaration:
We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord.
3. Lordship of & Salvation through Christ
Affirmation:
In the firm conviction that “we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ,” and that “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved,” and acknowledging our duty to proclaim Christ’s saving Truth to all peoples, nations and tongues, we declare our intention to hold fast the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith of God.
Declaration:
We gladly proclaim and submit to the unique and universal Lordship of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, humanity’s only Saviour from sin, judgement and hell, who lived the life we could not live and died the death that we deserve. By his atoning death and glorious resurrection, he secured the redemption of all who come to him in repentance and faith.
4. Authority of Scripture
Affirmation:
We repudiate all deviation of departure from the Faith, in whole or in part, and bear witness to these essential principles of evangelical Truth and apostolic Order: (1) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and the authentic record of God’s revelation of Himself, His saving activity, and moral demands—a revelation valid for all men and all time.
Declaration:
We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God written and to contain all things necessary for salvation.
5. The Three Creeds
Affirmation:
...(2) The Nicene Creed as the authoritative summary of the chief articles of the Christian Faith, together with the “Apostles’ Creed, and that known as the Creed of St. Athanasius to be “thoroughly received and believed” in the sense they have had always in the catholic Church.
Declaration:
We uphold… the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
6. Marriage
Affirmation:
The God-given sacramental bond in marriage between one man and one woman is God’s loving provision for procreation and family life, and sexual activity is to be practiced only within the bonds of Holy Matrimony.
Declaration:
We acknowledge God’s creation of humankind as male and female and the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family.
7. Ecumenicism—though Affirmation is clearer in what the essentials are, they both state that ecumenical relations are based on such standards:
Affirmation:
The continuing Anglicans remain in full communion with the See of Canterbury and with all other faithful parts of the Anglican Communion, and should actively seek similar relations with all other apostolic and catholic Churches, provided that agreement in the essentials of Faith and Order first be reached.(N.B. Once the CoE started ordaining women, it no longer met, from the Continuing perspective, the requirement of agreement on “essentials of Faith and Order”.)
Declaration:
We recognise the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice, and we encourage them to join us in this declaration.
DIFFERENCES
1. Ecumenical Councils—Affirmation accepts all seven; the Declaration only four.
Affirmation:
...(3) The received Tradition of the Church and its teachings as set forth by “the ancient catholic bishops and doctors,” and especially as defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church, to the exclusion of all errors, ancient and modern.
Declaration:
We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils… as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
2. Thirty-nine Articles—for the Affirmation, these are less authoritative than the Creeds, Councils and the patristic consensus; for the Declaration, they come second only to Scripture:
Affirmation:
In affirming these principles [Scripture, Creeds, Councils etc] we recognize that all Anglican statements of faith and liturgical formulae must be interpreted in accordance with them.
Declaration:
We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.
3. Historic and traditional norms of Scriptural interpretation are “required” by the Affirmation, merely to be “respected” by the Declaration.
Affirmation:
We acknowledge that rule of faith laid down by St. Vincent of Lerins: “Let us hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all, for that is truly and properly Catholic.”
Declaration:
The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading.
4. Liturgical Norms
Affirmation:
In the continuing Anglican Church, the Book of Common Prayer is (and remains) one work in two editions: The Canadian Book of 1962 and the American Book of 1928. Each is fully and equally authoritative. No other standard for worship exists.
Declaration:
We rejoice in our Anglican sacramental and liturgical heritage as an expression of the gospel, and we uphold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, to be translated and locally adapted for each culture.
5. Ordination—Affirmation explicitly defines the clergy with apostolic succession and the Eucharist, rejects lay presidency, and requires a male-only clergy; Declaration only speaks of “historic succession” (could mean the same thing of course) and doesn’t forbid W.O. or lay presidency:
Affirmation:
The Holy Orders of bishops, priests and deacons as the perpetuation of Christ’s gift of apostolic ministry to His Church, asserting the necessity of a bishop of apostolic succession (or priest ordained by such) as the celebrant of the Eucharist—these Orders consisting exclusively of men in accordance with Christ’s Will and institution (as evidenced by the Scriptures), and the universal practice of the catholic Church.
Declaration:
We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.
First posted on SFiF before I was banned there for being articulately anglocatholic (like so many other anglocatholic former members).
THOUGHTS
Similarities: the first thing to notice about these similarities, laudable as they are, is that they are very basic. Other than the commitment to the Anglican Communion (point 1), there is nothing here which any minimally Christian organization (Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox) could not agree with. (Much of the Anglican Communion in the first world, of course, therefore will have trouble with those points, but that should come as no surprise by now.)
The similarity of the language desiring to remain in the Anglican Communion (aka the Lambeth Anglican Federation) is noteworthy. Remember, the Continuing Church movement only intended -- for the sake of remaining faithful Christians as well as Anglicans -- to break away from apostate PEcUSA, not from the Anglican Communion as a whole. But the Anglican Communion chose not to disassociate itself from PEcUSA's apostasy but, at least in many places, to follow it. Those who are confident that the same won't happen again should take heed to this history and plan accordingly. Keeping the "GAFCon movement" within the "Anglican Communion" may prove to be more difficult than some think... and some of the "institutionalist" reactions to GAFCon in the days and weeks after that meeting should increase these concerns.
Among the differences between the Affirmation and the Declaration is how the Affirmation is a much more robust and comprehensive statement of basic norms. The Affirmation, for examples, mentions the sanctity of life -- the Declaration, by contrast, takes no position (implicit or explicit) on pressing issues such as abortion. Of course, this merely indicates that the framers of the Affirmation chose to address a slightly larger range of basic concerns than the Declaration; I mention it just to point out a difference between the documents, not as a criticism of the Declaration.
But by far the biggest difference between the two is how firmly the Affirmation remains in the Anglican catholic tradition and how aggressively the Declaration departs (at least implicitly) from it. At every point at which the Declaration had to chose between the catholic and protestant traditions it chose the protestant.
This self-consciously protestant identity is clear in the points of difference mentioned above. The Affirmation affirms the normative interpretive authority of Tradition; the Declaration does not. The Affirmation recognizes all seven Ecumenical Councils; the Declaration does not. The Affirmation acknowledges the primary authority of Scripture and the Tradition of the undivided Church over subsequent formularies; the Declaration, by contrast, elevates the 39 Articles to a confessional status they have never had in any Anglican church (except, at least nominally, in the Church of England) by making them second only to Scripture in binding authority. And while the Affirmation sets forth the balanced 1928 BCP as a liturgical norm, the Declaration reaches back to chose the most protestant option among the BCPs, making the 1662 book its norm. And, of course, while the Affirmation explicitly rules out both women's ordination and lay presidency at communion, the Declaration (whose supporters include those who practice the first and are, at least, open to the possibility of the second) does not.
In short, the Declaration is implicitly setting up norms of an angloprotestant belief which looks to be, at best, only grudgingly tolerant of any sort of "theological anglocatholicism". (By which I mean an anglocatholicism which holds to the traditional norms of Faith and Order outlined in the Affirmation, not the "liturgical anglocatholicism" of mere high-church worship or the "false anglocatholicism" of the so-called 'Affirming Catholics' in England.)
I'm not the only one who immediately noticed this clear protestant bent. From within the ranks of the GAFCon supporters, bishop John Rodgers of the AMiA notes:
any very important matters were not directly addressed at GAFCON, in the Statement or in the Jerusalem Declaration. This by no means relegates matters such as the status of 5th, 6th and 7th Councils, the ordination of women, the form of the Anglican Communion, abortion, the nature of and conflict with militant Islam, our relation to the persecuted Church etc. to secondary issues. There are serious issues and differences among the fellowship of confessing Anglicans that must and will be faced. It will not be easy, nor will solutions be sudden, nor can we be absolutely certain that some will not, in the end, decide they must walk apart.
And Archbishop Haverland of the ACC has likewise commented:
GAFCON produced a now widely published statement which does not address the innovations that led to the formation of our own Continuing Church in 1976-8: namely the ‘ordination of women’, a new and radical Prayer Book, and a pro-abortion policy.Some anglocatholic observers are even more critical.
Obviously, the GAFCon ramifications are not yet over... it remains to be seen what the coming months bring, as well as the promised follow-up meetings. Nevertheless, from what we've seen so far, it should be increasingly clear to those few theological anglocatholics who still remain either in the Lambeth Anglican Federation or in GAFCon circles that the future of a genuine anglocatholicism -- if any -- does not lie in those affiliations, but rather among those Anglicans who maintain the traditional Anglicanism which was affirmed (not created) in the Affirmation of St. Louis.
Vicky Gene Robinson Empathy Center
Chris Johnson on the MCJ brought to my attention PETA's proposed Lobster Empathy Center.
Since leftist Episcopalians can be at least as nutty as leftist PETA members, I suggest they take this idea and run with it, by forming the:
Vicky Gene Robison Empathy Center
The Episcopal Center announced today that, in conjunction with PETA, they will be opening the "Vicky Gene Robinson Empathy Center" this September.
"We really want people to understand the pain and personal ordeals of this simple country bishop from New Hampshire" said Dr. K. J. Schori, leader of the Episcopal organization. "If people could only sympathize with his suffering, the Anglican Communion would just be one big happy family and kick out Bob Duncan."
The Gene Robinson Empathy Center will, designers say, include simulations of book deals, speaking tours, receipt of checks for royalty and appearance fees, sympathetic and fawning journalistic interviews, resort trips to HOB meetings funded by selling off empty parish buildings, tea with the Ian McKellen, three complementary pairs of rainbow colored dress shoes and, in a grand finale, an all-expense paid trip for two to the Gold Coast of Southern France... six days and nights in the honeymoon suite of the luxurious Palais de Lavande overlooking some of the finest nude beaches in Europe; dine in our five star restaurant and spend the night at our casinos and theaters before retiring to take advantage of your suite's triple-sized jacuzzi and complementary minibar.
Bullet-proof jackets are provided to visitors at no extra charge.
Since leftist Episcopalians can be at least as nutty as leftist PETA members, I suggest they take this idea and run with it, by forming the:
Vicky Gene Robison Empathy Center
The Episcopal Center announced today that, in conjunction with PETA, they will be opening the "Vicky Gene Robinson Empathy Center" this September.
"We really want people to understand the pain and personal ordeals of this simple country bishop from New Hampshire" said Dr. K. J. Schori, leader of the Episcopal organization. "If people could only sympathize with his suffering, the Anglican Communion would just be one big happy family and kick out Bob Duncan."
The Gene Robinson Empathy Center will, designers say, include simulations of book deals, speaking tours, receipt of checks for royalty and appearance fees, sympathetic and fawning journalistic interviews, resort trips to HOB meetings funded by selling off empty parish buildings, tea with the Ian McKellen, three complementary pairs of rainbow colored dress shoes and, in a grand finale, an all-expense paid trip for two to the Gold Coast of Southern France... six days and nights in the honeymoon suite of the luxurious Palais de Lavande overlooking some of the finest nude beaches in Europe; dine in our five star restaurant and spend the night at our casinos and theaters before retiring to take advantage of your suite's triple-sized jacuzzi and complementary minibar.
Bullet-proof jackets are provided to visitors at no extra charge.
Star Blech - Episode 11.3
In celebration of the Presiding Individual's response to the recent GAFCon meeting, I bring you the latest installment (the first written, but perhaps not the first chronologically) of....
STAR BLECH
The GAFCon Encounter
CUE "Star Blech" music and opening sequence.
VOICEOVER: "Space. The Final Frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Episcobaal... its five-year missional: To explore strange new doctrines. To seek out new faiths and new ritualizations. To boldly go where no church has gone before." [swell music]
SCROLL TITLE: "Episode 11 - The GAFCON Encounter, part 3"
LT. ANDRUS (looking at screen): "Wait, that's not a moon... that's a space station!"
MR. SPORK (turning in chair): "It is as we feared, captain..."
CPT. SCHORI (loudly): "PRIMATE!"
SPORK: "... um... Primate Schori. They managed to get the GAFCON station off the ground after all."
SCHORI: "How could they? We mined that whole area with Photon Media-pedos to destroy their credibility. You said that would keep them grounded!"
SPORK: "It would have, captain..."
SCHORI: "PRIMATE!"
SPORK: "... but they used the Internet to get past the mines."
SPORK (fists upraised, "Khan"-gesture): "VIRTUE!!!!!"
LT. PRICE (from communications): "Captain?"
SCHORI: "PRIMATE!!!"
PRICE: "I'm getting some strange emissions from the GAFCON station. Er, on the GAFCON station. Um, about GAFCON. I mean..." (wipes brow, starts again) "The GAFCON station is emitting the GAFCON statement on the GAFCON station, ma'am."
SCHORI: "What do they say?"
PRICE: "They've announced they no longer recognize our jurisdiction in this sector of space."
[Loud PPPTHPP noise... Price pulls of headphones in pain.]
PRICE (whitefaced): "And.... they've blown us a raspberry!" (Shocked looks on all bridge crew)
[Beeping noises from Spork's console]
SPORK: "Captain?"
SCHORI (hopping up and down, waving her arms, orangutan-style): "PRIMATE!!!!!!"
SPORK: "Another ship is coming into range. It's the flagship Canterbabble!"
SCHORI (aside to Dr. Beers): "About time too. Do you realize how much money we've sent them?"
PRICE: "The Canterbabble is firing on GAFCON. It's hitting them with a statement of its own!"
SCHORI: "Any effect?"
SPORK: "Too soon to tell, ma'am. It's fired its logic disruptors at them... yes, it's hit them with legalese, pleas for patience, suggestions for another meeting, proposals to form a new committee... YES! It has accused them of not being nice!"
DR. BEERS (to himself): "Wow, the big guns!"
SCHORI: "Lieutenant Chane!"
LT. CHANE (turning): "Yes ca..., um, ma'am?"
SCHORI: "Give me weapons lock. I want to fire on those GAFCON emissions too, before they cause any Global Warming."
CHANE: "Aye aye ma'am. Firing now.... Damn!"
SCHORI: "What's wrong?"
CHANE: "Our statement... we appear to have fired a dud ma'am."
PRICE (listening to headset): "He's right and... yes... I think... yes, they're laughing at us."
SCHORI: "Damn. Well, just don't tell the crew. We'll issue something better in time for their Sunday Bulletins."
PRICE: "Aye aye ma'am".
SCHORI: "Okay, people, looks like we're going to have to take this GAFCON thing seriously after all. Price, call up the damage control parties. Senior officers, meet me in the debriefing room."
ENSIGN ANDERSON (from door to the debriefing room): "Um, ma'am... um... the debriefing room is full. Crewman Louie and Lieutenant Commander Robinson are having a party in there."
SCHORI (exasperated): "Again?! What are they doing this time?"
ANDERSON: "Um... getting de-briefed, ma'am."
SCHORI: "Oh, right... of course. Okay, my Ready Room then. It's time we took this fight to the enemy. We've got to sink them before the Lambeth Rendezvous! Spork, Beers, Sisk... with me." (gets up and strides toward ready room door)
SPORK, BEERS, SISK (getting up and following): "Aye, aye captain."
[Start fading to black]
VOICEOVER (Schori): "PRIMATE!!!!!!!!!"
CUE: theme music
VOICEOVER: "Tune in next week for the exciting continuation of episode 11: The GAFCON Encounter"
First posted on the MCJ blog.
STAR BLECH
The GAFCon Encounter
CUE "Star Blech" music and opening sequence.
VOICEOVER: "Space. The Final Frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Episcobaal... its five-year missional: To explore strange new doctrines. To seek out new faiths and new ritualizations. To boldly go where no church has gone before." [swell music]
SCROLL TITLE: "Episode 11 - The GAFCON Encounter, part 3"
LT. ANDRUS (looking at screen): "Wait, that's not a moon... that's a space station!"
MR. SPORK (turning in chair): "It is as we feared, captain..."
CPT. SCHORI (loudly): "PRIMATE!"
SPORK: "... um... Primate Schori. They managed to get the GAFCON station off the ground after all."
SCHORI: "How could they? We mined that whole area with Photon Media-pedos to destroy their credibility. You said that would keep them grounded!"
SPORK: "It would have, captain..."
SCHORI: "PRIMATE!"
SPORK: "... but they used the Internet to get past the mines."
SPORK (fists upraised, "Khan"-gesture): "VIRTUE!!!!!"
LT. PRICE (from communications): "Captain?"
SCHORI: "PRIMATE!!!"
PRICE: "I'm getting some strange emissions from the GAFCON station. Er, on the GAFCON station. Um, about GAFCON. I mean..." (wipes brow, starts again) "The GAFCON station is emitting the GAFCON statement on the GAFCON station, ma'am."
SCHORI: "What do they say?"
PRICE: "They've announced they no longer recognize our jurisdiction in this sector of space."
[Loud PPPTHPP noise... Price pulls of headphones in pain.]
PRICE (whitefaced): "And.... they've blown us a raspberry!" (Shocked looks on all bridge crew)
[Beeping noises from Spork's console]
SPORK: "Captain?"
SCHORI (hopping up and down, waving her arms, orangutan-style): "PRIMATE!!!!!!"
SPORK: "Another ship is coming into range. It's the flagship Canterbabble!"
SCHORI (aside to Dr. Beers): "About time too. Do you realize how much money we've sent them?"
PRICE: "The Canterbabble is firing on GAFCON. It's hitting them with a statement of its own!"
SCHORI: "Any effect?"
SPORK: "Too soon to tell, ma'am. It's fired its logic disruptors at them... yes, it's hit them with legalese, pleas for patience, suggestions for another meeting, proposals to form a new committee... YES! It has accused them of not being nice!"
DR. BEERS (to himself): "Wow, the big guns!"
SCHORI: "Lieutenant Chane!"
LT. CHANE (turning): "Yes ca..., um, ma'am?"
SCHORI: "Give me weapons lock. I want to fire on those GAFCON emissions too, before they cause any Global Warming."
CHANE: "Aye aye ma'am. Firing now.... Damn!"
SCHORI: "What's wrong?"
CHANE: "Our statement... we appear to have fired a dud ma'am."
PRICE (listening to headset): "He's right and... yes... I think... yes, they're laughing at us."
SCHORI: "Damn. Well, just don't tell the crew. We'll issue something better in time for their Sunday Bulletins."
PRICE: "Aye aye ma'am".
SCHORI: "Okay, people, looks like we're going to have to take this GAFCON thing seriously after all. Price, call up the damage control parties. Senior officers, meet me in the debriefing room."
ENSIGN ANDERSON (from door to the debriefing room): "Um, ma'am... um... the debriefing room is full. Crewman Louie and Lieutenant Commander Robinson are having a party in there."
SCHORI (exasperated): "Again?! What are they doing this time?"
ANDERSON: "Um... getting de-briefed, ma'am."
SCHORI: "Oh, right... of course. Okay, my Ready Room then. It's time we took this fight to the enemy. We've got to sink them before the Lambeth Rendezvous! Spork, Beers, Sisk... with me." (gets up and strides toward ready room door)
SPORK, BEERS, SISK (getting up and following): "Aye, aye captain."
[Start fading to black]
VOICEOVER (Schori): "PRIMATE!!!!!!!!!"
CUE: theme music
VOICEOVER: "Tune in next week for the exciting continuation of episode 11: The GAFCON Encounter"
First posted on the MCJ blog.
News on the eve of Lambeth
Read side-by-side with this, which it follows closely.
Liberals, Apostates, and former Anglicans arrive in London for LAMBETH
Organizers release document inviting participants to ‘conversations’ and some of them to tea with the Queen.
By Dave Matthews, July 15, 2008
-- Dave Matthews is the fictitious editor of the non-existent Unepiscopal Life Online and the Episcopal Death Media correspondent for spoofs on Anglican news reports. Not every quote in this satire is genuine. Only most of them.
First posted on the MCJ blog.
Liberals, Apostates, and former Anglicans arrive in London for LAMBETH
Organizers release document inviting participants to ‘conversations’ and some of them to tea with the Queen.
By Dave Matthews, July 15, 2008
[Unepiscopal News Service] Apostates, heretics, and liberal Anglicans started to arrive in London July 10 in anticipation of the 2008 LAMBETH conference, an innocuous and irrelevant summit regarded by some critics as a pointless and useless gathering in the wake of the clear and forceful GAFCON meeting last month.
The LAMBETH event, set for July 16 - Aug 3, is expected to draw 800+ bishops and thousands of additional participants, including the wives, mistresses, and secret homosexual lovers of many of the clergy; as well as apostates, persecutors of Christians, at least one unbaptized “bishopess”—and several self-proclaimed “traditional” Episcopal bishops who have had to have over 3000 pounds of organic sand shipped in so they have somewhere to stick their mitred heads during much of the conference.
A closed-door, pre-meeting private party in an undisclosed oceanside resort between ++Williams, Dr. Schori, Vickie Gene Robinson and his new bride (or groom. Or whatever) toasting the happy couple concluded last night. In a meaningless gesture to “traditionalists”, bishop Robinson has not been formally invited to the pointless official activities of Lambeth, and so will be meeting with reporters and delegates informally throughout the 2 week conference. Asked how the parishes and business of his home diocese of New Hampshire will be doing during his extended absence, Robinson responded “where?”
LAMBETH has come under fire from more conservative Anglican leaders, including the most Rev. Akinola, primate of Nigeria (the largest jurisdiction in the Anglican world), who expressed his concern that the conference would “be yet one more meeting ignoring the cataclysmic disintegration of the Anglican Communion and attempting to paper-over apostasy and persecution with impotent, politically-correct ‘conversations’ and transparently dishonest reassurances that there is no great crisis.” Akinola previously called on all faithful Anglicans to consider boycotting the conference, since (given the current conflicts), this is neither the time nor the place for a do-nothing mamsy-pamsy limp-wristed tea-sipping heretic-enabling series of pointless dialogues with apostates… but, in many cases, his prophetic call has not been honored.
Akinola has declined an invitation to attend the conference.
Bishop Jack Iker of the Diocese of Fort Worth has traveled to London in order to be a traditionalist Anglican witness to and of the event. His deacon reports that the bishop has packed over two dozen air-sick bags, as well as 3 bottles of single malt scotch, to help him get through the event. “Bishop Iker is usually a genial and sober fellow” said his deacon “yet not even he will be able to stomach the useless and dishonest mush we expect from Lambeth without a few stiff ones. We also have, in case of emergency, a signed prescription for a strong sedative, to help him resist the temptation to fire-hose down many of the participants with holy water. Having shrieking Anglican bishops dissolve on live television into puddles of amorphous sulphurous goo might not be the best witness to a world which has trouble distinguishing the Angloapostates from the genuine Anglican Christians.”
On May 12, Archbishop Williams released a letter which set out to define the novel format and agenda of this decade’s Lambeth conference. The conference will not attempt to pass resolutions or draft objective formulae against which jurisdictions can be measured or to which they can be held accountable, but will be simply a series of indaba groups, which Williams defined as meaning a “purposeful discussion among equals"… though, of course, discussions which will be guided by “careful facilitation”.
His letter refused to speak plainly about the real divisions or issues which have fractured the Anglican Communion over the past decade. Indeed, at a conference in Hereford last month, Williams seemed to deny that there was any significant fracturing at all: he told listeners that there was not any actual rift in the Anglican Communion. This despite Archbishop Akinola’s diagnosis that, after ten years of expensive, futile efforts to heal the rift - efforts ignored and indeed flouted by the American, Canadian, and even English churches—that “there is no longer any hope, therefore, for a unified Communion”.
In his May letter about Lambeth, Williams attempted to frame the disagreements as nothing but mere “cultural differences”. He suggested that the Anglican Communion, as a whole, does not actually recognize what its “true challenges” are (despite statements such as the Windsor Report and several other communiques from the Anglican primates) and that the purpose of Lambeth, therefor, won’t be to address an actual problem—but, instead, simply to discover by cross-cultural focus groups what these actual (and apparently remarkably elusive) disagreements and challenges really are.
Dr. Schori, head of the Episcopal church, has praised this proposed format for the meeting. “I don’t expect legislation at Lambeth. That’s not why we’re going… It’s a global conversation… It’s not going to make a final decision about anything.” As the American and Canadian churches have, in the past, simply ignored Lambeth and other international Anglican resoulutions and statements (even those they have signed), it seems that Lambeth’s designers have decided to cease any resolutions whatsoever, and Schori is said to be pleased that her organization won’t have to take time off from suing traditionalists to explain away her non-compliance with any more such resolutions.
LAMBETH is being held one month after the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), when more than 1000 Anglicans from around the world met in Jerusalem to discuss seriously what is actually going on in the Anglican Communion and discuss what meaningful and substantive steps could still be taken to prevent its all-out slide into a meaningless fraternity tolerant of polysexual Christ-denying hell-bound damnation.
“We really felt it was far past time to take a stand” said one attendee after the conference “since we expect that by next decade’s Lambeth (if there is one), the American church will probably be ordaining transsexual Wiccan goats (divorced from their second multiple-partner herd ‘marriages’)… and Lambeth will still be hosting ‘discussions’ over tea and biscuits to try to discern whether there actually is a ‘rift’ and what the ‘true challenges’ which are ‘straining’ the ‘Communion’ actually are.”
Describing itself as a “the one occasion when all bishops can meet for worship, study and conversation”, the LAMBETH event is exclusive to “Anglicans” recognized and invited by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Thus while it includes bishops who have denied the faith, contemned Scripture, rejected parts or all of the Creeds and Councils, oppressed traditional Anglican belief and practice, flouted fellow primates, ordained and consecrated practicing homosexuals, and possibly even connived at covering up the sexual abuse of children and other parishoners, its invitations do not extend to the missionary bishops sent by faithful Global South jurisdictions (such as Nigeria) into America to succor its persecuted traditionalists, nor does it include some of the world’s staunchest and most theologically orthodox Anglican bishops, those of the “Continuing church” movement.
Professor Ian Douglas, an instructor at the Episcopal Divinity School in Massachusetts who helped design the format for this decade’s Lambeth, said “this is a bold, new, exciting thing that we are walking into together.” GAFCON’s “The Way, the Truth and the Life” paper has also commented on this “new thing” that Lambeth is walking into, describing it as the “road, that of compromising Biblical truth, [which will] lead to distruction and disunity.”
Observers have remarked that, in the hagiographical tradition, “Oh look—this is a bold, new exciting thing” is often how souls describe and justify themselves as they walk through the gates of Hell. And, in fact, rumors from the Other Side report that, inspired by Lambeth, the forces of darkness will soon be adding to its torments by organizing indaba groups for damned souls to discuss topics such as “Do we actually have a spiritual problem here?”; “Circles of Hell: Celebrating our ‘Cultural Differences’”; and “Flame-retardant liturgical garb for summer weather.”
It is understood that not all of the bishops who participated in GAFCON will also be attending the Lambeth Conference. Archbishop Akinola has observed “if even a single province chooses not to attend, the Lambeth Conference effectively ceases to be an Instrument of Unity"… and this despite the fact of the “caring and sharing” Lambeth will be encouraging. Asked about Akinola’s comment, one Episcopal bishop said “this is exactly the sort of unproductive, needlessly divisive comment that flies in the face of what it means to be Anglican. If these GAFCON bishops would just sit down with us, exchange a few stories and have a few drinks, they’d see that there really isn’t that much which separates us and that we can just agree to disagree on minor matters such as sexual morality or the divinity of Christ. There’s nothing wrong with the Anglican Communion that several gin and tonics and a few hugs won’t solve.”
Williams identifies the goal of the LAMBETH conference as “build[ing] a level of trust that will help us break down the walls we have so often built against each other in the Communion” and “strengthening our Communion and equipping all bishops to engage more effectively in mission.” Conservative commentators have observed that the “walls” which divide the Communion are those between Biblical faith and Christ-denying apostasy, and that the “mission” of the Episcopal church is not to bring the saving Word of God to unbelievers, but to promote a radical homosexualist agenda and an anti-Creedal un-Scriptural post-Christian secular philosophy… and, thus, that these walls may be appropriate and that not all “missions” may be laudable.
But perhaps those at LAMBETH will discover that—despite the statements from recent GAFCON meeting—archbishop Williams is correct: that there really is no “rift” in the Anglican Communion after all… and that there is no wall between members that can’t be broken down (or at least overlooked) by a few happy, indaba-group hugs.
The LAMBETH event, set for July 16 - Aug 3, is expected to draw 800+ bishops and thousands of additional participants, including the wives, mistresses, and secret homosexual lovers of many of the clergy; as well as apostates, persecutors of Christians, at least one unbaptized “bishopess”—and several self-proclaimed “traditional” Episcopal bishops who have had to have over 3000 pounds of organic sand shipped in so they have somewhere to stick their mitred heads during much of the conference.
A closed-door, pre-meeting private party in an undisclosed oceanside resort between ++Williams, Dr. Schori, Vickie Gene Robinson and his new bride (or groom. Or whatever) toasting the happy couple concluded last night. In a meaningless gesture to “traditionalists”, bishop Robinson has not been formally invited to the pointless official activities of Lambeth, and so will be meeting with reporters and delegates informally throughout the 2 week conference. Asked how the parishes and business of his home diocese of New Hampshire will be doing during his extended absence, Robinson responded “where?”
LAMBETH has come under fire from more conservative Anglican leaders, including the most Rev. Akinola, primate of Nigeria (the largest jurisdiction in the Anglican world), who expressed his concern that the conference would “be yet one more meeting ignoring the cataclysmic disintegration of the Anglican Communion and attempting to paper-over apostasy and persecution with impotent, politically-correct ‘conversations’ and transparently dishonest reassurances that there is no great crisis.” Akinola previously called on all faithful Anglicans to consider boycotting the conference, since (given the current conflicts), this is neither the time nor the place for a do-nothing mamsy-pamsy limp-wristed tea-sipping heretic-enabling series of pointless dialogues with apostates… but, in many cases, his prophetic call has not been honored.
Akinola has declined an invitation to attend the conference.
Bishop Jack Iker of the Diocese of Fort Worth has traveled to London in order to be a traditionalist Anglican witness to and of the event. His deacon reports that the bishop has packed over two dozen air-sick bags, as well as 3 bottles of single malt scotch, to help him get through the event. “Bishop Iker is usually a genial and sober fellow” said his deacon “yet not even he will be able to stomach the useless and dishonest mush we expect from Lambeth without a few stiff ones. We also have, in case of emergency, a signed prescription for a strong sedative, to help him resist the temptation to fire-hose down many of the participants with holy water. Having shrieking Anglican bishops dissolve on live television into puddles of amorphous sulphurous goo might not be the best witness to a world which has trouble distinguishing the Angloapostates from the genuine Anglican Christians.”
On May 12, Archbishop Williams released a letter which set out to define the novel format and agenda of this decade’s Lambeth conference. The conference will not attempt to pass resolutions or draft objective formulae against which jurisdictions can be measured or to which they can be held accountable, but will be simply a series of indaba groups, which Williams defined as meaning a “purposeful discussion among equals"… though, of course, discussions which will be guided by “careful facilitation”.
His letter refused to speak plainly about the real divisions or issues which have fractured the Anglican Communion over the past decade. Indeed, at a conference in Hereford last month, Williams seemed to deny that there was any significant fracturing at all: he told listeners that there was not any actual rift in the Anglican Communion. This despite Archbishop Akinola’s diagnosis that, after ten years of expensive, futile efforts to heal the rift - efforts ignored and indeed flouted by the American, Canadian, and even English churches—that “there is no longer any hope, therefore, for a unified Communion”.
In his May letter about Lambeth, Williams attempted to frame the disagreements as nothing but mere “cultural differences”. He suggested that the Anglican Communion, as a whole, does not actually recognize what its “true challenges” are (despite statements such as the Windsor Report and several other communiques from the Anglican primates) and that the purpose of Lambeth, therefor, won’t be to address an actual problem—but, instead, simply to discover by cross-cultural focus groups what these actual (and apparently remarkably elusive) disagreements and challenges really are.
Dr. Schori, head of the Episcopal church, has praised this proposed format for the meeting. “I don’t expect legislation at Lambeth. That’s not why we’re going… It’s a global conversation… It’s not going to make a final decision about anything.” As the American and Canadian churches have, in the past, simply ignored Lambeth and other international Anglican resoulutions and statements (even those they have signed), it seems that Lambeth’s designers have decided to cease any resolutions whatsoever, and Schori is said to be pleased that her organization won’t have to take time off from suing traditionalists to explain away her non-compliance with any more such resolutions.
LAMBETH is being held one month after the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), when more than 1000 Anglicans from around the world met in Jerusalem to discuss seriously what is actually going on in the Anglican Communion and discuss what meaningful and substantive steps could still be taken to prevent its all-out slide into a meaningless fraternity tolerant of polysexual Christ-denying hell-bound damnation.
“We really felt it was far past time to take a stand” said one attendee after the conference “since we expect that by next decade’s Lambeth (if there is one), the American church will probably be ordaining transsexual Wiccan goats (divorced from their second multiple-partner herd ‘marriages’)… and Lambeth will still be hosting ‘discussions’ over tea and biscuits to try to discern whether there actually is a ‘rift’ and what the ‘true challenges’ which are ‘straining’ the ‘Communion’ actually are.”
Describing itself as a “the one occasion when all bishops can meet for worship, study and conversation”, the LAMBETH event is exclusive to “Anglicans” recognized and invited by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Thus while it includes bishops who have denied the faith, contemned Scripture, rejected parts or all of the Creeds and Councils, oppressed traditional Anglican belief and practice, flouted fellow primates, ordained and consecrated practicing homosexuals, and possibly even connived at covering up the sexual abuse of children and other parishoners, its invitations do not extend to the missionary bishops sent by faithful Global South jurisdictions (such as Nigeria) into America to succor its persecuted traditionalists, nor does it include some of the world’s staunchest and most theologically orthodox Anglican bishops, those of the “Continuing church” movement.
Professor Ian Douglas, an instructor at the Episcopal Divinity School in Massachusetts who helped design the format for this decade’s Lambeth, said “this is a bold, new, exciting thing that we are walking into together.” GAFCON’s “The Way, the Truth and the Life” paper has also commented on this “new thing” that Lambeth is walking into, describing it as the “road, that of compromising Biblical truth, [which will] lead to distruction and disunity.”
Observers have remarked that, in the hagiographical tradition, “Oh look—this is a bold, new exciting thing” is often how souls describe and justify themselves as they walk through the gates of Hell. And, in fact, rumors from the Other Side report that, inspired by Lambeth, the forces of darkness will soon be adding to its torments by organizing indaba groups for damned souls to discuss topics such as “Do we actually have a spiritual problem here?”; “Circles of Hell: Celebrating our ‘Cultural Differences’”; and “Flame-retardant liturgical garb for summer weather.”
It is understood that not all of the bishops who participated in GAFCON will also be attending the Lambeth Conference. Archbishop Akinola has observed “if even a single province chooses not to attend, the Lambeth Conference effectively ceases to be an Instrument of Unity"… and this despite the fact of the “caring and sharing” Lambeth will be encouraging. Asked about Akinola’s comment, one Episcopal bishop said “this is exactly the sort of unproductive, needlessly divisive comment that flies in the face of what it means to be Anglican. If these GAFCON bishops would just sit down with us, exchange a few stories and have a few drinks, they’d see that there really isn’t that much which separates us and that we can just agree to disagree on minor matters such as sexual morality or the divinity of Christ. There’s nothing wrong with the Anglican Communion that several gin and tonics and a few hugs won’t solve.”
Williams identifies the goal of the LAMBETH conference as “build[ing] a level of trust that will help us break down the walls we have so often built against each other in the Communion” and “strengthening our Communion and equipping all bishops to engage more effectively in mission.” Conservative commentators have observed that the “walls” which divide the Communion are those between Biblical faith and Christ-denying apostasy, and that the “mission” of the Episcopal church is not to bring the saving Word of God to unbelievers, but to promote a radical homosexualist agenda and an anti-Creedal un-Scriptural post-Christian secular philosophy… and, thus, that these walls may be appropriate and that not all “missions” may be laudable.
But perhaps those at LAMBETH will discover that—despite the statements from recent GAFCON meeting—archbishop Williams is correct: that there really is no “rift” in the Anglican Communion after all… and that there is no wall between members that can’t be broken down (or at least overlooked) by a few happy, indaba-group hugs.
-- Dave Matthews is the fictitious editor of the non-existent Unepiscopal Life Online and the Episcopal Death Media correspondent for spoofs on Anglican news reports. Not every quote in this satire is genuine. Only most of them.
First posted on the MCJ blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
