Friday, October 28, 2016

Wow! Key moves to change churches ... here and there

We are just about all packed up, at Theology House.

Meantime, the world keeps moving on. Even the church is producing news over the last 24 hours! Does no one consider blogs in far away places trying to have a wee rest?

Wow! A hostile takeover of the Anglican church in Egypt?

Key working group. I thought this was about our PM but no, finally we have an announced ACANZP working group on You Know What. I approve!

Superb, strategic, searching words from the ecclesiastical Go To Guy of our era, Pope Francis. I recommend reading this speech carefully with openness to reconsidering our tendencies to Pelagianism (I am looking at you, church strategists and structural changeists mea culpa) and Gnosticism (I am looking at you, theo-logicians and Here Is My Theology In A Neat Systematic and Watertight Package theologians mea culpa).


Father Ron said...

The Anglican Communion is not immune to hostile takeovers. When chairing the recent G.S./GAFCON meeting in Cairo, Archbishop Mouneer Anis must surely have already become aware of the danger to his own provincial Church's vulnerability from attack by Evangelical Church elements. I see the local Pirates are also intent on a property takeover. Deja vu?

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter; although no Catholic in communion with the Pope would deny the Pontiff's petrine call, some of us see the best change starting in the next conclave. God prosper our sovereign Pope. St Micheal defend us in the day of battle.


Father Ron said...

Pope Francis is living up to his assumed name. He is not averse to reexamination of the attitudes of the Church towards the poor and the outcast. This is the papal influence at its Spirit-led best. The new humanity forged in Christ. Alleluia!

Anonymous said...

"Superb, strategic, searching words from the ecclesiastical Go To Guy of our era, Pope Francis."

Seriously? I read it and all I saw was modern humanism and Leftist liberation theology. For a guy talking about change it sounded like he was stuck in the 1960's.

Meanwhile the RC continues to lose ground in South America to Pentecostalism, which is ironic given this speech. The poor and outcast were not brought back to the RC by liberation theology. They opted for Pentecostalism instead, because it offered and delivered real personal change in their lives and circumstances, instead of liberation theologies Marxist political delusions.

And European churches continue to lose ground to Islam, a process he seems happy to facilitate.

The RC does need change, but it's not the kind of "change" Francis is promoting.

Glen Young said...

One would hope that the "POOR and OUTCASTS" include the American dispossessed, whose cities have been turned into crime ridden slum ghettos by the present administration.Much could have been done to alleviate this misery with the six trillion dollars used by Obama/Clinton to interfere in Egypt,Libya and Syria.This wasteful expenditure, not only brought no good,but has left so much bloodshed and agony in it's wake. Many people in the third world live in "POVERTY" under the DICTATORSHIP of TYRANTS whose narcistic fueled EGOS make them think they are bigger than their Nations.Rhodesia was/is a classic example of where the GARDEN BASKET OF AFRICA has been turned into just a BASKET CASE under it's present Dictator.The do-gooders could not wait to get of Ian Smith and,boy,what magnificent changes accompanied the name change to Zimbabwe.

It is not a re-examination of the Church which will solve the issue;but a new breed of leaders of the Nations;who have read and live Matt 20:26 & 27.
The Catholic Church (Universal) could tell the UN. that there is no place for their One World Government worshiping it's false god. It could speak out against John Podesta's (the chairman of 'Hillary for President' campaign)
pathetic attempt to interfere in the American Catholic Church.The Church could, once again,become Christ's prophetic voice in the market place.

I hope everyone can see the bigger picture !!!!

Glen Young said...

Shawn, you have called it right.He appears to be a self confessed follower of 'liberation theology';which is just another form of 'Orthopraxy'.The Mission of the Church is to proclaim the Glorious Gospel of Christ and Her Ministry is to 'live out' Christ in the life of the Church.
What is the point of feeding the poor every day and not speaking out against the corrupt political systems which are turning middle class people into serfs?????Are you truly 'LIBERATING' them or are you just continuing their daily misery???
I would say that Trump is giving the poor and the outcasts in America more hope than Francis is !!!!

Anonymous said...

Hi Glen.

The reality is that liberation theology never did much to actually help the poor. It was, as all forms of Marxism are, focused primarily on dubious political solutions, which, as we can see from the economic collapse of Venezuela, don't work, and end up harming the poor.

Claiming to have compassion and concern for the poor is easy, but unless solutions that actually work in practice are being promoted, then it's just rhetoric. Marxist based socialism does not work in practice, and all I have heard from Francis is Marxist rhetoric.

I think there are good reasons to be very skeptical about Francis. He is advocating the destruction of national sovereignty, open borders and global UN government. He has shown no concern that I have seen for the victims of Islamic terrorism and rape gangs in Europe or the US, and arrogantly demanded that Europe and the US radically increase Islamic immigration, a position that I believe to be insane at best, evil at worst. He certainly has an agenda, but it's not one Christians should be happy about or siding with.

Jean said...

Interestingly I don't read into the comments of Francis many of the responses made to this post.

To me he was emphasising -

tradition may be comfortable and feel secure but the faith is no substitue for having faith which requires walking with Jesus in unfamiliar territory - a bit like Peter getting out of the boat

Anything can be rationalised and we are fast developing a habbit of rationalising beliefs - love, however comes in the incarnation and true faith is confronted with the flesh and blood reality of living it out one with another

His emphasis on the beatitudes and care for the poor is not surprising given a lot of his life was devoted to such work. He does not specifically mention migrants or asylum seekers (yes, he has offered refuge to a couple of refugees families, so has Justin Welby; he has also spoken previously on the complexity and need for wisdom re immigration policies as has Justin Welby). He does mention the passage, "whatever you did for the least of these you did it for me" - I am guessing anyone whose lense on the world has a scriptural focus could find not fault with this. Or with the emphasis on preaching Christ Crucified and Risen.

It may be he doesn't focus on systemic or political injustice - I don't know. But the criticism againt Pope Francis remind me a little of Mother Teresa being criticised for caring for the poor or dying rather than equiping the less able to help themselves, her response was, God has called me to do this work to care for those (the dying) who cannot help themselves; if you believe it is a good thing to teach the poor skills perhaps you might consider doing this....

Glen Young said...

Hi Shawn,

Is this not a very good reason, why we should build our Temples on the FOUNDATION of the ROCK and not on the SAND.It might sound so antiquated,old fashioned and out of step with the 'modern sophisticated world to utter those terrible words;"I am evangelical,sola Scriptura and accept the Authority of God's Holy Revelation,given through His Only Begotten Son".

After twenty years ministering in the field of psychiatric disorders,I am yet to find a single humanistic theory or practice, that it was not possible to drive a bus through the holes.I left feeling, that the only sane ones were the clients,because at least the accepted that they were insane.

It is rather sad to be surrounded, by so many intellectuals and people with 'positions of distinction' who take themselves so seriously;and actually believe that they have discovered the answer to 'man's dilemma'.

Bishops,Arch-Bishops and Popes come and go but the Word of the Lord endures for ever.

Father Ron said...

Jean. Right on! Your comments about Pope Francis are right on the ball. He shows Faith in Action, rather than tired old platitudes. The Holy Father - true to his assumed name, is dealing with real people rather than Rightist dogmatic ideology. The perfect antidote to Donald El Trump.

Anonymous said...

Hi Jean.

"Interestingly I don't read into the comments of Francis many of the responses made to this post."

I was dealing with him generally, rather than the specific speech.

"He does mention the passage, "whatever you did for the least of these you did it for me" - I am guessing anyone whose lense on the world has a scriptural focus could find not fault with this."

No, but what I am questioning is who he understands the least of these to be, and on what basis. Does it include the wheel chair bound women who was raped by Muslim "refugees"? Given his public statements on the issue of the migrant crisis, I have doubts.

I consider the least of these to include the unborn, yet Francis has said that Christians are overly obsessed with abortion.

So what I am questioning is what lies behind his use of these Biblical terms. To put it another way, is it a Christian based understanding, or a Liberation theology/Cultural Marxist one?

And what does destroying national sovereignty and advocating UN global governance have to do with the Beatitudes and the poor?

I think there are valid and important questions here, and I suspect more than a few Catholics are asking them as well.

Jean said...

Hi Shawn

Ironically in his early years as Jesuit leader Pope Francis was criticised for not endorsing the liberation/marxist leanings of his countrymen in Argentina at the time during which they were ruled by a tyrant.

I do not know too much about him personally so I can only guess at the other queries.. I am guessing his understanding of migrants is born from his parents being working class Italian immigrants in Argentina. And his care for the least having formed at least partially from his childhood friends who were from families who worked with his Dad at the railways - but unlike his family most of them lived in shanty towns.

I don't know how he would see a one world UN system, I am unsure about his views on national sovereignty but don't see any moves as yet for him to dis-establish the Vatican City as a country with its own sovereignty. I have heard during this year of Mercy he has asked priests who have requests from women who have had abortions and repented to be pardoned. His other views on the matter I know not..

P.S .. one thing I do think we all need to be cautious of is to project motives onto others too readily

Anonymous said...

Hi Shawn; Catholic priests need to offer their resignation at 75. Quite why the same rule does not apply to Popes is a mystery.


Anonymous said...

Hi Jean.

We all see issues and people through our particular experiences, lenses and concerns, and sometimes that means over-reacting or misconstruing what a person is actually saying or meaning. We see that here on ADU in the debates all the time. So I may be wrong about Francis. I hope I am. But I remain skeptical, based on what I have heard him say. Time will tell.

Father Ron said...

I am drawn to this statement of Pope Francis, as being most Franciscan:

"As pastors may you not be preachers of complex doctrine, but pronouncers of Christ, dead and resurrected for us," he said. "Aim for the essential, the kerygma."

Francis also spoke about church teaching on the preferential option for the poor -- which holds that Catholics must consider the impact all choices will have on the poorest -- forcefully declaring: "The Lord poured out his blood not for some, not for the few or the many, but for all!"

Anonymous said...

'Mom Whose Son Was Tortured to Death by Illegal Endorses Trump, Says ‘Pope Doesn’t Care About Me’'

"Wilkerson, who described herself as a deeply religious person, defended Trump from the attacks by Pope Francis.

“I don’t think I’ve ever heard the Pope say one thing about our families [families who have lost loved ones at the hands of illegal immigrants]. I’m not sure he understands the loss we have felt. Is he just ignoring that? It rubbed me the wrong way,”"

This is exactly what I'm talking about. His concern for the poor and the victims of injustice seems very selective.

Like the wheel chair bound women raped by Muslims "refugees" whom the Pope insists the West must take, or this Mom who's son was tortured to death by Mexican illegal immigrants, the Pope's concern seems to be based on a Marxist anti-Western ideology rather than Biblical compassion.

Glen Young said...

"Francis also spoke about Church teaching on the preferential option for the
poor which holds that Catholics must consider the impact all choices will have on the poorest." Ron Oct. 31st @ 12:47 PM.

A very commendable sentiment expressed by Francis, but he faces a dreadful dilemma;that being, whether to sell the Vatican City and distribute the money to the poor or use it as free accommodation for the poor. This 'choice' will certainly impact on the poor.

Luke records a certain ruler asking Jesus,saying, "Good Master,what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus Replied,"Thou lackest one thing:sell all that thou hast,and distribute to the poor,and thou shalt have treasure in heaven:and come,follow me." Luke 18:18-30.

Anonymous said...

Peter; if anything I think the Pope cares very deeply about all who suffer. Popes by virtue of the office talk the talk more than they can walk, but a biography I am reading shows that Cardinal Bergoglio walked the walk as well. If anything he wants to be merciful where he thinks it's pastorally (not necessarily doctrinally) appropriate. I'm more a Benedict XVI than Francis Catholic (probably obvious from my other comments), but Francis is not a cultural Marxist. I suppose there is a risk that he could wander astray (in my view) down a CofE type path, but I do think his heart is good.


BrianR said...


I pray that you will all be filled with clean, renewable Sola Energy - Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solo Christo, Sola Scriptura - et Soli Deo Gloria.

(Excuse the pun - ich kann nicht anders, so helfe mir Gott).

Bryden Black said...

Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott - Martin Luther

Anonymous said...

Peter and Jean, you have understood what the pope said.

But we can understand what motivates the suspicious derping* of some others: this pope never endorses the fear of change that some like, and he even occasionally commends the possibility that some organic change could be acceptable. Since reaction without fear is as impossible as progress without hope, such calls to courage and calm undermine the Right even as it does nothing concrete for the Left. Now Stuckists may never forgive what they perceive as desertion-- hence the wailing and gnashing of teeth that we hear from the shadows-- but in Francis we see what we would expect to see in any leader calling his followers toward the centre after a long period of official conservatism.

Bowman Walton

* For a widely-accepted definition of the verb *derp*, see the next comment.

Anonymous said...

Noah Smith explains the verb *to derp*. "There are many people who have very strong priors [ie beliefs held prior to the consideration of evidence] about things. For example, there are people who believe, very strongly, that solar power will never be cost-efficient. If you confront them with evidence of solar's rapid price declines, they will continue to insist that, despite this evidence, solar will simply never be cost-competitive with fossil fuels. That they continue to insist this does not necessarily make them irrational in the Bayesian sense; they simply have very strong priors. Someday they may be convinced - for example, if and when unsubsidized solar power starts being adopted on a mass scale. It'll just take a LOT to convince them.

"But here's the thing: When those people keep broadcasting their priors to the world again and again after every new piece of evidence comes out, it gets very annoying. After every article comes out about a new solar technology breakthrough, or a new cost drop, they'll just repeat 'Solar will never be cost-competitive.' That is unhelpful and uninformative, since they're just restating their priors over and over. Thus, it is annoying. Guys, we know what you think already."

And, if evidence never influences your opinions anyway, then we have no reason to pay attention to them. They are simply declarations that you are stuck in a ditch somewhere and cannot be pulled out. We can like you as a person, and feel sorry for you as a thinker; we cannot respect your views.

Bowman Walton

Anonymous said...

Brian, Bryden, and Ron-- Yes, a Merry Reformation Day to all! Were it not for Luther and his movement, dull preaching would be far more common. Worse, we might have been persuaded by some polemicists of other persuasions that one has to choose between the Sola Sisters and catholic worship.

Bowman Walton

Anonymous said...

For those more excited about another observance today--

Postscript: I apologise to close readers here for the errrrors of spelling and syntax that I have made both just above and on other visits to the blessed isles. Orthography is next to orthodoxy, and syntax separates man from the beasts, but then here up yonder it has been a heterodox and rather beastly year. Busy with that, I am too often clicking PUBLISH YOUR COMMENT in haste. Mea culpa.

Bowman Walton

Anonymous said...


A person can get stuck anywhere, including in the "center".

Derping can apply to those whose repetition of priors begins with their subjective view of where and what the "center" is, which looks suspiciously to me like a moveable feast.

In defense of myself, derping is a form of trolling, and trolling was not what I was doing. I was asking questions and raising concerns.

Anonymous said...

Personally I find the use of the term derping here very offensive. It dismisses the concerns of others with an accusation, and without in any way addressing those concerns with evidence or argument. Not at all helpful in encouraging civil debate.

Glen Young said...

Hi Bowman,

Have missed your penchant for 'casting your pearls of wisdom at the feet of derpers';but you were probably busy in Cockaigne, studying +Fairweather Vane's "The Fine Art of Mugwumping".It must be truly exhilarating living in a 'MYTHICAL Land' but there is a reality, way out there beyond Cockaigne,and that reality is turning rather nasty.I guess that the 'dergers' are trying to point ones attention back to what a guy named John, who lived on an island called Patmos had to say about these events.

May I also point to you Bowman,that there are two types of prior,one based on what God has revealed and the other on man's perceptions of the world and himself.It would seem that you find us Sola Scriptura reiterating that the Church,has moved away from proclaiming the Scriptures, both as Priests and Prophets,annoying;I for one will no longer annoy you.

Anonymous said...

How does a person define where the extremes are, and what the center is? Because these terms are inherently subjective. They cannot be established in any objective way.

The answer is that they start with priors, or a-priory foundations. ALL of us start with these priors and ALL of us have strong priors that we hold as true. These priors are what a person uses to determine what is extreme and what is centrist. Evidence that contradicts the claim of being centrist is then ignored or explained away. Centrist then does not describe an actual, objective position, on an actual, objective spectrum. It does not even describe an subjective position on a subjective spectrum.

When centrist is used to claim an actual position in a debate, it is in reality a veil hiding that persons actual prior foundations.

Bryden Black said...

I too instinctively like the idea of a “centre/center”, Bowman; and appreciate what’s more it necessarily has a fuzzy circumference. What however gives some cause for concern, one which I have found to be helpful in practice, and so it’s not merely a theoretical feeling, is the matter of becoming/being “luke-warm”. This has added weight when we begin to appreciate that the entire spectrum of Left-Right has about it a distinctly Christian (cultural) origin - though thereafter to be sure, other elements historically have driven the respective agendas of either ‘wing’. We are a long way down-stream in this 21st C, though at times some (many?) Western Christians find this hard to evaluate/discern, so embroiled are they (we?).

All in all therefore, perhaps sitting in this ‘centre’ is becoming a place we no may longer afford. BUT this is by no means a licence for Christians to go flaying around in what’s left of either ‘wing’. So; where to and how to from here then ...?!

Jean said...

Nice to hear from you again Bowman....

Hi Shawn

I do not think one would find public comment from the Pope on every act of violence in the world, albeit committed by a migrant or a citizen of a country. However, below is an excerpt re the Pope's comments after the Paris bombings, indicating, as Nick raises, he appears to care for all who suffer. I personally believe it (as in violence committed) is very well summed up in the article Bryden provided in the previous post. Evil is part of the human condition and no particular race, family, nationality is excluded. As the article so cleverly weaves the phrase "my people" encapsulating both the juxtaposition of the judgement and love of God for His people using the cross as the centrepoint. As to 'our people' are both victims and perpetrators. In the book "Tortured for Christ", Wurmbrand captures through his own life the amazing power and costly love of Jesus, and the victorious but intense suffering which can transform evil with good. I marvel at his witness to such and sincerely doubt my own ability to do the same.

"ROME Pope Francis on Sunday again strongly condemned the recent horrific terrorist attacks in Paris, saying he wanted to express closeness to the families of the victims and calling any religious justification for such attacks "blasphemy."
"I wish to express my pain for the terrorist attacks that on late Friday evening stained France with blood, causing numerous victims," said the pontiff, speaking slowly at the end of his weekly Angelus address in St. Peter's Square.

"To the president of the French Republic and to all its citizens, I extend an expression of my fraternal condolences," said the pope. "I am close in particular to the families of all those that have lost their lives, and the wounded."

"Such barbarity leaves us bewildered and makes us ask ourselves how the heart of man can think of and realize such horrible events, that have shocked not only France but the whole world," said Francis.

"In front of these acts, you cannot not condemn the unspeakable affront to the dignity of the human person," he said. "I want to reaffirm with vigor that the way of violence and hate does not resolve the problems of humanity and that to use the name of God to justify this way is blasphemy!"

Anonymous said...

Actually, I don't think conservatives derp anymore than progs; it's just not clear where Francis sits on some issues.


BrianR said...

Bowman: "Were it not for Luther and his movement, dull preaching would be far more common."

Oh, I dunno. Savanarola could preach up a storm (or a bonfire), and Dominic Guzman (of the Order of Preachers) would know what - or who - to put on it. (Coincidentally on this All Saints' Day I'm teaching about Mary Tudor who knew a thing or two about Spanish enthusiasm - "Gracias, mama" - and what to do with an errant Archbishop of Canterbury.)

"Worse, we might have been persuaded by some polemicists of other persuasions that one has to choose between the Sola Sisters and catholic worship."

That's the beauty of Cranmer: the doctrine of justification by grace alone though faith alone in Christ as testified by Scripture alone to the glory of God alone is truly embodied in his Reformed liturgy.

Anonymous said...

Hi Jean.

"I do not think one would find public comment from the Pope on every act of violence in the world"

No, and I don't expect him to do so. However the two I have highlighted are directly the result of policies or practices he seems to support, namely the West taking in millions of Arab/Muslim migrants, and illegal Mexican immigration. And he has criticized opponents of both. Hence my concerns and questions.

Of course he is not the only one to do so. Many political and church leaders do. And the victims of these policies seem to be ignored by them as well. And to be blunt, the reason they are ignored is because, as a result of the influence of academic cultural Marxism, post-colonialism and race relations theory, they are the wrong color and from the wrong part of the world to be considered victims in the first place.

Father Ron said...

re Good Pope Francis. Just heard today that he has sacked the old Liturgical Commission at the Vatican - substituting New Zealand's Vatican II follower Cardinal John Dew for reactionary Aussie Cardinal George Pell. Good News for the 'clergy-facing-the-people' and local vernacular congregations in Catholicism.

Anonymous said...

Fr Ron misses the point that Cardinal Sarah (who runs the show and is ad orientem) has not been replaced. It's good to see that John, Cardinal Dew has been appointed.


Jean said...

Hi Shawn

Pope Francis does have a lenient take on immigration issues, focusing primarily on economics and politics as the central causes for refugee/migrant issues/crises rather than religion or cultural practice. I think all are pertinent to different levels in different conflicts. And wisdom is needed as well as honest acknowledgement of the difficulties to be addressed by countries who host asylum seekers and the difficulties migrants have to address such as the trauma caused by violence/rape and adjusting to new environments.

As wise as serphents and as harmless as doves!

... Nick... they have a Cardinal Sarah?

Father Ron said...

You're tight, Nick. BUT, Cardinal Sarah has been told that 'Facing The People' has been set down as the 'normal' stance for the priest at the Eucharist. So I guess he has to take not of that instruction from the Pope - otherwise, he, too, may be sent into purdah.

Andrei said...

Then there is this from Pope Francis Fr Ron

Anonymous said...

Hi Jean.

"And wisdom is needed as well as honest acknowledgement of the difficulties to be addressed by countries who host asylum seekers"

Agreed, but where Islam is concerned the only wise path is no Muslim refugees or immigrants.

Most of the so-called "refugees" are rent seeking single Arab men. I have seen numerous quotes from them along the lines of "we came for the women and the welfare."

No government has the right to deliberately put it's own people at serious risk of assault, rape, or terrorism. It's not social justice or Biblical justice to do so.

Meanwhile some of the richest Arab gulf states have taken no Muslim refugees at all. Neither has Japan, neither has China.

When our church and political leaders talk about global responsibility for refugees they really mean the West and the West alone. And on that score, I smell an anti-Western rat.

I agree we need to have concern for genuine refugees, but when we are talking about millions who come with a religion and a culture that is totally incompatible with Western values and actively hostile to it, then the only wise path is to say no, and find another way to deal with the problem.

On this issue, Pope Francis is wrong, seriously wrong.

Anonymous said...

Ha Ha Jean; Sarah is pronounced SaRAH. His Eminence is very papabile, though undoubtedly not a favourite of the Germans.


Jean said...

Hi Shawn

Actually the majority of refugees in the Syrian crises anyway reside in Lebanon and Jordan - millions. 38% are under 12. i guess they have a choice to but it is probably harder when you have a mass of desperatte people on your border. Statistically the Syrian refugee make up is equally female and male, butt the ones most reaching Europe are mostly male. Probably because they can more easily stand up to the journey and may have more financial backing from family etc to pay people smugglers. So given the majority of asylum seekers being accepted in the UK are young males the question to be asked is how can a fairer system of offering asylum be instituted? Saudi Arabia isn't too keen on accepted any residents full stop, they very much closely guard their citizenship hence their reliance on transitory migrant labour, also they are of the Muslim sect which supports the current Syrian government rather than those people, including Christians, who are the ones fleeing.

Hi Nick
Fancy that.... Sarah as a surname! And debates about whether to face the congregation or the altar... what God must think of us human-being!! : ) ..

BrianR said...

Che? Sarah sarà?

(That made my Day).

Anonymous said...

Hi Jean.

"So given the majority of asylum seekers being accepted in the UK are young males the question to be asked is how can a fairer system of offering asylum be instituted?"

Yes. Close the borders of the whole West, Britain included, and find a Middle East solution. Britain is already looking at a Muslim majority this century, and that was before the migrant crisis. With Christianity declining, and Islam growing, the end result will be to see the UK become an Islamic nation. This is insanity. It is a form of civilizational suicide which far too many of our political and church leaders seem happy to assist. It is not justice to expect Western peoples to commit suicide and lose their homelands and culture.

And it's not just Christians who are at threat from this insanity. Jews are fleeing Sweden in record numbers because the massive influx of Muslim migrants has brought anti-Semitism and violence against Jewish people.

Where Islam goes, hatred for both Christianity and Judaism follows.

If we want a model for dealing with this issue we can do no better than the Christian Hungarian PM, Viktor Orban.

"Hungary PM blisters EU elites, says Muslim migration “increases terrorism and crime” and “destroys national culture”"

Andrew Reid said...

An update on the situation in Egypt for those interested, via email from Bishop Mouneer.
Dear Friends, I know you have been praying for our court case against the government in regard to the recognition of the Episcopal / Anglican Diocese of Egypt’s status. I am writing to thank you for your prayers, and to keep you informed of the most recent developments. Today (1 November) was the date of our first hearing. At the hearing, our lawyer was very surprised to find the lawyer of the Evangelical Church Association (ECA) was also present, and was asking the judge to intervene. He asked the judge to refuse our request. The judge ignored that, and postponed the hearing of our case to 13 December, 2016. During the hearing, our lawyer explained that, for many decades, the Diocese has been recognized as a foreign church. It is our request to be recognized as one of the national churches in Egypt. However, the ECA (dominated by the Presbyterians) don’t want this to happen, in order that we would be under their authority. The ECA’s request to intervene in this court case is proof enough that it is they, rather than the government, who want us to be under them. I want to express my sincere gratitude for your prayers, and would ask that you continue to pray for this. Yours in Christ, +Mouneer
Archbishop Mouneer Hanna Anis
The Episcopal / Anglican Diocese of Egypt
with North Africa and the Horn of Africa

Andrei said...

Jean there are 10s of millions of displaced people in the Middle East and North Africa - they cannot be re-homed in the West and trying to do so is not good for the West and not good for their homelands either which need those people to reconstruct them after the destruction brought upon them by the rich and powerful to further their own ends

We may live to see the people responsible for this catastrophe put on trial and receive earthly justice or it may have to wait for the DAY of JUDGEMENT for justice to be done - I suspect the later

Whatever - it is what it is. This world is a place of sorrow and tears

Anonymous said...

Hi Jean and Fr Ron; there is strictly no debate or norm on facing the people or the East. The Latin (and authoritative) General Instruction of the Roman Missal written by Cardinal Sarah's department allows both. The English translation at para 299 is inaccurate and caused a number of northern hemisphere English speaking bishops to assume that Cardinal Sarah was creating a new instruction. Either those bishops should improve their Latin (if they know any at all) or the English translation should be corrected.


Father Ron said...

Jean, the official stance at the Roman Catholic mass is for thrf priest to face BOTH the altar and the people. Thus, he stands behind the altar. In other words, both priest asnd people have Christ at their centre. Quite right and proper!

Andrei, thanks for the link but I'm not surprised at Pope Francis' comment about John Paul II's declaration. The Vatican would find women priests a step too far. Not even Papa Francis has been able to convince the Curia on this possibility.

Anonymous said...

Peter, I hope that you are enjoying your move.

Jean, I always find your sane comments to be well worth reading.

Bryden, the centrism that I advocate is suppressed when debates are managed from polarised extremes that would lose their power to control the agenda were options nearer the centre to emerge. Centrism in that sense is not only not an exercise in indifference but is rather an insistence on the prudence and truthfulness that happens to weaken the enemies of unity and the friends of stuck ideologies. But it may well be true that fanaticism has the same advantages in Anglican synods that narrow commercial interests have in national parliaments, and that consequently we see the *sensus fidelium* in a badly distorted mirror.

A famous thought of T. S. Eliot's captures the problem that we are having in the Church with standing armies for the Right and the Left-- “But the Church cannot be, in any political sense, either conservative or liberal, or revolutionary. Conservatism is too often conservation of the wrong things: liberalism a relaxation of discipline; revolution a denial of the permanent things.”

Nick, at least with respect to the Church, I agree. Especially on That Topic there is derping from liberals as well as conservatives. But while it is not hard to find accomplished conservative voices engaging the concerns that liberals raise on behalf of sexual minorities, it is somewhat harder to find liberal voices with the capability to engage conservative concerns about scripture, ecclesiology, etc. When we ignore the agitprop-- as we should-- we seem to be faced with an uneven debate.

Donald, the interests of the mass of Republican voters are not those of their party's elite donors and leaders. Unlike that elite, the rank and file are not opposed to the welfare state that supports many of them, and they loathe the facile free-trade and neo-con view of globalisation that damaged the fabric of their communities. Politicians have long ignored your supporters, and in the Republican primary you served democracy well by routing that elite and forcing it to acknowledge their anger. But that season passed months ago. You should study your odds of election with care-- --and go home.

Shawn and Glen, you have not understood my comments here. There is nothing that I can do about that. But it does not matter.

Bowman Walton

Anonymous said...

Hi Bowman.

"Shawn and Glen, you have not understood my comments here."

Yes, I have. What I am asking for is an explanation of how a subjective and personal view of what is centrism and what are the extremes is a useful way to determine anything other than for the individual. In any debate or discussion of philosophy, theology, or politics, it is useless, as it is too subjective a determination.

To put it another way, if you got ten people all claiming to be centrist in a room, and asked them for a definition of the centrist position on a particular issue, I suspect you would get more than a few different answers.

If you are going to make accusations about derping, or claiming people here are extremists, then it is fair for those being accused to ask for some objective evidence other than mere opinion.

But I have given up expecting an answer to that, or an explanation of what your particular view of being centrist actually means objectively.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Shawn, Bowman et al

(1) "Derping" is not proving to be a helpful term for this debate, so I think it needs to be dropped.

(2) I understand Bowman's "centrism" to be my "centrism": that which the majority will agree to and continue to agree to. Or, what becomes the abiding truth by which the church lives by.

The objectivity of "centrism" lies with its embrace by the large majority of the church (i.e. the laos, accepting and agreeing to it and abiding by it). Majority here does not mean scraping something over the synodical line with a 51% vote.

Yes, it is subjective if I in all my individual discernment propose that X = the centristic line; but if X is what proves to be the abiding truth, then it takes on a solidity which merits the assessment that it is objective.

Within ACANZP, for instance, it was once somewhat extreme to propose the women might be ordained deacons (and the counter move was to permit deaconesses); then it was extreme to propose that women be ordained priests. Now that women have been ordained priests for nearly forty years, the accepted and abiding truth is that women may be ordained priests (also deacons, bishops): this is the centrist line that now has a large majority (even if on historical investigation it turned out that it sneaked across the synodical line back in the 1970s).

There is some opposition to the ordination of priests in our church. That opposition is "extremist" in the sense that it is the opposition of a comparative few, it almost exclusively does not rely on arguments used by the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches, and (in my experience) it is often associated with "complementarian" theologies of gender and roles which are followed by a relative minority of Christians in global terms.

(In offering this example of how "centrism" may be said to have worked, I am NOT then seeking to draw a line to what might or might not be the "centrist" position on The Issue. Do not re start that debate here, please!)

Anonymous said...

used as a substitute for speech regarded as meaningless or stupid, or to comment on a foolish or stupid action.

So far on the net I have come up with several answers to the meaning of derping, and all are variations of trolling, stupid comments, or talking in a way that suggests mental illness.

I think Peter should look at whether or not that is an accusation that should pass moderation. It certainly does not help civil debate on ADU.

And I think the accusation is hypocritical given that based on one comment alone on the LGBT issue I was put in the "extremist" box without any effort to engage with my views or any attempt to engage with me personally and find out what my views are.

Dismissing other people with a rhetorical wave of the hand, putting them in boxes based on little actual evidence, and accusing them of derping are not conducive to civil debate.

Andrei said...

"Jean, the official stance at the Roman Catholic mass is for thrf priest to face BOTH the altar and the people. Thus, he stands behind the altar. In other words, both priest asnd people have Christ at their centre. Quite right and proper!"

I don't believe that is true Fr Ron - its just not possible in older churches in any case and it only holds for the Novus Ordo not other rites, other liturgies

I am personally uncomfortable with the priest facing the people - I think the Priest leads the people in celebration of the liturgy (the work of the people) and thus faces the Altar in the same direction as them because celebrating the eucharist is something we do as a congregation in conjunction with the whole Church - it is not something done by the priest

Having the priest behind the Altar facing the people sets him up as a performer separated from the people during worship rather than joined with them leading them in celebrating it

It is not an issue to go down to the wire over though - while we can get hung up on fine details of church practice and arcane theological argument we tend to miss the real point of it all

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Shawn
"extreme" and "extremist" is not helpful either, and I have allowed those comments through and made a recent one myself.
By "extremist" I am meaning (and allowing through) those views that suit at one edge of the bell curve of views and are often countered by views that sit at the other edge.

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter.

" I understand Bowman's "centrism" to be my "centrism": that which the majority will agree to and continue to agree to. Or, what becomes the abiding truth by which the church lives by.

The objectivity of "centrism" lies with its embrace by the large majority of the church"

I get what you're saying here, but centrism as a label does not work as far as I can see. Neither does majoritarianism. As you point out with regards to the ordination of women, majorities can change. But in the wider global church, I am not sure whether the ordination of women is the current majority, given the RC and Orthodox churches. To many, possibly to the majority of all Christians worldwide, it is an extremist position. But you and I both agree that it is right.

Prior to the 20th century the majority view was that charismatic gifts had ceased after the Apostolic era. When Pentecostalism came along, and the later Charismatic renewal, these movements were not "centrist" because they were not held by the majority. They were, according to this schema, extremist. But they were right.

Going back to the Reformation, the Reformers at the time were considered radical extremists, and at the time did not represent the majority view. But they were right.

So, hopefully you can see what I'm trying to get at with the centrist label. As a description of a theological position, I just can't see how it works.

It seems better to me to hitch our anchors to a specific theological tradition or foundation, in my case Protestant Evangelical Charismatic. That is far more objectively definable, and for me, where that fits on someone else's subjective spectrum of extremes and centers is completely irrelevant. A specific theological tradition is also something that can be engaged with in a debate.

Father Ron said...

I'm sorry for the Anglican Province of Jerusalem and the Middle East at this time of threats from an Evangelical Church body in Egypt wanting to take over their Anglican Diocese there. However, as a G.S. Prelate with links to GAFCON, Archbishop Mouneer should already be familiar with takeover bids of this sort. After All, this is how GAFCON were able to form the quasi-Anglican ACNA in North America. I'm personally against Church takeover bids of any kind.

Peter Carrell said...

All understood, Shawn, though in Anglican terms there is a tradition known as "Broad church" which does not have a well-defined theological tradition (as far as I can tell) and which does work (as far as I can tell) roughly like the "centrism" I have just espoused!

Anonymous said...

"But that season passed months ago. You should study your odds of election with care-- --and go home."

'Poll: Donald Trump Takes 3-Point Lead in Virginia — 15-Point Swing in Past Month'

That is not the only battle ground state where Trump is trending up, and Hillary down.

'Breaking: DONALD TRUMP Takes 7 Point Lead in North Carolina'

There are also signs the African-American vote is way down on previous elections, which is bad news for Hillary.

Nobody knows for sure what the result will be, there are too many unknowns. But writing Trump off now is a bad bet.

Glen Young said...

Hi Peter and Bowman,

A friend who visits ADU but does not comment,has alerted me to the fact that Bowman had directed a comment to me;so I have broken my vowed silence to answer it.
Firstly,the "OBJECTIVITY" of 'centrism' does not lie with it's being embraced by the majority of the Church.It lies with the 'objective truth' which the Church embraces.Objective truth is witnessed by evidence which comes from outside of the believer.Subjective truth comes from within the believer eg feelings, emotions and perception relating to personal experience.Centrism may amount to little more than the soft option.What Bonhoeffer referred to as 'Cheap Grace'.It is cheap, because we confer it on ourselves and it does not require costly discipleship.

Yes Bowman,I may be stuck in a ditch,but looking up from that ditch,I see breeze floating through the leaves of the trees,I see the sun and it's providential energy,I see the stars and know that God calls every one of them by name;I see the 'handiwork of God the Creator'.Yes,I may be stuck in the 'ditch of creationism';because the objective evidence is to overwhelming to allow me to believe it is all here by evolution.

Yes Bowman,I may be stuck in the 'ditch of Sola Scriptura', but all the objective evidence I see, tells me that there is a 'natural order'and 'power' in and overlaying the creation which is not only self evident but also revealed in the Scriptures.Objective evidence tells me that when we rebel against that Revelation and Natural Order,life starts to fall apart.

Yes Bowman,I may be stuck in the 'ditch of evangelical orthodoxy'believing that Christ was both fully God and fully man,that he died on the cross for my sin and that he rose from the dead.I do not believe that, because the Apostles believed it;I believe it because of the recorded objective evidence of "ACTUAL EYE WITNESSES" to the event.I believe, it because the Apostles saw it. I believe it because of the objective evidence which Church History puts before me.

So,yes Bowman,I am stuck in a ditch,happily accepting that Christ came looking for me in that ditch, knowing that He will sup with me in that ditch and that HE WILL lead me out of that ditch,if or when he desires.

Anonymous said...

A second poll has Trump beating Clinton in North Carolina. NC is a must win state for both candidates. This commentator sums up what I have suspected for months now.

“It’s our belief that there is a significant ‘Brexit’ type undercurrent of support for Trump that many polls are not capturing,”

Father Ron said...

I hope the supporters of El Trumpo will be prepared to answer for the chaos that will erupt if the citizens of the U.S. are stupid enough to elect him President.
Perhaps some of the ex-US ex-pats will even be prepared to return to share in the economic and political largesse they expect to accrue from his show-pony leadership. His triumph should please the 'Prosperity Gospel' advocates among us

Anonymous said...

"will be prepared to answer for the chaos"

What chaos? Chaos is far more likely if Clinton wins.

" His triumph should please the 'Prosperity Gospel' advocates among us"

No, that would be Clinton. Clinton is the advocate for global capitalism, while Trump has advocated for better trade deals the working class. Clinton is backed by Wall Street, Trump by heartland workers who have been hammered into grinding poverty as their jobs are shipped to Mexico and China. And it is the Clinton's who have enriched themselves at the expense of the American people.

From a Christian pov, Hillary is a serious threat to the independence of the Church, as the Wikileaks revelations show with her teams attempt to interfere with the Catholic church show. She will nominate Supreme Court Justices who will not care about the Constitution, or religious liberty. And she is the most radically pro-abortion candidate in US history, planning to extend it far beyond it's current reach.

On top of all this, she has a long history of corruption, and is, just days out from the election, once again under FBI investigation.

Stupidity is in the eye of the beholder. To me that applies to Clinton voters.

Andrei said...

"I hope the supporters of El Trumpo will be prepared to answer for the chaos that will erupt if the citizens of the U.S. are stupid enough to elect him President."

Well hopefully it wont match the chaos that erupted in North Africa and the Middle East when Libya was bombed into anarchy under Hillary Clinton's watch as Secretary of State - the bombing of Libya was a war crime of course but the rulers of the "Anglosphere" are not subject to the laws that govern other mortals

And as we are learning on a daily basis the Clintons are not even subject to the laws that govern the USA which seem to exist only crush their enemies and enrich their friends

I don't believe a President Trump can fix it but you never know - he might be a welcome breath of fresh air

Anonymous said...

Sorry, make that TWO FBI investigations, as a separate one into the Clinton Foundation is also ongoing, despite attempts by the Obama controlled DOJ to shut it down. The FBI is investigating whether improper political access was granted to Clinton Foundation donors.

Now if a Presidential candidate who is effectively under two FBI investigations is not the definition of chaos, I don't know what is.

Peter Carrell said...

(Hi Glen. Apologies. I inadvertently hit "Delete" rather than "Publish" for your comment below. P)

Hi Shawn,

"I hope that the supporters of El Trumpo will be prepared to answer for the chaos that will erupt if the citizens of the U.S. are stupid enough to elect him President." Ron.

Our American relatives are overjoyed that there is every reason to believe that the "Lolita Express" has been shot out of the skies;but not before Bill managed to accompany that debauched Jeffrey Epstein on it 26 times.It would certainly send an awful message to the young people, for him to be back in the White House along with President Hillary Rodent Clinton.

And some American ex-pats might be able to afford to return when Obuma's health care has put to sleep.One of the few cases where euthanasia would be acceptable.But,no doubt,multi-billionaires like George Seros will continue to demand the implementation of "SOCIALISM" so that every body's wealth,(except theirs) can be given to the third world dictators.

Anonymous said...

Hi Glen.

There are more than a few ironies about this election.

For years the Liberal-Left has claimed to be pro-women and anti-rape culture. Yet their preferred candidate, Hillary, has been accused by several women, who allege that they were sexually assaulted by Bill, of using her political clout to publicly attack them and their reputations.

For years, the Liberal-Left has claimed to care about the poor and the working class. Yet their preferred candidate is a Wall Street backed advocate of global capitalism, while Trump is a strong advocated for American workers and more home grown jobs for the struggling poor.

For years the Liberal-Left has attacked the Republicans for their neo-conservative foreign policy and "warmongering", but now backs a candidate who is the very definition of those things, while Trump has advocated are far more restrained military and foreign policy.

I am struggling to see what the Liberal-Left really stands for anymore, other than the destruction of Western/Christian civilization.

Anonymous said...

Again, evidence-responsive thinkers: aggregated state-level polls taken since James Comey's letter to Congress give the Democratic ticket 97% (random drift) or 99% (Bayesian) of election. Either Hillary Clinton, or in case of an emergency, Tim Kaine will be inaugurated in January.

Bowman Walton

Peter Carrell said...

A question, Bowman, from the reserves of my ignorance about the finer points of US elections:

If HC is elected on November 8, but subsequently is indicted by the FBI as a result of either or both lines of investigation (emails, Foundation):

(1) Does she have to decline the nomination?
(2) Could she take the oath in January while under indictment?
(3) On (1) above, is Kaine automatically the President-elect?

Anonymous said...

"Again, evidence-responsive thinkers"

The polls I have cited regarding the trend towards Trump are evidence, as is the drop in Black early voting.

The bottom line is that poll averages are prone to all the same problems that individual polls are, not the least of which is the sampling of respondents, and the fact that they may not accurately predict turnout on the day. In this US election in particular, who will turn out on the day, and the size of the pro-Trump/will vote turnout, is an open question that poll averages cannot predict with any degree of certainty.

Polling in the UK with both the last UK election and Brexit were wrong, precisely for those reasons.

'Here's why the majority of Brexit polls were wrong'

'Brexit polling: What went wrong?'

"The difference between survey and election outcome can be broken down into five terms:

1. Survey respondents not being a representative sample of potential voters (for whatever reason, Remain voters being more reachable or more likely to respond to the poll, compared to Leave voters);

2. Survey responses being a poor measure of voting intentions (people saying Remain or Undecided even though it was likely they’d vote to leave);

3. Shift in attitudes during the last day;

4. Unpredicted patterns of voter turnout, with more voting than expected in areas and groups that were supporting Leave, and lower-than-expected turnout among Remain supporters.

5. And, of course, sampling variability."

Claiming that poll averages are so absolutely right that Trump should give up is not evidenced based thinking, it's opinion. And opinions have a habit of colliding with reality. Just ask the Remain camp in Britain.

Andrei said...

"Again, evidence-responsive thinkers: aggregated state-level polls taken since James Comey's letter to Congress give the Democratic ticket 97% (random drift) or 99% (Bayesian) of election"

Why is your Princeton link an any greater predictor of the election result than reading chicken entrails would be Bowman?

In any case across the so called "free world" people are fed up with the repulsive chinless elites who have seized power and a ruining their nations and trashing their cultures

And if they can reclaim their countries back at the ballot box they will

And that the elites will do whatever it takes to cheat them to retain their power (see the latest Brexit developments)

"Politics is like sausage being made, It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back-room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position."

- Hillary Clinton

Anonymous said...

'Donald Trump Jets Out to Lead in Rasmussen Poll'

"The latest Rasmussen Reports survey has Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump jetting out to a three-point lead over his Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton. Trump, at 45 percent overall, leads Clinton—who’s down at 42 percent."

I predict, using my own chicken entrails, that there may well be a lot of "evidence based" people scratching their heads after election day and saying "Huh? What just happened?!"

It ain't over till the fat lady sings.

Glen Young said...


The people who will be left scratching their heads after the election,will be those whose subjective opinions did not comprehend that you cannot treasonably
surrender the "SOVEREIGNTY" of your Nation to the United Nations One World Order.Nor can you stack the Supreme Court with liberal Judges to disassemble your CONSTITUTION. The average citizen in America has no desire to be turned into a serf in their own Nation,unable to afford the horrendous cost of Obama car; while perverted,self serving,crooked multi -billionaires clip the ticket at every turnpike.The sickest irony of their political scene is the mock battle between the Bush family and the Clintons. There is only one battle in this election,that is between FREEDOM and a return to SLAVERY under the U.N.

Anonymous said...


"A large percentage of college graduates are hiding their support for Donald Trump, according to test surveys of 309 college graduates conducted by Morning Consult. That hidden support for Trump could be providing Hillary Clinton a false, 2-point advantage in election polls, according to the polling firm’s results."


"Donald Trump is just one state short of the presidency, according to the 6 pm Thursday evening projection by Nate Silver, the left’s favorite polling prognosticator."

Father Ron said...

Latest Poll results in the U.S. Clinton regaining lead.

Sanity may yet prevail. Prayers offered here to that end!

Peter Carrell said...

Dear Commenters,
Are we not so close to the election that the only poll that now matters is the election itself?

Bryden Black said...

Sorry Ron; but there are occasions when I feel real sorry for God - just how DOES he cope with all those conflicting prayers ...?!

Andrei said...

Do you know how Colonel Qaddafi died Fr Ron?

He was sodomized with a bayonet after his country was bombed into anarchy and flooded with heavily armed psychopaths whose weapons were provided by the USA and her allies such as Saudi Arabia

And do you know who was involved in this Hillary Clinton whose cronies have made millions of dollars from this by stealing the resources of Libya which is now a failed state and the source of many of the refugees that rightly concern Jean

And do you now what Hillary Clinton did when she heard of Qaddifi's appalling end?

She cackled with glee

The woman should be on trial at the Hague for crimes against humanity not running for president of the USA

Anonymous said...

"Are we not so close to the election that the only poll that now matters is the election itself?"

Yup. Americans will either save their country from Liberal/globalist tyranny, or we will have to wait another term until the moral rot and corruption after 12 years of Democratic misrule becomes impossible to ignore. Hopefully it will be the former. I am certainly praying for the former.

God bless the USA.

And prayers for Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen in the Dutch and French elections next year.

God bless the West.

Anonymous said...

Peter, constitutional law is one thing, and constitutional dynamics are another thing. Sticking to the former, the reviews of evidence related to Anthony Weiner and to the Clinton Foundation will not inhibit the Chief Justice from administering the oath of office to Hillary Rodham Clinton, and given the presumption of innocence, would not do so even if she were named in an indictment. One cannot rule out the possibility that an indictment of the President-elect might in this unusual situation be quashed by a pardon from the outgoing President from which there is no appeal.

Once she takes the oath, she is the President and cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution anywhere but, in succession, the House Judiciary Committee, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Because the Senate is likely to be nearly evenly divided (possibly 51-50), one must force the imagination very hard to imagine articles of impeachment having any realistic chance of passage in the Senate.

I note, and deem it significant, that the Republican conference in the House is planning to fund investgations on all their favourite things, as one would expect. But the money is going to the Governmental Oversight Committee, not the Judiciary Committee. They too can count votes in the Senate.

Bowman Walton

Glen Young said...


Unfortunately,if Clinton wins this election,it is straight into the UN's One World Government.Obama has cleared the way by announcing that the USA must hand over it's SOVEREIGNTY to the UN.Obama,the Clintons,the Bush clan and many others are in the pocket of that immoral George Soros.

Anonymous said...

Hi Glen.

I agree that Hillary will certainly move strongly in that direction, as Obama has, but it will be incremental, rather than a full move, and thus not irreversible. And win or lose, the movement that Trump currently heads is bigger than one man, and has been brewing for longer than his candidacy. The Tea Party was an early manifestation of it. And it's bigger than the US, as a similar populist/nationalist movement is growing strongly in Europe.

If Hillary wins, and that's not a done deal by any means, the movement will only grow. I giver her one term only.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of the election not being a done deal...

'Republicans Hold Lead in Record Florida Early Voting'

"Republicans currently hold an edge of nearly 2,000 votes over Democrats with, nearly 1 million of those voters having registered with no party affiliation."

Florida is a must win state for both candidates. That Republicans hold such a strong lead in early voting, and that it's coming in large part from independent voters with no party affiliation, reinforces my view that Trump is going to pull off an uppset win that the polls are not predicting.

Andrei said...

"Unfortunately,if Clinton wins this election..."

...WW3 is all but a certainty.

Hillary Clinton has blamed Russia for her troubles to divert the public from the substance of those troubles

Even worse she has promised to implement a "no fly" zone over Syrian airspace - do you know what this entails? This is the same stunt they pulled in Libya and how did that turn out?

And Secretary of Defense Ash Carter has announced that plans are under way to take al Raqqa, the Syrian city of al Raqqa - in other words seize Syrian territory by military force

And don't kid yourself it is about ISIS - ISIS is funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar who also fund the Clinton foundation and Hillary Clinton knows exactly who funds ISIS because she acknowledges it in the Wikileaks Emails to Podesta .

These are red lines! And if they are crossed we get war

And don't kid yourself they are not planning for it - the posturing in the Baltic States is preparation for it

Glen Young said...


How can we ever get you to understand that WW3 is directly attributable to Donald Trump? His name is written large all over it.He is responsible because he was born. His entry into politics has nothing to do with it.HE IS RESPONSIBLE !!!

Hillary R Clinton is my 2099 nominee for the Nobel Peace award.This lady is whiter and purer than driven snow.She is the saviour of the every woman, the blacks,every illegal immigrant into the USA as well as any body else who needs to be protected from that narcistic,egotisical and immoral Trump.

Hillary Rodent Clinton will lead the GREAT FREE USA into the bold new future. But,unfortunately,as they would say in 'Open All Hours',I smell a rararararait.

Andrei said...

You will like this Glenn

Youtube has put its thumb on the scales and has made all Donald Trump's videos unlisted ie unsearchable which I find extraordinary

But that one is brilliant, right on the money

Anonymous said...

Further to Andrei's post. This is from the Left wing British Guardian, so not a biased source. It shows that Hillary will run the USA for global corporations, the rich and the powerful, and the globalist elites who are not accountable to the American people, or to anyone. Her economic policies were written by Wall Street, the bankers, and powerful corporate interests.

'The Guardian: WikiLeaks Emails Reveals How Globalist Elites Run America for Their Own Interests'

Christian supporters of Hillary should remember that they will one day face God's judgment.

BrianR said...

Remember: Christ is King - and Judge.

Anonymous said...

Peter; it is unfathomable why so many above are concerned with an election in which they cannot vote for candidates our grandparents would have considered morally reprehensible in a country with accelerating decline. I accept that blogs attract talkers (not necessarily walkers) but there are plenty of Christian walks to talk about.


Anonymous said...

Hi Nick.

I was born in the US, retain US citizenship, have family there, and have two family members serving in the US armed forces, both in areas where they are in harms way.

So for myself I do have a take in this.

And from my pov, the entire West is in accelerating decline, which is why I take an interest in politics throughout the Western world.

Anonymous said...

Hi Bryden,

There are two simpler queries about *motivated reasoning* upstream of Nick's. As a scholar who has published on theological anthropology, I wonder how you would answer them.

(1) Are souls in Christ able to engage in *motivated reasoning* at all, and if so, how do they do it?

It would seem that a soul is in Christ if and only if fundamentally wills that its emotional processing be controlled only by the Beatitudes (St Matthew 5:3-12) and the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). It may fall under the temporary influence of charismatic leaders, factional agitprop, pressure groups, etc but if it is fundamentally willing to be in Christ, then the progress of sanctification, should that occur, will free the soul from all taste for contentiousness and conflict. A saved soul is serene in Him.

As such a soul unconditionally identifies with Christ rather than with the powers, forces, causes, rulers, etc of this fallen world, it would seem to be unable to view the latter agencies as anything but temporary or contingent instruments of the eternal counsel of the Father. But to view a thing as only an instrument, and indeed only temporarily or contingently so, is to be indifferent to its fate so long as the eternal counsel of the Father is fulfilled. Such indifference seems to preempt the mind-controlling positive zeal that causes *motivated reasoning*. And conversely it would seem that a soul that is so zealous for a worldly agency that it fundamentally wills to engage in *motivated reasoning* is not yet in Christ.

Moreover, the Father's provision of rain to both the just and the unjust seems to forbid the soul in Christ to desire evil for any, and to enjoin the soul to desire good for all as the Father does. And indeed, how can the Lord's positive command to be peacemakers be obeyed by a soul that desires the defeat of any? It follows that while the soul in Christ can desire his victory over forces that reject him, it cannot itself enjoy the passions of combat. It cannot belittle adversaries nor can it hope for the pain of others. For "the anger of man cannot produce the righteousness of God" (St James 1:20).

So far removed is the love of contentiousness from the love of Christ that he has pointedly commanded both renunciation of self-defense and non-resistance to evil. If one of Christ's body cannot ordinarily be contentious even at the point of another's sword, it seems that one is not in the body of Christ when one not only engages in conflict but provokes it.

Finally, the apostles condemn recreational argument and advise custody of the tongue. In the light of the foregoing, this seems to be, not an optional point of courtesy, or a counsel applicable to some but not to others, but a logical application of what a soul in Christ actually is, and a criterion of spiritual progress in Christ.

(2) Having engaged in *motivated reasoning*, why would anyone (Christian or otherwise) urge the results of *motivated reasoning* on others whose thoughts are evidently not controlled by that motivation?

For it seems that actions not strictly enjoined by the moral law should be guided by their consequences. But there can be no good consequence to advocacy that requires in the hearer a motivation that he does not possess.

Bowman Walton

* Under *just war theory*, some have argued that for the protection of innocents rulers may wield the sword that the law of Christ generally withholds from believers. But there are no rulers here, and so no such exception applies, even if one believes in it.

Anonymous said...

'Final Warning from Immigration Officers: Clinton, Open Borders Will ‘Unleash’ Violence, ‘Countless Preventable Deaths’ in America'

“Hillary’s pledge for ‘open borders’ will mean disaster for our country, and turn the present border emergency into a cataclysm,” writes ICE Council President Chris Crane. “Hillary’s plan would unleash violent cartels and brutal transnational gangs into US communities and cause countless preventable deaths.”

Glen Young said...


Our prayers and thoughts are with you and your extended family in the USA. Our young relative, who served a marks-man in the Middle East ;did not return in the best of 'mental health'. However,with a lot of prayer and support from his evangelical orthodox family,he is slowly returning to the bright young guy he was,before his service.

We share with you,a desire not to see our sons sent off as fodder for the Soros/Clinton/Bush war machine, to turn their immoral designs into their 'Vanity of Vanities'.It is a war, which the Prophets and the Revelation of Christ, has told them,they will not win.Clinton reminds me of C.S.Lewis's description of the 'wicked witch':"She would rather be Queen of nothing,than the Princess of everything."

Bryden Black said...

Well Bowman; I begin by cutting and pasting a section of an email received recently (we've been in dialogue a while ...!):
I get that fallibilism is the answer to the questions of epistemology in general terms, but can you give me your views on the exact conditions in which non-inferential justification is possible? Are you an internalist or an externalist or what? (Ends)

Yes; I know - a naughty response first up. But I think you asked for it - providentially!

More importantly now: I think I'd let Jean Pierre de Caussade be our guide in his Self Abandonement to Divine Providence. Added to which, I'd have to confess the eschatology of the economy of grace seems to allow "double minded" Christians under God's good patience. (Yes; I'm echoing James!) But that only endorses the fact that we have very few mature, wise Christians nowadays.
Frankly, it was my experience back in July when I was in the US that most of our friends were in a real quandary as to who to vote for. Perhaps that was an element of wisdom after all ... Nuff said?!

Anonymous said...

"So far removed is the love of contentiousness from the love of Christ that he has pointedly commanded both renunciation of self-defense and non-resistance to evil."

No, Christ does not command either of these things. The strike on the cheek was a universal symbol of an insult. Up until recently in the West to be struck on the cheek meant to have one's honor challenged or insulted. So Christ is saying do not return an insult with an insult. He was not saying do nothing while a murderer breaks into your home and proceeds to kill your wife and children. Pacifism is immoral, and Jesus does not condone immorality.

Do not resist evil with evil does not mean do resist evil at all, it means to resist evil in just ways, which is why Just War, based on clear Biblical teaching, has always been the consistent view of the Church.

'Jesus Was Not a Pacifist'

'Pacifism, Matthew 5 and “Turning the other cheek”'

For a fuller and Biblically based analysis of these issues...

'When God Says War Is Right: The Christian’s Perspective on When and How to Fight'

'The Virtue Of War: Reclaiming the Classic Christian Traditions East and West'

Peter Carrell said...

Thanks you Commenters for many fine points, provided links.
Thank you Bowman for clarification re election outcomes/indictment possibilities.

And, I will ponder whether the Beatitudes means we should avoid contentiousness!

Anonymous said...

Shawn, fair enough, I can see why you have an interest in the US election. But, just as the eye is never sick of seeing, the blogger is never sick of blogs. I see a real danger that these secular matters become a distraction from the call; and the only beneficiaries are not in heaven.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Bryden, for answering the call.

It is epistemically vicious (cf Linda Zagzebski) to be always internalist or always reliabilist.

Knowing is a moral act insofar as virtues and vices are implicated in the ways that we choose to know. The problems of knowing do not seem to have any necessary relation to a habitus of intentional partiality. As Zagzebski and other virtue epistemologists would rightly insist, such a habitus is a moral error for which epistemology has no *get out of jail free card*. Just as a free market of goods and services does not ethically sanitise the selling of things which ought not to be sold, so an invocation of an imagined market of ideas does not ethically sanitise mindsets known to be evil (eg the eight evil thoughts of Evagrius Ponticus).

"...the eschatology of the economy of grace seems to allow 'double minded' Christians under God's good patience." Barring some form of universalism, this is precisely what I doubt. God is patient with our failures to fully realise a fundamental option to embody his Love in the world. However, he appears to reject any who do not make that option and make it fundamentally in the first place. Indeed, St Maximus is right to say (Ambigua 40) of every soul in Christ that it is necessarily reconciling within itself the Uncreated to the creature, things invisible to things visible, heaven to earth, paradise to the world, and man to woman. Mercifully, the pace and reversals of the progress do not eternally matter; justly, the direction of it does. Or how are we different from the pagans?

More anon.

Bowman Walton

Father Ron said...

Whereas El Trumpo will open up the whole Evangelical World by the endwoment of 100 Grace Vineyards around the Western world. (Nothing for the East, though).
Prosperity Gospel, the new American Foundational Old Time Religion.

Glen Young said...

Well Ron, everybody will be taken care of with another 100 prosperity preachers on one hand and TEC offering bargain priced "CHEAP GRACE" on the other.As Bonhoeffer said:"It is cheap because it does not require repentance or costly discipleship and one can bestow it on oneself."