The murder of an abortionist

From the National Post

A Kansas doctor who was a controversial provider of so-called “late-term” abortions was shot and killed at his church on Sunday, local media reported.

The Wichita Eagle newspaper reported that 67-year-old George Tiller, a longtime target of anti-abortion activists, was shot to death as he walked into services at at Reformation Lutheran Church.

Police are searching for a white male who fled the scene after shooting Tiller with a handgun, local media reported.

Local television station KAKE said on its website that sources close to the investigation and the doctor confirmed that Tiller was pronounced dead at the scene shortly after emergency crews arrived.

Police Captain Brent Allred did not name the victim, but he classified the case as high-profile and said the victim has been the target of violence in the past, the station said.

Tiller’s clinic in Wichita has been the site of mass protests by anti-abortion groups and was bombed in 1985. Tiller was shot and wounded by an abortion opponent in 1993.

Abortions are generally considered late-term when they are performed after the 20th week of gestation on fetuses potentially old enough to survive outside the womb.

Since I believe life starts at conception, I also believe that abortion is the killing of an innocent human and is, therefore, wrong; a late term abortion is the most grisly and evil variety of abortion, since the baby is sometimes born alive and then killed or left to die and – even for those who do not believe that life starts at conception – is very clearly a baby.

So when a supposed doctor who performs late term abortions is murdered, how should Christians react?

From the perspective of executing temporal justice it is necessary to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s: it seems clear that only the state should mete out justice – particularly lethal justice. So the killer of George Tiller will have to face the penalty for doing what he probably believed the state should have done for him.

From a Christian perspective, even though Tiller’s killer will have to face state justice, could his action still be ethically justified? Some Christian pro-life advocates would claim that no life can legitimately be taken so their answer would be “no”; they see this as a mark of consistency. First, I think this view is faulty in that it fails to acknowledge the state’s legitimate role in punishing the guilty – a role that has biblical support (Rom 13:3 ff) – in order to restrain evil and maintain order. Even though countries like Canada do not have the death penalty, all countries at the very least incarcerate criminals and are prepared to use lethal force to protect their citizens: a person with a pro-life view that refuses to take a life ever would not be able to live in any earthly society without hypocrisy.

Second, if it is legitimate for the state to take a life in some circumstances, can it ever be for an individual? A convincing case was made by a Christian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, for murdering Hitler on the grounds that it would ultimately save lives and be a lesser evil than allowing him to live. Could the same argument be used here for George Tiller? The murderer might have thought so, but I think not for the simple reason that others will take Tiller’s place to continue his gruesome work; were that not the case, the lesser evil argument might apply.

A Roman Catholic Priest is Welcomed into TEC

Father Alberto Cutié has been enjoying a little slap and tickle more than his call to celibacy it seems:

Father Alberto Cutié, the Roman Catholic priest who has been a cause of some international scandal since captured on film cuddling his girlfriend, now his fiancé, on a beach, has been accepted into The Episcopal Church in the US. It is likely he will go on to become an Episcopal priest. As The Lead reports, Father Cutié and his fiance were received into the worldwide Anglican Communion by the Bishop of Southeast Florida, the Right Rev Leo Frade, a fellow Cuban.

It is worth noting that when an Anglican priest moves to Rome it is on principle: one may not necessarily agree with the principle, but at least it is not merely self-serving and usually such a priest represents the best Anglicanism has to offer. When TEC welcomes a Roman Catholic priest into its midst it is because he has disgraced himself in his own church.

Damian Thompson reckons this will damage relations between Roman Catholics and Anglicans.

It’s difficult to damage something that has already been systematically pulverised into small pieces by the likes of the ACoC and TEC, though.

What is the difference between Jesus Christ and Superman?

When I was but a callow youth I went to see the original “Jesus Christ Superstar” in London. I enjoyed it immensely; but, then, I also went to see “Hair” and enjoyed it just as much – I was not a Christian at the time.

The association of Jesus with a super-something is a beguiling notion but, actually, he is 100% human, 100% God and 0% Superman. As God he could have chosen to bring down fire from heaven, decimate his enemies and vindicate his followers. I confess there is a part of me that would like to see that but, instead, he knew his calling was to be that of the suffering servant, the Redeemer of mankind. By accepting the path that was laid before him he has shaped history and civilisation in a way that he could not have as Superman –  and  he has redeemed those of us that choose to accept him.

And so it is has been for the last 2000 years: those who have truly influenced the course of history have not been celebrities, winners of Britain’s Got Talent or even people who have been apparently successful; the real shapers of history have been people who have been prepared to sacrifice themselves for what they believe.

Interestingly, an evolutionary anthropologist has noticed this:

WHAT is the difference between Jesus Christ and Superman? The content of religions and popular tales is often similar, but only religions have martyrs, according to an analysis of behavioural evolution published this week.

When religious leaders make costly sacrifices for their beliefs, the argument goes, these acts add credibility to their professions of faith and help their beliefs to spread. If, on the other hand, no one is willing to make a significant sacrifice for a belief then observers – even young children – quickly pick up on this and withhold their own commitment. “Nobody takes a day off to worship Superman or gives money to the Superman Foundation,” points out Joseph Henrich, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada.

Although I would not place the aggravation that ANiC parishes have been subject to at the hands of the ACoC in the same category as martyrs who have died or otherwise suffered for their faith, nevertheless, it is instructive to note the difference in ANiC and ACoC supporters. Those who support ANiC are often not paid and do so because they are passionately convinced of the rightness of its cause; those who are paid have placed their conviction above financial security. In contrast, ACoC bishops support their employer rather than the truth because their career, salary and pension are at stake; the moribund Federation are at home in the comfort of a familiar institution and the rest just follow like sheep.

And therein lies the difference that I believe will determine the final outcome of the current struggle.

Well, what exactly would Jesus do?

A popular 21^st Century mantra for Christians attempting to construct a workable ethical framework for living is to ask “What Would Jesus Do?”

Tony Campolo illustrates the technique in this exchange:

“My problem is I want to do what Jesus would do.” “Could you get in a plane, fly over an enemy village and drop bombs?”

I said, “I could get in the plane. I could fly over the enemy village. But when I was about to release the bomb, at that moment I would have to say, ‘Jesus, if you were in my place, would you drop the bombs?'”

And I remember the colonel yelling back to me, “That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Everybody knows Jesus wouldn’t drop bombs?”

The problem is, this is the wrong question to ask. I have spent more than 40 years earning a living by programming computers – an essentially worthless endeavour other than its fortunate side effect of providing me with an income to support myself and my family. I fell into what passes for a career accidentally; had I said to myself 43 years ago, would Jesus spend most of his waking hours writing obscure digital code that would result in millions of people banging their heads on computer screens in frustration, I would have to have answered, “no”. That would have left me with another childhood ambition: being a train driver. Obviously, Jesus would not be a train driver, so I would be left with my only other ambition – to be a tramp.

In the context it is used, WWJD is a stupid question. So when someone like Campolo uses it to justify or condemn a particular action, I am immediately suspicious and inclined to do the opposite. And that is exactly my reaction to the BNP when they answer the question by  saying Jesus would vote for the BNP; if I did not already have enough reasons for not voting for the BNP, that would be the clincher – although it’s academic, since I live in Canada.

Michael Nazir-Ali has been unable to resist the temptation to wade into the BNP WWJD idiocy:

When we talk of a society built on Christian values, it is often misunderstood as a reference to intolerance, of exclusivity. The ultimate expression of this tendency comes in a campaign billboard, unveiled in March, which quoted scripture out of context, then posed the question: “What would Jesus do?” The answer given was simple: “Vote BNP.”

This was a clear example of using Christian-sounding words to promote a profoundly anti-Christian agenda. No one should be taken in by it. The policies advocated by the BNP are contrary to our belief that all human beings, regardless of race or colour, have a common origin and are made in God’s image.

Michael Nazir-Ali is right, of course, but if Jesus would not vote for the BNP, who would he vote for? I remember, many years ago, Malcolm Muggeridge was asked for his opinion on the abysmally low voter turnout at general elections. He gave a typical Muggeridge response: he said that people who don’t vote are the flower of the population. Although I can sympathise with his answer and understand why he gave it, I would not be prepared to defend it. Nevertheless, it gives us a clue as to whom Jesus would vote for: I think he would forget to vote altogether because he wouldn’t think of it as something sufficiently important to warrant his attention.

Some comments on the latest Diocese of Niagara vs. ANiC court ruling

Justice Jane Milanetti has made a ruling on costs to be awarded to the Diocese of Niagara from the building sharing trials; the diocese had asked for $236,893.03, but Milanetti awarded them $75,605.27. One of the disgraceful aspects of this was that the diocese brought the action against the wardens of the parishes personally rather than as trustees for the congregation; equally disgraceful was Milanetti’s inability to see this for what it is: as an act of vindictiveness,  intimidation and a warning to the wardens of other potential ANiC parishes..

It is instructive to review the early events that led up to the series of court appearances. This is from a St. Hilda’s perspective, but the other 2 parishes had similar experiences.

The initial stages of our tribulation are chronicled on St. Hilda’s web site in reverse chronological order here

Feb 13, 2008. Day 1. St. Hilda’s voted unanimously to join ANiC.

Day 2 was a holiday, so it was quiet.

Day 3. The diocese delivered a vast bundle of legal papers to St. Hilda’s and froze our bank account.

Day 4. Representatives from the diocese arrived at St. Hilda’s to collect the keys to the building. They were refused.

Day 5. Pastor Paul was suspended (later to be fired) with pay. The diocese started pressing for an early court appearance.

Day 8. Since we did not have time to absorb all the legal documents sent to us from the diocese (they had prepared them in advance), we agreed to share the building on Sunday – Day 8. The diocesan priest, Brian Ruttan held a service at 9:00 with a number of people imported from other congregations. It was at this service that Ruttan inflicted his grotesque song “Bi and Gay welcome to the City” on everyone.

The real St. Hilda’s worshipped at 10:30 the same morning. Since almost all the members of the real St. Hilda’s are kind and gracious, coffee and doughnuts were provided for the “visitors” – of course, we hadn’t heard Ruttan’s song at that point.

Day 13. We appeared in court. Judge Ramsay ruled that expecting 2 parties with such diametrically opposed views to share a building made no sense; he granted us exclusive access to the building.

After this defeat, the diocese approached the Niagara parishes with a proposal where they would only use St. George’s parish building and St. Hilda’s and Good Shepherd would have exclusive use of their buildings; this is referenced in the latest Milanetti ruling. Due to our profound mistrust of the diocese, a suspicion of a diocesan “divide and conquer strategy” and their draconian actions up to that point, the parishes decided to remain united in any decision, so the offer was rejected.

March 20^th We were in court again before Milanetti. It was clear from her demeanour, comments and body language that, from the outset, she had little patience with ANiC’s case. She seemed determined to take the “establishment view” and consistently sided with the diocese. This is conjecture, but she exuded the perspective one might expect from a lifelong nominal Catholic, giving more credence to institutional religious hierarchy than actual truth; she constantly gave the impression “why were we making such a fuss?”

May 5^th 2008. Milanetti ruled that the Niagara buildings were to be shared between the diocese and ANiC parishes.

And now on to the latest ruling where court costs were determined:

[4]     As such, The Synod of the Diocese of Niagara was precluded from use of three church properties which I found them to own, at least on the face of it, from February 25^th, 2008 until my May 5^th, 2008 decision.

This comment by Milanetti is irrelevant and arrogant. She was not asked to rule on who owns the buildings; to offer an unasked for opinion betrays her bias in favour of the diocese. How could she have a sensible opinion when the evidence for actual building ownership had not been presented?

[22]     It is largely as a result of the most substantial fees being sought that I will not exercise my discretion to award substantial indemnity costs after March 14^th.  The numbers are simply too high for me to reasonably consider compensation on this scale.  I concede that the applicant made significant real efforts to resolve this matter consensually.  Such olive branch was not accepted.

In actual fact, the diocese made no effort to resolve the conflict, refused to pay it’s share of the building upkeep as ruled by Milanetti previously, has been consistently heavy handed and, after the initial overture of offering ANiC the use of 2 parishes in exchange for St. George’s, has stubbornly refused to negotiate.

[24]     As well, I cannot say that there were not similar efforts to resolve the issue earlier by both parties.  It does bear noting that the respondents’ attempts appear to have been earlier in the process rather than more recently.  I note as well, that the Offer that was unacceptable to the respondents when it was tendered back in March of 2008, is still unpalatable to them today.  Despite my Order that the parties share the properties, the respondents have apparently chosen not to do so.  I have learned that they opted to incur additional costs to worship elsewhere.  Although that is clearly their prerogative, those additional expenses, (despite their argument based on same), cannot and will not be considered by me in this decision.

Ignoring Milanetti’s inability to put “As well” in the correct place in a sentence, the “offer that was unacceptable”  to the parishes in March (giving the diocese access to St. George’s) was, in fact recently agreed to by the parishes, but rejected by the diocese; Milanetti has it backwards. St. Hilda’s, ANiC is sharing the building with the diocese during the week; we worship elsewhere on Sundays because Milanetti gave the diocese access to the building at the time of our Sunday services.

[34]     The respondents’ asked to have any costs award deferred.  As well, they asked, in the eleventh hour, to have the costs paid by different parties than those named in the title of proceeding.

[35]     This was the first that I had heard of this argument – it was not raised at the motion nor addressed in the written costs argument tendered in support of this application.  As such, and given that we were already at the end of the afternoon slotted for this costs argument, I required further written submissions by both parties on this point.

[36]     Despite this unique argument, I have not been convinced that I have the power to award costs against anyone other than the named respondents at this stage.  If this was an issue for the respondents, I would have expected them to raise it either at the motion that I heard more than a year ago, or some other motion before or after that time frame.

[37]     I accept the argument of the applicants that they would be prejudiced if I were to make a costs award payable by anyone other than the named respondents.  If they were improperly named, issue should have been taken – it may well be required in future.

This section of the ruling is confusing. What is at issue is whether the wardens are being sued personally, in which case their personal assets are at stake, or as trustees of the parishes. How do “different parties” come into it? – one presumes that “different parties” were not erroneously introduced by ANiC lawyers.

At the end of the day, Blaise Pascal said it best in his Pensees:

Our magistrates have known well this mystery. Their red robes, the ermine in which they wrap themselves like furry cats, the courts in which they administer justice, the fleurs-de-lis, and all such august apparel were necessary; if the physicians had not their cassocks and their mules, if the doctors had not their square caps and their robes four times too wide, they would never have duped the world, which cannot resist so original an appearance. If magistrates had true justice, and if physicians had the true art of healing, they would have no occasion for square caps; the majesty of these sciences would of itself be venerable enough. But having only imaginary knowledge, they must employ those silly tools that strike the imagination with which they have to deal; and thereby in fact they inspire respect. Soldiers alone are not disguised in this manner, because indeed their part is the most essential; they establish themselves by force, the others by show.

Couple Ordered to Stop Holding Bible Study at Home Without Permit

This is not in Communist China, it’s in San Diego:

Pastor David Jones and his wife Mary have been told that they cannot invite friends to their San Diego, Calif. home for a bible study — unless they are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to San Diego County.

“On Good Friday we had an employee from San Diego County come to our house, and inform us that the bible study that we were having was a religious assembly, and in violation of the code in the county.” David Jones told FOX News.

“We told them this is not really a religious assembly — this is just a bible study with friends. We have a meal, we pray, that was all,” Jones said.

A few days later, the couple received a written warning that cited “unlawful use of land,” ordering them to either “stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit,” the couple’s attorney Dean Broyles told San Diego news station 10News.

But the major use permit could cost the Jones’ thousands of dollars just to have a few friends over.

For David and Mary Jones, it’s about more than a question of money.

“The government may not prohibit the free exercise of religion,” Broyles told FOX News. “I believe that our Founding Fathers would roll over in their grave if they saw that here in the year 2009, a pastor and his wife are being told that they cannot hold a simple bible study in their own home.”

“The implications are great because it’s not only us that’s involved,” Mary Jones said. “There are thousands and thousands of bible studies that are held all across the country. What we’re interested in is setting a precedent here — before it goes any further — and that we have it settled for the future.”

The couple is planning to dispute the county’s order this week.

If San Diego County refuses to allow the pastor and his wife to continue gathering without acquiring a permit, they will consider a lawsuit in federal court.

A salutary wake-up call for Christians: our faith is under attack on all fronts. We are thrown out of our buildings and now we can’t even meet in our own homes.

In spite of being an incorrigable misanthrope, I have an overwhelming urge to hold a large bible study in my home.

Full court ruling on Diocese of Niagara vs ANiC costs

Is Here

I will be commenting on it more fully later.

For now, note that the diocese was asking for $236,893.03 and was awarded $75,605.27.

Rowan Williams on Philip Pullman

Rowan Williams spoke at the Hay Festival in Wales – not far from where I used to live – and had this to say:

Philip Pullman helps understanding of theology, says Archbishop of Canterbury

Citing Pullman as one of his favourite modern writers, Dr Rowan Williams said he liked his work because it took the church “seriously” at a time when theology was “drifting out” of mainstream thought.

Pullman has been castigated by parts of the Roman Catholic church, particularly in North America, as many consider the trilogy His Dark Materials to be a veiled attack on it.

But, speaking at the Hay Festival in Wales, Dr Williams defended Pullman.

He said: “First of all he takes the Christian myth, or a version of it, seriously enough to want to disagree passionately with it.

When Rowan talks about the “Christian myth” one hopes that he means what C. S. Lewis meant in  Myth Become Fact. Since he didn’t actually mention that, though, I have an uneasy feeling he doesn’t.

It’s not just the RC Church that has criticised Pullman: he is a supporter of the British Humanist Association and an Honorary Associate of the National Secular Society, has been described as one of England’s most outspoken atheists and was described by Peter Hitchens as The most dangerous author in Britain. The only odd thing here is why Rowan Williams is so enamoured of him; Rowan goes on to explain:

Although he stressed he disagreed with Pullman’s atheistic view, he commended his “search for some way of talking about human value, human depth and three-dimensionality, that doesn’t depend on God.”

Merely to ask the question was important, he said.

He agreed with the thrust of Pullman’s novels that religious authorities must not silence the “demons” that people carry with them – the essential “internal conversation” between good and evil.

He said: “The threat in Pullman’s novels is the Authority – people like me in his imagination – which wants to divide the human spirit and cut off and silence that demonic voice, that voice of the imagination.

“And so you end up with these unforgettably poignant pictures of children who have had their demons taken away, who are just lifeless automata.

“And that’s evil, that’s the essence of evil.”

Here is a prime slice of Rowan muddle: human imagination, he says, depends on the presence of demonic influence and the essence of evil is the expunging of that influence – a bizarre view for a Christian. God is the author of imagination not a Screwtape-like dialogue; to labour under the illusion that the demonic is an intended part of the human spirit that must remain for a person to be truly human, is a thoroughly sub-Christian view.

He concluded: “I feel that that awareness of the inner conversation, the inner dialogue, that has to be part of a sensible, credible modern dialogue about the soul.”

This little insight does explain Rowan’s preoccupation with “conversation”: he has one running in his head all the time.

Dr Williams made his comments about Pullman after telling the Hay audience that he thought theology had become less relevant to the “intellectual mainstream” since the 19th century.

Well, no wonder.

The New Westminster and Niagara trial updates

The diocese of New Westminster is reporting on the trial between it and ANiC to determine ownership of church properties. This update on the Niagara court proceedings was at the end of the day 3 report:

In another legal matter involving the Anglican Network in Canada, in the Superior Court of Ontario, Madam Justice Jane Milanetti awarded leaders of three dissenting congregations to pay $75,600 in court costs after the failure of their attempt to obtain exclusive use of buildings in the Diocese of Niagara in Ontario, until a trial could be held.

The case had been heard in March of 2008. The diocese had offered to share the buildings, Judge Milanetti noted in her judgement, “an offer substantially better…than my ultimate order.”

After the judge ruled in May of 2008 that the buildings must be shared, the Network parishes decided instead to leave. The parishes were St. George’s Lowville, St. Hilda’s Oakville, and the Church of the Good Shepherd, St. Catharines.

“Despite my order that the parties share the properties, the respondents have apparently chosen not to do so. I have learned that they opted to incur additional costs to worship elsewhere. Although that is clearly their prerogative, those additional expenses (despite their argument based on same), cannot and will not be considered by me in this decision,” she wrote in her decision on costs made public Wednesday (May 27).

Not entirely accurate. In St. Hilda’s case, we did not decide to leave: we worship at a school on Sundays since the diocese was given the building at the time we hold our services. During the week we are still in the building and run ministries out of it.

Initially the diocese offered to relieve us of the keys to our building, not to share it; once they realised they weren’t going to get them, as a second best option, they did offer to share it. Considering that we believe the diocese to be heretical, sharing the building with them made little sense; if we could amicably share the building, we would not have had to leave the diocese in the first place. The first trial judge, Ramsay recognised this and gave us exclusive use of the building.

The subsequent “sharing” has been little more than a ploy by the diocese to create a perceived need for the buildings to house their congregation; in actual fact they only have around 5 people – imported from another church in St. Hilda’s case – attending Sunday worship in the Niagara churches; their true interest is the value of the properties.

Repentance-lite from the WCC

The World Council of Churches calls for repentance at Pentecost

Repentance in today’s world will involve:

·Corporate managers recognizing their errors, publicly confessing them and making reparation.

·All of us who are responsible for the degradation of the ecosystem mending our ways and making efforts to reduce all forms of pollution.

·Those who instigate violence being encouraged to become gentle and tolerant, consistent with our prayer that the ecumenical “Decade to Overcome Violence” which is drawing to a close will not have taken place without having some impact upon us.

The repentance proclaimed by Christ and strongly restated at Pentecost is a force for spiritual transformation, for change and for renewal. Human beings must seek to be reconciled with themselves, with one another, and with their environment, and churches too must go on seeking reconciliation. This is the challenge of our gospel of reconciliation, and it is raised again this year in the United Nation’s International Year of Reconciliation, 2009.

May we all find the strength and the will to give new meaning to the claim, “Yes, we can!” Anything is possible for those who believe.

This Obama inspired “yes we can” repentance is easy on those of us who are not violent, corporate manager eco-system degraders; and I spent 3 minutes reconciling with myself over coffee this morning, so all is well.

Notably absent is any mention of sin, which is a considerable relief since, as far as I am concerned, it is the one thing that actually does give me some trouble; someone should have told St. Paul about this.

But let’s continue giving evil corporate managers a rough ride: public confession and humiliation for trying to make a profit, a show trial at the UN and forced re-education at an Anglican Poverty Justice Camp should straighten them out.

Rowan Williams’s unwanted political advice

Anglican Archbishops Rowan Williams and John Sentamu exhorted the British public not to punish avaricious MPs by voting for the BNP.

The Daily Mail conducted a poll that illustrates just how out of touch Anglican bishops are with ordinary people – or, at least with people who respond to Daily Mail polls.

Is the church entitled to tell people not to vote for the BNP:

The youth of the Diocese of Niagara, gender-neutral language and rainbow flags

Youth at the Diocese of Niagara Youth Synod had this to say among other things:

Delegates will be asking their local municipalities and schools to fly the rainbow flag on International Day against Homophobia, and they challenged themselves to offer support to those who have been hurt by homophobic language.

They vowed to take a stand against homophobia and bullying wherever they encounter either. At the successful passing of the Homophobia motion, delegates presented a rainbow flag to St. Christopher’s asking them to fly the flag every May 17. The delegates pledged to volunteer their time and energy to a youth ambassador program that connects parishes to diocesan youth ministry events, and is a presence at diocesan events. And they didn’t stop at challenging themselves! They invited the church to use gender-neutral language in liturgy in diocesan worship services; asked the Diocesan Youth Ministry

Committee and the Program Consultants to set up the Youth Ambassador Program, and to provide training to volunteer staff and Youth Ministry program participants about bullying. Finally, the delegates of Youth Synod 2009 affirmed the Diocesan vision and resolved to continue the leadership role of Youth Ministry as the vision unfolds and they invited Bishop Michael to affirm his commitment to living out the diocesan vision in partnership with them.

Barring the repeal of Pr. 22:6, it’s hard to believe that the youth of the hyper-liberal diocese of Niagara would be this interested in homophobia and gender-neutral language without a little coaching from Michael Bird and his cohorts.

An Anglican Professor of Church History has noticed that the Anglican church is falling apart

Alan Hayes is Professor of Church History at Wycliffe, University of Toronto, and he has this to say about the plight of the Anglican Church of Canada (Page 3):

And now, in 2009, the Anglican Communion gives a very good impression of falling to pieces. Some of this gets blamed on debates about sexuality, but, if you’ve followed me so far, you’ll know that I see deeper and more enduring causes than that.

What’s the way forward? If our problem is what I suspect – that we’re depending on a Vatican II theology which was never really ours to begin with and which is now showing signs of age—then the way forward is theological too. We need to rediscover, together, the faith of our Church. We need to agree on what we stand for, and we need to discern our distinctive theologically grounded mission.

I doubt that techniques of church growth or strategies of relevance will move us ahead until we’ve had our own Anglican Vatican II, and that will mean prayer, self-criticism, ressourcement, and aggiornamento.

This is the first time I have seen Alan openly admit that the ACoC is imitating something that is falling to pieces. Of course, for many of us, it is quite clear that the ACoC isn’t doing an imitation, but actually is falling to pieces: just as Bob Dylan observed you don’t need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows, you don’t need a professor of church history to tell you what the rotten smell is in the ACoC.

His point that we adopted something that isn’t ours – Vatican II – and that we need our own version is interesting but impossible: we don’t have a Vatican. It has become transparently apparent that there is absolutely no working authority structure in the worldwide Anglican communion; someone other than Rowan Williams might have had the guts to impose order, but it is quite clearly beyond Rowan.

When we see this sort of thing:

the Roman Catholic Church’s new and totally unexpected spirit of self-criticism, its re-thinking of Christian basics, its ressourcement (its return to essential sources, especially Scripture), and its aggiornamento (its passion to come to faithful terms with the modern world).

We may persuade ourselves that in this there is a glimmer of hope, in phrases like return to essential sources, especially Scripture; the glimmer is dimmed when we read: passion to come to faithful terms with the modern world. Rather than plainly say that the ACoC has departed from historic orthodox Christianity, we have something sufficiently slippery that it can used by liberals whose view of coming to faithful terms with the culture is to capitulate to it.

Liberals like Michael Burslem, whose article by a stroke of fortuitous irony, appears on the same page:

In Anglicanism we have neither an infallible pope nor an infallible Bible. The Word of God is our supreme authority, not exclusively the Bible. This is the Logos of St. John’s prologue, which he defines as Jesus Christ. However, since his Ascension he is no longer with us in person, but he did promise to send his Holy Spirit, who is the Logos in the world today. The Spirit certainly speaks to us through Holy Scripture, but also through other means, such as our culture and traditions, other people, (especially our spouses) through visions, dreams, through music, poetry, drama and literature; through the wonders of science; yes, and through common sense. He deals with us individually. There is no ‘one size fits all’ which would be if the Bible alone were our supreme authority.

Here we have entered the realm of sanctified subjectivity: contemporary cultural prejudice justified by the rubber stamp of a bogus holy spirit.

Alan’s way forward, We need to rediscover, together, the faith of our Church, is more of a way sideways:  with nothing explicit in mind, it would be used by liberals to conform the church to contemporary preoccupations while making the claim of returning to the church’s roots.

Is Rowan Williams doing the BNP a favour?

Rowan Williams and John Sentamu are urging British voters to shun the BNP: by this time, everyone expects political peroration rather than spiritual insight from Anglican bishops, and this does not disappoint:

The Archbishop of Canterbury called on people to shun extremist parties and to use their vote positively in local and European elections on June 4. In an unprecedented intervention, Dr Rowan Williams joined forces with Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, and other religious leaders to condemn the “deeply disturbing” tactics of the BNP.

“Christians have been deeply disturbed by the conscious adoption by the BNP of the language of our faith when the effect of those policies is not to promote those values but to foster fear and division within communities, especially between people of different faiths or racial background.”

In a sense Rowan Williams is getting a taste of his own medicine: for decades liberal Anglican clergy have been twisting the language of orthodox Christianity to their own purposes. “What is the Spirit saying to the church” is one example of many; it is  uprooted from a biblical context (Rev 2) and used to legitimise just about anything a group of wayward clerics wishes to perpetrate. Their use of it has nothing to do with the person of the Holy Spirit, nothing to do with God’s revelation of himself and nothing to do with Christianity. So, deeply disturbed Rowan, welcome to the world of frustration of orthodox Anglicans.

The Telegraph astutely notes that the political meanderings of liberal clergy are liable to drive more people into the arms of the BNP; after Rowan’s sharia law debacle, one can only assume that the BNP is secretly paying him to come up with this stuff.

Even though Dr Williams and Dr Sentamu are not politicians, like most leading churchmen they have supported the liberal consensus on Europe, immigration and national identity, so there is a risk that their appeal may make matters worse. The sort of voters who take advice from well-meaning prelates are not the sort who would be tempted to vote BNP. Those most irritated by the pronouncements of church leaders, on the other hand, may be persuaded to do just the opposite of what the Primates suggest.

An infectious cross

Apparently, wearing a crucifix has become an infection hazard:

A Christian hospital worker fears for her job after refusing to take off a crucifix which ‘could harbour infection’, it emerged today.

Helen Slatter, 43, says she will not choose between her faith and her job after the NHS claimed the jewellery could spread disease or even be used as a weapon.

Gloucestershire Royal Hospital explained today that health and safety rules applied to everyone and the regulations had nothing to do with religion.

The blood collector – or phlebologist – said she was called to a disciplinary meeting yesterday and warned she would be sent home if she failed to comply.

A spokesman for Gloucestershire NHS Trust said today: ‘The issue is not one of religion. The trust employs a uniform policy which must be adhered to at all times.

‘Necklaces and chains present two problems – firstly they provide a surface that can harbour and spread infections and secondly they present a health and safety issue whereby a patient could grab a necklace or chain and cause harm to a member of staff.’

Medicine is supposed to be based on science; where is the science that demonstrates cases of a crucifix infecting anyone or being used as a weapon? Where are the studies? Could the NHS be exhibiting religious bigotry?

The cross is infectious in a positive way; is this what really worries the NHS?