Admiral Jackson D. Arnold
US Navy (Retired)
3 November 1912 – 8 December 2007
Admiral Arnold was born 3 November 1912 in Gainesville, Florida, the first of five children, to US Army Major AC and Irene Arnold. A far ranging adventurer, AC Arnold had fought in the Boar War on the side of the Boars, joined the Seventh Cavalry as a trooper, been a river boat gambler, fought with Pershing on the Mexico Punitive Expedition, been awarded a Distinguished Service Cross for actions with the 1/326 Infantry at Chateau Thierry during World War I, gone to law school, been assigned to several positions in the peacetime Army before rejoining the Seventh at Fort Lewis, where he passed away in 1932.
Jack grew up in Army posts around the United States, he was proud of “taking the chicken” from Douglas McArthur in Washington, DC. As the second Arnold to take McArthur’s chicken; AC had taken an entire chicken dinner from McArthur’s bunker during World War I, a foreshadowing of the Dugout Doug moniker.
Jack joined the Navy via the Naval Academy from Fort Lewis Washington, where his father was the Seventh Cavalry Judge Advocate General, responsible for federal law west of the Mississippi.
At 21, he graduated from the US Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland with the Class of 1934.
As with all Naval Academy graduates of the time, he served in what is now the Surface Warfare Community for his first tour. After two years aboard USS ARIZONA as her Number 4 Turret Officer, he was selected for training as a US Naval Aviator, graduating from Pensacola in 1937 and being designated Naval Aviator 5551; his orders were signed by Captain William H. Halsey.
His first assignment was with Torpedo SIX aboard USS ENTERPRISE on her maiden voyage flying TBD Devastators on a goodwill tour of South America. During a port call in Buenos Aires, LTjg Arnold won a Argentine medal for saving the life of the President during an assassination attempt. He attended the state dinner that night in his dress whites, complete with blood spatters at the President’s request.
Subsequently he was assigned as the Senior Aviator for Cruiser Scouting Squadron EIGHT aboard USS SAVANNAH flying SOC-1 Floatplanes. His most memorable aviation experience came here when he performed night test flights to see if a floatplane could be operated in blackout conditions at sea. They found it could, but probably not with the same pilot for more than one flight.
His next assignment was to Ford Island, Pearl Harbor as the Engineering Test Pilot, where he met his wife to be Muriel McChesney.
On 7 December 1941, when the Japanese struck, then LT Arnold made his way to Pearl Harbor under fire. After quite a bit of trouble convincing the crew of a whaleboat to take him to Ford Island, his normal duty station, he finally got to the island. There, during the middle of the first wave’s attack, he fired up a Wildcat, the only flyable one on the island. A ground crew member crawled up on the wing telling him, “You can’t take this airplane!” “The heck I can’t, get off my wing!” he replied. “But, it doesn’t have any ammunition!” came the response. He jumped out near the base of the tower and picked up a BAR from a Marine who did not need it anymore. A long time shooter, pistol and bird, a member of the All Navy Pistol Team, he was a very good shot. Anyway, he shot down a torpedo plane coming in to strafe the new control tower that he was standing at the base of. The plane crashed on the field. Between the two waves, Jack and a couple of sailors went over to look at the wreckage. They found it was the first wave’s Torpedo Squadron Commander, they drank his sake and got on with the war.
That kill from the ground was later to make Jack the only known pilot who shot down five aircraft (one with a BAR, two with an Avenger, two with a Hellcat) who is not Ace!
During the lull between attacks he commandeered a motor whaleboat and began picking up survivors from his first ship, USS ARIZONA and others in the harbor. The first person his boat pulled from the water was the Petty Officer in Charge of the Number Four turret on ARIZONA. Jack did not recognize him as he looked like a seal, black with oil head to toe.
After 66 years ARIZONA still leaks bunker oil into the harbor, a few drops at a time. ARIZONA and UTAH were the only two ships not raised after the attack.
Before leaving Pearl Harbor, he married Muriel McChesney on 16 January 1942.
Then LCDR Arnold was assigned as Commander Torpedo TWO, whose patch he designed, flying the new TBF Avenger, with the newly forming Carrier Air Group TWO. The Group was assigned to new USS HORNET for her first war cruise. After a short time, then CDR Arnold was designated Commander Air Group TWO flying the F6-F Hellcat.
The Air Group Commander’s job brought a new challenge. The job was offered at 2200, the night before the invastion of Iwo Jima, where HORNET was to play a pivotal role in close air support. The first takeoff was at 0430, to allow the aircraft to be over the beach 30 minutes prior to sunrise. Although an experienced pilot, with flight time in an extremely wide variety of aircraft, CDR Arnold had never flown a Hellcat. After planning the attack, he went down to the flight deck, boarded the CAG aircraft with its 99 on the nose. With a flashlight under a blanket, he familiarized himself with the aircraft, then he went to his room for a brief rest. The self checkout must have worked. He made his first Hellcat takeoff at night, into combat. On that very first flight he got the only two kills he was to get in the Hellcat.
HORNET and her Air Group supported operations in Palau, Guam, Iwo Jima, Saipan and Tinian and the First Battle of the Philippine Sea. During the cruise, he flew 165 combat hours, made 4 Japanese aircraft kills, and was awarded two Navy Crosses, a Silver Star, Distinguished Service Medal, two Distinguished Flying Crosses and seven Air Medals. Air Group Two finished the war after two cruises as the Pacific’s highest scoring Air Group in terms of tonnage sunk and the second in terms of Air to Air kills.
After his tour as CAG, he was assigned to Washington, DC for staff tours, returning to sea as Air Officer aboard USS BOXER. He was in the first group to check out in the McDonnell Phantom (later the Phantom I), the first carrier borne jet fighter.
After that tour, he was offered command of BOXER. With the absolute independence he was known for, he said, “No thank you. I have been at sea since 1934, I’d like a stateside tour, then I’ll be happy to take her to sea.” Turning down a command is never good, turning down command of a carrier, particularly BOXER, the newest of the best is the end of a career.
Never mind, on to a new career.
Jack was designated an Aeronautical Engineering Duty Officer and assigned to NAS North Island as the Overhaul and Repair Officer. There he met the man who was to be his best friend and neighbor, Johnny Olson. CDR Olson had joined the Navy as a Ship’s Carpenter in 1903 and was now the Commander of the Aircraft Repair and Overhaul Unit. After another staff tour, he attended Harvard University, where he got his Masters in Business Administration.
Subsequent assignments in the various Bureaus, Aeronautical, Weapons and Materiel, culminating in an assignment as the Force Fleet Materiels Officer, gave VADM Arnold a well-rounded background which made him the logical choice to be the final Chief of the Bureau of Naval Materiel and the first Commander of the newly formed Naval Material Command. The fact that he kept current as a Naval Aviator made him a standout choice for promotion. With the new assignment came the promotion to full admiral, the first Aeronautical Engineering Duty Officer to achieve the four stars of a full admiral.
Replaced at the Naval Materiel Command by long time friend, shipmate and son of ARIZONA’s final Flag Officer, Isaac Kidd, Jr, ADM Arnold retired in 1971.
Admiral Arnold stayed active in aviation, joining the Cubic Corporation Board of Directors, the Golden Eagles, the San Diego Aerospace Museum and various other naval aviation oriented groups.
After moving around the country and being at sea for years, Admiral Arnold retired to Rancho Santa Fe, California, where he built a home of his own design for himself and his wife Muriel. They were both active in the Rancho Santa Fe Garden Club and other activities in the community.
Ever the artist, he continued drawing and working in his garden. Occasionally, he would put an entry into the Rancho Santa Fe Garden Club show, most always gaining a ribbon or two.
Towards the end of his life, Jack spent most of his time in his living room watching television. Perhaps due to his past life, he loved to watch cavalry, westerns and action movies. Chuck Norris will be pleased to know Walker Texas Ranger was at the top of the old warrior’s list.
Although the Arnolds had no children of their own, they were very close to their families, the McChesneys and the Arnolds. They spent a lot of time with their nieces and nephews over the years. Somehow the assignments always kept them near their family and they got an opportunity to be with them. Leading by example, he passed on his values, God, Honor, Country, politeness, preparing for all of life throughout the family.
Through the years, he has been a shining example of how one ought to treat others. Most people who did not know him react in amazement to find out he was a decorated combat leader and an Admiral. He exuded niceness, yet if pressed on a subject he felt strongly about, would react with the fire expected of the CAG. A true leader, he lead from the front of the group and people wanted to follow him. This was true in the Navy and true in retirement.
Preceded by his wife Muriel, his brothers Patrick, Charles and sister Mary, he is survived by sister Dorothy and twenty-seven nieces and nephews, the Admiral will be missed by his family and those shipmates who remain behind.
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Saturday, November 24, 2007
The One Way
Many people today see the church as irrelevant. They want the “church” to address the ills of society, to make wrong right and to make everything okay.
That is not the church’s function. The church is the body of believers, the body of Christ. The function of the church is to paraphrase our parish’s mission statement:
To minister to the spiritual needs of our its members so they might effectively spread the Word of God and the good news of His Son Jesus Christ, our Savior, locally and throughout the world by prayer, word and deed, and in our case, in the Anglican tradition.
The members are then to act a Christian fashion and then they themselves can work to right wrongs, etc, etc.
People talk today about “family values” and homosexual acceptance in the same paragraph. They are not willing to judge one social system superior to another.
With no grounding (due to the abject failure of their parents) in religion, people substitute good for right, feeling good for doing the right thing. With no moral absolute, only moral relativity, there is no lodestar pointing the way. The one way.
Homosexual marriage is okay, not because it is okay, but because we don’t want people to feel bad. We back the individual’s right to do what they want, regardless of the effect on society as a whole. That is, so long as it furthers the anti-God agenda. A crucifix in a jar of urine is individual expression, praying is not.
What will the government do to help me? How about most of what is wrong is wrong because the government helped someone?
"There's this false monopoly on terms, like Republicans are champions of family values and the left is good on social justice. And young people don't like that," she said. "We don't want to be pigeonholed." Actually, the Democrats are terrible on both and the Republicans only a little better.
God charged us to be stewards of this world. But good stewards depend on good rational science to determine their course of action. Global warming is not a fact, even less a fact is man being behind it, if it exists. Yet, those who would rule us pretend it is and that the solution is to return the cave.
Many young people want to pretend the humanist agenda is God’s agenda. It is not.
We need to make the Word of God available to those who want it. We also have to face the facts, not everyone will want it. No matter how much better their lives would be if they would accept God’s help.
Remember, the Devil chose to be Number One in Hell, rather than enjoy Heaven.
That is not the church’s function. The church is the body of believers, the body of Christ. The function of the church is to paraphrase our parish’s mission statement:
To minister to the spiritual needs of our its members so they might effectively spread the Word of God and the good news of His Son Jesus Christ, our Savior, locally and throughout the world by prayer, word and deed, and in our case, in the Anglican tradition.
The members are then to act a Christian fashion and then they themselves can work to right wrongs, etc, etc.
People talk today about “family values” and homosexual acceptance in the same paragraph. They are not willing to judge one social system superior to another.
With no grounding (due to the abject failure of their parents) in religion, people substitute good for right, feeling good for doing the right thing. With no moral absolute, only moral relativity, there is no lodestar pointing the way. The one way.
Homosexual marriage is okay, not because it is okay, but because we don’t want people to feel bad. We back the individual’s right to do what they want, regardless of the effect on society as a whole. That is, so long as it furthers the anti-God agenda. A crucifix in a jar of urine is individual expression, praying is not.
What will the government do to help me? How about most of what is wrong is wrong because the government helped someone?
"There's this false monopoly on terms, like Republicans are champions of family values and the left is good on social justice. And young people don't like that," she said. "We don't want to be pigeonholed." Actually, the Democrats are terrible on both and the Republicans only a little better.
God charged us to be stewards of this world. But good stewards depend on good rational science to determine their course of action. Global warming is not a fact, even less a fact is man being behind it, if it exists. Yet, those who would rule us pretend it is and that the solution is to return the cave.
Many young people want to pretend the humanist agenda is God’s agenda. It is not.
We need to make the Word of God available to those who want it. We also have to face the facts, not everyone will want it. No matter how much better their lives would be if they would accept God’s help.
Remember, the Devil chose to be Number One in Hell, rather than enjoy Heaven.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
iWeb 2.02 Still Sucks, Still Won't Post
I have not been able to post to my blog at DOT Mac since 5 August 2007. See my site at: http://web.mac.com/thebeadle/iWeb/BeadleBlog/Blog/Blog.html
Note there have been no new postings since 5 August 2007. This is because I foolishly adopted iWeb 2.0. It would no longer post. No problem, iWeb 2.01. Ooops, still won't post. No problem, six weeks later iWeb 2.02. Same "An unknown error occurred". Maybe I should call Apple. Oh, that won't work. They don't have a clue!
Wonder if this happens to Steve Jobs? Likely he uses some other reliable software. Eh, Steveo? Or is that iSteve?
Note there have been no new postings since 5 August 2007. This is because I foolishly adopted iWeb 2.0. It would no longer post. No problem, iWeb 2.01. Ooops, still won't post. No problem, six weeks later iWeb 2.02. Same "An unknown error occurred". Maybe I should call Apple. Oh, that won't work. They don't have a clue!
Wonder if this happens to Steve Jobs? Likely he uses some other reliable software. Eh, Steveo? Or is that iSteve?
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Damned if he do, Damned if he don't. Could do something and not be damned, but he won't.
Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, a man who holds the office normally considered to be the leadership position of the Worldwide Anglican Communion, is an ineffectual fence sitter who has no idea what he should do. He has been placed in a bad position by his predecessors who accepted heretics and atheists as fellow bishops rather than offend them. They sacrificed their principles rather than offend. Now, poor Williams reaps the reward. He is faced with two camps, card carrying homosexual advocates, to whom tolerate means promote, and "hard liners" who think that God meant what He said. He has "tolerated" for so long, he has no idea how to lead. Like the Band Leader on TITANIC, he is DOING SOMETHING, but the ship is headed for the bottom. Unlike the Band Leader, he could close the open seacocks sinking his ship, but he won't.
For a litle humor, read this article from the UK's DAILY TELEGRAPH:
Archbishop accused of 'dehumanising gays'
By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent Last Updated: 12:59am BST 23/09/2007
The Archbishop of Canterbury's hopes of averting schism in the worldwide Anglican Church are foundering after he was accused of dehumanising gays by the openly homosexual bishop Gene Robinson.
Gene Robinson said he 'had to tell the truth'
Dr Rowan Williams is holding two days of crisis talks in New Orleans in an eleventh-hour effort to persuade the bishops of the American branch of Anglicanism to reverse their pro-gay agenda.
But insiders said that a number of the liberal bishops were in no mood to capitulate, and any compromise that they might eventually accept was unlikely to placate conservatives who want them ousted.
Documents leaked to the Daily Telegraph suggest that they may agree an ambiguous form of words that will fall far short of the unequivocal reassurances demanded of them, leaving Anglicanism on the brink of collapse.
Insiders in the often emotive private meeting in a New Orleans hotel said that Dr Williams rapped the Americans over the knuckles for triggering the crisis by consecrating Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003.
He told them that they had to balance their fidelity to gay and lesbians with fidelity to their fellow members in the 77-million strong Anglican Communion, the vast majority of whom believe homosexuality is sinful and unbiblical.
advertisement
But Bishop Robinson, who is attending the six-day House of Bishops meeting with his partner Mark Andrews, said that though he had always publicly supported Dr Williams, he now "had to tell the truth".
According to witnesses, he said that for Dr Williams to present the situation as a choice between fidelity to gays and fidelity to the Communion "is one of the most dehumanising things I have heard in a long time" and he wanted no part of it.
Another liberal, the Bishop of Massachussetts, the Rt Rev Thomas Shaw, also criticised the Archbishop for failing to honour the American Church's "prophetic discernment" in consecrating Bishop Robinson.
One insider said: "The speeches we heard suggested that the tide was running heavily in the direction of saying to the Archbishop, thank you for your concern but we have made up our minds and we are going forward."
In February the primates, the heads of the 38 self-governing provinces that make up the Anglican Communion, gave the Americans until the end of this month to declare unambiguous moratoriums on future consecrations of gays and on same-sex blessings.
But the Daily Telegraph has seen a draft document drawn up by a senior bishop who urges his colleagues to adopt a far less clear position that will be open to a wide range of interpretations, allowing liberal American bishops considerable leeway.
Insiders said they believed that the document by the Bishop of Alabama, the Rt Rev Parsley, who is head of the American Church's theology committee, could well form the basis of the House of Bishops' final statement next week.
Dr Williams has told friends that he may nevertheless allow the Americans to come to next year's showcase Lambeth Conference in Canterbury, and call the bluff of conservative archbishops in Africa and Asia who have threatened to boycott it.
Meanwhile, conservatives angrily dismissed a plan announced by the head of the American Church, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, to appoint eight bishops as "episcopal visitors" for American traditionalists who reject her authority.
One said: "It has just gone too far. It is like asking people, knowing what we know, would you like to board the Titanic and sail with us. What we have is a clash of world views with eternal consequences."
In a sign of their growing frustration, a handful of the most conservative bishops walked out of the House of Bishops' meeting, saying they could contribute nothing more to it.
Dr Williams, who preached at an ecumenical service complete with jazz and dancing yesterday, also left the meeting for a trip to Armenia, Syria and the Lebanon.
The House of Bishops is expected to issue its final statement on Tuesday next week.
For a litle humor, read this article from the UK's DAILY TELEGRAPH:
Archbishop accused of 'dehumanising gays'
By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent Last Updated: 12:59am BST 23/09/2007
The Archbishop of Canterbury's hopes of averting schism in the worldwide Anglican Church are foundering after he was accused of dehumanising gays by the openly homosexual bishop Gene Robinson.
Gene Robinson said he 'had to tell the truth'
Dr Rowan Williams is holding two days of crisis talks in New Orleans in an eleventh-hour effort to persuade the bishops of the American branch of Anglicanism to reverse their pro-gay agenda.
But insiders said that a number of the liberal bishops were in no mood to capitulate, and any compromise that they might eventually accept was unlikely to placate conservatives who want them ousted.
Documents leaked to the Daily Telegraph suggest that they may agree an ambiguous form of words that will fall far short of the unequivocal reassurances demanded of them, leaving Anglicanism on the brink of collapse.
Insiders in the often emotive private meeting in a New Orleans hotel said that Dr Williams rapped the Americans over the knuckles for triggering the crisis by consecrating Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003.
He told them that they had to balance their fidelity to gay and lesbians with fidelity to their fellow members in the 77-million strong Anglican Communion, the vast majority of whom believe homosexuality is sinful and unbiblical.
advertisement
But Bishop Robinson, who is attending the six-day House of Bishops meeting with his partner Mark Andrews, said that though he had always publicly supported Dr Williams, he now "had to tell the truth".
According to witnesses, he said that for Dr Williams to present the situation as a choice between fidelity to gays and fidelity to the Communion "is one of the most dehumanising things I have heard in a long time" and he wanted no part of it.
Another liberal, the Bishop of Massachussetts, the Rt Rev Thomas Shaw, also criticised the Archbishop for failing to honour the American Church's "prophetic discernment" in consecrating Bishop Robinson.
One insider said: "The speeches we heard suggested that the tide was running heavily in the direction of saying to the Archbishop, thank you for your concern but we have made up our minds and we are going forward."
In February the primates, the heads of the 38 self-governing provinces that make up the Anglican Communion, gave the Americans until the end of this month to declare unambiguous moratoriums on future consecrations of gays and on same-sex blessings.
But the Daily Telegraph has seen a draft document drawn up by a senior bishop who urges his colleagues to adopt a far less clear position that will be open to a wide range of interpretations, allowing liberal American bishops considerable leeway.
Insiders said they believed that the document by the Bishop of Alabama, the Rt Rev Parsley, who is head of the American Church's theology committee, could well form the basis of the House of Bishops' final statement next week.
Dr Williams has told friends that he may nevertheless allow the Americans to come to next year's showcase Lambeth Conference in Canterbury, and call the bluff of conservative archbishops in Africa and Asia who have threatened to boycott it.
Meanwhile, conservatives angrily dismissed a plan announced by the head of the American Church, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, to appoint eight bishops as "episcopal visitors" for American traditionalists who reject her authority.
One said: "It has just gone too far. It is like asking people, knowing what we know, would you like to board the Titanic and sail with us. What we have is a clash of world views with eternal consequences."
In a sign of their growing frustration, a handful of the most conservative bishops walked out of the House of Bishops' meeting, saying they could contribute nothing more to it.
Dr Williams, who preached at an ecumenical service complete with jazz and dancing yesterday, also left the meeting for a trip to Armenia, Syria and the Lebanon.
The House of Bishops is expected to issue its final statement on Tuesday next week.
Splitting yes, but why?
Read the following article, 'Church is split by gay movement's impatience' from Nederlands Dagblad of 19 augustus 2006 and consider, why is the Anglican Church splitting? Is it because the radical queers can wait a few years to let their agenda grow on the church like a slow growing cancer? Or is it because the collegial bishops would not or could not confront evil and wrong in their midst? What if Spong, PIke and their ilk had been excommunicated when they first showed on the X-Rays, where would we have been? Likely, we would have been in the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States and they would be in hell. They are bound there anyway, trust me on that. Anyway, read on!
============
From our Religion Desk
LONDON - If it comes to a split in the Anglican Communion, it is not the fault of the orthodox wing which wants to leave, but of the radical wing that couldn't wait to make a 'gay bishop' and the blessing of gay relationships possible.
Such is the view of the spiritual leader of the Anglican Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, expressed in an interview with the Dutch Evangelical daily newspaper, Nederlands Dagblad.
Williams himself does not regard homosexuality as an issue on which the Church should split. He says it is a subject 'we must talk about'. ,, There are enough Christians of good faith in every denomination - Evangelical to Roman Catholic - to whom it is not quite so self-evident, who are not absolutely sure that we have always read the Bible right.''
But that discussion is being foreclosed by people with a 'radical agenda' who just can't wait, says the Archbishop. The Episcopal Church in the United States (ECUSA) three years ago ordained a Bishop who lived openly in a gay relationship. In doing so ,, it has made a decision that is not the decision of the wider body of Christ'', says Williams. He confronts the ideal of the inclusive church. ,, We welcome everybody into the Church, but coming in is a decision that will change you. Conversion is called for,'' so the Archbishop.
He is worried about an imminent split in the American Church which will reverberate throughout the Communion. His 'nightmare scenario' is that there will eventually be American-, English- and Nigerian-Anglican Churches in the same city, and that ,, in ten years' time we will all be tied up before law courts, in disputes about property''.
Concerned Anglicans in America say they are encouraged by what the Archbishop has said. Their leader, the Bishop of Pittsburgh Robert Duncan, says the Anglican Church in the US and worldwide is threatened by 'balkanisation'. He says the interview makes clear that the Archbishop is aware that he has to provide 'help and leadership'. He embraces Williams's vision that ,, a relationship with Jesus Christ comes with the call and the means to repent and change''. This is the ,, classical, reformed-catholic'' Anglican faith that we want to stick to, Bishop Duncan says. The radical wing ,, chooses to go a path that leads them outside the Anglican Communion and mainstream Christianity''.
============
From our Religion Desk
LONDON - If it comes to a split in the Anglican Communion, it is not the fault of the orthodox wing which wants to leave, but of the radical wing that couldn't wait to make a 'gay bishop' and the blessing of gay relationships possible.
Such is the view of the spiritual leader of the Anglican Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, expressed in an interview with the Dutch Evangelical daily newspaper, Nederlands Dagblad.
Williams himself does not regard homosexuality as an issue on which the Church should split. He says it is a subject 'we must talk about'. ,, There are enough Christians of good faith in every denomination - Evangelical to Roman Catholic - to whom it is not quite so self-evident, who are not absolutely sure that we have always read the Bible right.''
But that discussion is being foreclosed by people with a 'radical agenda' who just can't wait, says the Archbishop. The Episcopal Church in the United States (ECUSA) three years ago ordained a Bishop who lived openly in a gay relationship. In doing so ,, it has made a decision that is not the decision of the wider body of Christ'', says Williams. He confronts the ideal of the inclusive church. ,, We welcome everybody into the Church, but coming in is a decision that will change you. Conversion is called for,'' so the Archbishop.
He is worried about an imminent split in the American Church which will reverberate throughout the Communion. His 'nightmare scenario' is that there will eventually be American-, English- and Nigerian-Anglican Churches in the same city, and that ,, in ten years' time we will all be tied up before law courts, in disputes about property''.
Concerned Anglicans in America say they are encouraged by what the Archbishop has said. Their leader, the Bishop of Pittsburgh Robert Duncan, says the Anglican Church in the US and worldwide is threatened by 'balkanisation'. He says the interview makes clear that the Archbishop is aware that he has to provide 'help and leadership'. He embraces Williams's vision that ,, a relationship with Jesus Christ comes with the call and the means to repent and change''. This is the ,, classical, reformed-catholic'' Anglican faith that we want to stick to, Bishop Duncan says. The radical wing ,, chooses to go a path that leads them outside the Anglican Communion and mainstream Christianity''.
Concerned, Conflicted, Wants to be a Roman; he still quit!
From the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande. He wants the TEC to "come back" to the Roman Church. I have no truck with him or his philosophy, nor for his overriding concern that no one be too upset, nor for his appreciation of the "pastoral support" he has received from the person who thinks she is a bishop. But even this spineless witless wonder has committed to quitting the TEC. If this invertebrate can move, what about the conservatives wth their "plan"? The answer is they don't have a plan. Anway, read on!
===================
September 21, 2007
To the Clergy of the Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
This is a very difficult letter to write as your bishop and colleague in the ordained ministry, and I hope that you will receive it in the prayerful spirit in which it is offered. A pastoral letter to the people of the diocese will follow in a few days. At the House of Bishops meeting about to be convened in New Orleans, my intention is to ask them for permission to begin the process to resign as diocesan bishop. The bishops must give their consent, and then I will step down by the end of the year.
The reason for this decision is that my conscience is deeply troubled about where the Episcopal Church is heading, and this has become a crisis for me because of my ordination vow to uphold its doctrine, discipline, and worship. An effective leader cannot be so conflicted about the guiding principles of the Church he serves. It concerns me that this has affected my ability to lead this diocese with a clear and hopeful vision for its mission. I also have sensed how important it is for those of us in this position to model a gracious way to leave the Episcopal Church in a manner respectful of its laws.
I believe that God’s call to us is always positive, always a to and not a from. At the clergy conference next week I hope to be able to share something of this. Many of you already know of my love for the Catholic Church and my conviction that this is the true home of Anglicanism. I will not dwell on this, however, so as not to lose sight of my responsibility to help lay a good foundation for the transition that you must now lead.
I also want to acknowledge with gratitude the pastoral support I have received from the Presiding Bishop and her office during this time. She has offered to visit, and I have invited her to be with us at the clergy conference the afternoon of Wednesday, Sept. 26, and perhaps also for that evening, for mutual conversation and the opportunity to know each other better in this time reserved for the clergy. I hope that you all can be present.
This has been an extraordinarily difficult decision to make because of the bonds I share with you and the people of this diocese. It has indeed been a privilege to serve alongside you these past seven years. With deep feelings I write, with regret for how this may complicate your own ministry, with profound gratitude for your prayers and support, and with much love for you. I pledge to you my prayers and friendship in these days to come.
Your brother in Christ, +Jeffrey Steenson
=========
NB - "+" is a symbol that many "ordained ministers" place in front of their signature to indicate they are Christians. If they do not do this, they sign themselves, "yours in Christ." They do this because otherwise no one would have any idea from what they do or say that they are Christians.
===================
September 21, 2007
To the Clergy of the Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
This is a very difficult letter to write as your bishop and colleague in the ordained ministry, and I hope that you will receive it in the prayerful spirit in which it is offered. A pastoral letter to the people of the diocese will follow in a few days. At the House of Bishops meeting about to be convened in New Orleans, my intention is to ask them for permission to begin the process to resign as diocesan bishop. The bishops must give their consent, and then I will step down by the end of the year.
The reason for this decision is that my conscience is deeply troubled about where the Episcopal Church is heading, and this has become a crisis for me because of my ordination vow to uphold its doctrine, discipline, and worship. An effective leader cannot be so conflicted about the guiding principles of the Church he serves. It concerns me that this has affected my ability to lead this diocese with a clear and hopeful vision for its mission. I also have sensed how important it is for those of us in this position to model a gracious way to leave the Episcopal Church in a manner respectful of its laws.
I believe that God’s call to us is always positive, always a to and not a from. At the clergy conference next week I hope to be able to share something of this. Many of you already know of my love for the Catholic Church and my conviction that this is the true home of Anglicanism. I will not dwell on this, however, so as not to lose sight of my responsibility to help lay a good foundation for the transition that you must now lead.
I also want to acknowledge with gratitude the pastoral support I have received from the Presiding Bishop and her office during this time. She has offered to visit, and I have invited her to be with us at the clergy conference the afternoon of Wednesday, Sept. 26, and perhaps also for that evening, for mutual conversation and the opportunity to know each other better in this time reserved for the clergy. I hope that you all can be present.
This has been an extraordinarily difficult decision to make because of the bonds I share with you and the people of this diocese. It has indeed been a privilege to serve alongside you these past seven years. With deep feelings I write, with regret for how this may complicate your own ministry, with profound gratitude for your prayers and support, and with much love for you. I pledge to you my prayers and friendship in these days to come.
Your brother in Christ, +Jeffrey Steenson
=========
NB - "+" is a symbol that many "ordained ministers" place in front of their signature to indicate they are Christians. If they do not do this, they sign themselves, "yours in Christ." They do this because otherwise no one would have any idea from what they do or say that they are Christians.
An Honest Assessment of a Dishonest Church
This would cut to the soul of the Epsicopal Church (TEC) if they had one.
COMMENTARY
By David W. Virtue in New Orleans
www.virtueonline.org
9/22/2007
Orthodox Episcopalians and Anglicans around the Anglican Communion can only wonder and marvel at what they saw and heard in New Orleans this week.
Many will still be rubbing their eyes in disbelief for days and weeks to come.
What they had hoped for, at a minimum, was that the Archbishop of Canterbury would enforce the demands of the Windsor Report and perhaps take a step further and tell the Episcopal Church that their refusal to comply could effectively destroy the Anglican Communion. The scholarly poet and author of 14 books could then have stood up in their midst, like a latter day prophet, (the beard helps) and declared the Word of the Lord, announce that God's word can never be broken, that they would answer for their endorsement of pansexual sin at the Last Judgment and then turn on his heel shaking the hotel dust off of his feet as he went.
He didn't. The overpowering collegiality, the bonhomie, the quiet solicitation of "your grace", the murmurings in his ear that to include sodomy among the church's pantheon of sexual behaviors would cast him as a "prophetic" figure embracing the new religion of The Episcopal Church leading inevitably and triumphantly to a new reformation akin to Martin Luther, won the day.
What happened instead was that the homogenital Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire, pointed the finger at the Archbishop of Canterbury and accused him of "dehumanizing" gays and lesbians, telling him in no uncertain terms exactly "what was on my mind and on my heart." Dr. Williams hung his head as he listened to the browbeating bishop. At a press conference Williams expanded his views. When questioned by the pansexual Episcopal organization Integrity about what word of hope he had for the GLBT baptized, Williams replied, "I would hope that a gay or lesbian person who would want to be a Christian would want affirmation and challenge and would want to be challenged as to what is the way to live life as a follower of Christ. I hope we are clarifying the belief that is being and has been expressed in a number of conferences that violence against gay and lesbian people is inexcusable."
The issue of "violence" against gays which is miniscule, but makes headlines because of gay and liberal agit-prop, cannot be compared to the slaughter of Anglican Christians in Northern Nigeria by mad Muslim hoards which barely makes two inches of copy in the New York Times.
"Certainly gay and lesbian people have a place in the church as do all the baptized," said Williams. Orthodox Episcopalians are hanging on by their fingernails in liberal dioceses, have no place at the Episcopal table, and are daily being hounded and marginalized in one revisionist Episcopal diocese after another. Is it any wonder they are leaving The Episcopal Church by the thousands every week, said Williams, is how far the traditional theology of the church lets us move in that direction. The answer of course is that it won't and it can't, and 2,000 years of Christian teaching on sexuality will not be erased or updated simply because Williams and a revisionist Episcopal House of Bishops say so.
On the Dar es Salaam communique, there was even more rewriting of history. The Sept. 30 date, we are now told was never a fixed deadline, an omega point for the Episcopal Church, rather it was an alpha point, the beginning of "conversation" around which it is hoped the Episcopal Church will fudge the Primates findings and thus carry on doing what it has always done - act defiantly and thus tear the fabric of the Communion into shreds while claiming the moral high ground of inclusion and diversity.
Williams and Australian Archbishop Phillip Aspinall, among the Anglican representatives at the meeting, would later say, "We had misread the communique" and "expressed a sense of regret" over how it was written.
That is not how the evangelical Archbishop of Jerusalem and the Middle East saw it. Bishop Mouneer Anis put it bluntly, "My friends, you may believe you have discovered a very different truth from that of the majority in the Anglican Communion. It is not just about sexuality, but also about your views of Christ, the Gospel, and the authority of the Bible. Please forgive me when I relay that some say you are a different church, others even think that you are a different religion." Mouneer went on to conclude, "For the first time in centuries, the fabric of our communion is torn."
Then Williams turned the screws on the church's true believers suggesting that the Global South (the newer churches) should learn from the TEC and the CofE (the older churches), even as their churches empty, unable to convince their own cultural elites of the truth of Christianity, while African and Asian churches grow by the million, many in the face of intense persecution, joyfully proclaiming the gospel as they go. What exactly did Williams think the Global South had to learn from post-modern Western Anglicans most of whom wouldn't know how to lead a person to Christ if their lives depended on it!
A parishioner of Truro Episcopal Church, Mary Ailes asked the archbishop why it is that the one thing we have heard often is that we are free to go, but we have to leave the buildings behind. Some hear that as: "We have no need of you but we need your buildings." What would you say to those who want to be Anglican, but cannot in good conscience remain Episcopalian?
Williams responded by saying that they should start looking for arrangements and situations within what exists because grace is given even in hopeless places. "Isn't God's grace still given sacramentally in the Episcopal Church? I would be slow to look for solutions elsewhere." What about those faithful Episcopalians who simply want to proclaim the gospel in buildings they, not the diocese or national church built; a gospel that liberals are too ashamed to proclaim preferring to talk about inclusion and diversity even as their parishes empty and are being sold to upstart Evangelical churches that fill them by the thousand. Perhaps the archbishop might reflect on what happened in the diocese of Western Michigan where the cathedral in Kalamazoo was sold by the diocese at a financial loss and bought by a church of 2500 evangelicals, what "grace" had been given "sacramentally" to that diocese to keep the cathedral open. Even the bishop cut his losses and got out. And what would the archbishop say to dozens of liberal bishops like Charles E. Bennison who are selling empty and dying parishes because no one crosses their threshold to hear sermons about how inclusive the Episcopal Church is. Williams is living in a dream world. The Episcopal Church has less than 800,000 attending weekly services and within a decade, at the present rate of departures (now over 700 a week) that figure will be down to 300,000 "sacramental" persons. Ichabod is written all over the church.
Williams said it was distressing to see the levels of litigation going on in The Episcopal Church. "I would hope and pray that there is a possibility of stopping this from being dragged through the courts interminably." He said that with Mrs. Schori sitting right next him. She never said a word. Do you think for a moment that she would suddenly call off her legal beagle, David Booth Beers whose law firm is being paid enormous sum of money to sue parishes all over the country? Not a prayer. Last week Beers crawled all over and threatened Bishop Jeffrey Steenson (Rio Grande) for settling with the pro-cathedral in El Paso after the diocese came out ahead with $2 million! Beers wanted a fight instead, but Steenson told VOL he didn't have the money for lawsuits and he was glad to settle. Beers ground his teeth. Where was Mrs. Schori in all this? Why didn't she tell Beers to back off? Where is the "sacramental" presence here? Why didn't Williams tell Mrs. Schori to put a leash on Beers? It will never happen. The Episcopal Church props up the Anglican Consultative Council and he won't bite the hand that feeds it.
We were told that there were moments of tension in the closed-door discussions. Williams got an earful from both sides of the room. Some bishops told VOL that he had to make some concessions for the sake of Anglican unity. It never happened. That is clear from what everything we heard at the press conference.
The Archbishop of Canterbury's inability to act decisively may well have cost him the Anglican Communion. He is gone now. All that remains is for the liberal leadership of the TEC and ACC to mop up the scraps. The brainy Gregory Cameron of ACC will schmooze a paper saying everything and nothing. The TEC leadership will agree with it. It will be a paper of monumental fudge. The Windsor bishops have rolled over. The Network (ACN) bishops have mostly gone, their voices all but made irrelevant. Lambeth is still on. Akinola was rebuffed in asking for a cooling off and postponement of Lambeth, but reports out of London say that he has made it clear that he and his Nigerian bishops are unlikely to be going to Lambeth 2008. Instead, with the other Global South partners, they could even be at a "Fourth Trumpet" GS meeting, in other words, a rival Lambeth. Akinola is apparently adamant. He told Ruth Gledhill of the London Times that this was not schism. Yes, Communion was broken, but Nigeria was remaining in the Anglican Church. It was not they who had moved.
Williams has issued his invitations to Lambeth and he will not withdraw them. Even if he reduces TEC to an observer status at Lambeth as a gesture to the orthodox next year it will be meaningless because there will be no resolutions like Lambeth 1:10 to vote on. It is the Global South's play as to what they will do now. The ball is in their court.
Next week in Pittsburgh, Common Cause Partners will meet and decide how to respond to what happened here in New Orleans. They too will continue the "conversation", but from an orthodox perspective. No significant announcements can be expected until all the dioceses represented have their conventions, but by the years' end the gig will be up.
In the meantime, orthodox Episcopalians in the Episcopal Church will continue to leave in ever increasing numbers. Bishops like John W. Howe (Central Florida) and Bill Love (Albany) will go back to dioceses with parishes screaming to leave. Mrs. Schori, our Lady of Litigation, will have her man Beers ready to fire off lawsuits at bishops and parishes alike if they dare attempt to leave with their properties. Nothing will change, the beat will go on and the Episcopal Church will slowly wither and die. That is the judgment of history; it is also the judgment of God.
COMMENTARY
By David W. Virtue in New Orleans
www.virtueonline.org
9/22/2007
Orthodox Episcopalians and Anglicans around the Anglican Communion can only wonder and marvel at what they saw and heard in New Orleans this week.
Many will still be rubbing their eyes in disbelief for days and weeks to come.
What they had hoped for, at a minimum, was that the Archbishop of Canterbury would enforce the demands of the Windsor Report and perhaps take a step further and tell the Episcopal Church that their refusal to comply could effectively destroy the Anglican Communion. The scholarly poet and author of 14 books could then have stood up in their midst, like a latter day prophet, (the beard helps) and declared the Word of the Lord, announce that God's word can never be broken, that they would answer for their endorsement of pansexual sin at the Last Judgment and then turn on his heel shaking the hotel dust off of his feet as he went.
He didn't. The overpowering collegiality, the bonhomie, the quiet solicitation of "your grace", the murmurings in his ear that to include sodomy among the church's pantheon of sexual behaviors would cast him as a "prophetic" figure embracing the new religion of The Episcopal Church leading inevitably and triumphantly to a new reformation akin to Martin Luther, won the day.
What happened instead was that the homogenital Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire, pointed the finger at the Archbishop of Canterbury and accused him of "dehumanizing" gays and lesbians, telling him in no uncertain terms exactly "what was on my mind and on my heart." Dr. Williams hung his head as he listened to the browbeating bishop. At a press conference Williams expanded his views. When questioned by the pansexual Episcopal organization Integrity about what word of hope he had for the GLBT baptized, Williams replied, "I would hope that a gay or lesbian person who would want to be a Christian would want affirmation and challenge and would want to be challenged as to what is the way to live life as a follower of Christ. I hope we are clarifying the belief that is being and has been expressed in a number of conferences that violence against gay and lesbian people is inexcusable."
The issue of "violence" against gays which is miniscule, but makes headlines because of gay and liberal agit-prop, cannot be compared to the slaughter of Anglican Christians in Northern Nigeria by mad Muslim hoards which barely makes two inches of copy in the New York Times.
"Certainly gay and lesbian people have a place in the church as do all the baptized," said Williams. Orthodox Episcopalians are hanging on by their fingernails in liberal dioceses, have no place at the Episcopal table, and are daily being hounded and marginalized in one revisionist Episcopal diocese after another. Is it any wonder they are leaving The Episcopal Church by the thousands every week, said Williams, is how far the traditional theology of the church lets us move in that direction. The answer of course is that it won't and it can't, and 2,000 years of Christian teaching on sexuality will not be erased or updated simply because Williams and a revisionist Episcopal House of Bishops say so.
On the Dar es Salaam communique, there was even more rewriting of history. The Sept. 30 date, we are now told was never a fixed deadline, an omega point for the Episcopal Church, rather it was an alpha point, the beginning of "conversation" around which it is hoped the Episcopal Church will fudge the Primates findings and thus carry on doing what it has always done - act defiantly and thus tear the fabric of the Communion into shreds while claiming the moral high ground of inclusion and diversity.
Williams and Australian Archbishop Phillip Aspinall, among the Anglican representatives at the meeting, would later say, "We had misread the communique" and "expressed a sense of regret" over how it was written.
That is not how the evangelical Archbishop of Jerusalem and the Middle East saw it. Bishop Mouneer Anis put it bluntly, "My friends, you may believe you have discovered a very different truth from that of the majority in the Anglican Communion. It is not just about sexuality, but also about your views of Christ, the Gospel, and the authority of the Bible. Please forgive me when I relay that some say you are a different church, others even think that you are a different religion." Mouneer went on to conclude, "For the first time in centuries, the fabric of our communion is torn."
Then Williams turned the screws on the church's true believers suggesting that the Global South (the newer churches) should learn from the TEC and the CofE (the older churches), even as their churches empty, unable to convince their own cultural elites of the truth of Christianity, while African and Asian churches grow by the million, many in the face of intense persecution, joyfully proclaiming the gospel as they go. What exactly did Williams think the Global South had to learn from post-modern Western Anglicans most of whom wouldn't know how to lead a person to Christ if their lives depended on it!
A parishioner of Truro Episcopal Church, Mary Ailes asked the archbishop why it is that the one thing we have heard often is that we are free to go, but we have to leave the buildings behind. Some hear that as: "We have no need of you but we need your buildings." What would you say to those who want to be Anglican, but cannot in good conscience remain Episcopalian?
Williams responded by saying that they should start looking for arrangements and situations within what exists because grace is given even in hopeless places. "Isn't God's grace still given sacramentally in the Episcopal Church? I would be slow to look for solutions elsewhere." What about those faithful Episcopalians who simply want to proclaim the gospel in buildings they, not the diocese or national church built; a gospel that liberals are too ashamed to proclaim preferring to talk about inclusion and diversity even as their parishes empty and are being sold to upstart Evangelical churches that fill them by the thousand. Perhaps the archbishop might reflect on what happened in the diocese of Western Michigan where the cathedral in Kalamazoo was sold by the diocese at a financial loss and bought by a church of 2500 evangelicals, what "grace" had been given "sacramentally" to that diocese to keep the cathedral open. Even the bishop cut his losses and got out. And what would the archbishop say to dozens of liberal bishops like Charles E. Bennison who are selling empty and dying parishes because no one crosses their threshold to hear sermons about how inclusive the Episcopal Church is. Williams is living in a dream world. The Episcopal Church has less than 800,000 attending weekly services and within a decade, at the present rate of departures (now over 700 a week) that figure will be down to 300,000 "sacramental" persons. Ichabod is written all over the church.
Williams said it was distressing to see the levels of litigation going on in The Episcopal Church. "I would hope and pray that there is a possibility of stopping this from being dragged through the courts interminably." He said that with Mrs. Schori sitting right next him. She never said a word. Do you think for a moment that she would suddenly call off her legal beagle, David Booth Beers whose law firm is being paid enormous sum of money to sue parishes all over the country? Not a prayer. Last week Beers crawled all over and threatened Bishop Jeffrey Steenson (Rio Grande) for settling with the pro-cathedral in El Paso after the diocese came out ahead with $2 million! Beers wanted a fight instead, but Steenson told VOL he didn't have the money for lawsuits and he was glad to settle. Beers ground his teeth. Where was Mrs. Schori in all this? Why didn't she tell Beers to back off? Where is the "sacramental" presence here? Why didn't Williams tell Mrs. Schori to put a leash on Beers? It will never happen. The Episcopal Church props up the Anglican Consultative Council and he won't bite the hand that feeds it.
We were told that there were moments of tension in the closed-door discussions. Williams got an earful from both sides of the room. Some bishops told VOL that he had to make some concessions for the sake of Anglican unity. It never happened. That is clear from what everything we heard at the press conference.
The Archbishop of Canterbury's inability to act decisively may well have cost him the Anglican Communion. He is gone now. All that remains is for the liberal leadership of the TEC and ACC to mop up the scraps. The brainy Gregory Cameron of ACC will schmooze a paper saying everything and nothing. The TEC leadership will agree with it. It will be a paper of monumental fudge. The Windsor bishops have rolled over. The Network (ACN) bishops have mostly gone, their voices all but made irrelevant. Lambeth is still on. Akinola was rebuffed in asking for a cooling off and postponement of Lambeth, but reports out of London say that he has made it clear that he and his Nigerian bishops are unlikely to be going to Lambeth 2008. Instead, with the other Global South partners, they could even be at a "Fourth Trumpet" GS meeting, in other words, a rival Lambeth. Akinola is apparently adamant. He told Ruth Gledhill of the London Times that this was not schism. Yes, Communion was broken, but Nigeria was remaining in the Anglican Church. It was not they who had moved.
Williams has issued his invitations to Lambeth and he will not withdraw them. Even if he reduces TEC to an observer status at Lambeth as a gesture to the orthodox next year it will be meaningless because there will be no resolutions like Lambeth 1:10 to vote on. It is the Global South's play as to what they will do now. The ball is in their court.
Next week in Pittsburgh, Common Cause Partners will meet and decide how to respond to what happened here in New Orleans. They too will continue the "conversation", but from an orthodox perspective. No significant announcements can be expected until all the dioceses represented have their conventions, but by the years' end the gig will be up.
In the meantime, orthodox Episcopalians in the Episcopal Church will continue to leave in ever increasing numbers. Bishops like John W. Howe (Central Florida) and Bill Love (Albany) will go back to dioceses with parishes screaming to leave. Mrs. Schori, our Lady of Litigation, will have her man Beers ready to fire off lawsuits at bishops and parishes alike if they dare attempt to leave with their properties. Nothing will change, the beat will go on and the Episcopal Church will slowly wither and die. That is the judgment of history; it is also the judgment of God.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
of Bishops
What does the Bible say about bishops? Paul wrote a pretty concise and clear set of qualifications to Timothy in Chapter Three, he said:
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
Bishops are not only to be the commanders, but more importantly the leaders of the Church. They are to “Go forth and preach the Word of God!” They are to be exhort their followers to follow them towards God, to do His Will, to serve the Lord in all they do. Understanding that, do you know how many bishops lead their flocks from the heresy of the TEC? Zero, that is how many. The so called “conservative” bishops who remain in the TEC have a plan for their flocks, they just cannot tell anyone. They would rather be collegial with their fellow bishops or bishopettes than “Go forth and preach the Word of God!” They are willing to associate collegially with those who publicly admit they do not believe in God, that they do not believe Jesus was the Son of God.
What did Jesus say about this desire to “just get along”?
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his church, and the deacon against his priest, and the bishop against the arch bishop. And a man's foes shall be they of his own church. He that loveth his place in the church more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth priest or bishop more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. Matthew 10:34 – Slightly modified
If you look around the Anglican and so-called Anglican Communion, you will see how fortunate we are to have Bishop Boyce. He is a follower of God, a good man and a leader. He knows what he should do and he does it, regardless of who is looking. Such are few and far between.
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
Bishops are not only to be the commanders, but more importantly the leaders of the Church. They are to “Go forth and preach the Word of God!” They are to be exhort their followers to follow them towards God, to do His Will, to serve the Lord in all they do. Understanding that, do you know how many bishops lead their flocks from the heresy of the TEC? Zero, that is how many. The so called “conservative” bishops who remain in the TEC have a plan for their flocks, they just cannot tell anyone. They would rather be collegial with their fellow bishops or bishopettes than “Go forth and preach the Word of God!” They are willing to associate collegially with those who publicly admit they do not believe in God, that they do not believe Jesus was the Son of God.
What did Jesus say about this desire to “just get along”?
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his church, and the deacon against his priest, and the bishop against the arch bishop. And a man's foes shall be they of his own church. He that loveth his place in the church more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth priest or bishop more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. Matthew 10:34 – Slightly modified
If you look around the Anglican and so-called Anglican Communion, you will see how fortunate we are to have Bishop Boyce. He is a follower of God, a good man and a leader. He knows what he should do and he does it, regardless of who is looking. Such are few and far between.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Light at the end of the tunnel and it's not a train!
For the first time in recent memory, we see a government official with her head other than up and locked. Kudos to Gina Marie Lindsey, Executive Director of Los Angeles World Airports.
With regard to the recent incident, discussed in an earlier posting that stranded 17,000 thousand passengers at LAX due to a Customs computer outage, with no real backup plan, Gina Marie told the Los Angeles City Council, "It was unprecedented and unacceptable,"
Lindsey and several council members agreed that one reason for the delays was that the federal government's backup system could not handle more than a fraction of the passengers typically processed by customs. It remains unclear, however, whether the backup system will be upgraded.
Homeland Security, on the other hand, has refused to acknowledge their lack of pre-planning, nor have they come forward with a solution. They are quite content to tell people they "have to sit quietly and wait for the problem to be resolved," while continuing to conduct their own shift changes without interruption. Thus making it clear to all that the taxpayers being told to sit quietly are simply sheep to be fleeced and when their fleece runs out, eaten. They need to sit and suck it up. Anything less will require union mandated break time to be interrupted.
With regard to the recent incident, discussed in an earlier posting that stranded 17,000 thousand passengers at LAX due to a Customs computer outage, with no real backup plan, Gina Marie told the Los Angeles City Council, "It was unprecedented and unacceptable,"
Lindsey and several council members agreed that one reason for the delays was that the federal government's backup system could not handle more than a fraction of the passengers typically processed by customs. It remains unclear, however, whether the backup system will be upgraded.
Homeland Security, on the other hand, has refused to acknowledge their lack of pre-planning, nor have they come forward with a solution. They are quite content to tell people they "have to sit quietly and wait for the problem to be resolved," while continuing to conduct their own shift changes without interruption. Thus making it clear to all that the taxpayers being told to sit quietly are simply sheep to be fleeced and when their fleece runs out, eaten. They need to sit and suck it up. Anything less will require union mandated break time to be interrupted.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Out of Control: Stick - Forward; Rudders and Ailerons - Neutral; Aircraft Unloaded - Recover from ensuing dive
Homeland Security - Border Patrol - Customs and Immigration
Out of control and part of the Big Government problem.
You want to go home. Their "computer is down", so all the taxpayers get to sit on airplanes at the gate. No problem. You don't need to be let in to a comfortable lounge. A coach seat is good enough for you. Afterall, you are nothing but a citizen who pays their salary. One of the sheeple. On the other hand, let them miss one coffee break and by God you will hear from the union. I am not picking on Homeland Security, they are no worse than anyone else who doesn't give half of a rat's hind end.
Look at this story:
Alaska Airlines Serving LAX Passengers Holding on Ground During Customs Computer Malfunction
Sunday August 12, 3:39 am ET
SEATTLE, Aug. 12 /PRNewswire/ -- A U.S. Customs and Border Protection computer malfunction affecting all international flights arriving after about 1:30 p.m. yesterday at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) has prevented Alaska Airlines passengers from deplaning and going through customs. The following flights with a total of 976 passengers onboard were impacted:
-- Flight 207 - La Paz-Los Angeles - arrived 4:33 p.m.
-- Flight 283 - Mazatlan-Los Angeles - arrived 4:36 p.m.
-- Flight 291 - Puerto Vallarta-Los Angeles - arrived 5:18 p.m.
-- Flight 277 - Los Cabos-Los Angeles - arrived 5:58 p.m.
-- Flight 211 - Zihuatanejo/Ixtapa-Los Angeles - arrived 6:25 p.m.
-- Flight 289 - Los Cabos-Los Angeles - arrived 7:35 p.m.
-- Flight 231 - Mexico City-Los Angeles - arrived 8:05 p.m.
An eighth aircraft, Flight 225 from Cancun to Los Angeles, was diverted to San Diego, where passengers went through customs. The flight departed again for Los Angeles and arrived at 11:09 p.m on Saturday.
During the holding period for aircraft at LAX, all airplane lavatories have been serviced and the airline has provided food and beverages to passengers. Diapers and baby formula also have been delivered to the aircraft, as well as extra pillows and blankets.
Flights 207 and 283 were released by customs officials to deplane at 9:50 p.m. and 10:15 p.m. respectively on Saturday and passengers on these flights are currently proceeding through customs. The airline expects the remaining five flights to be released by customs officials within the next three hours.
"We will deplane remaining passengers as soon as customs officials allow us to do so and continue to do all we can in the meantime to keep passengers onboard these aircraft comfortable," said Glenn Johnson, Alaska's executive vice president of airport services and maintenance and engineering.
The airline also is working to reschedule passengers who missed their connecting flights due to the ground hold.
Alaska Airlines and sister carrier, Horizon Air, together serve 92 cities through an expansive network throughout Alaska, the Lower 48, Canada and Mexico. For reservations visit alaskaair.com. For more news and information, visit the Alaska Airlines/Horizon Air Newsroom at alaskaair.com/newsroom.
Out of control and part of the Big Government problem.
You want to go home. Their "computer is down", so all the taxpayers get to sit on airplanes at the gate. No problem. You don't need to be let in to a comfortable lounge. A coach seat is good enough for you. Afterall, you are nothing but a citizen who pays their salary. One of the sheeple. On the other hand, let them miss one coffee break and by God you will hear from the union. I am not picking on Homeland Security, they are no worse than anyone else who doesn't give half of a rat's hind end.
Look at this story:
Alaska Airlines Serving LAX Passengers Holding on Ground During Customs Computer Malfunction
Sunday August 12, 3:39 am ET
SEATTLE, Aug. 12 /PRNewswire/ -- A U.S. Customs and Border Protection computer malfunction affecting all international flights arriving after about 1:30 p.m. yesterday at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) has prevented Alaska Airlines passengers from deplaning and going through customs. The following flights with a total of 976 passengers onboard were impacted:
-- Flight 207 - La Paz-Los Angeles - arrived 4:33 p.m.
-- Flight 283 - Mazatlan-Los Angeles - arrived 4:36 p.m.
-- Flight 291 - Puerto Vallarta-Los Angeles - arrived 5:18 p.m.
-- Flight 277 - Los Cabos-Los Angeles - arrived 5:58 p.m.
-- Flight 211 - Zihuatanejo/Ixtapa-Los Angeles - arrived 6:25 p.m.
-- Flight 289 - Los Cabos-Los Angeles - arrived 7:35 p.m.
-- Flight 231 - Mexico City-Los Angeles - arrived 8:05 p.m.
An eighth aircraft, Flight 225 from Cancun to Los Angeles, was diverted to San Diego, where passengers went through customs. The flight departed again for Los Angeles and arrived at 11:09 p.m on Saturday.
During the holding period for aircraft at LAX, all airplane lavatories have been serviced and the airline has provided food and beverages to passengers. Diapers and baby formula also have been delivered to the aircraft, as well as extra pillows and blankets.
Flights 207 and 283 were released by customs officials to deplane at 9:50 p.m. and 10:15 p.m. respectively on Saturday and passengers on these flights are currently proceeding through customs. The airline expects the remaining five flights to be released by customs officials within the next three hours.
"We will deplane remaining passengers as soon as customs officials allow us to do so and continue to do all we can in the meantime to keep passengers onboard these aircraft comfortable," said Glenn Johnson, Alaska's executive vice president of airport services and maintenance and engineering.
The airline also is working to reschedule passengers who missed their connecting flights due to the ground hold.
Alaska Airlines and sister carrier, Horizon Air, together serve 92 cities through an expansive network throughout Alaska, the Lower 48, Canada and Mexico. For reservations visit alaskaair.com. For more news and information, visit the Alaska Airlines/Horizon Air Newsroom at alaskaair.com/newsroom.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Lead, follow or get out the way!
Forward in Faith, the Resolution and the elusive Plan
For years, like Gnostics, Episcopal bishops like Ackerman have claimed they had a plan, they just can’t share it with us. They claim to support, no, more than support, they think they lead, conservative Anglicanism. Yet not one has left the “safety” of the The Episcopal Church (TEC). They talk one way to us and another to their fellow bishops of the TEC.
The time to act is now, to all the purple shirts, the Beadle says:
Lead, follow or get out the way!
We sent our priest Father Acker to the Forward in Faith,North America meeting with a resolution to be presented for adoption; the resolution consisted of four points:
1. Hold a convention of the representatives from each Common Cause Partner (a bishop, a priest, and a lay representative elected by the partner organization) to conduct the necessary organizational tasks to form a federal structure of the partner organizations to work together in unity (see the items 2-4).
2. Elect a Bishop Moderator from the representatives who will act as the chairman for a 4 year term. (Limited to one term and sequential Moderators must be from a different partner organization than his predecessor.)
3. Affirmation of a theological statement or covenant for membership of partner organizations.
4. The Moderator shall approach a primate to present this province for recognition by the Primates.
The meeting adopted the first three points for the most part and made representations as to the fourth. There was no date certain for the actions, which our resolution called to be completed by 30 September 2007.
The time for the Anglican Church of America to be formed is NOW. Delay is not acceptable. To follow the Anglican model, we need a national church, an Anglican Church of America. The primates need a national church in the United States to deal with. We need to coalesce. We need to come together under a common banner, to face a common enemy. No one needs give up autonomy, no one needs compromise on any point. They do need to agree on common points and follow a single leader. Not follow him down the TEC road, but rather God’s road. The point is not that God is on our side, but rather we are on His side. We just need to do what he asks.
If the bishop members of Forward in Faith won’t act, they will become irrelevant, just as the TEC bishops are irrelevant. We follow leaders, not sheep in the middle of the herd. We want a leader. It would be nice if he were already a bishop. But, we have dealt with that problem in the past and we can deal with it again.
If any of you know a bishop, read this to him slowly and very clearly so he can understand:
Lead, follow or get out the way!
For years, like Gnostics, Episcopal bishops like Ackerman have claimed they had a plan, they just can’t share it with us. They claim to support, no, more than support, they think they lead, conservative Anglicanism. Yet not one has left the “safety” of the The Episcopal Church (TEC). They talk one way to us and another to their fellow bishops of the TEC.
The time to act is now, to all the purple shirts, the Beadle says:
Lead, follow or get out the way!
We sent our priest Father Acker to the Forward in Faith,North America meeting with a resolution to be presented for adoption; the resolution consisted of four points:
1. Hold a convention of the representatives from each Common Cause Partner (a bishop, a priest, and a lay representative elected by the partner organization) to conduct the necessary organizational tasks to form a federal structure of the partner organizations to work together in unity (see the items 2-4).
2. Elect a Bishop Moderator from the representatives who will act as the chairman for a 4 year term. (Limited to one term and sequential Moderators must be from a different partner organization than his predecessor.)
3. Affirmation of a theological statement or covenant for membership of partner organizations.
4. The Moderator shall approach a primate to present this province for recognition by the Primates.
The meeting adopted the first three points for the most part and made representations as to the fourth. There was no date certain for the actions, which our resolution called to be completed by 30 September 2007.
The time for the Anglican Church of America to be formed is NOW. Delay is not acceptable. To follow the Anglican model, we need a national church, an Anglican Church of America. The primates need a national church in the United States to deal with. We need to coalesce. We need to come together under a common banner, to face a common enemy. No one needs give up autonomy, no one needs compromise on any point. They do need to agree on common points and follow a single leader. Not follow him down the TEC road, but rather God’s road. The point is not that God is on our side, but rather we are on His side. We just need to do what he asks.
If the bishop members of Forward in Faith won’t act, they will become irrelevant, just as the TEC bishops are irrelevant. We follow leaders, not sheep in the middle of the herd. We want a leader. It would be nice if he were already a bishop. But, we have dealt with that problem in the past and we can deal with it again.
If any of you know a bishop, read this to him slowly and very clearly so he can understand:
Lead, follow or get out the way!
Ecclesiastes or Useless, Useless, or So, what are we doing here anyway?
Some times life seems rather pointless, doesn’t it? Pointless or directionless, depending on your point of view. First reflect on this:
If you don’t know where you are going, you won’t know if you are on the right track, if you need to correct left, right, up or down or you won’t even know if you get there for that matter.
So, why are we here? If by here you mean on earth the answer is pretty simple: God put you here to make a difference. God put you here to do a bunch of things, depending on where you are in life:
• The first and most important obligation you have is to insure your children go to heaven;
• The second and corollary duty is to be there to meet them;
• He put you here to be a steward of the earth;
o To leave it better than you found it, to the best of your ability;
o This means to use, but not waste, resources;
o To actively change the environment for the better;
o To change not only things, but people; to help others to hear His Word;
• To bring His Word to all around you;
o To make it available, not to force it;
o To do good to all, harm to none;
• To defend good from evil;
• To provide for your family, your country and His Church;
• To exhort all to worship and work;
• To have fun with fellow beings;
• To be happy, for true happiness is found in doing God’s will.
If you aren’t making a difference, what are you doing here anyway? Breathing in oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide is not making a difference.
Consider these questions:
• What did you do today to make a difference?”
• What could you have done today to make a difference?
If you don’t know where you are going, you won’t know if you are on the right track, if you need to correct left, right, up or down or you won’t even know if you get there for that matter.
So, why are we here? If by here you mean on earth the answer is pretty simple: God put you here to make a difference. God put you here to do a bunch of things, depending on where you are in life:
• The first and most important obligation you have is to insure your children go to heaven;
• The second and corollary duty is to be there to meet them;
• He put you here to be a steward of the earth;
o To leave it better than you found it, to the best of your ability;
o This means to use, but not waste, resources;
o To actively change the environment for the better;
o To change not only things, but people; to help others to hear His Word;
• To bring His Word to all around you;
o To make it available, not to force it;
o To do good to all, harm to none;
• To defend good from evil;
• To provide for your family, your country and His Church;
• To exhort all to worship and work;
• To have fun with fellow beings;
• To be happy, for true happiness is found in doing God’s will.
If you aren’t making a difference, what are you doing here anyway? Breathing in oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide is not making a difference.
Consider these questions:
• What did you do today to make a difference?”
• What could you have done today to make a difference?
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Time to Act - Lead, Follow or get out of the Way!
The Most Reverend WALTER GRUNDORF
Anglican Province of America
3348 West State Road 426
Oviedo, FL 32765
RE: It is time to Act!
-------------
Dear Bishop Grundorf:
It is time to act on a unified church in the United States. Now, not later. The time for talk is over. Done. It is time to act.
The World Wide Anglican Churches are looking for a single contact in the United States of America. As the Church of England expanded around the globe, it did so not as the “Church of England”, but rather as the Anglican Church with national churches in each nation.
When the United States formed, the Church of England then operating in the country re-formed as the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States. Continuing the model of the Church of England, each country where this form of Christianity spread formed its own national church, each under the direction and leadership of a single bishop or primate. Until recently, all the national churches looked to the Archbishop of Canterbury as the symbolic head of the worldwide church. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury is not the monarch of the church, nor does anyone think he is infallible. All of the national churches form the Anglican Communion, with, in theory, all subscribing to the same Articles of Religion found in the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and its predecessors.
As the church known as the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America (PECUSA) succumbed to heresy and apostasy, it morphed into the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ECUSA) and now The Episcopal Church (TEC). Over the past 30 years the now TEC has become less and less Bible oriented; its theology can no longer be found in the Bible. As the various dioceses elected apostates as bishops, membership dropped. With the election of a practicing homosexual adulterer as a bishop and the election of a woman who cannot bring herself to refer to Jesus as the Son of God, the one time important church has dropped to less than ten percent of its former size.
Even the Primates are beginning to recognize that not only is the TEC not an Anglican Church, it is not a Christian Church, nor is it even a Church of the One True God.
The Primates are asking to deal with one entity in the United States of America. They seem to be confused by the myriad of Anglican churches in this country. They fail to understand that the myriad exists because of a lack of leadership by the Bishops of the PECUSA – ECUSA – TEC. With bishops leading the church to hell, valuing collegiality over God’s Word, the people began to see the problem. Over time many individuals and in a few cases congregations have left the PECUSA/ECUSA/TEC and formed new churches where they could practice their religion without fear of apostasy. Thus, the split was gradual and diverse.
The new churches are known as the continuing church. The continuing church is comprised of many splinter groups. They are often derided for not being willing to come together. Those from whom the derision arises actually mean not willing to compromise their principles and come to the other side. Most of the continuing churches saw what compromise brought and who brought it: bishops, bishops wearing purple shirts and sporting spade tipped tails, gutless bishops who preferred the collegiality of their exclusive club of bishops to following the clear Word of God. Lest we blame the event wholly on the collegiality of the American bishops, let it be recognized the Global Primates have yet to take a concrete stand on the heresy of TEC. They continually write almost incomprehensible letters to the TEC threatening action of indeterminate nature at an indeterminate time in the future.
There are differences in approaches, not so much in theology, but certainly approaches. No one should compromise, yet we should not let our differences override our natural ties through our allegiance to God, His Son, the Holy Ghost and our Anglican form of religion.
The time to act is now. We need a unified Anglican Church of the United States of America and we need it right now. Not five years from now, or even next year. NOW.
The solution is to act on what we can agree on and act now. We need to maintain our uniqueness. Yet, to have an effective voice in the Anglican Communion there needs to be one voice for the United States’ Anglican Churches.
There is a solution – the Anglican Church of the United States of America, a sort of Church Republic. The problems facing the United States’ Anglican Churches are almost identical to those facing our young nation at its founding. So is the solution:
Hold a National Convention
o Each national church (APA, REC, UEC, etc.) to send three delegates, a Bishop, a Priest and a Layman
o Form a list of beliefs and rules common to all
o Number the list
Elect a Presiding Bishop from among the Bishops present
o Period of office – Four years
o One term only
o The Presiding Bishop, like an ambassador, can only commit the Anglican Church of the United States of America to a tentative agreement. Any action he takes must be ratified by the Congress.
o The next Bishop cannot be drawn from the same national church
o Any change or addition to the list of common beliefs and rules must be by unanimous agreement of the member churches.
Make contact with the other Primates and send the Presiding Bishop to the Primate meetings. They will have to choose sides. No more talk.
This will give us a single voice and there will be no compromise. Each of the component churches, like the states, retains its identity, traditions and rules. Nothing is required to change. No bishop loses his position.
One voice – No Compromise – All Gain – No Loss
So, how do we get this started?
Simple.
You call the Presiding Bishop of the Reformed Episcopal Church and tell him you want to meet with him to start the process. Ask him to get on board with this plan. List out a set of beliefs and rules common to the two groups. Then call the next biggest group and do the same, and so on and so forth. Then, with 60 days notice, call for a National Convention. Put the list up, already agreed to, call for a vote and be done with it. Then, hold the election for Presiding Bishop and break for lunch.
Objection: Can’t be done! There are no simple solutions to complex problems like these!
Frankly, we are tired of hearing that. The fact is there are no complex solutions that work. You may not like the simple solution, but it will work. If you don’t act, someone else will.
Lead, follow or get out of the way.
Regards,
ALPINE ANGLICAN CHURCH OF THE BLESSED TRINITY
Charles W. Arnold, Beadle
Oviedo, FL 32765
RE: It is time to Act!
-------------
Dear Bishop Grundorf:
It is time to act on a unified church in the United States. Now, not later. The time for talk is over. Done. It is time to act.
The World Wide Anglican Churches are looking for a single contact in the United States of America. As the Church of England expanded around the globe, it did so not as the “Church of England”, but rather as the Anglican Church with national churches in each nation.
When the United States formed, the Church of England then operating in the country re-formed as the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States. Continuing the model of the Church of England, each country where this form of Christianity spread formed its own national church, each under the direction and leadership of a single bishop or primate. Until recently, all the national churches looked to the Archbishop of Canterbury as the symbolic head of the worldwide church. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury is not the monarch of the church, nor does anyone think he is infallible. All of the national churches form the Anglican Communion, with, in theory, all subscribing to the same Articles of Religion found in the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and its predecessors.
As the church known as the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America (PECUSA) succumbed to heresy and apostasy, it morphed into the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ECUSA) and now The Episcopal Church (TEC). Over the past 30 years the now TEC has become less and less Bible oriented; its theology can no longer be found in the Bible. As the various dioceses elected apostates as bishops, membership dropped. With the election of a practicing homosexual adulterer as a bishop and the election of a woman who cannot bring herself to refer to Jesus as the Son of God, the one time important church has dropped to less than ten percent of its former size.
Even the Primates are beginning to recognize that not only is the TEC not an Anglican Church, it is not a Christian Church, nor is it even a Church of the One True God.
The Primates are asking to deal with one entity in the United States of America. They seem to be confused by the myriad of Anglican churches in this country. They fail to understand that the myriad exists because of a lack of leadership by the Bishops of the PECUSA – ECUSA – TEC. With bishops leading the church to hell, valuing collegiality over God’s Word, the people began to see the problem. Over time many individuals and in a few cases congregations have left the PECUSA/ECUSA/TEC and formed new churches where they could practice their religion without fear of apostasy. Thus, the split was gradual and diverse.
The new churches are known as the continuing church. The continuing church is comprised of many splinter groups. They are often derided for not being willing to come together. Those from whom the derision arises actually mean not willing to compromise their principles and come to the other side. Most of the continuing churches saw what compromise brought and who brought it: bishops, bishops wearing purple shirts and sporting spade tipped tails, gutless bishops who preferred the collegiality of their exclusive club of bishops to following the clear Word of God. Lest we blame the event wholly on the collegiality of the American bishops, let it be recognized the Global Primates have yet to take a concrete stand on the heresy of TEC. They continually write almost incomprehensible letters to the TEC threatening action of indeterminate nature at an indeterminate time in the future.
There are differences in approaches, not so much in theology, but certainly approaches. No one should compromise, yet we should not let our differences override our natural ties through our allegiance to God, His Son, the Holy Ghost and our Anglican form of religion.
The time to act is now. We need a unified Anglican Church of the United States of America and we need it right now. Not five years from now, or even next year. NOW.
The solution is to act on what we can agree on and act now. We need to maintain our uniqueness. Yet, to have an effective voice in the Anglican Communion there needs to be one voice for the United States’ Anglican Churches.
There is a solution – the Anglican Church of the United States of America, a sort of Church Republic. The problems facing the United States’ Anglican Churches are almost identical to those facing our young nation at its founding. So is the solution:
Hold a National Convention
o Each national church (APA, REC, UEC, etc.) to send three delegates, a Bishop, a Priest and a Layman
o Form a list of beliefs and rules common to all
o Number the list
Elect a Presiding Bishop from among the Bishops present
o Period of office – Four years
o One term only
o The Presiding Bishop, like an ambassador, can only commit the Anglican Church of the United States of America to a tentative agreement. Any action he takes must be ratified by the Congress.
o The next Bishop cannot be drawn from the same national church
o Any change or addition to the list of common beliefs and rules must be by unanimous agreement of the member churches.
Make contact with the other Primates and send the Presiding Bishop to the Primate meetings. They will have to choose sides. No more talk.
This will give us a single voice and there will be no compromise. Each of the component churches, like the states, retains its identity, traditions and rules. Nothing is required to change. No bishop loses his position.
One voice – No Compromise – All Gain – No Loss
So, how do we get this started?
Simple.
You call the Presiding Bishop of the Reformed Episcopal Church and tell him you want to meet with him to start the process. Ask him to get on board with this plan. List out a set of beliefs and rules common to the two groups. Then call the next biggest group and do the same, and so on and so forth. Then, with 60 days notice, call for a National Convention. Put the list up, already agreed to, call for a vote and be done with it. Then, hold the election for Presiding Bishop and break for lunch.
Objection: Can’t be done! There are no simple solutions to complex problems like these!
Frankly, we are tired of hearing that. The fact is there are no complex solutions that work. You may not like the simple solution, but it will work. If you don’t act, someone else will.
Lead, follow or get out of the way.
Regards,
ALPINE ANGLICAN CHURCH OF THE BLESSED TRINITY
Charles W. Arnold, Beadle
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Be
"I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace, USMC, a 1967 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy said. "I do not believe that the armed forces of the United States are well served by a saying through our policies that it's OK to be immoral in any way." "As an individual, I would not want (acceptance of gay behavior) to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior."
Pace later said he was sorry he spoke of his own personal feelings, but did not deny that was the way he felt.
Homosexuality is a deviation from normalcy. There is no place for homosexuals in the military. Who wants to put their hand into a sucking chest wound and wonder if the AIDS virus got there before the bullet? Not to mention, who do they shower with?
Homosexuals - Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Be in the military. Frankly, I don't care how talented you are or what a great interior decorator you will be in another life.
Pace later said he was sorry he spoke of his own personal feelings, but did not deny that was the way he felt.
Homosexuality is a deviation from normalcy. There is no place for homosexuals in the military. Who wants to put their hand into a sucking chest wound and wonder if the AIDS virus got there before the bullet? Not to mention, who do they shower with?
Homosexuals - Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Be in the military. Frankly, I don't care how talented you are or what a great interior decorator you will be in another life.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
DirecWay used to kind of suck, now Hughesw.Net really sucks!
If you exceed your FAP download allotment, Hughes.Net will supposedly limit your download speeds to 150Kbps until you are back within the arbitrary limit. Most of you are probably asking, what kind of broadband is that? How are you supposed to download movies, stream audio and video and the like? Who would go for that?
On the other hand, if you are a Hughes.Net user, you know the real question – How do you get to your FAP limit with real world speeds that average about 15Kbps?
This is blog is uploaded on a 28.8K dialup because tonight all I can get with a signal strength of 82 is 2.5Kbps.
The day Hughes.Net does not suck will be the day they market a vacuum cleaner.
On the other hand, if you are a Hughes.Net user, you know the real question – How do you get to your FAP limit with real world speeds that average about 15Kbps?
This is blog is uploaded on a 28.8K dialup because tonight all I can get with a signal strength of 82 is 2.5Kbps.
The day Hughes.Net does not suck will be the day they market a vacuum cleaner.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
The Left isn't Right
Foreword - This is not my work, but rather the writing of a contemporary of mine, Jimmy Cash, who stayed on active duty. It is worth reading. Take the time and read it. Hap
LET'S BE SPECIFIC
Due to the thunderous applause that I received from the far-left over the "I Am Tired" letter written by one of our troops in Iraq, I thought it prudent to follow up with one last attempt to be very specific about what I have observed and actually personally encountered during my 36 years of service to this Great Country. Unlike Bob McClellan, I will not continue to whine, twist and degrade our country's leaders on a weekly basis. Instead, this will be a one time input attempting to reach some of those who are confused by McClellan and his ilk's unethical rantings and give some insight through my personal experience as a professional military officer over the years.
These examples are but a few. In real life there were many more which space and time will not allow.
As a young fighter pilot, flying F-4s in Vietnam, I was stopped in my tracks by the decisions made by Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara. I was young and naive, but even then I knew their daily interference was wrong and would not allow us to win this thing and go home. Decisions like not allowing us to strike enemy aircraft while still on the ground, keeping real targets off the target list, and allowing us to strike only rusted-out trucks made us basically a toothpick factory. However, the big one for me came the day I saw the President Lyndon Johnson on television, forcefully lying to the American people. I'll never forget the language, "I want to assure the American people that the United States of America has never, and will never, bomb or use force inside the borders of Cambodia".! On and on he disavowed the reports that this was happening. I was amazed. Guess where I had put several F-4 loads of 750 pound general purpose bombs every day for the past five days. You guessed it, Cambodia!!! So much for Mr. Johnson.
The only question in my mind was simply, "Was it just Johnson or was it the methodology of a particular political party? "
I decided to delay answering that question until more experience was gained.
Years passed, and I ignored politics as much as possible, as a good military man should.
Then came Jimmy Carter.
Our young people don't remember 18% interest rates and 18% inflation, but I'll bet someone in your family does. That is one really bad thing Carter did for our country, but it is not the worst.
During this period, I was an F-15 Squadron Commander, located at Langley AFB, VA. Jimmy Carter and his democratic party stopped spare parts procurement for almost every weapon system in our military, and diverted the funds to social programs. The F-15 was brand new at the time with leading edge technology designed to provide air superiority anywhere in the world on a moments notice. That was my job. I loved it, but guess what? In a two year period from 1979 to 1981, there was not one day when more that one-third of my assigned aircraft were flyable. It is amazing the lengths we went to in those days, cannibalizing parts, expending twice the time and energy to fix every little item, and still two-thirds of the birds were always broken because of no spare parts.
Had this country faced a really serious military threat during that time frame, only Montana Hunters could have saved us.
The military had some equipment, but it was all broken.
Do you want to know the really bad part for me and the young fighter pilots working for me?
Our flying sortie rate was so low that pilot proficiency dropped to dangerous levels. The accident rate tripled. That obviously was totally unacceptable, as we were losing expensive airplanes and highly trained young pilots at a rate comparable to losses seen in actual combat.
All of a sudden, even a Texas Aggie like me began to see a trend.
Forward a few years to 1986. I am an F-16 Wing Commander at MacDill AFB, Florida, and Ronald Regan is president. His change in attitude and policy toward the military had time to fix the spare parts problem. We were flying 26,000 flying sorties per year ou! t of MacDill AFB, my aircraft fully mission capable rate (FMC) was above 90%, the aircraft accident rate was below 1.75 per hundred thousand flying hours, fighter pilots were flying and proficiency levels were at an all time high. The United States Air Force was ready to defend this Wonderful Country.
Proof of the pudding is simple.
Look what the USAF, and the military in general, accomplished in Iraq during Desert Storm. And, they did it in less than 100 hours.
Yeah, at this point I was starting to realize there was a difference in mentality between Democrats and Republicans, or should I say, the Right and the Left.
Then, came everyone's favorite---Bill Clinton. If there ever was! an individual 180 degrees out of sync with the ideals and the values of the US military, it was Clinton. He was a known draft dodger, military hating, self absorbed, unspeakingly shameless and immoral individual, who the Left managed to elect President of the United States of America. Clinton's antics in the White House would have brought court martial, conviction, and Dishonorable Discharge had he been a military member. We still suffer oral sex on school buses, because the President told the world it wasn't real sex, and some of our children believed him.
It took a lot of years, but now I became certain.
There is a big difference in the right and the left on all fronts, and for the first time I started feeling angry and shamed that the majority of the American people were actually willing to vote for such an individual. Sometimes, an abstract such as the following tells the story in very simple terms: Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Nancy Pelosi, Barbra Boxer, John Kerry, Benedict Arnold, and the list goes on. America, wake up.
Giving in to the likes of these people and Abraham Lincoln's prediction of destruction from within just may come true.
There is not a country in the world that can be considered a conventional military threat to the United States today.
However, this country faces a new kind of threat---one that will not go away. It is a threat even more serious that WWII, because money, industry and technology will not defeat it. It is a threat of defeat from within. It is a threat of a faltering economy because of a lack of resources, or! the even the simple threat of such a loss brought on by te rrorism. It is a threat created by the American people trusting the inept. It is a threat created by the people wanting change, and perilously believing that the left can successfully deliver that change.
Have you seen anything from the left that remotely resembles an answer to the Iraq situation?
Have you seen anything more than continued Bush-Bashing? Is that an answer?
If there was ever a need for a strong, well trained military, it is now.
THE LEFT HAS HISTORICALLY DISMANTLED OUR MILITARY IN THE NAME OF REDISTRUBITION OF WEALTH FAVORING SOCIAL PROGRAMS. We just cannot afford to let that happen now. If we do, the entire country will be bowing to the east several times a day within the next 50 years, maybe sooner.
Now a final thought meant to upset as many as possible on the far-left. As you might guess, I don't believe in political correctness. So, let's look at the facts, not far-left rhetoric attempting to empower the democratic party. Initially, I was not a George Bush fan. I am not even a Republican. I normally vote Republican, because of my total despise of Communism, Socialism and the far-left in this country. I am a Conservative.
However, during his watch, I feel President Bush just happened to stumble upon the leading edge of the greatest threat this country has ever faced. Mistakes have been made, because of the newness of the threat. Overall, the President has done a superb job dealing the threat, and at the same time held off the constant ranting, raving, deceitful and malicious escapades of the far-left attempting to regain political power. I! F THERE WAS EVER A TIME THE COUNTRY NEEDS TO COME TOGETHER AND BACK OUR PRESIDENT, IT IS RIGHT NOW. WITHOUT CONCENSUS WE ARE EMPOWERING THE TERRORIST!!!!
The far-left is totally absorbed with the power struggle and regaining control of congress. They could care less about defeating the threat. It literally disgusts me to hear the constant disagreement with everything the President tries to do, all in the name of trying to make him look bad to the voters. Unfortunately, by the time the American people really appreciate how bad the far-left really is, it may too late.
What are the real facts?
On the home front this country's economy is the strongest that it has been in my lifetime. Interest rates are as low as they we! re when I was in high school forty years ago. Inflation does not exist for all practical purposes. For you youngsters, please remember the Jimmy Carter comments? The Dow is approaching 13,000. Unemployment is nonexistent. Wages are at an all time high. Home ownership is at an all time high. Taxes have been lowered to an almost acceptable level. Because of the surging economy the deficient is under control and projected to go away far ahead of schedule. The far-left is rich beyond its wildest dreams, so Mr. President when are you going to "fix" all these domestic problems? Bob and George, give me a break!!!! On the war front this country has not! been touched since 2001.
I remember being part of a seminar at the USAF War College in 1983 discussing the terrorist threat. There were some good minds at that table and a lot of disagreement. However, one common thought was that the US would be hit within the next five years. Answers to the terrorist threat were just as hard to come by then as they are now. Well, it took a little longer than the projection, but the attack occurred. For an old military guy like me, the main point here is that it has not happened again. We have suckered the bad guys into entering the fight somewhere other than in our country.
To hell with political correctness.
The President can't say this, but I sure can. I smile every morning when I get up and realize that one of our great cities has not been blown away. And, there is zero doubt in my mind that if we pull out of Iraq prematurely, that will happen within a short period of time after our departure.
I don't care what you might think of President Bush personally. He has done the best he can with what he has, and this country is not smoking because of it. So, back off McLean and McClellan.
You honestly don't have a clue about what you are talking about. Call me, and I will tell you what I really think.
I realize there are different points of view on war, and I do not believe the meek will inherit the earth, at least not in the next few hundred years. To those like McClellan, McLean, poor Eve Kyes and Sinowa Cruz let me say, "This is a strong country!!! " It has! survived the uneducated thinking of the far-left before, and I'll just bet it will again.
Regardless of who is President, the people will not tolerate mass explosions on a daily basis, as our good friends in Israel have been forced to do. To protect that position of power, even Hillary will be forced to become a true hawk. To guarantee a few more votes Ted Kennedy may be forced to begin supporting a strong military. One more attack on America might even wipe the giddy, 'I-am-finally-somebody' grin from Nancy Pelosi's face, and make her realize that is not about votes and personal power.
IT IS ABOUT PROTECTING THIS GREAT COUNTRY FROM ALL ENEMIES, BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.
Jimmy L. Cash, Brig. Gen., USAF, Retired
LET'S BE SPECIFIC
Due to the thunderous applause that I received from the far-left over the "I Am Tired" letter written by one of our troops in Iraq, I thought it prudent to follow up with one last attempt to be very specific about what I have observed and actually personally encountered during my 36 years of service to this Great Country. Unlike Bob McClellan, I will not continue to whine, twist and degrade our country's leaders on a weekly basis. Instead, this will be a one time input attempting to reach some of those who are confused by McClellan and his ilk's unethical rantings and give some insight through my personal experience as a professional military officer over the years.
These examples are but a few. In real life there were many more which space and time will not allow.
As a young fighter pilot, flying F-4s in Vietnam, I was stopped in my tracks by the decisions made by Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara. I was young and naive, but even then I knew their daily interference was wrong and would not allow us to win this thing and go home. Decisions like not allowing us to strike enemy aircraft while still on the ground, keeping real targets off the target list, and allowing us to strike only rusted-out trucks made us basically a toothpick factory. However, the big one for me came the day I saw the President Lyndon Johnson on television, forcefully lying to the American people. I'll never forget the language, "I want to assure the American people that the United States of America has never, and will never, bomb or use force inside the borders of Cambodia".! On and on he disavowed the reports that this was happening. I was amazed. Guess where I had put several F-4 loads of 750 pound general purpose bombs every day for the past five days. You guessed it, Cambodia!!! So much for Mr. Johnson.
The only question in my mind was simply, "Was it just Johnson or was it the methodology of a particular political party? "
I decided to delay answering that question until more experience was gained.
Years passed, and I ignored politics as much as possible, as a good military man should.
Then came Jimmy Carter.
Our young people don't remember 18% interest rates and 18% inflation, but I'll bet someone in your family does. That is one really bad thing Carter did for our country, but it is not the worst.
During this period, I was an F-15 Squadron Commander, located at Langley AFB, VA. Jimmy Carter and his democratic party stopped spare parts procurement for almost every weapon system in our military, and diverted the funds to social programs. The F-15 was brand new at the time with leading edge technology designed to provide air superiority anywhere in the world on a moments notice. That was my job. I loved it, but guess what? In a two year period from 1979 to 1981, there was not one day when more that one-third of my assigned aircraft were flyable. It is amazing the lengths we went to in those days, cannibalizing parts, expending twice the time and energy to fix every little item, and still two-thirds of the birds were always broken because of no spare parts.
Had this country faced a really serious military threat during that time frame, only Montana Hunters could have saved us.
The military had some equipment, but it was all broken.
Do you want to know the really bad part for me and the young fighter pilots working for me?
Our flying sortie rate was so low that pilot proficiency dropped to dangerous levels. The accident rate tripled. That obviously was totally unacceptable, as we were losing expensive airplanes and highly trained young pilots at a rate comparable to losses seen in actual combat.
All of a sudden, even a Texas Aggie like me began to see a trend.
Forward a few years to 1986. I am an F-16 Wing Commander at MacDill AFB, Florida, and Ronald Regan is president. His change in attitude and policy toward the military had time to fix the spare parts problem. We were flying 26,000 flying sorties per year ou! t of MacDill AFB, my aircraft fully mission capable rate (FMC) was above 90%, the aircraft accident rate was below 1.75 per hundred thousand flying hours, fighter pilots were flying and proficiency levels were at an all time high. The United States Air Force was ready to defend this Wonderful Country.
Proof of the pudding is simple.
Look what the USAF, and the military in general, accomplished in Iraq during Desert Storm. And, they did it in less than 100 hours.
Yeah, at this point I was starting to realize there was a difference in mentality between Democrats and Republicans, or should I say, the Right and the Left.
Then, came everyone's favorite---Bill Clinton. If there ever was! an individual 180 degrees out of sync with the ideals and the values of the US military, it was Clinton. He was a known draft dodger, military hating, self absorbed, unspeakingly shameless and immoral individual, who the Left managed to elect President of the United States of America. Clinton's antics in the White House would have brought court martial, conviction, and Dishonorable Discharge had he been a military member. We still suffer oral sex on school buses, because the President told the world it wasn't real sex, and some of our children believed him.
It took a lot of years, but now I became certain.
There is a big difference in the right and the left on all fronts, and for the first time I started feeling angry and shamed that the majority of the American people were actually willing to vote for such an individual. Sometimes, an abstract such as the following tells the story in very simple terms: Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Nancy Pelosi, Barbra Boxer, John Kerry, Benedict Arnold, and the list goes on. America, wake up.
Giving in to the likes of these people and Abraham Lincoln's prediction of destruction from within just may come true.
There is not a country in the world that can be considered a conventional military threat to the United States today.
However, this country faces a new kind of threat---one that will not go away. It is a threat even more serious that WWII, because money, industry and technology will not defeat it. It is a threat of defeat from within. It is a threat of a faltering economy because of a lack of resources, or! the even the simple threat of such a loss brought on by te rrorism. It is a threat created by the American people trusting the inept. It is a threat created by the people wanting change, and perilously believing that the left can successfully deliver that change.
Have you seen anything from the left that remotely resembles an answer to the Iraq situation?
Have you seen anything more than continued Bush-Bashing? Is that an answer?
If there was ever a need for a strong, well trained military, it is now.
THE LEFT HAS HISTORICALLY DISMANTLED OUR MILITARY IN THE NAME OF REDISTRUBITION OF WEALTH FAVORING SOCIAL PROGRAMS. We just cannot afford to let that happen now. If we do, the entire country will be bowing to the east several times a day within the next 50 years, maybe sooner.
Now a final thought meant to upset as many as possible on the far-left. As you might guess, I don't believe in political correctness. So, let's look at the facts, not far-left rhetoric attempting to empower the democratic party. Initially, I was not a George Bush fan. I am not even a Republican. I normally vote Republican, because of my total despise of Communism, Socialism and the far-left in this country. I am a Conservative.
However, during his watch, I feel President Bush just happened to stumble upon the leading edge of the greatest threat this country has ever faced. Mistakes have been made, because of the newness of the threat. Overall, the President has done a superb job dealing the threat, and at the same time held off the constant ranting, raving, deceitful and malicious escapades of the far-left attempting to regain political power. I! F THERE WAS EVER A TIME THE COUNTRY NEEDS TO COME TOGETHER AND BACK OUR PRESIDENT, IT IS RIGHT NOW. WITHOUT CONCENSUS WE ARE EMPOWERING THE TERRORIST!!!!
The far-left is totally absorbed with the power struggle and regaining control of congress. They could care less about defeating the threat. It literally disgusts me to hear the constant disagreement with everything the President tries to do, all in the name of trying to make him look bad to the voters. Unfortunately, by the time the American people really appreciate how bad the far-left really is, it may too late.
What are the real facts?
On the home front this country's economy is the strongest that it has been in my lifetime. Interest rates are as low as they we! re when I was in high school forty years ago. Inflation does not exist for all practical purposes. For you youngsters, please remember the Jimmy Carter comments? The Dow is approaching 13,000. Unemployment is nonexistent. Wages are at an all time high. Home ownership is at an all time high. Taxes have been lowered to an almost acceptable level. Because of the surging economy the deficient is under control and projected to go away far ahead of schedule. The far-left is rich beyond its wildest dreams, so Mr. President when are you going to "fix" all these domestic problems? Bob and George, give me a break!!!! On the war front this country has not! been touched since 2001.
I remember being part of a seminar at the USAF War College in 1983 discussing the terrorist threat. There were some good minds at that table and a lot of disagreement. However, one common thought was that the US would be hit within the next five years. Answers to the terrorist threat were just as hard to come by then as they are now. Well, it took a little longer than the projection, but the attack occurred. For an old military guy like me, the main point here is that it has not happened again. We have suckered the bad guys into entering the fight somewhere other than in our country.
To hell with political correctness.
The President can't say this, but I sure can. I smile every morning when I get up and realize that one of our great cities has not been blown away. And, there is zero doubt in my mind that if we pull out of Iraq prematurely, that will happen within a short period of time after our departure.
I don't care what you might think of President Bush personally. He has done the best he can with what he has, and this country is not smoking because of it. So, back off McLean and McClellan.
You honestly don't have a clue about what you are talking about. Call me, and I will tell you what I really think.
I realize there are different points of view on war, and I do not believe the meek will inherit the earth, at least not in the next few hundred years. To those like McClellan, McLean, poor Eve Kyes and Sinowa Cruz let me say, "This is a strong country!!! " It has! survived the uneducated thinking of the far-left before, and I'll just bet it will again.
Regardless of who is President, the people will not tolerate mass explosions on a daily basis, as our good friends in Israel have been forced to do. To protect that position of power, even Hillary will be forced to become a true hawk. To guarantee a few more votes Ted Kennedy may be forced to begin supporting a strong military. One more attack on America might even wipe the giddy, 'I-am-finally-somebody' grin from Nancy Pelosi's face, and make her realize that is not about votes and personal power.
IT IS ABOUT PROTECTING THIS GREAT COUNTRY FROM ALL ENEMIES, BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.
Jimmy L. Cash, Brig. Gen., USAF, Retired
Monday, February 19, 2007
Anglican Communion meeting in Tanzania
The leaders of the Anglican Communion met in Tanzania 12 - 19 February 2007. The primary purpose of the meeting was to decide what to do with the apostates in the “Developed Countries”, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and most troubling, the United Kingdom, England in particular.
While the Anglican Church was originally known as the Church of England, it is national in nature, with each country having (in the old days) a single national church. Each country sent representatives, its highest ranking priest a Bishop, known as a Primate, to the annual meetings of the Church in general. With no real central authority, all looked to the head of the Church in England, the Archbishop of Canterbury, as the spiritual leader.
From the 1960s on, the Epsicopal Church in the United States became more and more liberal at the upper levels as it was taken over by radical feminists and homosexuals. The membership, always very conservative, left in droves. The church is now roughly 10 percent of its 1967 membership count. As the liturgy changed to accommodate the feminist - homosexual - liberal - anti-American agenda, membership plummeted. Most left the church for "independent" religion, that is they did not affliate with any church. Others left and either established new chuches mirroring the old PECUSA, Protestant Epsicopal Church of the United States, or joined those who had. These are known as the continuing church. Foreigners find this to be splintering. Members of the continuing church are not concerned. They reject compromise, pointing out the purple shirts compromises got the ECUSA (now TEC) where it is. The continuing church is growing at about 15 percent per year, while the TEC is in freefall.
While church membership is in decline in the developed countries, it is rapidly rising in the developing countries. Membership in places like Africa far outnumber membership in the developed countries. While the majority of money comes from the developed countries, that is far less important to the Anglicans than to Roman Catholics. The Anglican Church is often referred to as the home of the church mice. Like the US Marines, they have done so much with so little, they think they can do anything with nothing.
The current problem is that the developed countries have turned their back on the entire Anglican Motto – Scripture – Reason – Tradition. They no longer look to the Bible as the Word of God; they accept, nay, embrace homosexuality and other activities commonly thought to be deviate; they do not support their nation states as patriots; they look to the state for handouts and support national socialism; they no longer follow the liturgical practices of the past. In short, they have turned their backs on everything that made winners chose the Anglican Way in the past.
We have prayed that the Primates listen to the Holy Ghost, follow His direction and not get in His way. We asked that they listen to the words of our Lord when He said, as recorded by Saint Matthew, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.“
For too long have the Bishops valued collegiality above God’s will. We asked the Primates as they meet consider what Jesus asked of us, Do not block God, but rather follow Him, Battle Evil; Do Good.
What has come out of Tanzania? Nothing. As a "Proud Texan" said, "Sadly I read this as 'Please comply with the Winsor report and we really, really, really mean it this time, if you don't we're going to send you a letter with all sorts of bad grammar.' My guess is that the deadline will come and go with all sorts of meaningless shuffling of feet."
Jesus calls us to action, not collegiality. Once again, it seems the church has been betrayed by the purple shirts who value collegiality above God’s will.
Is there any wonder bishops are less trusted than used car salesmen?
While the Anglican Church was originally known as the Church of England, it is national in nature, with each country having (in the old days) a single national church. Each country sent representatives, its highest ranking priest a Bishop, known as a Primate, to the annual meetings of the Church in general. With no real central authority, all looked to the head of the Church in England, the Archbishop of Canterbury, as the spiritual leader.
From the 1960s on, the Epsicopal Church in the United States became more and more liberal at the upper levels as it was taken over by radical feminists and homosexuals. The membership, always very conservative, left in droves. The church is now roughly 10 percent of its 1967 membership count. As the liturgy changed to accommodate the feminist - homosexual - liberal - anti-American agenda, membership plummeted. Most left the church for "independent" religion, that is they did not affliate with any church. Others left and either established new chuches mirroring the old PECUSA, Protestant Epsicopal Church of the United States, or joined those who had. These are known as the continuing church. Foreigners find this to be splintering. Members of the continuing church are not concerned. They reject compromise, pointing out the purple shirts compromises got the ECUSA (now TEC) where it is. The continuing church is growing at about 15 percent per year, while the TEC is in freefall.
While church membership is in decline in the developed countries, it is rapidly rising in the developing countries. Membership in places like Africa far outnumber membership in the developed countries. While the majority of money comes from the developed countries, that is far less important to the Anglicans than to Roman Catholics. The Anglican Church is often referred to as the home of the church mice. Like the US Marines, they have done so much with so little, they think they can do anything with nothing.
The current problem is that the developed countries have turned their back on the entire Anglican Motto – Scripture – Reason – Tradition. They no longer look to the Bible as the Word of God; they accept, nay, embrace homosexuality and other activities commonly thought to be deviate; they do not support their nation states as patriots; they look to the state for handouts and support national socialism; they no longer follow the liturgical practices of the past. In short, they have turned their backs on everything that made winners chose the Anglican Way in the past.
We have prayed that the Primates listen to the Holy Ghost, follow His direction and not get in His way. We asked that they listen to the words of our Lord when He said, as recorded by Saint Matthew, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.“
For too long have the Bishops valued collegiality above God’s will. We asked the Primates as they meet consider what Jesus asked of us, Do not block God, but rather follow Him, Battle Evil; Do Good.
What has come out of Tanzania? Nothing. As a "Proud Texan" said, "Sadly I read this as 'Please comply with the Winsor report and we really, really, really mean it this time, if you don't we're going to send you a letter with all sorts of bad grammar.' My guess is that the deadline will come and go with all sorts of meaningless shuffling of feet."
Jesus calls us to action, not collegiality. Once again, it seems the church has been betrayed by the purple shirts who value collegiality above God’s will.
Is there any wonder bishops are less trusted than used car salesmen?
Thursday, February 15, 2007
One voice – No Compromise - The Anglican Republic
One voice – No Compromise - The Anglican Republic
When the United States formed, the Church of England then operating in the country re-formed as the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States. Continuing the model of the Church of England, each country where this form of Christianity spread formed its own national church, each under the direction and leadership of a single bishop or primate. All the national churches look to the Archbishop of Canterbury as the symbolic head of the worldwide church. Unlike the Roman Catholic church, the Archbishop of Canterbury is not the monarch of the church, nor does anyone think he is infallible. All of the national churches form the Anglican Communion, with, in theory, all subscribing to the same Articles of Religion found in the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and its predecessors.
Never a very large church, the PECUSA nonetheless has provided 35 percent of our country’s Presidents and 40 percent of its military flag officers.
The Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States eventually dropped the Protestant part and became just The Episcopal Church of the United States. It has now dropped its national identity, along with a lot more, and is now just The Episcopal Church, or TEC.
Over the past 30 years the now TEC has become less and less Bible oriented; its theology can no longer be found in the Bible. As the various dioceses elected apostates as bishops, membership dropped. With the election of a practicing homosexual adulterer as a bishop and the election of a woman who cannot bring herself to refer to Jesus as the Son of God, the one time important church has dropped to less than ten percent of its former size.
With bishops leading the church to hell, valuing collegiality over God’s Word, the people began to see the problem. Over time many people have left the PECUSA/ECUSA/TEC and formed new churches where they could practice their religion without fear of apostasy. The new churches are known as the continuing church. The continuing church is comprised of many splinter groups. They are often derided for not being willing to come together. Those from whom the derision arises actually mean not willing to compromise and band together.
Most of the continuing churches saw what compromise brought and who brought it. Bishops, bishops wearing purple shirts and sporting spade tipped tails. There are differences in approaches, not so much in theology, but certainly approaches. No one should compromise, yet we should not let our differences override our natural ties through our allegiance to God, His Son, the Holy Ghost and our Anglican form of religion.
We need to maintain our uniqueness. Yet, to have an effective voice in the Anglican Communion there needs to be one voice for the United States’ Anglican Churches.
There is a solution – the United Anglican Republic.
The problems facing the United States’ Anglican Churches are almost identical to those facing our young nation at its founding. So is the solution:
Hold a Constitutional Convention
Each national church (APA, REC, UEC, etc.) to send three delegates, a Bishop, a Priest and a Beadle
Form a list of beliefs and rules common to all
Number the list
Elect a Presiding Bishop from among the Bishops present
Period of office – Four years
One term only
The next Bishop cannot be drawn from the same national church
Send the Presiding Bishop to the Primate meetings
This will give us a single voice and there will be no compromise.
One voice – No Compromise
When the United States formed, the Church of England then operating in the country re-formed as the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States. Continuing the model of the Church of England, each country where this form of Christianity spread formed its own national church, each under the direction and leadership of a single bishop or primate. All the national churches look to the Archbishop of Canterbury as the symbolic head of the worldwide church. Unlike the Roman Catholic church, the Archbishop of Canterbury is not the monarch of the church, nor does anyone think he is infallible. All of the national churches form the Anglican Communion, with, in theory, all subscribing to the same Articles of Religion found in the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and its predecessors.
Never a very large church, the PECUSA nonetheless has provided 35 percent of our country’s Presidents and 40 percent of its military flag officers.
The Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States eventually dropped the Protestant part and became just The Episcopal Church of the United States. It has now dropped its national identity, along with a lot more, and is now just The Episcopal Church, or TEC.
Over the past 30 years the now TEC has become less and less Bible oriented; its theology can no longer be found in the Bible. As the various dioceses elected apostates as bishops, membership dropped. With the election of a practicing homosexual adulterer as a bishop and the election of a woman who cannot bring herself to refer to Jesus as the Son of God, the one time important church has dropped to less than ten percent of its former size.
With bishops leading the church to hell, valuing collegiality over God’s Word, the people began to see the problem. Over time many people have left the PECUSA/ECUSA/TEC and formed new churches where they could practice their religion without fear of apostasy. The new churches are known as the continuing church. The continuing church is comprised of many splinter groups. They are often derided for not being willing to come together. Those from whom the derision arises actually mean not willing to compromise and band together.
Most of the continuing churches saw what compromise brought and who brought it. Bishops, bishops wearing purple shirts and sporting spade tipped tails. There are differences in approaches, not so much in theology, but certainly approaches. No one should compromise, yet we should not let our differences override our natural ties through our allegiance to God, His Son, the Holy Ghost and our Anglican form of religion.
We need to maintain our uniqueness. Yet, to have an effective voice in the Anglican Communion there needs to be one voice for the United States’ Anglican Churches.
There is a solution – the United Anglican Republic.
The problems facing the United States’ Anglican Churches are almost identical to those facing our young nation at its founding. So is the solution:
Hold a Constitutional Convention
Each national church (APA, REC, UEC, etc.) to send three delegates, a Bishop, a Priest and a Beadle
Form a list of beliefs and rules common to all
Number the list
Elect a Presiding Bishop from among the Bishops present
Period of office – Four years
One term only
The next Bishop cannot be drawn from the same national church
Send the Presiding Bishop to the Primate meetings
This will give us a single voice and there will be no compromise.
One voice – No Compromise
Monday, February 12, 2007
Always have, always will
PAUL GALANTI
TIMES-DISPATCH GUEST COLUMNIST
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Since I was otherwise occupied as a POW in Hanoi and wasn't able to observe firsthand, I suppose it was a '60s thing -- when everybody who was anybody was or deeply aspired to be a victim. And, later, when the soldiers who'd fought valiantly in a war they actually won handily en route to defeating an entire evil empire demanded the same respect given every other element in society -- deserving or not -- they were accorded their own category of victimhood and enshrined in the most out-of-sight, obscure memorial in Washington, D.C.
The re-writing of history to correct the many historical perversions has been very slow in coming.
I remember writing one of my first Op/Eds about the Vietnam "Wall, " which reminded me then of a big hole in the ground or a large open mouth? la a contemporary actress/ally of our enemy. But it was a nice gesture. Although it tended to patronize the suddenly glamorous former "baby killers, " most of our contemporaries in military service shrugged it off as a belated, sort-of thanks from a grateful nation.
From my first days in the military, I was taught that our job was to serve; there would be tough times but keep a stiff upper lip and press on. And enjoy the good times and camaraderie that military life -- almost exclusively -- engenders. Most movies back then had male heroes who sucked up adversity and pressed on. Mothers encouraged their daughters to marry the strong, silent types -- like John Wayne.
On my return in 1973, being greeted by crowds and overuse of the sobriquet "hero" was embarrassing and confusing. The words and articles written about our incarceration in the filthy, miserable dungeons of communist Vietnam were laced with the term "heroes" -- and there were, in fact, a few of those. But it became apparent, early on, that by hero the writers and speakers and extollers usually meant victim -- as in you poor guys. There was obviously a confusion of terminology! In fact, the roles had been reversed. At Home, the Same Spin
During my entire time in the infamous Hanoi Hilton POW compound, I felt like Winston Smith in Orwell's 1984 as the North Vietnamese propagandists talked about their glowing victories and mocked American efforts as the ignominious defeats of the U. S. aggressors and their lackeys. Now that I was home, I began to feel that propagandists in our country had developed their own strain of Newspeak to justify their weak arguments.
When we POWs were released in February 1973 after the crushing B-52 raids and crippling of North Vietnamese commerce, I thought we'd won. Imagine my surprise when many Americans apparently indoctrinated by academia and a powerful media seemed to think we'd been routed.
Fast forward to 2007. Reading the generally unbelievable mainstream media, one would suspect that unemployed communist propagandists had found a new home -- as journalists. Their endless agonizing over American losses omits any mention of the good things that are happening throughout the Middle East or even the crippling losses of the other side! Embedded in the safe Green Zone, reporters write damning articles that cannot be corroborated.
I'm almost glad this is happening because I can now see with my own eyes what transpired here in the 1960s while I read between the lines in Vietnam. From the condescending words used to describe the fighting forces, to outright exaggerations and lies, efforts are made to transform our servicemen into "victims. "
Regardless of how it started, the assault on America by our own tenured, unassailable academy, by our own "free" press and politicians for personal gain is undone by e-mails from actual soldiers and Marines in harm's way. But the true story usually fails to gain traction. It's much easier to manufacture hand-wringing bad news to weep and wail and whine about our valiant troops/victims than it is to find something interesting to report about our successes. Call it the Dan Rather/Jayson Blair School of Journalistic Integrity -- it has a deleterious effect on those who never cross-check the stories. It's a good reason that polls can swing up and down by 10 percentage points on the basis of an unreliable but sensational story.
Military Doesn't Need Sympathy - Our armed forces are not victims. They are not in Iraq because they're dumb. They are performing selfless acts on behalf of all Americans, and they don't need sympathy. That, simply, is what they do. Proudly. And justifiably so. Always have, always will. It's something the Hate America crowd will never understand. Frankly, most of those serving don't care what their de facto domestic enemies think of them. But, if those ungrateful Americans ever need help, their armed forces will be there serving proudly.
~~~~
A Richmond resident, retired Navy commander and attack pilot Paul Galanti was a prisoner of war in Vietnam from 1966 until 1973. He is currently the chairman of the Board of Veterans Services for the commonwealth. His Commentary Columns regarding veterans appear regularly on the Back Fence.
TIMES-DISPATCH GUEST COLUMNIST
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Since I was otherwise occupied as a POW in Hanoi and wasn't able to observe firsthand, I suppose it was a '60s thing -- when everybody who was anybody was or deeply aspired to be a victim. And, later, when the soldiers who'd fought valiantly in a war they actually won handily en route to defeating an entire evil empire demanded the same respect given every other element in society -- deserving or not -- they were accorded their own category of victimhood and enshrined in the most out-of-sight, obscure memorial in Washington, D.C.
The re-writing of history to correct the many historical perversions has been very slow in coming.
I remember writing one of my first Op/Eds about the Vietnam "Wall, " which reminded me then of a big hole in the ground or a large open mouth? la a contemporary actress/ally of our enemy. But it was a nice gesture. Although it tended to patronize the suddenly glamorous former "baby killers, " most of our contemporaries in military service shrugged it off as a belated, sort-of thanks from a grateful nation.
From my first days in the military, I was taught that our job was to serve; there would be tough times but keep a stiff upper lip and press on. And enjoy the good times and camaraderie that military life -- almost exclusively -- engenders. Most movies back then had male heroes who sucked up adversity and pressed on. Mothers encouraged their daughters to marry the strong, silent types -- like John Wayne.
On my return in 1973, being greeted by crowds and overuse of the sobriquet "hero" was embarrassing and confusing. The words and articles written about our incarceration in the filthy, miserable dungeons of communist Vietnam were laced with the term "heroes" -- and there were, in fact, a few of those. But it became apparent, early on, that by hero the writers and speakers and extollers usually meant victim -- as in you poor guys. There was obviously a confusion of terminology! In fact, the roles had been reversed. At Home, the Same Spin
During my entire time in the infamous Hanoi Hilton POW compound, I felt like Winston Smith in Orwell's 1984 as the North Vietnamese propagandists talked about their glowing victories and mocked American efforts as the ignominious defeats of the U. S. aggressors and their lackeys. Now that I was home, I began to feel that propagandists in our country had developed their own strain of Newspeak to justify their weak arguments.
When we POWs were released in February 1973 after the crushing B-52 raids and crippling of North Vietnamese commerce, I thought we'd won. Imagine my surprise when many Americans apparently indoctrinated by academia and a powerful media seemed to think we'd been routed.
Fast forward to 2007. Reading the generally unbelievable mainstream media, one would suspect that unemployed communist propagandists had found a new home -- as journalists. Their endless agonizing over American losses omits any mention of the good things that are happening throughout the Middle East or even the crippling losses of the other side! Embedded in the safe Green Zone, reporters write damning articles that cannot be corroborated.
I'm almost glad this is happening because I can now see with my own eyes what transpired here in the 1960s while I read between the lines in Vietnam. From the condescending words used to describe the fighting forces, to outright exaggerations and lies, efforts are made to transform our servicemen into "victims. "
Regardless of how it started, the assault on America by our own tenured, unassailable academy, by our own "free" press and politicians for personal gain is undone by e-mails from actual soldiers and Marines in harm's way. But the true story usually fails to gain traction. It's much easier to manufacture hand-wringing bad news to weep and wail and whine about our valiant troops/victims than it is to find something interesting to report about our successes. Call it the Dan Rather/Jayson Blair School of Journalistic Integrity -- it has a deleterious effect on those who never cross-check the stories. It's a good reason that polls can swing up and down by 10 percentage points on the basis of an unreliable but sensational story.
Military Doesn't Need Sympathy - Our armed forces are not victims. They are not in Iraq because they're dumb. They are performing selfless acts on behalf of all Americans, and they don't need sympathy. That, simply, is what they do. Proudly. And justifiably so. Always have, always will. It's something the Hate America crowd will never understand. Frankly, most of those serving don't care what their de facto domestic enemies think of them. But, if those ungrateful Americans ever need help, their armed forces will be there serving proudly.
~~~~
A Richmond resident, retired Navy commander and attack pilot Paul Galanti was a prisoner of war in Vietnam from 1966 until 1973. He is currently the chairman of the Board of Veterans Services for the commonwealth. His Commentary Columns regarding veterans appear regularly on the Back Fence.
Running as a national past time for our civilian government
'The Last Helicopter'
By AMIR TAHERI Wall Street Journal, March 29, 2006; Page A18
Hassan Abbasi has a dream -- a helicopter doing an arabesque in cloudy skies to avoid being shot at from the ground. On board are the last of the "fleeing Americans, " forced out of the Dar al-Islam (The Abode of Islam) by "the Army of Muhammad. " Presented by his friends as "The Dr. Kissinger of Islam, " Mr. Abbasi is "professor of strategy" at the Islamic Republic's Revolutionary Guard Corps University and, according to Tehran sources, the principal foreign policy voice in President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's new radical administration.
For the past several weeks Mr. Abbasi has been addressing crowds of Guard and Baseej Mustadafin (Mobilization of the Dispossessed) officers in Tehran with a simple theme: The U. S. does not have the stomach for a long conflict and will soon revert to its traditional policy of "running away, " leaving Afghanistan and Iraq, indeed the whole of the Middle East, to be reshaped by Iran and its regional allies.
To hear Mr. Abbasi tell it the entire recent history of the U. S. could be narrated with the help of the image of "the last helicopter. " It was that image in Saigon that concluded the Vietnam War under Gerald Ford. Jimmy Carter had five helicopters fleeing from the Iranian desert, leaving behind the charred corpses of eight American soldiers. Under Ronald Reagan the helicopters carried the bodies of 241 Marines murdered in their sleep in a Hezbollah suicide attack. Under the first President Bush, the helicopter flew from Safwan, in southern Iraq, with Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf aboard, leaving behind Saddam Hussein's generals, who could not believe why they had been allowed live to fight their domestic foes, and America, another day. Bill Clinton's helicopter was a Black Hawk, downed in Mogadishu and delivering 16 American soldiers into the hands of a murderous crowd.
According to this theory, President George W. Bush is an "aberration, " a leader out of sync with his nation's character and no more than a brief nightmare for those who oppose the creation of an "American Middle East. " Messrs. Abbasi and Ahmadinejad have concluded that there will be no helicopter as long as George W. Bush is in the White House. But they believe that whoever succeeds him, Democrat or Republican, will revive the helicopter image to extricate the U. S. from a complex situation that few Americans appear to understand.
Mr. Ahmadinejad's defiant rhetoric is based on a strategy known in Middle Eastern capitals as "waiting Bush out. " "We are sure the U. S. will return to saner policies, " says Manuchehr Motakki, Iran's new Foreign Minister.
Mr. Ahmadinejad believes that the world is heading for a clash of civilizations with the Middle East as the main battlefield. In that clash Iran will lead the Muslim world against the "Crusader-Zionist camp" led by America. Mr. Bush might have led the U. S. into "a brief moment of triumph. " But the U. S. is a "sunset" (ofuli) power while Iran is a sunrise (tolu'ee) one and, once Mr. Bush is gone, a future president would admit defeat and order a retreat as all of Mr. Bush's predecessors have done since Jimmy Carter.
Mr. Ahmadinejad also notes that Iran has just "reached the Mediterranean" thanks to its strong presence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. He used that message to convince Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to adopt a defiant position vis-à-vis the U. N. investigation of the murder of Rafiq Hariri, a former prime minister of Lebanon. His argument was that once Mr. Bush is gone, the U. N., too, will revert to its traditional lethargy. "They can pass resolutions until they are blue in the face, " Mr. Ahmadinejad told a gathering of Hezbollah, Hamas and other radical Arab leaders in Tehran last month.
According to sources in Tehran and Damascus, Mr. Assad had pondered the option of "doing a Gadhafi" by toning down his regime's anti-American posture. Since last February, however, he has revived Syria's militant rhetoric and dismissed those who advocated a rapprochement with Washington. Iran has rewarded him with a set of cut-price oil, soft loans and grants totaling $1.2 billion. In response Syria has increased its support for terrorists going to fight in Iraq and revived its network of agents in Lebanon, in a bid to frustrate that country's democratic ambitions.
It is not only in Tehran and Damascus that the game of "waiting Bush out" is played with determination. In recent visits to several regional capitals, this writer was struck by the popularity of this new game from Islamabad to Rabat. The general assumption is that Mr. Bush's plan to help democratize the heartland of Islam is fading under an avalanche of partisan attacks inside the U. S. The effect of this assumption can be witnessed everywhere.
In Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf has shelved his plan, forged under pressure from Washington, to foster a popular front to fight terrorism by lifting restrictions against the country's major political parties and allowing their exiled leaders to return. There is every indication that next year's elections will be choreographed to prevent the emergence of an effective opposition. In Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, arguably the most pro-American leader in the region, is cautiously shaping his post-Bush strategy by courting Tehran and playing the Pushtun ethnic card against his rivals.
In Turkey, the "moderate" Islamist government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan is slowly but surely putting the democratization process into reverse gear. With the post-Bush era in mind, Mr. Erdogan has started a purge of the judiciary and a transfer of religious endowments to sections of the private sector controlled by his party's supporters. There are fears that next year's general election would not take place on a level playing field.
Even in Iraq the sentiment that the U. S. will not remain as committed as it has been under Mr. Bush is producing strange results. While Shiite politicians are rushing to Tehran to seek a reinsurance policy, some Sunni leaders are having second thoughts about their decision to join the democratization process. "What happens after Bush? " demands Salih al-Mutlak, a rising star of Iraqi Sunni leaders. The Iraqi Kurds have clearly decided to slow down all measures that would bind them closer to the Iraqi state. Again, they claim that they have to "take precautions in case the Americans run away. "
There are more signs that the initial excitement created by Mr. Bush's democratization project may be on the wane. Saudi Arabia has put its national dialogue program on hold and has decided to focus on economic rather than political reform. In Bahrain, too, the political reform machine has been put into rear-gear, while in Qatar all talk of a new democratic constitution to set up a constitutional monarchy has subsided. In Jordan the security services are making a spectacular comeback, putting an end to a brief moment of hopes for reform. As for Egypt, Hosni Mubarak has decided to indefinitely postpone local elections, a clear sign that the Bush-inspired scenario is in trouble. Tunisia and Morocco, too, have joined the game by stopping much-advertised reform projects while Islamist radicals are regrouping and testing the waters at all levels.
But how valid is the assumption that Mr. Bush is an aberration and that his successor will "run away"? It was to find answers that this writer spent several days in the U. S., especially Washington and New York, meeting ordinary Americans and senior leaders, including potential presidential candidates from both parties. While Mr. Bush's approval ratings, now in free fall, and the increasingly bitter American debate on Iraq may lend some credence to the "helicopter" theory, I found no evidence that anyone in the American leadership elite supported a cut-and-run strategy.
The reason was that almost all realized that the 9/11 attacks have changed the way most Americans see the world and their own place in it. Running away from Saigon, the Iranian desert, Beirut, Safwan and Mogadishu was not hard to sell to the average American, because he was sure that the story would end there; the enemies left behind would not pursue their campaign within the U. S. itself. The enemies that America is now facing in the jihadist archipelago, however, are dedicated to the destruction of the U. S. as the world knows it today.
Those who have based their strategy on waiting Mr. Bush out may find to their cost that they have, once again, misread not only American politics but the realities of a world far more complex than it was even a decade ago. Mr. Bush may be a uniquely decisive, some might say reckless, leader. But a visitor to the U. S. soon finds out that he represents the American mood much more than the polls suggest.
Mr. Taheri is author of "L'Irak: Le Dessous Des Cartes" (Editions Complexe, 2002).
By AMIR TAHERI Wall Street Journal, March 29, 2006; Page A18
Hassan Abbasi has a dream -- a helicopter doing an arabesque in cloudy skies to avoid being shot at from the ground. On board are the last of the "fleeing Americans, " forced out of the Dar al-Islam (The Abode of Islam) by "the Army of Muhammad. " Presented by his friends as "The Dr. Kissinger of Islam, " Mr. Abbasi is "professor of strategy" at the Islamic Republic's Revolutionary Guard Corps University and, according to Tehran sources, the principal foreign policy voice in President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's new radical administration.
For the past several weeks Mr. Abbasi has been addressing crowds of Guard and Baseej Mustadafin (Mobilization of the Dispossessed) officers in Tehran with a simple theme: The U. S. does not have the stomach for a long conflict and will soon revert to its traditional policy of "running away, " leaving Afghanistan and Iraq, indeed the whole of the Middle East, to be reshaped by Iran and its regional allies.
To hear Mr. Abbasi tell it the entire recent history of the U. S. could be narrated with the help of the image of "the last helicopter. " It was that image in Saigon that concluded the Vietnam War under Gerald Ford. Jimmy Carter had five helicopters fleeing from the Iranian desert, leaving behind the charred corpses of eight American soldiers. Under Ronald Reagan the helicopters carried the bodies of 241 Marines murdered in their sleep in a Hezbollah suicide attack. Under the first President Bush, the helicopter flew from Safwan, in southern Iraq, with Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf aboard, leaving behind Saddam Hussein's generals, who could not believe why they had been allowed live to fight their domestic foes, and America, another day. Bill Clinton's helicopter was a Black Hawk, downed in Mogadishu and delivering 16 American soldiers into the hands of a murderous crowd.
According to this theory, President George W. Bush is an "aberration, " a leader out of sync with his nation's character and no more than a brief nightmare for those who oppose the creation of an "American Middle East. " Messrs. Abbasi and Ahmadinejad have concluded that there will be no helicopter as long as George W. Bush is in the White House. But they believe that whoever succeeds him, Democrat or Republican, will revive the helicopter image to extricate the U. S. from a complex situation that few Americans appear to understand.
Mr. Ahmadinejad's defiant rhetoric is based on a strategy known in Middle Eastern capitals as "waiting Bush out. " "We are sure the U. S. will return to saner policies, " says Manuchehr Motakki, Iran's new Foreign Minister.
Mr. Ahmadinejad believes that the world is heading for a clash of civilizations with the Middle East as the main battlefield. In that clash Iran will lead the Muslim world against the "Crusader-Zionist camp" led by America. Mr. Bush might have led the U. S. into "a brief moment of triumph. " But the U. S. is a "sunset" (ofuli) power while Iran is a sunrise (tolu'ee) one and, once Mr. Bush is gone, a future president would admit defeat and order a retreat as all of Mr. Bush's predecessors have done since Jimmy Carter.
Mr. Ahmadinejad also notes that Iran has just "reached the Mediterranean" thanks to its strong presence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. He used that message to convince Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to adopt a defiant position vis-à-vis the U. N. investigation of the murder of Rafiq Hariri, a former prime minister of Lebanon. His argument was that once Mr. Bush is gone, the U. N., too, will revert to its traditional lethargy. "They can pass resolutions until they are blue in the face, " Mr. Ahmadinejad told a gathering of Hezbollah, Hamas and other radical Arab leaders in Tehran last month.
According to sources in Tehran and Damascus, Mr. Assad had pondered the option of "doing a Gadhafi" by toning down his regime's anti-American posture. Since last February, however, he has revived Syria's militant rhetoric and dismissed those who advocated a rapprochement with Washington. Iran has rewarded him with a set of cut-price oil, soft loans and grants totaling $1.2 billion. In response Syria has increased its support for terrorists going to fight in Iraq and revived its network of agents in Lebanon, in a bid to frustrate that country's democratic ambitions.
It is not only in Tehran and Damascus that the game of "waiting Bush out" is played with determination. In recent visits to several regional capitals, this writer was struck by the popularity of this new game from Islamabad to Rabat. The general assumption is that Mr. Bush's plan to help democratize the heartland of Islam is fading under an avalanche of partisan attacks inside the U. S. The effect of this assumption can be witnessed everywhere.
In Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf has shelved his plan, forged under pressure from Washington, to foster a popular front to fight terrorism by lifting restrictions against the country's major political parties and allowing their exiled leaders to return. There is every indication that next year's elections will be choreographed to prevent the emergence of an effective opposition. In Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, arguably the most pro-American leader in the region, is cautiously shaping his post-Bush strategy by courting Tehran and playing the Pushtun ethnic card against his rivals.
In Turkey, the "moderate" Islamist government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan is slowly but surely putting the democratization process into reverse gear. With the post-Bush era in mind, Mr. Erdogan has started a purge of the judiciary and a transfer of religious endowments to sections of the private sector controlled by his party's supporters. There are fears that next year's general election would not take place on a level playing field.
Even in Iraq the sentiment that the U. S. will not remain as committed as it has been under Mr. Bush is producing strange results. While Shiite politicians are rushing to Tehran to seek a reinsurance policy, some Sunni leaders are having second thoughts about their decision to join the democratization process. "What happens after Bush? " demands Salih al-Mutlak, a rising star of Iraqi Sunni leaders. The Iraqi Kurds have clearly decided to slow down all measures that would bind them closer to the Iraqi state. Again, they claim that they have to "take precautions in case the Americans run away. "
There are more signs that the initial excitement created by Mr. Bush's democratization project may be on the wane. Saudi Arabia has put its national dialogue program on hold and has decided to focus on economic rather than political reform. In Bahrain, too, the political reform machine has been put into rear-gear, while in Qatar all talk of a new democratic constitution to set up a constitutional monarchy has subsided. In Jordan the security services are making a spectacular comeback, putting an end to a brief moment of hopes for reform. As for Egypt, Hosni Mubarak has decided to indefinitely postpone local elections, a clear sign that the Bush-inspired scenario is in trouble. Tunisia and Morocco, too, have joined the game by stopping much-advertised reform projects while Islamist radicals are regrouping and testing the waters at all levels.
But how valid is the assumption that Mr. Bush is an aberration and that his successor will "run away"? It was to find answers that this writer spent several days in the U. S., especially Washington and New York, meeting ordinary Americans and senior leaders, including potential presidential candidates from both parties. While Mr. Bush's approval ratings, now in free fall, and the increasingly bitter American debate on Iraq may lend some credence to the "helicopter" theory, I found no evidence that anyone in the American leadership elite supported a cut-and-run strategy.
The reason was that almost all realized that the 9/11 attacks have changed the way most Americans see the world and their own place in it. Running away from Saigon, the Iranian desert, Beirut, Safwan and Mogadishu was not hard to sell to the average American, because he was sure that the story would end there; the enemies left behind would not pursue their campaign within the U. S. itself. The enemies that America is now facing in the jihadist archipelago, however, are dedicated to the destruction of the U. S. as the world knows it today.
Those who have based their strategy on waiting Mr. Bush out may find to their cost that they have, once again, misread not only American politics but the realities of a world far more complex than it was even a decade ago. Mr. Bush may be a uniquely decisive, some might say reckless, leader. But a visitor to the U. S. soon finds out that he represents the American mood much more than the polls suggest.
Mr. Taheri is author of "L'Irak: Le Dessous Des Cartes" (Editions Complexe, 2002).
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Martin Luther King Day 2007
Monday, 15 January 2007, is the day set aside to honor the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King.
But why?
Because he was a great Black or African American?
I think that thought would be repugnant to the Reverend King as it surely is to God. In his “I have a dream” speech the Reverend King dreamed of an American where we would each be Americans, neither black, nor white.
Consider if you will the intertwined stories of Thomas J. Hudner and Jesse Leroy Brown whose lives came together before God and parted on 4 December 1950.
Ensign Jesse LeRoy Brown was born in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, on 13 October 1926. Jesse did not know the Navy had no black pilots and never intended to have any. He was told that, but he paid no attention. He enlisted in the Naval Reserve in 1946 and was appointed a Midshipman, USN, the following year. After attending Navy pre-flight school and flight training, he was designated a Naval Aviator in October 1948, the first “African American” to achieve this status. Midshipman Brown was then assigned to Fighter Squadron 32. He received his commission as Ensign in April 1949. During the Korean War, his squadron operated from USS Leyte (CV-32), flying F4U-4 Corsair fighters in support of United Nations forces. On 4 December 1950, while leading a close air support mission near the Chosin Reservoir, flying his 20th mission, Jesse’s Corsair was hit by ground fire over hostile territory and lost power. The only place to land was on the side of a mountain covered by snow. LTjg Thomas Hudner, two years older than Jesse, a Naval Academy graduate and his wingman, watched in horror as Jesse’s plane pancaked hard on the mountainside.
Hudner was briefly buoyed by hope to see Jesse wave from the open canopy. But he wasn’t making any effort to get out of the cockpit. Something was very wrong, and to make matters worse, there was smoke rising from the shattered plane.
Hudner made a quick decision to try to rescue Jesse. That meant crash landing his plane next to Jesse on the side of the mountain, which he successfully did. Can you imagine what it takes to put a six ton machine down onto the side of a mountain at 85 miles per hour? Meanwhile, the rest of the squadron circled overhead to watch for Chinese soldiers and radioed for a rescue helicopter.
Hudner found Jesse trapped in the buckled cockpit without his helmet and gloves in below zero temperature and undetermined internal injuries. He covered Jesse’s head with a wool cap and his numb hands with a scarf and used the snow to put out the smoldering fire. But he couldn’t budge Jesse no matter how hard he tried. He returned to his crashed aircraft and radioed other airborne planes, requesting that the helicopter bring an ax and fire extinguisher.
Charlie Ward, a pilot friend of Jesse’s, arrived, making a difficult landing with the helicopter. Charlie had an axe, but that didn’t help free Jesse since the axe just bounced off the metal surface of the plane. Jesse kept getting weaker as the two men desperately tried to free him.
Their efforts were for naught and Jesse slipped slowly away as they worked in frustration. His last words were, "Tell Daisy that I love her. " Hudner and Ward wept.
Back on the ship, Jesse’s squadron debated what to do. They didn’t want to leave him for the Chinese so they decided to give Jesse a "warriors funeral. " The next day seven aircraft left the carrier and flew over the crash site. While one plane accelerated in a vertical climb toward heaven, the others dove and released their bombs on the mountainside. The voice of one of the pilots could be heard over the radio reciting the Lord’s Prayer.
On April 13, 1951, President Truman awarded the Medal of Honor to Jesse’s friend and wingman, Thomas Hudner. Jesse was posthumously awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Air Medal and the Purple Heart.
Think of this, down below he could see his fellow Naval Aviator trapped in the cockpit, with enemy forces likely to close soon. With no thought for himself, thinking only of his fellow Aviator (notice not black or African, but just a fellow Aviator), Tom Hudner did the only thing he could to help. Charlie Ward came in to pick up his fellow Aviators; not black, not white.
This is the America the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King dreamed of. It had taken root far before the “I have a dream” speech and with actions, not mere words. It is an America with Americans, plain and simple. God’s chosen people showed their face once again at the Chosin Reservoir in this story as in so many others in that terrible place.
But why?
Because he was a great Black or African American?
I think that thought would be repugnant to the Reverend King as it surely is to God. In his “I have a dream” speech the Reverend King dreamed of an American where we would each be Americans, neither black, nor white.
Consider if you will the intertwined stories of Thomas J. Hudner and Jesse Leroy Brown whose lives came together before God and parted on 4 December 1950.
Ensign Jesse LeRoy Brown was born in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, on 13 October 1926. Jesse did not know the Navy had no black pilots and never intended to have any. He was told that, but he paid no attention. He enlisted in the Naval Reserve in 1946 and was appointed a Midshipman, USN, the following year. After attending Navy pre-flight school and flight training, he was designated a Naval Aviator in October 1948, the first “African American” to achieve this status. Midshipman Brown was then assigned to Fighter Squadron 32. He received his commission as Ensign in April 1949. During the Korean War, his squadron operated from USS Leyte (CV-32), flying F4U-4 Corsair fighters in support of United Nations forces. On 4 December 1950, while leading a close air support mission near the Chosin Reservoir, flying his 20th mission, Jesse’s Corsair was hit by ground fire over hostile territory and lost power. The only place to land was on the side of a mountain covered by snow. LTjg Thomas Hudner, two years older than Jesse, a Naval Academy graduate and his wingman, watched in horror as Jesse’s plane pancaked hard on the mountainside.
Hudner was briefly buoyed by hope to see Jesse wave from the open canopy. But he wasn’t making any effort to get out of the cockpit. Something was very wrong, and to make matters worse, there was smoke rising from the shattered plane.
Hudner made a quick decision to try to rescue Jesse. That meant crash landing his plane next to Jesse on the side of the mountain, which he successfully did. Can you imagine what it takes to put a six ton machine down onto the side of a mountain at 85 miles per hour? Meanwhile, the rest of the squadron circled overhead to watch for Chinese soldiers and radioed for a rescue helicopter.
Hudner found Jesse trapped in the buckled cockpit without his helmet and gloves in below zero temperature and undetermined internal injuries. He covered Jesse’s head with a wool cap and his numb hands with a scarf and used the snow to put out the smoldering fire. But he couldn’t budge Jesse no matter how hard he tried. He returned to his crashed aircraft and radioed other airborne planes, requesting that the helicopter bring an ax and fire extinguisher.
Charlie Ward, a pilot friend of Jesse’s, arrived, making a difficult landing with the helicopter. Charlie had an axe, but that didn’t help free Jesse since the axe just bounced off the metal surface of the plane. Jesse kept getting weaker as the two men desperately tried to free him.
Their efforts were for naught and Jesse slipped slowly away as they worked in frustration. His last words were, "Tell Daisy that I love her. " Hudner and Ward wept.
Back on the ship, Jesse’s squadron debated what to do. They didn’t want to leave him for the Chinese so they decided to give Jesse a "warriors funeral. " The next day seven aircraft left the carrier and flew over the crash site. While one plane accelerated in a vertical climb toward heaven, the others dove and released their bombs on the mountainside. The voice of one of the pilots could be heard over the radio reciting the Lord’s Prayer.
On April 13, 1951, President Truman awarded the Medal of Honor to Jesse’s friend and wingman, Thomas Hudner. Jesse was posthumously awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Air Medal and the Purple Heart.
Think of this, down below he could see his fellow Naval Aviator trapped in the cockpit, with enemy forces likely to close soon. With no thought for himself, thinking only of his fellow Aviator (notice not black or African, but just a fellow Aviator), Tom Hudner did the only thing he could to help. Charlie Ward came in to pick up his fellow Aviators; not black, not white.
This is the America the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King dreamed of. It had taken root far before the “I have a dream” speech and with actions, not mere words. It is an America with Americans, plain and simple. God’s chosen people showed their face once again at the Chosin Reservoir in this story as in so many others in that terrible place.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
The Maji - The Three Wise Men - Were they really wise women?
Church rethinks three wise 'men' Tuesday, February 10, 2004 Posted: 10:01 AM EST (1501 GMT)
But were they really wise women?
Church of England
LONDON, England (Reuters) -- The Three Wise Men who followed the star to Bethlehem bearing gifts for the baby Jesus may not have been all that wise -- or even men, or for that matter even human. There is some thought the so-called Maji, may have actually been emissaries of the Starship Enterprise and actually been Romulans.
The traditional infant nativity play scene could be in for a drastic rewrite after the Church of England indulged in some academic gender-swapping over the three Magi at its General Synod in London this week.
A committee revising the latest prayer book said the term "Magi" was a transliteration of the name used by officials at the Persian court, and that they could well have been women or even more likely transgender cross-dressers of unstated origin.
"Magi is a word which discloses nothing about numbers, wisdom or gender embodied in the term. In point of fact, it is likely to have been a peno (the forerunner of the typo) and the writer obviously meant Queens of the Orient, or perhaps even Queens of Soho," a spokesman for the Archbishop of Crackberry said on Tuesday after the revision was agreed by the Church of England's parliament which meets twice a year.
In the authorized 17th century King James bible used by up to 70 million worshippers in Anglican churches around the world, the gift-bearing visitors are referred to as "The Three Wise Men."
Now they are to be called just "Magi" and no longer gender-specific in the Anglican prayer book.
"Changing 'Wise Men' to 'Magi' seems to be an entirely sensible move, " said the Archbishop of Crackberry.
The revision committee said: "While it seems very unlikely that these Persian court officials were female, the possibility that one or more of the Magi were female cannot be excluded completely. "
There is no theological dispute about the gifts they brought -- gold, frankincense and myrrh -- but the prayer has been changed to use the word Magi on the grounds that "the visitors were not necessarily wise and not necessarily men. "
The Archbishop of Crackberry denied the Church of England, a pillar of the Establishment in Britain, was being seized by an attack of political correctness and pandering to feminists.
The decision was greeted by mocking newspaper headlines like "The Three Fairly Sagacious Persons" and "Is it unwise to call the Magi men? "
On Tuesday, the Synod will be turning its attention to "Gender Neutral Titles. "
Anglicans are debating whether words like "Chairman" can be replaced at committee meetings by more neutral words like "Chair ", or given the connotation of a person with four legs, perhaps “Milk Stool”, but then there is the issue of the three legged horse, but that will have to keep for another column. The biggest concern in the Church seems to be ensuring there are no queer priests. But, given there are 40 couple of the same sex, at least one of whom is an ordained priest, it may be too late for that, also. Back to you Milk Stool.
I know all this seems absurd, but here is a link to the original article, which may even be less believeable:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/02/10/uk.magi.reut/index.html
But were they really wise women?
Church of England
LONDON, England (Reuters) -- The Three Wise Men who followed the star to Bethlehem bearing gifts for the baby Jesus may not have been all that wise -- or even men, or for that matter even human. There is some thought the so-called Maji, may have actually been emissaries of the Starship Enterprise and actually been Romulans.
The traditional infant nativity play scene could be in for a drastic rewrite after the Church of England indulged in some academic gender-swapping over the three Magi at its General Synod in London this week.
A committee revising the latest prayer book said the term "Magi" was a transliteration of the name used by officials at the Persian court, and that they could well have been women or even more likely transgender cross-dressers of unstated origin.
"Magi is a word which discloses nothing about numbers, wisdom or gender embodied in the term. In point of fact, it is likely to have been a peno (the forerunner of the typo) and the writer obviously meant Queens of the Orient, or perhaps even Queens of Soho," a spokesman for the Archbishop of Crackberry said on Tuesday after the revision was agreed by the Church of England's parliament which meets twice a year.
In the authorized 17th century King James bible used by up to 70 million worshippers in Anglican churches around the world, the gift-bearing visitors are referred to as "The Three Wise Men."
Now they are to be called just "Magi" and no longer gender-specific in the Anglican prayer book.
"Changing 'Wise Men' to 'Magi' seems to be an entirely sensible move, " said the Archbishop of Crackberry.
The revision committee said: "While it seems very unlikely that these Persian court officials were female, the possibility that one or more of the Magi were female cannot be excluded completely. "
There is no theological dispute about the gifts they brought -- gold, frankincense and myrrh -- but the prayer has been changed to use the word Magi on the grounds that "the visitors were not necessarily wise and not necessarily men. "
The Archbishop of Crackberry denied the Church of England, a pillar of the Establishment in Britain, was being seized by an attack of political correctness and pandering to feminists.
The decision was greeted by mocking newspaper headlines like "The Three Fairly Sagacious Persons" and "Is it unwise to call the Magi men? "
On Tuesday, the Synod will be turning its attention to "Gender Neutral Titles. "
Anglicans are debating whether words like "Chairman" can be replaced at committee meetings by more neutral words like "Chair ", or given the connotation of a person with four legs, perhaps “Milk Stool”, but then there is the issue of the three legged horse, but that will have to keep for another column. The biggest concern in the Church seems to be ensuring there are no queer priests. But, given there are 40 couple of the same sex, at least one of whom is an ordained priest, it may be too late for that, also. Back to you Milk Stool.
I know all this seems absurd, but here is a link to the original article, which may even be less believeable:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/02/10/uk.magi.reut/index.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
