I’m glad I waited as I became aware this morning of another private letter from Bishop Edgar, this time to his clergy in the Diocese of South Carolina. It is a significant improvement on the earlier letter to a bishop, so let’s just forget that earlier letter.

I was going to mention some contents of the newer letter as I think they reflect well on Bishop Edgar and contain a wise proposal. But for now I have decided to let the Bishop go more public in his timing.

However, I do think Bishop Edgar needs to write a public letter to the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) as a whole and soon as many outside his diocese were scandalized by the Porter-Gaud School service. But I completely understand if he wants to communicate with his clergy privately first. So I will respect that and exercise restraint.

That leads me to a larger topic. The bishops of ACNA, and not just Bishop Edgar, need to communicate more with the people of ACNA. I will say that ACNA bishops are remarkably approachable as I’ve experienced for myself on any number of occasions.

But we are going through a difficult time. We need more encouragement from our bishops. And we need to hear from them and publicly that they are not pleased with the status quo and are working to remedy that.

One example of a bishop not doing that adequately was at last year’s Synod of the Diocese of Mid-America in the Reformed Episcopal Church. During the clergy meeting, Bishop Ray Sutton answered a question or two about our relationship with ACNA. But in his address to the Synod as a whole, he said nothing I can recall about our relationship with ACNA. If you saw a grumpy man sitting with crossed arms while everyone else was applauding at the conclusion of his address, that was me.

And the more traditional bishops like Sutton need all the more to communicate with their people. For those who are most distressed about the current state of ACNA tend to be from the more traditional dioceses. We need the encouragement that our bishops share our displeasure and are striving to make things right. We need to know they are not content to continue on and on with the status quo.

But we are not hearing that nearly enough. Sheep need to hear the voices of faithful shepherds leading them to better pasture. So, bishops, speak up!

Speaking of distress, this episode has been hard on me. So I will leave off for now. But our bishops, including my bishops, need to speak up. We need that. I need that.

—

UPDATE: The Dean and acting Archbishop of ACNA, Julian Dobbs, has just now spoken up with a strong statement:

Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

A situation has arisen in our Province that has given great offense to many who worship in our churches. I want to address this and be plain about the position of the Anglican Church in North America.

At issue is the recent participation of the Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina, ACNA, with a bishop of The Episcopal Church in a joint dedication of a local school chapel. Many within our Province have been shocked by what appears to be renewed communion with The Episcopal Church, while others are confused by the controversy.

As such, I want to reaffirm the position of the Anglican Church in North America and renew the biblical call to repentance and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

It is now nearly two decades since many of us separated from The Episcopal Church, whose leadership abandoned the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. Departing from those with whom we worshiped and served was costly to our parishes and to our souls. It remains painful for many of us. It was, however, the right thing to do. Just as our Lord is faithful to His children, He calls us to be faithful to His Word. That is unequivocal.

The Global Anglican Council has called those who hold leadership office in the Global Anglican Communion to a principled disengagement from any who promote false teaching.

That same principle governs our relations here in North America with those who have departed from the faith we have received through the Word of God and expressed in the formularies of our Church. The Anglican Church in North America is not in communion with The Episcopal Church, and those who hold ecclesiastical authority in our Province bear a solemn responsibility to uphold this position.

Let it be clearly understood that principled disengagement does not mean indifference. Our position has always been to pray for those who have departed from the faith and to call them to repentance. We continue to plead with the Lord that He would grant them a change of heart and restore them to the faith. It is because we long for that day that we speak plainly. Until it comes, however, we cannot be in communion with those who have distorted God’s Word.

The Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina has communicated with his diocese regarding his original intentions in participating in the dedication and the resulting controversy. Next month, as part of the scheduled College of Bishops meeting, I will lay the seriousness of this situation before the bishops and ask them to consider with me what faithfulness to our Lord and the faith we have received requires of those who have been entrusted with ecclesiastical authority.

In the interim, please kneel with me before God’s throne of grace to pray for the renewed faithfulness of His Church.

In Christ alone,

The Rt. Rev. Julian M. Dobbs

Dean of the Province, ACNA

I refer to the controversy surrounding the participation of Chip Edgar, the ACNA Bishop of South Carolina (Yes, him again.), in a consecration of the new chapel of Porter-Gaud School alongside The Episcopal Church (TEC) Bishop of South Carolina, Ruth Woodliff-Stanley. To my knowledge the controversy became public with my X post of some photos from the event with the observation, “The ACNA Bishop of SC, Chip Edgar, has some explainin’ to do.” And he does.

For he processed alongside Woodliff-Stanley…

…jointly held on to a crozier at the door of the new chapel with her….

…prepared the altar (My understanding is they consecrated the altar.) with her…

…and distributed the Eucharist with her. (But neither were the celebrant.)

Some think this not a big deal, that curmudgeons like me are being ridiculous in getting worked up over this. But it is and should be a big deal in ACNA. Here’s why.

Many of us in ACNA either fled or avoided The Episcopal Church because of its apostasy. Several parishes lost their property when they fled including a handful in South Carolina after a bitter fight in the courts. ACNA was formed to create an organized orthodox Anglican presence in North America apart from The Episcopal Church and the also apostate Anglican Church of Canada. As for me, when I was looking to become Anglican, I decided to avoid The Episcopal Church although that left me with a total of one Anglican church to choose from (which thankfully has turned out to be an excellent choice).

So Chip Edgar’s public conduct shows utter disregard for the consciences of those who want nothing to do with TEC, especially of those who suffered in departing from TEC.

It would be more understandable if Woodliff-Stanley was one of the few remaining somewhat conservative TEC bishops. She is not. She is openly pro-abortion and openly for alphabet “pride.” She is typical of what many ACNA Anglicans fled, and she is typical of what faithful Christians deplore. But Bishop Chip was just fine being buddy-buddy with her at the altar.

An additional issue is why ACNA should have any relationship with Porter-Gaud School. By its own admission, it is run as a rather woke institution [Emphasis mine.]:

Porter-Gaud School is committed to increasing the racial, ethnic, and religious diversity of our faculty and staff…. In accordance with law, Porter-Gaud School is an equal opportunity employer and hires without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, [which is odd because it identifies as “an Episcopal school”] gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, national origin, age, or disability.

There is yet a more important principle involved in this incident: Lex ordani lex credendi, the law of prayer is the law of belief. In other words, what one does during worship states what one believes. So when Bishop Chip Edgar processed alongside apostate fake bishop Woodliff-Stanley, when he held on to the crozier with her, when he prepared the altar with her, and when he distributed the sacrament with her, those are not empty acts. Those are not just being nice and polite. Those liturgical acts are tangible statements. Those are acts recognizing her as a legitimate bishop with whom he can be in communion.

Yes, that is in violation of 2nd John and a number of other scriptures.

If that is okay in the Anglican Church in North America, then we pretty much cease to have a reason to exist as a separate body. Our formation was in part a departure from communion with The Episcopal Church. Why continue ACNA if our bishops can recognize and commune with TEC bishops as they please? And why should us orthodox who want nothing to do with The Episcopal Church continue in ACNA if communion with wolves is no big deal anymore among ACNA bishops?

The Bishops of ACNA must deal with this matter quickly — and with severity.

——

I forgot to add that ACNA laity have a role to play as well. If you are in ACNA and are as displeased with this situation as I am, I recommend you politely let your displeasure be known to your bishop(s). Also, if you think what Bishop Edgar has done is misconduct, you may make a complaint to the ACNA provincial office here.

And you know what that means. Democrats who showed off their far-left feathers like an amorous peacock now are suddenly moderate and somewhat sensible and into everyday issues like “affordability.” But those Democrats who get elected will pivot right back — or left back — to governing hard left. See Gov. Spanberger of Virginia or Gov. Katie Hobbs of Arizona. See Joe Biden, who campaigned, well, stayed in his basement, as moderate good ‘ol Scranton Joe then switched to hard Left as soon as he was inaugurated — or his puppet masters swung him to hard Left — with wide open borders and more.

One could look further back to Bill Clinton. People forget he campaigned as a moderate then governed as a lying Leftist until the 1994 mid-terms gave the Republicans the House for the first time since the 1950’s and gave him a reality check.

I could go on and on with examples. And some Republicans do a version of this, too. The ads Sen. John Cornyn (TX-RINO) ran during Republican primaries for years were comical. From those ads you’d think he was a rootin’ tootin’ meat-eating Commie-shooting Texan to the right of Attila the Hun. But as soon as he was safely back in Washington, he went back to being an establishment RINO. He had enough Texans fooled with that act to get away with it for four terms until 2026 and Ken Paxton came along. (And thank God Cornyn was not the only RINO to be taken down this year. Thom Tillis of North Carolina is among the others.)

Back to the Democrats and the Communists (but I repeat myself), we are seeing the same act again. Now that the primaries are over, they are regular folk concerned about groceries and affordability just like you and their dear old grandparents — which happen to feature in ads for Talarico and Abdul el-Sayed.

Yes, even hardcore DSA “progressives” like them are doing that Democrat song and dance. Yes, even the Islamocommies and the woke.

Speaking of woke, have you heard of Woke 2.0? Yes, wokeness is now New and Improved!

AOC is among those saying Woke 1.0 is so 2020. Woke 2.0 is now the thing! Laugh if you want, but AOC is not as dumb as she may seem. I give her credit — she is following a tried and largely successful Marxist tactic. Never mind that just like those hyped “New and Improved” products of the 60s, there is very little real difference between Woke 1.0 and Woke 2.0. It’s just relabeling as Sasha Stone warned us the other day.

Free Thinking Through the Fourth Turning with Sasha Stone

Woke 1.0 Canceled America. Woke 2.0 Will Destroy It.

When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez laughed off Woke 1.0, she attempted to distance herself from a movement she not only helped build but also led. Because the DSA is ascendant, they’re hoping to pivot to kitchen table issues just long enough to trick otherwise sane people into voting for them…

Listen now

14 days ago · 316 likes · 152 comments · Sasha Stone

People like AOC wisely want us to forget Woke 1.0. It is important that we not forget as Yuri Bezmenov reminds us.

How To Subvert Subversion with Yuri Bezmenov

The Smithsonian Museum of Woke 1.0

The Smithsonian should curate an exhibit on the Woke Era. I have volunteered my services by compiling the defining images in today’s post. The Domestic Policy Council’s report on Saving America’s Story shows how many of the current leadership team’s initiatives are textbook examples of ideological subversion…

Read more

14 days ago · 255 likes · 35 comments · Yuri Bezmenov

Marxism has often reinvented and relabeled itself. That is a major factor behind Critical Theory. Marxists saw that their economic class warfare — “Workers of the World unite!” and all that — wasn’t selling in the West because Capitalism was doing better for real life workers than Communism was. So a segment of them decided to go more into race and identity warfare. And that (in admittedly simplified form) is how we got Critical Theory, more commonly known as wokeness.

Another relabeling occurred when Communists saw that the church wasn’t being blown away by the winds of progress nearly as quickly as it was supposed to. In countries like Poland, the church was even a bulwark against Communism. And old school atheistic Communism wasn’t going to sell very well in Catholic Latin America. So the Communists decided to go more into infiltrating and coopting the church. A major tool in that was Liberation Theology. Cloak Marxism with empathetic Christian clothing and voila! — Liberation Theology.

This is no “conspiracy theory” by the way. Some years after the fall of the Soviet Union, it came out that Liberation Theology was practically “born in the KGB.”

Insurrection Barbie

The KGB’s Greatest Trick: How Soviet Spies Invented Liberation Theology to Spread Marxism

Imagine a revolutionary ideology that cloaks Marxist class warfare in the robes of Christian compassion, turning priests into activists and the Bible into a manifesto for overthrowing capitalism. Sounds like a conspiracy theory? Think again…

Read more

a year ago · 220 likes · 10 comments · Insurrection Barbie

Marxists will keep pulling this trick of relabelling again and again. So it’s important that we “won’t get fooled again” to steal a line from The Who. But time after time we do get fooled again, at least for a while — time enough for the Commies to do great damage as they have done this decade in the West with 2020, DEI, discrimination against white straight males, the trans delusion, the migration Invasion, anarchotyranny and more. Sane people are wising up and rejecting all that, but the damage is done and is very hard to undo. If we let the Marxists, under whatever label — Progressive, Woke 2.0, Democrat, “Democratic Socialism”, whatever — have their way into the 2030s, the West may be done, period.

The church, called to be “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15) has particular responsibility not to fall for various forms of Marxism and other deceptions. But there is a large segment of the church across denominational lines that falls for relabeled Marxism again and again: The Church of What’s Happening Now. I preached a sermon about The Church of What’s Happening Now in 2022. I think it pretty good if I may say so, and I do. I encourage you to read it as it remains all too relevant but I won’t repeat it here.

For now it suffices to say The Church of What’s Happening Now is especially vulnerable to deceptions from Marxism and other toxic ideologies. For the Happening Church always tries oh-so-hard to be relevant. So if, say, “anti-racism” or “inclusion” or whatever form of “social justice” is hot, the Happening Now Church just can’t resist marching with the mob and chanting, “Me, too!”

If The Church of What’s Happening Now has a bishop in my denomination, the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), it is Todd Hunter, now retired. He was a Happening leader in at least three trendy church movements: the Vineyard, the Emerging Church, and the Church Growth movement before bringing his act to ACNA. And, sure enough, while in ACNA, he has pushed Critical Theory, Critical Race Theory, and Liberation Theology. A Marxist trifecta!

But now I don’t want to see you Baptists or Papists smirking at us Anglicans. You also have The Church of What’s Happening Now among you, also prone to being hijacked by whatever New and Improved snake oil the Commies are selling.

This is a problem throughout the church and throughout the West. We keep on being fooled by the reinventions and relabelings of the Marxists. The results are already disastrous and will be fatal to the West if we keep on being fooled. So it is time to be determined that “we won’t get fooled again.” A good start to that is to give most Democrats the thrashing they have richly earned in this November’s mid-term elections. And then to tell church leaders who keep pushing whatever the Marxists are pushing to get their minds right or to get lost.

Yes, I know that is getting political. But we have to be wise and proactive politically even though there are more important things in our lives. To quote Yacov Smirnoff, a comedian from the old Soviet Union, “You might not be interested in the Party. But the Party is interested in you.”

—

“New and Improved” image by “New and Improved” Grok. Hey, I have to give Elon and his AI bot credit.

But even such darkness is an occasion for light to shine brighter. And one light in the darkness was Pusey House Oxford under its Principal, George Westhaver.

What I’m about to tell you is from my imperfect memory. I’ve looked but have yet found no documentation of the following. Friends connected to Pusey House are welcome to add details and color in the comments.

Among with many priests, Westhaver took some worship online. And when the first lockdown was especially harsh, he set up a small reverent altar in his home to do so. When worship in the Chapel of Pusey House resumed, though with restrictions, that was online at times as well. That although, with his deeply incarnational views in line with Edward Pusey, that did not continue past the COVID years as it did for many Anglican churches around the world. (Pusey House does now excel at putting sermons and lectures online, however.)

But as the lockdowns continued, Westhaver wanted more connection in worship among Pusey House people than just livestreaming the Eucharist. Then someone, probably one of the House interns, came up with an idea — use Discord. Yes, an app gamers use to communicate as they play online video games. (Or at least used back then. I know some gamers but don’t keep up with their constantly changing technology.)

I forget how often and for how long, Pusey House did Evening Prayer through the Discord app. This turned out to be a Godsend for me who was home in Texas and not locked down but missed Pusey House. In fact, if memory serves me right, I was thinking of an extended visit to Oxford and Pusey House before COVID hit. (I finally got to do that and enjoy the late Queen’s last Jubilee in 2022.)

But now through Discord I got to participate with Pusey House in Evening Prayer from my private upstairs chapel in South Texas. Two or three times, I even read one of the scripture lessons across the ocean. It was one of the several ways God used COVID for good, including my good. (I may write a post on some of those ways another day.)

I am aware that Discord has since gotten an unsavory reputation due to some predatory users. But for a few weeks, the Lord and George Westhaver used it to keep the Pusey House community worshipping together during a trying time of separation. Lockdowns and an ocean could not keep us apart.

Such creativity and even innovation (Yes, that can be a scary word among us traditional Anglicans.) has served Pusey House well as it has grown in offerings and participation since Westhaver became Principal in 2013. Their creativity and outreach has served me well through the years, also, including in that awful COVID year of 2020.

Speaking of which, here is the Facebook video. If you want to watch the sermon only, it begins just after 27 minutes in. Be aware that I think Zuck will delete the video after 30 days or something. If the sermon gets posted more permanently elsewhere, I will update this post.

If you prefer to read, here is the text. I hope you find it helpful in spite of the imperfect preacher.

—

Sermon Trinity 11 Morning Prayer

Psalms 124, 125

Isaiah 26:12-16, 19 Romans 8:26-39

Providence Reformed Episcopal Church

Corpus Christi, Texas, August 16th, 2026

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. Romans 8:28 (NASB 95)

When I first became aware of the possibility of preaching this morning, I was glad to see the second lesson was from Romans 8, including verse 28 that I just read, which has long been a life verse for me. Romans 8 is an amazing chapter which ends in some fireworks. It practically preaches itself. I could easily preach this chapter for an hour or more. But I want you to rejoice rather than to suffer so I will restrain myself.

Speaking of suffering — and we all go through suffering sooner or later but hopefully not through this sermon — Romans 8 is among the best Bible passages to assist in getting through suffering without despair.

Suffering is that much more difficult, perhaps unbearable, when it seems pointless. Fr. Ben, his sister Rose Marie, his niece Mariel and family are now in mourning for the sudden loss of Jose Miguel. And it’s hard for them. How much harder would it be if they thought that was it. How much harder if they thought there was no resurrection and no God that takes awful losses and uses them for good. How much harder if they mourned as those who have no hope. To suffer loss and to think it pointless, without any purpose — that can be harder than the loss itself.

But St. Paul admonishes us that we are not to mourn and suffer loss as those “who have no hope.” In 1st Thessalonians 4:13 and following, Paul reminds us that “Jesus died and rose again.” And he’s coming! He’s coming for us, both the living and the dead who have faith in Him.

In Romans 8, Paul goes into further length on the great hope and purpose we have in Christ, even in the midst of loss and suffering. We only have time here to glance at portions of it, so I encourage you to read the whole chapter at home.

Before the passage we read in the second lesson, in verse 18, we hear Paul say, “For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.” Those are strong words. For “the sufferings of this present time” can be and often are awful. Yet, as awful as they are, they “are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed.” The glory of God will redeem and overwhelm all our loss.

And note what else Paul said about the glory of God — it “shall be revealed in us.” In us! We will get to participate in and fully enjoy the glory of God. What that will look like is a mystery — it’s certainly a mystery to me. But we know it’s going to be wonderful.

Yet St. Paul acknowledges that between now and then can be hard. We “groan.” He even portrays “the whole creation” as groaning. And even though life and creation is wonderful, because of the Fall, a lot is off. Even creation is off; it’s not what it should be and will be. A lot in this now fallen creation can just break your heart, from natural disasters, such as the recent earthquake in Columbia, to losing a beloved pet. But because of God, we don’t lose hope. Beginning at verse 24:

For we are saved by hope — by hope in Christ — but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? To put it another way, we hope in Christ making all things new and right, but we don’t see that just yet. And that can be tough. Continuing: But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. (KJ)

And St. Paul does more than just say, “Be patient!” In the rest of the chapter, he gives reason after reason to be patient. He gives us the big picture to help us endure and hold on to hope under suffering. And part of that is my life verse that I began with, Romans 8:28:

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

Now that is from the New American Standard translation. The King James we read in the 2nd lesson has it: “And we know that all things work together for good” and so on. So some excellent translations do not spell out that God is the one who “causes all things to work together for good to those who love God” while some excellent translations do. But it safe to say we know why all things work together for good to those who love God. God does that. God’s providence does that. Really this verse is practically a definition of God’s providence. And we at Providence Reformed Episcopal Church have certainly experienced God’s providence through the years as described in Romans 8:28.

I don’t know how many times Romans 8:28 has kept me going in the midst of difficulties and frustrations. I don’t know how many times Romans 8:28 has kept me sane. And again and again, I’ve seen God take even awful things in my life and use them for good, even for my good.

That said, this verse is no guarantee that in this lifetime we will see all of God’s good purposes for our loss and suffering. Some things have to remain a mystery in this life, and we just have to trust God in that. Yes, that’s not easy. But nobody said faithfulness is easy . . . except heretics.

Yet it remains a great comfort to know that God has good purposes for even the most awful things we suffer. Our suffering is not pointless. Our suffering is not meaningless. It is not bereft of hope. So when we suffer and mourn, we do not do so as those “who have no hope.” For our hope is great indeed.

Paul then writes of how God saves us and will save us:

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

What can we say about just a wonderful hope? Words would fail. My words would certainly fail. What can we say about this glorious hope? It turns out that what Paul wrote in the very next verse, in verse 31:

What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Friends, if that doesn’t give you hope in the midst of difficulties, I don’t know what can. Christ died for us, nullifying the condemnation due us. Christ rose again for us, defeating death for us. And now Christ intercedes for us at the right hand of the Father. Jesus knows our sufferings and right now intercedes for us before the Father. “What shall we then say to these things” indeed!

Paul continues in verse 35:

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

Again, Paul does not diminish our sufferings. He may even seem to be a bit overwrought here until you remember that every day Christians are martyred for their faith. The persecution of the church is especially intense now in northern Nigeria. Yet even in the midst of horrific crimes against humanity and the church, Christ and His people win in the end. Accordingly, St. Paul now ends the chapter with those fireworks I told you were coming:

Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

If you are in Christ, if your faith is in Christ, there is always hope, great hope — and hope in Christ does not disappoint, as Paul wrote in Romans 5:5. There is always purpose, although the purposes of God can be hard to see at times. And there is always love — the love of God which makes us more than conquerors though Christ who became man for us, who died for us, who rose for us, who intercedes for us, who loves us. Amen.

Let us pray.

O GOD, who declarest thine almighty power most chiefly in showing mercy and pity: Mercifully grant unto us such a measure of thy grace, that we, running the way of thy commandments, may obtain thy gracious promises, and be made partakers of thy heavenly treasure; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

If you think I’m hard on this, watch Greg Gutfeld’s epic monologue on it.

Anne Kennedy’s calmer take.

Demotivations With Anne

Maura Healey and the Fauxpowerment of Women

[Normally I would make my Thursday post a Big Thank You to paid subscribers, but this subject was no fun to write about, and I want as many people as there are to pray for the Governor of Massachusetts…

Read more

19 days ago · 34 likes · 17 comments · Anne Kennedy

That babykilling Massachusetts Democrat Governor Maura Healey is so Roman Catholic, she met with Pope Francis.

Here is the petition to excommunicate her. I’m unsure whether non-Roman Catholics should sign. But you Papists better sign it!

A Stand Firm podcast on a less egregious but still serious issue of communion in the Anglican Church in North America.

I used to be a big fan, too. Anyway, Boris made UK COVID restrictions awful.

Yet the Church of England made them worse.

At the very beginning, the Church of England complied with official guidance. That is understandable — and now I will have to get into some pond differences. “Guidance” in the UK is not the equivalent of mere recommendations. If the Government gives “guidance” you are expected to comply. And the UK has more of a culture of compliance with government and less of individual freedom than does the United States. Also, the Church of England is an established church with links to the Crown and Government. The U. S. Constitution in the 1st Amendment makes a very different arrangement that keeps church and state separate to a large degree (although it is not the “wall of separation of church and state” that secularists fantasize). And the 1st Amendment grants churches freedom from most government interference. Again, the U. K. is not the U. S.

So, especially in early 2020, it is understandable and to be expected that the Church of England fully complied with Government COVID restrictions.

But soon something changed. The Church of England went beyond compliance.

On March 23rd, 2020 the Johnson Government announced revised guidance. It was harsh but had a concession to churches. A “minister of religion” could “go to their place of worship, including to broadcast an act of worship to people outside the place of worship, whether over the internet or otherwise.”

Yet those two Archbishops, Justin Welby and John Sentamu, issued on the next day a directive banning clergy even from entering their own churches, even alone to livestream a service. That even though they encouraged clergy to do just that even a week before when public in-person services were suspended. From the March 24th directive that supplanted the earlier more sensible guidance:

Our church buildings must now be closed not only for public worship, but for private prayer as well and this includes the priest or lay person offering prayer in church on their own. A notice explaining this should be put on the church door. We must take a lead in showing our communities how we must behave in order to slow down the spread of the Coronavirus.

Again, this directive from the Archbishops went beyond what the Government required. Welby and Sentamu were prohibiting what the Government explicitly allowed! Moreover they were either contradicting themselves or engaging in some gnosticism:

It is also imperative that as the Church of Jesus Christ, called to offer hope and light in the darkness of this world’s ills, we maintain a praying presence for our community, though from today onwards this must happen from our hearts and from our homes.

I am not aware of any Church of England clergy defying the Archbishops. (As always, free free to fill in gaps in my knowledge in the comments.) To their credit, some clergy protested. Archdeacon Edward Dowler even wrote in The Church Times that the Archbishops likely exceeded their canonical authority.

I cannot find it in the mists of the internet, but I remember that Peter Anthony, Rector of All Saints Margaret Street let his displeasure be known, and he, much beloved, is generally of a gentle and irenic disposition. “A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench.”

After the new guidance, instead of livestreaming prayer in his church — and I joined him a time or two online — he made do livestreaming from his home as did a number of other clergy.

Nonetheless, while the Government made COVID burdens heavy to bear, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York made them even heavier and put even more barriers to public worship at the very time when people desired and needed an actual “praying presence” all the more.

And the Archbishops did not lessen those restrictions on churches and clergy until well after Easter on May 5th, 2020.

To his credit, Justin Welby in April 2021 made a partial apology: “I didn’t push hard enough to keep churches available for at least individual prayer.… We also said clergy couldn’t go in, and personally I feel I made a mistake with that.” Though not a fan of Welby, I appreciate him saying that. So far in my investigations, I’ve found such apologies all too rare.

Speaking of which, this is the beginning of a series on COVID church enormities I’ve warned you about.

More is coming, and to these shores.

Moreno asked those in the room harmed by the COVID tyranny, deceptions and vilifications promoted by Fauci to stand. Then he asked Fauci to turn around and look at those standing. Fauci would not. He would not even look upon those his lies affected.

Then Moreno asked if Fauci wanted to apologize to various categories of people harmed by Fauci’s lies. He just kept on taking the 5th and refused to answer.

Now that is apparently his right under the 5th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution although there is a dispute about that I will not dive into. And we have the 5th Amendment for good reasons. A more interesting question is whether that last minute preemptive pardon of Fauci from “President” Biden is legitimate. Do pardons signed by an overheating auto-pen — and Biden’s auto-pen sure was going BRRRRRR signing corrupt pardons as he was shuffling out of the White House — do auto-pen preemptive pardons by those pulling the strings of a half-senile “President” have legal standing? Inquiring minds want to know!

But this is not how things work — or at least should work — in God’s Holy Church. Church leaders especially cannot just look away from those they have harmed. If you commit significant wrong, you are expected not to ignore the wrong and the harm, but to confess, repent and make an appropriate apology. You cannot just stonewall and refuse to apologize like Fauci. Well, some churches and clergy have surely tried looking away and stonewalling only to make matters worse for everyone, including themselves and their eternal destiny.

The faithful church forgives — which is better than a pardon — but it also holds accountable. It especially holds its leaders accountable. (All the more reason to pray for church leaders!)

But I have not seen much accountability from Christian leaders concerning COVID excesses, not much repentance, hardly any apologies. Actually, I cannot recall any repentance and apologies from Christian leaders and clergy, but I’m not omniscient. Nor have I seen churches hold leaders accountable for COVID enormities.

It’s time for accountability. “For the time is come for judgment to begin at the house of God.” (I Peter 4:7 ESV)

And I intend to do my part.

I intend to document Christian leaders who pushed Fauci COVID lies, who vilified those who opposed the lies, who shut down in-person worship for months on end, etc. My main focus will be on those who refuse to apologize, who are in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), and who continued their Fauci Vichy act well beyond Spring 2020. For ACNA is my church. And I understand how difficult it was to know how to proceed early on in Spring 2020. I was fairly compliant back then. But, like any man who could think for himself, by the Summer I knew the bull manure was flying around thicker than the COVID virus.

Of course, I know there is only so much I can do. I think the time calls for an army of Christians to hold their clergy and churches accountable while forgiving those who hold themselves accountable. I’ve urged Megan Basham to join this work as she excels at keeping receipts.

And you readers can help out, too. I urge you to document past COVID enormities from Fauci Vichy church leaders. That could include writing down your experiences. You could save church newsletters that restricted church activities or pushed the lies. And please do feel free to pass what you document on to me, especially material from ACNA after Spring 2020.

I wish I had done that back on 2020. I find the documentation hard to come by now, at least so far. (Although I have come across an ACNA parish that, as its priest put it, “took the summer months off” in 2020.) But with God’s help and yours, this substack might become that much more interesting in the coming months.

As for those church leaders who toed the Fauci line for too long, if you haven’t held yourself accountable and apologized, it’s time. It is time. “For the time is come for judgment to begin at the house of God.”

And it’s better to be forgiven than exposed.

—

lead-in image stolen from Complicit Clergy

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

The timing of it coming on this past Sunday was also a demonstration of God’s providence to me. For I was preparing to teach on orthodoxy and orthopraxy to an afternoon prayer and study group I lead. Then I decided to read what the Gospel Lesson in the morning would happen to be — yes, I probably should have done that first. And, lo!, there is Jesus pretty much teaching on orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

He taught that when teachers in the church seem to be orthodox, a good way to be sure is to check their fruit, their orthopraxy, i. e. do they demonstrate right practice or not?

This was how I first discovered that my church of younger years, the mainline Presbyterian Church, was off. I noticed the political stands of the national church, including being for abortion and for whatever the Soviet Union happened to want at the time. (This was back during the Cold War. Yes. I’m old.) Having quite opposite views, I was offended and started paying more attention to what the denomination was up to. Sure enough, I soon noticed its heterodoxy in even the basics of the Faith. When you have bad fruit, you likely have a bad tree.

A prevalent example today is if a church or teacher becomes “affirming” in sexuality issues, more overt apostasy is not far behind. See Jen Hatmaker, who became affirming ten years ago and has been going downhill ever since, and many others. Such who refuse to repent will be “cast into the fire” whether Hatmaker believes in “a literal hell” or not.

False teachers can seem orthodox for a long time. Hatmaker herself was once quite an item in Big Evangelicalism. The fruit of failed orthopraxy often proceeds obvious apostasy from orthodoxy.

Continuing, Jesus taught that orthodoxy bare of accompanying orthopraxy is not enough. Of course, he put it better than I just did: “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord…” — that is orthodoxy. And we should call Jesus “Lord,” for that is what He is and more. But merely acknowledging Jesus as Lord is not enough. “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” Doing God’s will, on a good day at least, is orthopraxy, right practice, and is a necessary fruit of orthodoxy.

(No, Jesus was not preaching perfectionism. I will not get bogged down in that here, but it should be said for the sake of sensitive consciences. You won’t be perfect and the church won’t be perfect until Christ makes us perfect in his good timing.)

James put it in a less tactful way: “You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.” (James 2:19 NASB 1995) Demons know Jesus is Lord. We even see them submit to his Lordship in the Gospels. But that does not do them much good. So it will not do to have belief in Jesus bare of good fruit that comes from a sincere faith that is more than mere intellectual assent.

Speaking of less tactful, let’s look at St. Paul in his letter to the Galatians. He was barely finished saying hello when he wrote this:

I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! (1:6-9 NASB 95)

“Let him be anathema!” might be a more familiar way to put it. Gosh, I wonder what Paul meant. I will say that this does not necessarily mean we should go around and proclaim “anathema!” to every errant teacher, as tempting as that might be. Paul was an apostle with more authority than any of us.

But I think it safe to say that we should not give false teachers the same respect we give faithful teachers. St. John said as much in 2nd John when he commanded that if some supposed Christian preacher “does not abide in the teaching of Christ” he is not to be received or even given a greeting. “For the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.” That is only logical — to treat a false teacher as if he were true enables him by granting respect and credibility to his lies.

And note that Paul was not addressing those who completely deny the Gospel but those who “distort” (NASB) or “pervert” (KJV) the Gospel of Christ. (Gal. 1:7) At the time, the presenting issue was those who said it was necessary even for Gentiles to be circumcised and follow the Mosaic Law to be a good Christian. Today it might be those who teach Jesus came to liberate us not so much from sin and death as from capitalist/colonialist oppression and that Marxist revolution is how Jesus liberates today. That is Liberation Theology, more or less. Or one who distorts the Gospel today might conflate it with so-called “social justice” advocated by Marxists and various forms of Critical Theory aka “wokeness”. We are not to treat such as faithful teachers and brethren.

And that no matter how high their position might be. Paul said that even if “we” — apostles — or “an angel from heaven” were to preach a false or perverted gospel, they are anathema! Many bishops, archbishops, and cardinals would certainly fall under that.

Later Paul spells out that that the authority of false teachers should be disregarded and cast aside. He tells of coming across “false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage.” (2:4 NASB 95) How did he respond?

But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. (2:5)

We do not subject ourselves to the authority of false teachers, not because we are all hard-headed and contrary like me, but to preserve the preaching of “the truth of the Gospel.” Look at the mainline Protestant denominations to see what happens when the people in the pews put up with false teachers. And it appears the Roman Catholic Church is now not far behind them. Apostasy, in either orthodoxy or orthopraxy, must be cut out and cast off quickly lest it spread like gangrene through an entire church and kill its proclamation of the truth and replace it with deadly lies.

(I will say that apostate laity may be dealt with pastorally, but they must not be allowed to teach or influence in the church. Apostate clergy at every level must be immediately suspended then defrocked if there is no repentance.)

More could be said about orthodoxy and orthopraxy, much more. But one way I do not want to follow the example of St. Paul is to go on too long. (Acts 20:7-12)

But we should indeed insist on orthodoxy and orthopraxy from church leaders, even if that means rejecting the authority of many. The proclamation of the Gospel of Christ is at stake.

——

Lead-in image: Govans Presbyterian Church

I had a similar experience in the early 2000’s when I came under the influence of the “Emergent Church.” The Emergents made a lot of good points. For one thing, we should be more aware of our current culture. Post-modernism (at least back then) was the air many breathed, especially those under 35 or so at the time. And we should make a point to relate to the current culture as St. Paul did in Athens. (Acts 17:16ff)

But I soon saw core leaders of Emergents capitulating to post-modernism and other cultural trends. They were becoming post-modern themselves and thereby rejecting traditional Bible interpretation and practice.

There wasn’t a single moment when I left the Emergents behind, but the merciful Lord was already pulling me away from their influence by the time I was confirmed as an Anglican in 2004. And since then, Emergent leaders such as Brian McLaren and Tony Jones have become overt in their apostasy. Thankfully, we don’t hear much about the Emergent Church or its leaders today (although its influence remains in pockets such as the Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others (C4SO) in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA)).

What Clary provocatively but aptly calls “loser theology” that he left behind and the Emergent stuff I left behind have similarities, particularly attractive “winsome” teaching that turned out to be half-truths and cultural capitulation. It soon occurred to me as I read Clary’s book that the Emergent Church practiced a kind of loser theology. I also noticed that the “wokevangelism” Clary opposes in chapter 3 is similar in strategy to what the Emergents were doing — trying to appease the dominant culture in order to be winsome.

Another similarity is that it is not easy to get one’s arms around either Emergent stuff or loser theology. They are more tendencies and admittedly attractive ways of practicing Christianity than they are doctrines. Which is among the reasons why it is too easy for even orthodox Christians like Clary and I to get lured into them.

With it being subtle and not overt heresy, I will leave it to Clary to describe loser theology. But I think it most succinct when he describes it as preaching the Cross without the Crown. As he put it, “That’s Loser Theology in a nutshell: a half-Christ who always bears the cross, never wears the crown, and calls us to follow his example of losing.”

No orthodox Christian would preach the Cross of Christ but not the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ to rule at the right hand of the Father. But somewhat orthodox Christians might and do preach related half-truths. They might preach that our Kingdom is not of this world without preaching that we are to be salt and light in the World and eventually to share in Christ’s rule of the World. They might preach compassion and mercy towards others without preaching the defense of our communities, churches, and families. They might preach spiritual self-examination without preaching actually doing things, earthly practical things. Who needs gnosticism when we have today’s evangelicalism! They might preach we are saved by grace without preaching that we are saved for good works. Loser Theology takes these and other corrosive half-truths to task.

Clary also warns us why the skewed balances of loser theology can be attractive. It was to me, as I mentioned above, and to Christians far better than me. Early on, he notes:

Loser Theology is attractive because it makes Christians easier for the world to like. A Christian whose posture toward culture is warm, accommodating, and perpetually retreating poses no threat to the respectable idols of the age.

And loser theology takes good instincts like sincerity, humility, alertness to the dangers of power and “redirects them toward passivity.” Also, it is often just easier to capitulate under opposition: “Loser Theology offers a way out — a theological permission slip to accept defeat rather than do the painful work of resistance.” Later, he gives a related reason why it can be attractive: it is easier just to leave things to God rather than to be proactive in serving Him and His purposes. In other words, loser theology is lazy man’s theology.

Now those familiar with my opinions know I can nitpick just about any book. And there was a time or two when I raised an eyebrow while reading. (And an Anglican raising an eyebrow is equivalent to shouting in other church traditions.) For example, I think Clary dismissed asceticism a bit quickly.

However, it would be a mistake for the reader to get bogged down in nitpicking this or that in Loser Theology. Clary captures as few have the big picture of a besetting problem in today’s evangelical leadership and teaching. We should be willing to lose it all for Christ. And Clary states, “there’s abundant grace for courageous Christians who take Spirit-filled risks and fall flat on their faces.” But evangelical leaders and catholic leaders, too, push us to willful, risk-averse, unnecessary and destructive losing again and again.

We have seen this in the political sphere from Russell Moore, David French, and Ray Ortlund and the like, but it is far more than just politics. It is weakening church and culture and, ironically, it is not loving our neighbors as we should. Is enabling the invasion of predators and frauds, as World Relief and the Roman Catholic Church has, loving our actual neighbors? Is standing aside while drag queens, gender activist teachers and other predatory woke groom children — is that loving our neighbors? Those who push varieties of loser theology pose as advocating winsome love for neighbor, but the real life results look more like negligent hate.

So Loser Theology is a needed, even urgent, book for our churches and for the surrounding culture we are called to reach. Clary doesn’t just pick a fight, although fight is now needful. He seeks to do his part to diagnose and turn around loser thinking and attitudes in the church that are profoundly destructive, unmanly and really half-Christian.

And a reader might even discover a way or two he needs to cast off losing thinking and attitudes. I know that Clary’s book convicted me of frequent procrastination and lack of diligence. Loser Theology is a book the church needs, a book the culture needs — and it is a book I needed as well.

—

I forgot to recommend Michael Clary’s substack as well!

Michael Clary

Plain spoken truth about scripture, theology, culture, and politics

The whole episode can be found in Acts 3-4:22, but we shall focus on 4:17-21.

The Sanhedrin having interrogated Peter and John about their healing and preaching, and Peter having respectfully but clearly answered, the Council decides it does not want the Gospel to “spread any further among the people.” (NASB 95) So they commanded the two “that they speak henceforth to no man in this name.” (KJV) Note the response of Peter and John:

Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard. (NASB 95)

An important moment in church history! What if the Apostles had decided that they must obey the authority of Sadhedrin and cease spreading the Gospel? Thank God they decided differently!

They continue to acknowledge the Sanhedrin’s office of judgement. But they assert that God is the highest authority. Therefore they cannot stop following his call and command in ministry to keep “speaking about what we have seen and heard” about the Lord, His mighty acts, and His Holy Gospel. And they persisted in that decision even though the Council “threatened them further.” Peter and John thereby set the standard for Christian conduct and ministry when religious authority forbids what Christ has commanded.

And is not the SSPX following the example of St. Peter? (Yes, irony abounds.)

Under a catholic model of ordained ministry, bishops are essential. For, among other duties, they ordain priests to teach the Faith and administer the sacraments. No bishops, no priests. (Or at least no validly ordained priests). And no priests, no Mass.

So it is not just a matter of church organization behind the SSPX’s pleas to the Pope that they needed to consecrate new bishops. And they were right to consecrate them when it became obvious papal permission to ordain new bishops was not forthcoming. It is a matter of continuing to minister as Christ has commanded. It is a matter of the salvation of souls.

And is not the Vatican following the bad example of the Sanhedrin? It is hardly a secret that the Modernists in charge want the SSPX to fade away. They certainly do not want their Traditional Catholicism to “spread any further among the people.” If SSPX were kept from consecrating traditionalist bishops, it would eventually kill their ministry. And that was the very path Pope Leo XIV was taking by ignoring their pleas for bishops as well as ignoring pleas for an audience. Leo ignored them until the last minute, and even then told them not to consecrate new bishops. Further there were threats of excommunication, which also followed the anti-Christian lead of the Sanhedrin.

All through church history malefactors in the seats of authority have so attempted to suppress the Faith by suppressing faithful ministry. Arian bishops had orthodox bishops like Athanasius exiled. The Puritans in power under Cromwell suppressed the ministries of faithful Anglicans, and when Anglicans came back to power, they returned the favor and suppressed faithful Puritan ministers (which harmed the Church of England in the long run but that is another story). Today it is impossible for forthright men of the Faith to be ordained in many apostate churches and dioceses. It is an old tactic, going back to that Sanhedrin itself, to try to suppress the Faith by suppressing the ministers of the Faith. And, sadly, we are now seeing Pope Leo and his minions committing that same grave sin.

(Now church authorities do and should have authority to suppress ministries. That is necessary in dealing with significant error or immorality in ministers. One of my favorite popes, Clement XIV, suppressed the Jesuits. John Paul II disciplined a few priests in the Liberation Theology cabal. One of the many failures of Leo XIV is he is not suppressing the likes of James Martin and Robert McElroy. But that authority should not be used to suppress the Faith itself or faithful ministry.)

Faithful Christian ministers, although remaining respectful to legitimate authority, are not to give up or to give in to that old tactic of suppression. St. Peter showed us the way. And the SSPX is following St. Peter’s good example.

And the SSPX consecrations and Vatican excommunications have brought them out into the open much like Trump brings different sorts of idiots out of their basements. Heck, I would coin it SSPX Idiocy Syndrome except that SSPXIS would be too many initials. How about Papist Idiocy Synodical Syndrome? The initials would be . . . never mind.

Anyway, my purpose here is not to annoy all my Roman Catholic friends — and I hope they are still my friends after that rant — but to point out an excellent post from the trad Roman Catholic Dr. Peter Kwasniewski that cuts through the fog of fatuousness. It may be the most helpful take on the SSPX situation I’ve seen. It may have even raised my IQ — which I needed after reading too many other takes.

Tradition and Sanity

On the SSPX Controversy

As everyone knows, on July 1st, two bishops of the Society of St. Pius X, in a pontifical ceremony, consecrated four more bishops, and on July 2nd, the Vatican announced in a Declaration that these six bishops had suffered excommunication latae sententiae…

Read more

2 months ago · 88 likes · 17 comments · Peter Kwasniewski

Kwasniewski makes a point not to take sides and is frank in pointing out that both sides annoy him at times. Yet he understands both sides:

I can make convincing arguments on both sides all day long.

The one side takes as its first principle that communion in the Church requires, above all else and before all else, union with and submission to the pope of Rome; and therefore absolutely nothing could ever “compete,” as it were, with this good, or qualify in any way how one adheres to it. It is the summum bonum as far as the Church on earth is concerned; one may never, in any circumstance whatsoever, defy church authority.

The other side takes as its first principle “salus animarum suprema lex” (the health, welfare, salvation of souls is the highest law)—a law, they argue, which can, in peculiar circumstances, suspend or modify the usual rights of the Church hierarchy, which has as its raison d’être bringing souls the goods they need and deserve (the pope as “servus servorum Dei”; another way of putting it is that authority loses its binding force when it threatens or undermines the common good).

I find the first side ridiculous. But I find the second side questionable in part as well. Further I wonder is that is really where SSPX stands although they have certainly asserted the priority they give the welfare of souls.

I think a more exact first principle is orthodoxy and orthopraxy. If any church authority promotes or compels departure from either, they lose their authority at least to the extent they do so. Hence Athanasius disregarded the authority of Arian bishops in order to uphold orthodoxy. And St. Paul rebuked St. Peter when his dining habits with Gentiles violated orthopraxy. (Galatians 2:11ff.)

The welfare of souls is certainly a very high priority. But if one makes that the first priority, there is the risk of undermining orthodoxy and/or orthopraxy, and that in turn would endanger souls in the long run. To put it another way, pastoral practice must not be allowed to trump doctrine. That turns out to be the very error Rome and many others are committing in how they minister to those in sexual confusion or immorality.

But perhaps I am nitpicking Kwasniewski. For upholding orthodoxy and orthopraxy is best for souls.

Later, he gently suggests that the blame for the schism between the SSPX and Rome lies mainly with Rome and well before the consecrations:

…as long as Traditionis Custodes remains on the books and bishops are allowed to destroy TLM communities with impunity, there will be no prospect of peace on the horizon, and the Society will continue to expand. The key to overcoming this purported schism rests firmly in the hands of the Church hierarchy, which can end the liturgical (and doctrinal and moral) crisis whenever it truly desires to do so or even begins to desire to do so. That may still be a very long time.

As I less tactfully stated last week, because of Traditionis Custodes and its usually draconian implementation, “these faithful have been driven to SSPX and other irregular parishes and chapels to attend their Latin Masses. Having so driven them away, the Vatican now threatens them with excommunication when in many cases the Vatican is the reason they are attending SSPX masses in the first place! It is outright spiritual abuse.”

But where Kwasniewski’s post got really interesting for me was his taking apart the legality of the excommunications under canon law. He concedes the excommunications of the SSPX bishops are canonically legal, but contends the excommunications of SSPX clergy and laity are not. Further, he has “consulted with many canon lawyers, and all of them say the same thing: the DDF documents are nothing less than a dumpster fire from a canonical perspective.” And then he goes into some detail how they are “a dumpster fire.”

That is rather amazing upon reflection. The Vatican knew for months these consecrations were coming. The SSPX did them the courtesy months before of setting the date, July 1st, 2026. So Rome had months to prepare their response and its timing. Yet, their announced excommunications are a “dumpster fire.” As a quoted canon lawyer put it, “the Vatican is being run by mental midgets.”

After comparing some of the good fruit of the SSPX with the putrid fruit of the Vatican of recent years, Kwasniewski reasserts what he calls “the primacy of liturgy . . . over other aspects of Catholic life.”

I am more convinced than ever that the entirety of the Church’s life hinges on the way we worship, what we do and say, sing and contemplate, in our rites, and that if we can just get this right, the rest will eventually come in its wake. And over the course of my life, I’ve seen this happen a thousand times.

As us trad Anglicans like to say, Lex orandi lex credendi — the law of prayer is the law of belief. Liturgy teaches more effectively than doctrinal manuals or theological tomes. And God’s children hunger for the spiritual food of good liturgy, not the Velveeta and Spam of modern liturgy. So if mainstream churches do not provide good liturgy and the accompanying spirituality, more and more of committed faithful will flee to non-mainstream churches, be it SSPX chapels or continuing Anglican parishes even if they have to drive an hour or more.

So, again, Rome has no choice if it wants to remedy the increasing division and distrust.

Now is the time to repeal Traditionis Custodes and to reinstate Summorum Pontificum [in which Pope Benedict gave every priest in good standing the legal right to say the Traditional Latin Mass]. Now is the acceptable hour. And every day that passes with TC on the books puts more stress on the rickety bridge of trust that connects us to our shepherds.

Short of the restoration of tradition in all its dimensions — liturgical, doctrinal, and moral — the appeal of the SSPX will remain as strong as ever…

Especially as the stench of Rome, “the smoke of Satan” as Pope Paul VI named it, grows worse. Well, that’s my addendum. Kwasniewski ends on a more hopeful note:

Yet we must remember that deeper trends are at work: older generations are losing hegemony, a youthful love of tradition is swelling, and, as clichéd as it sounds, “a thousand points of light” are in fact shining throughout the Church as the era of Vatican II fades into the shadows.

I want God’s best for Roman Catholics. So I pray he’s right — and I will so pray.

——

lead-in image: Peter Kwasniewski

And apologies that my voiceover was uneven.

As regards the lay faithful, those who formally adhere to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X are to be considered schismatics and excommunicated under the conditions established in the 1996 Explanatory Note of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (cf. ibidem, 7), which remains in force and which this Dicastery adopts as its own.

And Radical Fidelity added a helpful explanation:

According to previous Vatican explanations, “formal adherence” means more than simply attending an occasional SSPX Mass or visiting an SSPX chapel. The term generally refers to Catholics who publicly identify with the Society as a body separate from Rome, consciously reject papal authority as understood by the Vatican, or intentionally place themselves under the Society’s authority in opposition to diocesan structures. Previous Vatican guidance distinguished between occasional attendance at SSPX chapels and a deliberate commitment to what Rome considers a schismatic movement.

So stepping into a SSPX chapel probably will not fling you into Papist Hell. That is good to know I guess.

But let’s think this through. Many have made SSPX chapels their primary church home because Francis and Leo have deprived most Roman Catholics of Traditional Latin Masses in a regular RC parish within reasonable driving distance. I know of a dear family who moved to my city in part to attend a parish that did TLMs regularly only to have that jerked away from them by Rome and the weak Bishop of Corpus Christi. So these faithful have been driven to SSPX and other irregular parishes and chapels to attend their Latin Masses. Having so driven them away, the Vatican now threatens them with excommunication when in many cases the Vatican is the reason they are attending SSPX masses in the first place! It is outright spiritual abuse. And it is aimed at faithful who are usually far more committed to the Faith than typical Novus Ordo Roman Catholics. (Yes, I know many NO Catholics are faithful and committed. I respect them and pray for them. But typically TLM Catholics are more so.)

And the accusations of schism Leo’s sycophants hurl at SSPX are rich. The SSPX again and again pledges its loyalty to the Pope and its commitment to serve his church. They for years have pleaded for a papal audience and to be allowed to consecrate bishops with papal permission. They have been stonewalled on both modest requests. The SSPX then said, months ago, we have to go ahead and consecrate bishops, and they kept to their word. For that the Vatican excommunicates them.

Who is being schismatic? I don’t think it’s the SSPX. I wrote about their faithfulness and the difficult situation Rome has put them in back in March.

Early on in his papacy, I made a point of giving Leo XIV a chance. I was even hopeful. A year ago, I said he needed to do two obvious and easy things: 1. restore Pope Benedict’s generous policy on the Traditional Latin Mass. 2. discipline James Martin.

He not only has done neither; he has also excommunicated the SSPX for doing what traditional catholics do — consecrate traditional catholic bishops. And, with Francis, having driven many of the Latin Mass faithful to SSPX chapels, he threatens them with excommunication, too, for attending the chapels to which he and Francis drove them! That in addition to his horrible appointments, his absurd statements on behalf of the Invasion, and on and on.

It is already clear that this is a failed papacy. But Francis and Leo have succeeded in one very important area — stacking the hierarchy with those who suppress and persecute faithfulness and enable perversion and apostasy. So whether and when the Church of Rome ever recovers from these two papacies from Hell is an open question.

I may write more about that another time. I do not have the heart to do so now. This is a sad day for the Church. Its implications extend far beyond SSPX.

Pray for the Society of St. Pius X and for the faithful Church.

Having watched it for free on X (except for most of the whore house scene. I just don’t need that.), I can say that, even if I enjoyed it a bit too much, it is not a very well made movie. But yet it is a sensation anyway. I will get to why in a moment.

But first, an important lesson for those who enjoy the movie and relate to its main protagonist, Sanders. A gaping hole in the plot of Citizen Vigilante is that Sanders would have been caught. With modern law enforcement methods, he would have been found and easily. I mean, really, cameras and security would have let him kidnap a judge from the steps of a courthouse undetected? The only question is whether he would be killed in a shoot out or locked away to rot in prison. Then governments would have used him as an excuse to crack down on dissent. It is an old tactic of totalitarians to provoke violent responses and use that as an excuse to crack down. (They will even invent violent responses if need be, but that’s another topic.)

So cheer for Sanders if you want, but don’t even think of becoming him. That would be foolish in the extreme.

The movie does have a positive lesson: we in the West should do our legal best to defend ourselves against the predations of invaders and their Globalist enablers. But using illegal violent means is almost certainly self-defeating.

I will add that Christians would do well to remember that only Christ will bring about perfect justice. It is praiseworthy to strive for justice in the meantime. But do not allow present injustice to drive you insane or to self-destructive foolishness. Psalm 73 is helpful in this.

Now I will get to why Citizen Vigilante has become a popular sensation. For that has an important lesson for many — a lesson they had better learn and quick. Citizen Vigilante would be just another B movie with lots of artificial gore except for something of the utmost importance.

The native peoples of the West are hungry for justice. We are practically starving for JUSTICE. After the long years of the Invasion, merely stopping the Invasion is no longer enough. And our commendable patience for politics and the rule of law to bring about justice is running low — perhaps much lower than most realize.

So the lesson for the invaders and their Globalist enablers is: leave. Leave while you still can.

I say that not as a threat — and, again, those of us who despise what you have done to the West need still to keep our opposition and self-defense as legal and peaceful as possible.

I say “Leave” as someone with a better than average knowledge of history. I can tell you that pogroms, defenestrations, and even civil wars have been triggered by far, far less than the provocations of you invaders and Globalists. No one of good will wants any of that. And you have overstayed your visas, your fake asylum status, your pretended legitimacy, our tolerance for predatory ideologies, particularly a certain religion, and our patience. So be thankful for our patience and hospitality and LEAVE.

And I do mean the Globalists need to leave, too. Maybe, with all their public and private security behind the walls they deny the rest of us, it might not be necessary for them physically to leave Western countries. But they do need to get out of office and out of mind. Do not do what Johns like John Major and John Kasich have done and spout off against those trying to undo the damage they have done. Get out of office and out of mind. GET!

A full and heartfelt apology for what you have done to the West would be nice on the way out. But I don’t expect any such decency from Globalist traitors. So just GET before the rough justice due traitors catches up with you. And stay get. Most of us are busy and would rather not be bothered with you, so maybe we’ll forget you if you let us.

You better hope we forget you. And let’s all hope Citizen Vigilante remains fiction.

Burnham says his politics have been deeply marked by a formative Catholic upbringing, even though he now describes himself as “not particularly religious” and rarely attends Mass. He has long been explicit about his childhood as a Catholic…

How has Roman Catholicism marked him? By giving him cover to be a Socialist, of course.

His roots are in the Liverpool and Warrington areas of northern England, parts of the country where Irish immigration, industrial labor and postwar housing estates helped to form dense Catholic communities, parishes and schools over the last century. During his upbringing there, he says he internalized Catholic social teaching as a kind of moral grammar.

A general discontent of wealth and social inequalities among its local population, these northern regions became especially fertile ground for socialism, also among Catholics, despite the Church’s traditional rejection of the political ideology….

Burnham recalled how the Church of his youth spoke up for “social equality and fairness in its broadest sense,” especially for those who had the least. His children attend Catholic schools because he says he still believes in “the values and the grounding it gives you,” but he takes issue with the Church’s moral teaching in key areas, especially on sexual ethics.

But, of course. Keep the supposed “catholic social teaching” but ditch that mean Biblical moral teaching. In fact, Burnham is downright “proud” of being the first Labour frontbencher to call for the legalization of same-sex “marriage”. Further, he has said he “drifted away” from the church because mean popes like John Paul II and Benedict XVI were “obsessed with sexuality and issues related to sexual behaviour.” But he just loves Pope Francis, of course.

Oh, and Burnham is doggedly pro-abortion, too, of course.

With “Catholics” like that, who needs Satanists?

But the Roman Catholic Church has enabled and even welcomed such selective, really perverted catholicism. Let’s call it Commie Cafeteria Catholicism (CCC) because it makes a cool acronym. Very public CCC adherents who use their gutted Catholicism for advantage, like Nancy Pelosi, are rarely confronted and almost never excommunicated. Instead they are welcomed as Pope Francis welcomed Andy Burnham. But then Francis met with Alexander Soros so I guess every prominent Globalist traitor is welcome. “Todos! Todos! Todos!” as Francis liked to say.

And even within the Church, while the faithful are punished by having the Traditional Latin Mass and kneeling communion and more taken away and are even threatened with excommunication as SSPX is, the likes of James Martin, Blaise Cupich, and Robert McElroy and their conferences “for LGBTQ Catholics” are fine, just fine.

And when it comes to Invaders and their victims, guess who Popes Francis and Leo side with? With the Invaders, of course, just like Andy Burnham. And you are just awful if you don’t like that. What did Francis say? “Hatred is the builder of walls.” If you want your society protected from invaders, you are a hater!

Heck, above I asked with “Catholics” like Burnham, who needs Satanists? I now have to confess a better question would be: With a Church of Rome like this, who needs a Church of Satan?

So maybe I started this off in the wrong direction. It turns out Andy Burnham fits right in with the Roman Catholic Church of today. So never mind.

Starmer isn’t the first Prime Minister I’ve deposed, and he won’t be the last. David Cameron. Theresa May. Rishi Sunak….

Quite the claim. But, as we say in Texas, “it ain’t bragging if it’s true.” And the above is true. Nigel Farage may be the most consequential and effective modern British politician not (yet) to be Prime Minister.

…And next up - Andy Burnham. The reason each leader has failed is the same. What the political class fails to understand is that the electorate won’t accept being taken for fools. They cannot continue to take the votes of the people who supported them for granted, only to betray them upon having gained power. Politics is about trust.

That is why I am calling for a General Election at the soonest possible date.

You may find the remainder of his statement below.

Nigel Farage

Britain is broken, we need an election.

The Prime Minister is finished. I have to give Starmer some credit: even I couldn’t have predicted how quickly he would reveal himself as the most incompetent Prime Minister this country has ever had the misfortune of having…

Read more

2 months ago · 806 likes · 304 comments · Nigel Farage

This is a principled call. Farage would probably have better chances if there were not a snap election, if the next parliamentary election were in 2029 as scheduled. For Labour, under the left-wing Burnham or whoever, would surely cause the situation in the UK to get worse. Three more years of a million migrants a year in itself would be disastrous, but would boost Reform’s chances that much more. But ruling over rubble is not what Farage wants.

Three more years would also give Farage more time to consolidate the Right, which he very much needs to do. As it stands now, die hard Tories on one side and Rupert Lowe’s Restore on the other make it difficult at best to see Reform getting a majority in the House of Commons. Three years would also give more time to further strengthen the organization of what is still a new party.

Farage surely knows all this. Andy Burnham might know it, too. There is speculation about that Burnham will use the public’s relief of being rid of Starmer and the usual good will that welcomes a new leader to take his chances with a snap election.

Yet, against his own political self-interest, Farage is calling for that snap election. This is a principled stand from the greatest UK conviction politician since Thatcher.

I do think more from Farage is needed. He has to reconcile with Rupert Lowe, a conviction politician I also admire. The Right will surely get an unprecedented number of votes in any election, but what good would that do if it is split up? (Remember that UK parliamentary elections are first past the post — no runoffs and no proportional representation.)

Nonetheless, from across the Pond, I salute Nigel Farage’s principled call for a snap election. My prayers are with him and with the Great Britain I love.

One of the benefits of the Book of Common Prayer noted during the conference is how it forms those who use it daily (or at least frequently). The ancient saying Lex orandi lex credendi (The law of prayer is the law of belief.) is an important part of that formation. How we regularly pray does effect how we believe and think. Yet there is more to how the BCP forms us.

Jesus demonstrating how good liturgical prayer forms us is better this humble writer explaining it, so…

When the disciples asked Jesus to teach them to pray, he did not advise revving up the emotions with manipulative music. Nor did he prescribe torturous self-examination as the Puritans did. He did not present a lot of other methods either. He did not even tell us how to compose a good prayer. He simply instructed, “When you pray, say…” and he gave them a set prayer, the Lord’s Prayer. (Luke 11:1-4)

And if we say that prayer everyday — and we should — it cannot help but form us. For example, when we pray, “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us” we are reminded that there is a connection between being forgiven by God and forgiving others. (I am NOT saying and Jesus does not teach that we earn God’s forgiveness by forgiving others.) If we ask for God to forgive us or consider ourselves forgiven by God but are unforgiving towards others, something is off. And day by day, the Lord’s Prayer reminds us of that.

And Christ Himself let us know that was part of his purposes behind the Lord’s Prayer. Immediately after he presents this set prayer during the Sermon in the Mount, he connects God forgiving us and us forgiving others:

For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. (Matt. 6: 14,15 KJV)

The Book of Common Prayer follows Christ’s method: set prayers that not only assist us to pray but form us in our thinking and actions. I will show some of how the Collect for the First Sunday after Epiphany does this because it is a simple prayer and a favorite of mine:

O LORD, we beseech thee mercifully to receive the prayers of thy people who call upon thee; and grant that they may both perceive and know what things they ought to do, and also may have grace and power faithfully to fulfil the same; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

This, along with a number of other BCP prayers, teaches us that God receives our prayers because of his mercy not because we have somehow earned his ear. It is also by his mercy, grace, and power that we perceive how we should live and act and then follow through and live accordingly. We should pray for this earnestly. And this and other prayers are heard and answered only through Jesus Christ our Lord and his gracious intercession for us before the throne of the Father.

When you pray this for a week each year and pray other prayers with similar and complementary themes, it affects how you both pray and think and therefore live. It forms you.

This is only one BCP prayer briefly examined. We could look at any number of others. And they all play their part in the formation of a Christian as does reading the Psalms and other BCP appointed Scriptures everyday. (Or at least most days. I will say I am in the Book of Common Prayer virtually every day. Clergy are to do Morning and Evening Prayer every day. I do one of the two six or seven days a week. I find that only takes about 20 minutes a day.)

Thus the Book of Common Prayer follows the method of Jesus: set prayers and readings that guide our prayers and form our thinking and thereby our living.

“Wait”, someone may say. “The Lord’s Prayer is the words of Jesus Himself. The Book of Common Prayer is man’s words.”

Not so fast! The BCP is mostly Scripture. I forget the exact percentage but it is impressive. So most of the Book of Common Prayer is the written word of God, of Christ. And the rest of it is certainly influenced by Scripture. Also, I think we should give the Holy Spirit some credit for the BCP. Most of it predates the main compiler Thomas Cranmer by centuries. (Of course, before Cranmer, the prayers would be in Latin. Cranmer mostly translated, edited, and adapted.) While the Book of Common Prayer is not inspired in the same way Scripture is, the Holy Spirit surely guided the ancient church in its prayers and liturgy.

“But isn’t praying in one’s own words from the heart a better way to pray?” Certainly personal ex tempore prayers should be part of the Christian’s prayer life. But I disagree that my prayers are somehow better than the prayers of Scripture and of the Church through the centuries.

My experience says the opposite. Until I became interested in Anglicanism, most of my prayers during the week were my own. When I discovered the Book of Common Prayer I was struck by how excellent its prayers were. Really the BCP and its worship was what drew me to Anglicanism. Now most of my prayers are BCP prayers although I add in my own words. And I think my prayer times are better and more productive and easier. “Say this” is easier to do than thinking up some prayers and then saying them.

And instead of me forming the prayers, the prayers form me. So the method of the Book of Common Prayer, which, again, follows the method of Jesus, is healthier spiritually.

So I encourage you to use the Book of Common Prayer in your daily prayer time even if you are not Anglican. Don’t worry, the Church Police does not come after non-Anglicans who use the BCP. (I do think the Church Police should come after Anglicans who do not use the Book of Common Prayer, but I’m not in charge.) If you’d rather not use the BCP, you can incorporate the Psalms and other prayers of Scripture into your personal prayer times. You will then be using some of the method of the Book of Common Prayer, but I won’t tell anybody.

Then you also may find that scriptural prayers forming you is an improvement on you forming your prayers.

An earlier highlight was the time at the Forward in Faith Assembly and the Anglican Way Institute in Dallas. Thanks again to readers who greeted me; you are a great encouragement. I also was encouraged by my conversations with several bishops. (No, I am not a big shot. ACNA bishops are very approachable.) This post is in part a response to them as I was surprised to find that at least two are already thinking along lines similar in parts to below and one asked my thoughts on renewal in ACNA (the Anglican Church in North America).

Last year, I posted on the need for the reorganization of ACNA. But as that was a time of tumult, I thought it not the time for a proposal.

But now that ACNA is slightly calmer and after seeing that at least a few bishops are already thinking about reorganization, I think it time to make a proposal, and not a modest one.

When ACNA was formed, it was freely confessed that we were flying an airplane while building it, a high flying endeavor indeed! And one I vociferously supported, so I am not casting blame lest I blame myself.

And the new plane flew well for a time. But through the years, the structural weaknesses became more evident. “Dual integrities” especially was not working out as well as many hoped and I expected. Yes, I of all people was very optimistic at the beginning, perhaps naively so.

I think that now (and I freely confess my thinking may be mistaken) bishops and other clergy are drifting into two camps. One camp says we agreed to build the plane this way, and, by God, we are going to keep flying it this way. The other says the original formation was not intended to be permanent, and it cannot be permanent lest our plane’s malfunctions continue to become more and more dangerous to the health of souls and our church.

Since a bishop asked my thoughts on renewal, I will briefly set forth how flying the airplane as is without restructuring harms renewal in ACNA.

As many readers know, the main issue of contention about ACNA is now structured is women’s ordination. (Non-geographical affinity dioceses are another issue, but I do not find that as problematic as some do.) The contention over WO has gotten worse…

And the resulting public fights have harmed our witness as disunity usually does. In addition, a lot of energy goes into these and related conflicts (such as that cancelled Safe Church forum) instead of into efforts that assist renewal. Further, there is a revival in interest in traditional forms of the Faith, particularly from young men.

But ACNA is missing out on some of that (But not all. There is a notable increase in young men at many traditional ACNA parishes, including mine.) because many of these same young men write off churches that ordain women. ACNA’s current structure, in which proponents and opponents of WO are thrown together in a church salad, is a hinderance to participating fully in the current Gen Z traditionalist revival.

What makes matters worse is that the provincial offices of ACNA have not remained neutral between the two integrities. It very much supports women’s ordination through provincial initiatives such as NextGen and the Women’s Leadership Network. Us traditionalists can oppose WO until we are blue in the face, but being in such a church harms our credibility with many others who oppose WO. (Which is also a hindrance to ecumenical efforts.)

And it is an open question whether a bishop who opposes WO can be elected by the College of Bishops to be Archbishop. Personally, I suspect that was a major factor in how we got Steve Woods as Archbishop. But then I am a suspicious man.

The issues that hinder unity and renewal are more than just women’s ordination. But even these other issues often correlate with WO. For example, “social justice” excesses and errors tend to come from dioceses that ordain women. These other issues are among the reasons it is becoming unworkable to keep going along to get along when it comes to women’s ordination.

Well, that is quite enough preamble. On to my proposal. Most of us do not want an outright split in ACNA. And deciding one way or the other on WO throughout ACNA is not going to happen while most of us are alive.

So I propose ACNA divide into two provinces. It not only can be done; the Church of England has been a two province church for centuries, the provinces being York and Canterbury. Granted, an ACNA two province reorganization would be different as the two provinces would markedly differ in churchmanship.

One province — let’s call it Province W for now — would retain the current ACNA policy on women’s ordination: allowed for the priesthood but not for the order of bishops. The other, Province N, would not allow women priests.

The new ACNA umbrella over the two provinces would have powers much more limited than now. ACNA would be something of a federation of two churches. And — this is important — ACNA offices would be allowed to do only those things both provinces agree on. So ACNA would have to be neutral on WO. Some provincial initiatives like the Women’s Leadership Network would be abolished or devolved to the appropriate province. Most “social justice” efforts would also be off limits for the new ACNA umbrella, anti-abortion advocacy excepted. In short, if something is controversial among us, it would belong to the two provinces, not to the ACNA umbrella.

It would be also necessary for future Archbishops of ACNA to refrain from ordaining women while they are Archbishop. It might be good for them to be ratified by both provinces as well.

One complicated question would be will Province N allow women deacons? Those opposing women priests in ACNA differ on women deacons. But I think that if women priests were proscribed in the Province N canons and if N dioceses continue to be where the question of women deacons is decided, then even dogged opponents of women in Holy Orders could live with that. Back when the late Bishop Iker announced impaired communion with bishops who ordained women priests, he, an exact man, said back in 2017:

I informed the College of Bishops that I will no longer give consent to the election of any bishop who intends to ordain female priests, nor will I attend the consecration of any such bishop-elect in the future. I have notified the Archbishop of my resignation from all the committees to which I had been assigned to signify that it is no longer possible to have “business as usual” in the College of Bishops due to the refusal of those who are in favor of women priests to at least adopt a moratorium on this divisive practice, for the sake of unity. Bishops who continue to ordain women priests in spite of the received tradition are signs of disunity and division.

Note he repeatedly cited the problem of ordaining women priests, not women deacons. That even though he, like most Anglo-Catholics, saw Holy Orders as one sacrament.

On the other hand, when dioceses decide which province to join, it could be that very few dioceses that ordain women deacons would join Province N, in which case it might not be such a difficult decision.

Now I do not expect a two province solution or any such restructuring to occur. There is always a tendency to keep to the status quo, and key bishops seem content for women’s ordination in ACNA to take fifty years to resolve. One or two bishops have said as much to me.

But the status quo will not hold for another fifty years. I doubt it will hold for another five. Do you want parishes and dioceses to leave? Do you want faithful people to leave (as I came close to doing earlier this year) or to avoid ACNA in the first place? Then keep to the status quo, and that is what you will get.

A Two Province reorganization is a better way. I know this post is getting long, but allow me to give another important reason why. There is an old saying: “Good fences make good neighbors.” Agreed upon boundaries help people to get along. Amicable distance does, too. Say a good friend likes to play drums while smoking. He would remain a friend if he did so in his house two blocks away. If he played drums and smoked in my house when he knew I did not like that, the friendship would be sorely tried.

If ACNA comes to a Two Province reorganization, I am convinced we will get along better than our current unhappy structure. Does the other province ordain women and often push the latest version of “social justice”? I and many in my Province N would not like that. But that is their province, not mine. And ACNA under my proposal would not take sides on WO or other contentious issues. So with God’s help we get along well enough to avoid fighting and to work together on more important areas of agreement.

Yes, mine is not a perfect solution. Difficulties of communion between bishops who ordain women and those who won’t will remain. But it would be a marked improvement. And I know of nothing better. If readers or the Holy Spirit have a better solution, feel free to post in the comments.

And do pray for ACNA. The General Council of the Reformed Episcopal Church, part of ACNA, begins today. ACNA Provincial Council meets next week with the College of Bishops and Provincial Assembly also convening in the coming weeks. Pray for their safety in traveling, for their worship, and for their decisions and conversations.

A 16-wheeler on my right drifted well into my lane without any signals or reason, not a good reason anyway. I had no recourse but to lay on my horn (I am thankful Ford puts loud horns on their F-150s) and move into the left lane. I was aware enough of my surroundings that I could probably go into the left lane without a collision though I was not sure. But I had little choice about the matter. At that point, the trucker went back into his lane, then I went back into mine.

As I passed the truck, I looked over to see who had just put my life in peril. And — you guessed it — he was an Indian. (Before you think I’m a horrible racist, Indian truck drivers who got their CDLs without knowing English or much else relevant to driving safely have become a deadly hazard on American highways.) He waved apologetically to me. I waved back, but I might not have used all of my fingers in so doing.

So I’m especially glad and thankful to be alive and at the Anglican Way Institute.

——

A less dramatic bit of God’s providence occurred at the end of the Forward in Faith Assembly later that same day. I was debating whether to go to the FIF banquet followed by “an evening with the bishops.” I can be awkward at these banquets when I don’t know a lot of people and sometimes even when I do. But I ran into a friend I had not seen a good while, and the announcement came that they would serve the food early while I was inwardly debating. So I thought, what the hey, I might as well go. I’ve paid for it already after all.

I’m glad I did in part because, after meeting some new friends who actually appreciate my writing, the evening with the bishops Q and A pleasantly surprised me. (The lead-in image is of that.) I cannot say much because it was intended as frank and unrecorded. I will just say that the bishops seem to get it when it comes to the problems in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), particularly women’s ordination. And they are not of a mind to be passive about it. Bishop Fitzwater of All Saints was a ball of fire about that. After the session I am — are you sitting down? — more encouraged about ACNA.

——

You may remember that I posted that the deadlock in the election of the next Bishop of the Western Gulf Coast presented the ACNA College of Bishops with an awkward choice they probably want to avoid.

Well, the College did choose to avoid it, and I think they did so with wisdom. They selected the first Archbishop of ACNA Robert Duncan to be the interim Bishop of the Western Gulf Coast until the diocese can make a permanent election.

It is hard to miss that some of my friends and readers are not as sanguine about this choice as I am. Duncan’s support of women’s ordination is a main concern of theirs. But I am confident that his proven pastoral instincts know better than to impose his view on the diocese. Also, that the College selected such a prominent leader to be the interim shows tangibly that they prioritize this situation getting resolved well with a minimum of bloodshed.

Again, if the College had simply chosen between the two candidates, Martin and Sharpe, I think there would have been much unhappiness. Selecting Duncan to be a pastoral interim is surely a better way.

That said, I think it healthy that some let it be known that they have trust issues about all this. Distrust within ACNA came up during the aforementioned evening with the bishops. And one bishop in particular mentioned that on occasion a bishop or two acts in a manner that creates distrust. So if some of us have trust issues, it is good to let our bishops know and to hold them accountable.

But I do think the bishops have proceeded wisely on this matter. And it so happens that I saw Bishop Duncan at breakfast yesterday and I let him know he has my prayers.

——

Apologies that it is not practical for me to do my usual voiceover and that I need to keep this short and perhaps unpolished if I am to post in a timely fashion.

Photo of the “evening with the bishops” courtesy of Forward in Faith N. A.