AnglicanTV in Pittsburgh **sticky through the convention**

Kevin Kallsen of AnglicanTV will be live streaming the Diocese of Pittsburgh Convention starting Saturday morning, October 4.

Diocese of Pittsburgh Convention

Online TV Shows by Ustream
Please help with AnglicanTV's Travel Expenses:

KS: As VP debate looms: remembering Admiral Stockdale

I have to admit, this resonanted with me. I remember this debate and that I had no idea who Admiral Stockdale was - I just followed the media circus. It wasn't until years later that I learned about his record and his heroism. We need to always remember that those running for public office are not caricatures of media projection, but real people deserving our fair hearing and consideration.

From Kathy Shaidle at five feet of fury [non-italic boldface mine]:

His son writes:

Anyone over 30 will probably remember the spectacle. (...)

My father, a bona fide war hero, was trying to adapt to a format of discourse utterly foreign to him.

The debate hall was noisy, hot and nasty. My mom took a bad fall just before coming out to sit down. She, the strongest woman I know, broke into tears as she was overcome with emotion. Her four sons tried to console her.

Dad entered the race reluctantly, and only due to the deep gratitude he had for the aid Mr. Perot extended to him and my mom while he was a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

As everyone saw that evening, he was not a politician. He was a fighter-pilot ace, a Medal of Honor recipient, and a wonderful dad and human being. During his eight years as a POW, he slit his scalp and beat his face with a stool to prevent his captors from parading him in the streets for propaganda purposes. He gave starving men his food rations when he himself was starving. And at home, after his release in 1973, he was a respected leader, scholar and writer. He considered himself a philosopher.

I watched that debate too. I knew nothing about Stockdale; in fact, I don't even remember him being introduced as "Admiral". Not that that would have mattered to me. I was still a vestigal lefty, military-hating peacenik, although just barely.

I squirmed in my seat as Stockdale struggled to fit his answers into the tiny allotment of time, and the audience snickered.

Somehow, the next day, amid all the vicious mockery of Stockdale's performance, and of Perot for selecting him, I learned about the Admiral's past as a brave POW, and his current life as a college professor. Perot must have said as much in an angry post-debate interview.

That evening, my then-best friend (now my key ex-9/11 friend, as I call them) came over. She repeated all the late night talk show hosts' jokes about Stockdale, and -- to her surprise, and mine -- I exploded:
"Don't you know this guy was the leader of his fellow POWs, who kept them going all that time? Don't you know the guy teaches, like, rhetoric or something at some Ivy League college? Jesus, we complain that politicians speak in soundbites and when someone comes along who doesn't, we complain about that! "

Chastened, my friend admitted she hadn't known or thought of any of that. And why would she have? In those pre-internet days, that's just how it was for most people. . .

Some people call themselves "9/11 conservatives" but I guess I'm more a "Stockdale" conservative myself. It had nothing to do with anything Stockdale said that night -- any policy ideas or great philosophical notions (which he wasn't able to articulate in the format anyway...)

It was the reaction of kneejerk liberals and leftists to Stockdale's performance that turned me off -- just as most people join or leave religions based on [ed. not] upon apologetics and theology but upon the behaviour of other believers. . .

Read it all.

Instapundit: Political media insight

From Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit:

A READER AT A MAJOR NEWSROOM EMAILS:

"Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its working."

I asked permission to reprint without attribution and it was granted. . .

Read it all. I don't care which political party it is, anytime the media blatantly picks one side over the other, we as a country suffer. If the media prefaced their reports with their political prejudices (of any persuasion), I wouldn't have a problem - it's their condescending, arrogant attitude of "objectivity" that is so grating.

Fr Menees recommends movie, "Fireproof"

I haven't seen this movie yet, but I have heard about it and plan to go.

From SanDiegoAnglicans.com:

A "two-thumbs-up" recommendation for Fireproof (out this weekend) from Fr. Eric Menees, Rector of Anglican Church of the Resurrection, San Marcos, who attended the pre-release review. If you don't already know, Fr. Menees is especially qualified to recommend to recommend a film with a first responder theme; he serves as chaplain to several emergency services groups in North County.

From an email to his parish. . .

Read it all.

Uncommon Knowledge: Interview with Archbishop Chaput

Check out Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson to see his 5-part interview with Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, author of Render Unto Caesar (a book well worth reading)!

H/t to Judith L.

‘Objectivist’ writer: Trig Palin a financial burden who should have been aborted

From Newsbusters:

In stunningly self-centered, cruel fashion, Nicholas Provenzo, writer for the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism suggests that Sarah Palin’s decision to give birth to a child with Down Syndrome, is a financial burden that others are forced to suffer with.

Provenzo, who has written opinion pieces for the Washington Times, Capitalism Magazine, and the Atlanta Journal Constitution, as well as being a guest on Bill Maher’s former show, Politically Incorrect, makes his case for “the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome.”

The full first paragraph of the piece which is circulating amidst the blogosphere reads (emphasis mine):

Like many, I am troubled by the implications of Alaska governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome. Given that Palin's decision is being celebrated in some quarters, it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)—a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny.

Morally justifiable reasons for killing a baby? There is no justifiable reason for taking any child's life, and to call it a moral obligation to society is undeniably one of the more disgusting things to be written by a human being, about another human being.

In fact, advocating the abortion of a child based on the potential of that child having a disease or imperfection of some kind raises echoes of Nazi Germany’s quest for an Aryan race.

The suggestion that another life should be ended based on the presence of an extra chromosome, and that another healthy individual’s own life is more precious because of that, is over the top narcissism.

Maybe this shouldn’t surprise quite so much. After all, it wasn’t too long ago that sick individuals were offering up baby Trig on ebay. We live in a society where skeptics simply can't admire someone who stands on their principals. They must tear them down by insinuating that such a move is merely a political prop. Or, in this case, they argue that choosing life was actually a selfish move. A stunning argument to say the least.

However, Mr. Provenzo demonstrates his own level of selfishness in his rant. He doesn’t go the typical route of the pro-choice crowd, but reveals some very bizarre reasoning for why it is Palin’s obligation to have killed her baby boy. . .

Read it all. All I can think of to do is to pray for Mr. Provenzo - what a sad life.

Pro-life groups finally able to buy ads on Google after Google policy changes

From the Times (U.K.):

Christian and other religious groups opposed to abortion were allowed to advertise on Google for the first time from today, after the search engine capitulated in the face of a legal challenge.

Google had banned pro-life religious groups from buying adverts against search terms such as “abortion” and “abortion help” but was forced to abandon its policy after it was accused of breaching equalities legislation.

The challenge was brought by the Christian Institute, a cross-denominational pressure group, who said that Google’s change of heart was an acknowledgement of the rights of everybody to hold an opinion on the subject.

Mike Judge from the Christian Institute said: “Google were taking adverts from pro-abortion groups, and our view is that was a free speech issue. What we want to do is set out the acts in a pretty factual and pretty sensible way”.

Google had been taken to court by the Christian Institute earlier in the year, arguing that its policy was in breach of the Equalities Act of 2006. Initially, Google said it would fight in the courts, but changed its mind over the summer. Its new policy applies globally.

Acknowledging that the issue of abortion was “an emotive subject”, Google said that it reconsidered its policy following the Christian Institute’s challenge, and said it would be “creating a level playing field and enabling religious associations to place ads on abortion in a factual way”.

However, it was unclear how Google would define the introduction of factual advertising. . .

Read it all. This is very scary to me, as Google grows to control more and more of the content available.

Remember, Google's motto is (the very 1984) "Do no evil." They can say it, but if they don't do it, it means nothing. (And don't forget their capitulation to the Chinese Communist government in banning certain search words in China, for instance "Tiananmen.") Never forget, Google is a business with a decided secular corporate leadership.

And for another take on the Pelosi story: Kathy Shaidle

From Kathy Shaidle at five feet of fury:

The reason the MSM (and ordinary people) are ignorning the "Bishops smack down Nancy Pelosi on abortion" story is:

a) they are, as you [Hugh Hewitt] said on air, notoriously tone deaf about religious issues,

b) they agree with Pelosi on abortion anyhow; but most importantly:

c) they find it rich -- as I do -- that cardinals and archibishops can manage to shift themselves so rapidly when the issue is abortion, but kept their mouths shut for twenty years when children were being molested by their brethren.

The American Catholic hierarchy has NO moral authority now and may never recover it.

Pelosi is wrong and you and the cardinals are right.

It. Doesn't. Matter.

No one takes the American Catholic hierarchy seriously any longer, given their abdication of authority over the greatest in-house controversy in its history. . .

Check it out.

AnglicanTV schedule

An update from Kevin at AnglicanTV:

After long events like Gafcon and Lambeth it has been good to have a break. However, I am as interested in what is going to happen this fall as you are. So I am listing my schedule (subject to change) below.

Sept 15th I will be filming a POV (point of view) live stream from Trinity School for Ministry. You can find more info HERE

September 26-27 - ADV Council - Church of the Epiphany, Herndon, VA - Dr. J. I. Packer, Keynote Speaker -- Live Stream

October 1 -- Justyn Terry's Inauguration as Dean of Trinity

Oct 4 -- Diocese of Pittsburgh Convention -- Live Stream

You can follow my schedule "HERE Send schedule suggestions to anglicantv@gmail.com.

I also hope to be doing some more interviews this fall for AnglicanTV, so I'll keep everyone posted on those as well.

"Wikipedia is the love child of the Encyclopedia Brittanica and ComicCon."

From the comments at Gawker.

Just remember, Roger L. Simon says it best [boldface mine]:

. . . This is disgraceful behavior on the part of Wikipedia, which is demonstrating bias that errs on the side of laughable. But we should be grateful. This censorship reminds us never to trust anyone. [Including this blog?-ed. Definitely.] Especially do not trust those whose expertise pretends to be encyclopedic. No one’s is, not even an organization that pretends to use the wisdom of crowds in the manner of Wikipedia. Too often we reference Wikipedia as if it were authoritative. It isn’t. Not even faintly.

The Internet - a wonder and a curse!

AnglicanTV Livestream

Kevin is now in Lambeth and videos are forthcoming. Keep checking in at AnglicanTV.

Today's (Monday) schedule:

(All times England -- 5 hours ahead of Eastern Standard).
5:00pm Press Conference
7:30pm Plenary Session open to the press

Free live streaming by Ustream

Go, Kevin!

From Kevin at AnglicanTV:

Lambeth 9:45 Press Conference

About now I would be uploading the video footage from the morning press conference -- but sadly I am not allowed to video tape the press conferences.

"Oh -- excuse me Mister Kallsen these morning press conferences are off the record and we don't allow videotaping."

I replied: "Really, so of the forty press people in this room none are allowed to write, use their computers, or record the audio? -- I will go around the room with you and let each of them know"

No answer.

"Do you know what off the record is?"

Retraction on Bishop Cyril Okorocha, Owerii, Nigeria

From Cherie Wetzel at Anglicans United:

The Rev. Dr. Chris Sugden of Anglican-Mainstream has confirmed for our group through contact with Canon Jeremy Cresswell, that Bishop Cyril Okorocha, diocese of Owerii, Nigeria, has not been in Surrey and did not confirm that he was coming to the Lambeth Conference.

Also false are the rumors that his wife was threatened at home in Nigeria and he returned home to protect her.

Anglicans United regrets the report of this rumor and hopes that Bisop Okorocha will not be damaged by my incorrect statement.

The Lambeth Conference office continues to insist that they have received a fax from a Nigerian bishop who is in Surrey and intends to attend this conference. They have failed to provide any proof to substantiate this claim and said bishop has not come to Canterbury as of today.

It appears to me to be an intentional statement by the Communion office to insist that every Province is represented here after all. To clarify, there are no bishops here from Uganda or Nigeria.

Check it out. And check here for a history of this confusing story.

Tom Hanks and Opie Banned From Vatican

From the New York Daily News:

Still smarting over "The Da Vinci Code," the Vatican has banned filming of the controversial follow-up flick "Angels & Demons" in Rome churches.

The Catholic church barred Tom Hanks and producer-director Ron Howard from shooting scenes in two historic cathedrals after branding author Dan Brown's works anti-Catholic blasphemy.

"Normally we read the script, but this time it was not necessary," said Msgr. Marco Fibbi, spokesman for the diocese of Rome. "The name 'Dan Brown' was enough."

The crew wanted to film in the churches of Santa Maria del Popolo and Santa Maria della Vittoria, two architectural jewels in the heart of Rome crammed with Renaissance art and sculpture.

Archbishop Velasio De Paolis called it a no-brainer to ban the film, accusing Brown of turning "the Gospels upside down."

"It would be unacceptable to transform churches into film sets so that his blasphemous novels can be made into mendacious films," the archbishop told The Times of London. . .

Read it all.
H/t to The Lair of the Catholic Cavemen.

Bishop Okorocha of Nigeria: Registered for Lambeth or not?

From Virtue Online:

. . . In-house media are trying to put as much spin as they can on who is and is not here. If there is even one representative from an African province, they herald it as a victory. One Kenyan and suddenly the whole of Kenya is here. "Nigerian bishop flees!" screamed a headline in the "London Times". It was reported that the only Nigerian bishop to register for Lambeth, Cyril Okorocha, Bishop of Owerri, has fled Britain and gone back home for fear of 'reprisals', acording to a "Times" source. Not true. He never registered at all. He never even made it to Canterbury. He attended his son's graduation in Manchester, the ostensible reason for his being in the country in the first place. He also attended a few local events in the parish of Oxshott in Surrey, which was hosting him. The Archbishop of Nigeria has made it abundantly clear that Lambeth is off limits and that anyone attending from Nigeria would be subject to discipline. Okorocha has no love of Lambeth or the Anglican Communion Office. He is an evangelical who had the pain of working for John Peterson in the ACC and was in charge of evangelism when Peterson was running the Anglican Communion office. Peterson fired him so he went back to Nigeria where they made him a bishop. . .

And from Ruth Gledhill:

The only Nigerian bishop to register for Lambeth, Cyril Okorocha, Bishop of Owerri, has fled Britain and gone back home for fear of 'reprisals', a source has told The Times. It appears he never even made it to Canterbury. He attended his son's graduation in Manchester, the ostensible reason for his being in the country in the first place, and a few local events in the parish of Oxshott in Surrey which was hosting him. A source tells me that his departure was prompted by an "element" of concern for his wife back home, and of what the Archbishop of Nigeria Peter Akinola's response might be to his being here. Bishop Okorocha is a nice man, an evangelical with a good heart who used to be on the staff of George Carey at Lambeth and who believes in the unity of the Church. It was brave of him to come over and sadly, probably necessary for him to return. . .

So which is it? Was Bishop Okorocha registered for Lambeth or not? The only reason to want a straight answer is to see who is vetting their sources for info and who is just taking the latest rumor de jour and passing it on.

Canterbury: This [Lambeth] stands at a crossroads in the Communion

A Lambeth report from Cherie Wetzel covering a press conference with +++Rowan Williams:

Today, after the first press briefing yesterday, we had 20 minutes with Rowan. I am not being disrespectful in calling him that. Today, there were no fancy vestments and no lofty processions. Just a man in a black shirt and black suit given a job to do. He came to the pressroom, filled to overflowing with scribbling people and flashing cameras, and after a short introduction, explained to us what his purposes and intentions were in the design of this conference. I felt he was more candid than he was in New Orleans last September at the House of Bishops’ meeting. Granted, the situation is much more perilous today than it was then for the Communion and individual provinces within the Communion. He spoke simply and distinctly. He didn’t dodge any of the questions asked him. Today, I had an opportunity to appreciate the intellect and the character of the university professor, the man who took this job after begging not to be given it. . .

q Did GAFCON make the covenant more imperative? No. We will argue and continue to make our case with the Gafcon people after the conference ends.

q Your statement of government of the Communion by covenant and council. What does that entail? Cleaning house for serious debate. Not every province will desire to be bound by a covenant. . .

q What in human sexuality do you believe is wrong in terms of sexual behavior? Any relationship outside a public covenant of mutual love, in the presence of God is outside my belief. I believe that sex outside of marriage is not part of God’s plan. The Anglican Communion has spoken adequately on the issue of homosexuality and I will adhere to those policies and decisions. . .

q Follow up question: CAPA bishops said they would not come if the consecrators were invited and their voices represent the majority of Anglicans in the Communion. How did you make that decision? I told each of them that their voice matters and we need to hear from them. I can’t invite the bishops of 70 million and not invite the bishops of 2 million. We don’t have that kind of parity or power politics in the Communion. Every voice counts.

q Does their absence devalue the statement that will be produced? There is a grave disquiet about their absence and a serious criticism that must be addressed. We will do so in the next 12 days. . .

Read it all.

Attend last Lambeth for only $20 **Sticky** and *UPDATE*

Update: From Kevin:

AnglicanTV is going to Lambeth: As of 8:00am this morning we have received enough funds to attend the final 10 days of the Last Lambeth. I am so humbled by your sacrificial giving and I know that "Thank You" falls far short of how grateful I truly am.

Hey, I think we should still contribute to make sure he has everything he needs, if not for Lambeth, then for the next Anglican get-together!

Original: From Kevin at AnglicanTV:

Yes, it is a gimmick to raise the last couple of hundred dollars. I have have bought the plane tickets, booked the hotel, rented a wireless 3g modem for my laptop, and really could use the remaining chip-in monies. Please consider giving $10 or $20 so YOU can attend the Last Lambeth.

Central control not Anglican, says Rowan Williams *Update*

Update: Check the comments for the full article from the Church Times (thanks, Anon!) And the interview was done before the Synod vote - so that clears up that question.

Original: From the Church Times [boldface mine]:

THE Archbishop of Canterbury was in defiant mood this week, as he spoke of his hopes for the Lambeth Conference. He was positive about its strong mission agenda, which he believes should put into perspective the debate about sexuality.

In an interview for this paper, Dr Williams admits to feeling “frustrated”, and even to having “kicked the furniture a bit over the last few weeks”. But he is clear in his analysis that GAFCON (News, 4 July) was not just about the biblical interpretation. “The vast majority of Anglican theologians and Anglican leaders have an absolutely clear commitment to the authority of scripture in the way we always have,” he says. Rather: “There are major ethical and cultural anxieties about sexual ethics here.”

He affirms the Anglican approach as being able to encompass plurality, without any one view undermining the basis of scriptural authority.

Huh? "without any one view undermining the basis of scriptural authority" - so there can never be heresy or even orthodoxy since no one view can be taken as authoritative?

In the long term, the Anglican Communion would survive, he argues. “We may be less obviously at one for a few years, but that doesn’t let us off the obligation to keep listening to each other.” The model of diffused authority was part of the essence of Anglicanism: “If we did have a tight central model, we would cease to be the kind of Church we have always set out to be.”

The Church does, however, need to keep up to date with the new speed of global communications: “When something which happens in one province is instantly around the world, you have to go for a more coherent structure.”. . .

What does that mean - "coherent structure"? Sounds like a tighter central model to me. Does he mean that the church needs to keep a tighter control on what gets out to those in the pews? Guess those evil bloggers are at it again - ruining a perfectly good church by letting everyone know what's going on.

Read it all. I would love to see the interview transcript here. Was this done before the Synod vote since there seems to be no reference to that here. A very innocuous interview with nothing new and little clarity, but I'm not sure if that's the archbishop's fault or the reporter's.

Actually, I guess the entire interview is posted, but you need to be a subscriber, which I am not, so if anyone else posts this, I will link to it.

Another broken record: ++KJS on upcoming Lambeth *Update*

Update: Check out TitusOneNine and their speadsheet on the ratio in the Anglican Communion of members to bishops, per province. Pretty amazing!

Original: From EpiscopalLife Online, an interview with the Presiding Bishop in anticipation of Lambeth. Why do I think I have heard all of this before, over and over again? [boldface mine]

ENS: You addressed the topic of the Lambeth Conference in a webcast on May 20. At that time you called the Lambeth Conference an opportunity for bishops throughout the Anglican Communion to meet each other, that "we encounter each other as human beings working in vastly different contexts around the globe and that we build relationships." Do you maintain that view of the Lambeth Conference?

KJS: Yes.

ENS: What do you see as the heart of the Lambeth Conference?

KJS: Conversation, spending time together, and beginning to learn something about each others' contexts.

ENS: Do you think the GAFCON statement will have an impact on the workings of the Lambeth Conference?

KJS: No, not unless a significant number of those in attendance in Jerusalem do come to the Lambeth Conference.

ENS: What would you say to the primates and bishops who have announced they are boycotting, or refusing to come, to the Lambeth Conference?

KJS: I would say that "we'll miss you," because all benefit from many voices at gatherings like the Lambeth Conference.

ENS: What message do you plan to bring to the Lambeth Conference?

KJS: That the mission of God is far larger than anything we disagree about. . .

ENS: What kind of presence will the Episcopal Church have at the Lambeth Conference?

KJS: The bishops of the Episcopal Church will represent about one-quarter of all bishops in attendance. One of our tasks is not to overwhelm the gathering just by our sheer numbers. . .

Just think about that for a minute - one of the smallest provinces, yet ECUSA will represent about a quarter of all bishops. Wow!

Read it all.

AnglicanTV: GAFCON live feed *Sticky*

From AnglicanTV:

Free .TV show from Ustream