The Practical Parson

 In this festive season of the year, it is more than desirable that those of with means should make some provision for the poor and destitute; or whatever it was the Charles Dickens wrote in "A Christmas Carol".  As a pastor, I am always more than happy to assist with charitable endeavors when they are undertaken in goodwill; however there are trends in "charity" which are increasing in popularity and insanity each year.   The first trend is people making demands of charity.  Not in the sense of people asking for assistance who are truly in need of it, mind you; but those who, when faced with a gift from the heart, turn it aside and demand something else instead.  For example, when you see a person on the street corner with a sign "homeless and hungry, anything will help" and you bring them food; yet they yell at you and demand cash instead.  This is enough to put many people off the idea of giving to those in need; because if your sign you hold claims...

 Over the past week, I have listened as the national media have turned their hand of hatred momentarily from the president-elect, and towards some of his picks for cabinet positions in the incoming administration.  Curious, I delved into the stories that are being peddled, to see if I could ascertain a morsel or atom of truth; and as usual, found only hatred and vitriol where fact or evidence should be applied.  Whether or not the men in question are guilty of some form of sexual assault of which they have previously been accused seems little the point; in light of the bigger point for the press, that the allegation was made at all.  Because in the media's twisted view, why would anyone lie about such a thing?  If this person is so wonderful and above board, how could anyone say such a thing about them?   To understand this, we have to understand both what an allegation is (in truth, and in media's view), as well as what it does, and does not do. ...

 I recently had an exchange with a gentleman who was curious about the term "Christian Nationalism", and why it was such a big talking point in the US at the present time.  I explained that, in short; Christian Nationalism's proper definition is a movement to promote Christian ideals as superior or supreme; which does not differentiate in practice from other religions that are likewise bound to the same practices (i.e. Islam, Judaism, etc.).   In the past decade (or so) however, the self-professed progressives in society have used the term "Christian Nationalism" as a brand and a cudgel; for any conservative or evangelical Christian person or group that they seem as unacceptable to their progressive wish for society.  Any time a person holds to a traditional view or interpretation of anything to do with faith, morality, law, or order; they are branded "Christian Nationalist", and exiled to peripheries of society.  The term itself holds no great threat ...

 The presidential election of 2024 is finally over, and we have a new president set to take office in January.  Almost instantaneously, the opposing party and their surrogates began bewailing, bemoaning, blaming, and berating everyone they could imagine as to why their candidate did not win the election.  What has been most disturbing is the pure vitriol, absolute hatred, and lunacy; coming from people who proclaim to be men and women of the cloth.  To hear these ministers of misinformation preach their message of doom, one would presume that the president-elect were the devil incarnate himself; bent on destroying the world and imprisoning/ persecuting all those who disagree with him.  Yet is that the case?  Did not we live 4 years under this same person in a previous administration in virtual peace and prosperity?   The problem that the liberals ideologues in America have, is that they cannot conceive of a peaceable existence wherein they are not...

 During this election year, there is one topic that seems to lead the headlines for the Democratic party- that of abortion.  Every single day; TV, Radio, websites, social media: all are inundated with the doom and gloom prophecies of the liberal party, proclaiming that women's very existence and freedom are at stake if we do not vote for someone who will "enshrine Roe v. Wade".    Access to abortion was granted under the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe vs. Wade in 1973, in which the supreme court interpreted that the US Constitution granted an imagined "right to privacy" as part of the first amendment right to freedom of speech.  The ruling was always fraught with controversy from the beginning, not only because of the outcome; but also because the notion that Freedom of Speech grants you freedom of privacy, is found nowhere in any of the foundational documents of the United States, and is not mentioned in any book of law with regard to the constitution (pre-R...

 As an Anglican, it is incumbent upon me to hold to the tradition of the 39 articles of religion.  However one may hold to a tradition, while accepting that this text, which inspired may be; is not beyond reproach nor infallible or inerrant, since only the written Word of God holds that distinction.  As such, it is entirely possible to disagree with and oppose certain aspects of the articles, when they touch upon matters that the articles describe as repugnant to Scripture; which are in fact scripturally evident and proven matters.  Case in point:  Article 22 describes the veneration of relics (in a list of other items) as being "vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God."   A rather serious indictment, were it only true.  I would submit, for your consideration; that the preservation and veneration of relics is actually not only scriptural, but that scripture itself contains evidences that...