The Practical Parson

 Recently I was reminded of an age-old claim, used by liberals to justify hatred of Christianity; that the concept of Mary Magdalene as a prostitute was allegedly promulgated by Pope St. Gregory the Great in the 6th century AD.   Of course when one attempts to debate that accusation, the opposing side clams up and claims that they don't have time or energy to debate because, simply, "it's true".  But is it? In point of fact, Gregory did not "proclaim" Mary Magdalene to be the woman taken in adultery from Luke's gospel, he was echoing an interpretation of unidentified people from the Gospels which was already prevalent at that time in history.  There are several unnamed people who play roles in the Gospel story, and scholars have been debating who was who ever since the Scriptures were first compiled.  Gregory does address Magdalene as having been the woman taken in adultery, however he also identifies her as the woman who had 7 demons cast out of her, as

 So this past weekend, Kensington Palace issued a photograph of the Princess of Wales with her 3 children, in wake of her recovering from a recent surgery.  Eagle-eyed reviewers (their own term, not mine) immediately began calling the photo into question, and caused numerous publications and news outlets to retract it; claiming multiple evidences that the photo was either fake or at very least digitally altered.   The AP (Associated Press) essentially said that they could not publish something that they willingly know is false because it would damage their reputation as journalists.  So in unison, numerous Press outlets are saying they cannot and will not publish erroneous images or information.   What  A  Crock  Of  Shite.  The press regularly lies to the public, publishing altered or doctored photographs; as well as publishing completely WRONG photos to bolster a fictitious story they're peddling at any given time.  Case in point in recent history-  When the Associated Press (and

 Yesterday evening a group of self congratulatory, wealthy people gathered in California to give each other awards.   They call it the "Academy Awards", however that title is as offensive to Academia as it is unrepresentative of the term in general.  Perhaps one of the more shocking things to come out of the Oscars this year was the number of 'celebrities' donning red pins in order to (allegedly) support demands for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.  Much like everything celebrities do, however; they are blissfully ignorant of the origin of their rallying cry for purported social justice.   As a symbol of "palestinian" solidarity, the raised bloody hand dates back to the year 2000; when a mob of Palestinians broke into a jail in Ramallah on the West Bank, and proceeded to beat, kick, stomp, stab, etc. 2 Jewish men to death.   These 2 men had accidentally taken a wrong term while driving that afternoon, and had ended up in Ramallah by accident.  When the murder

 Recently, I was watching a group interview with members of GAFCON and ACNA speaking about the creation of a new, Independent Anglican Diocese info Australia (Diocese of the Southern Cross).  A theme which kept recurring in the discussion they engaged in was the term and references to "Revisionists" and "revisionism".  At face value, to anyone who holds Sacred scripture as the groundwork of our faith, that sounds like a terrifying concept- who would dare try to revise holy writ?  And I think that, that is to an extent what the bishops of GAFCON and ACNA were going for- the shock factor of others attempting to revise what the scriptures teach.  However, as Anglicans, it is an intriguingly odd notion to accuse anyone else of attempting to revise teachings; when the revision of teaching itself is the cause for the Anglican Communion's very existence.  Had it not been for Henry VIII and Cranmer changing the foundational teaching of the church's independence and

 Recently I have seen some clergy of different churches demanding that the church as a whole "modernize and cast aside outdated theological and sexual ideas".   They insist that the church needs to set aside any and all teachings, theological interpretations, and traditions which could be seen as even remotely "non-inclusive" of the Alphabet community (LGBT... and whatever the hell acronym they're adding this week).  Some going so far as to say that 'queer people should lead the way to showing the church how to love one's neighbor'.    First and foremost, the church does not exist for any age in particular; as she exists in and for ALL ages, times, and places.  So to say that the church needs to 'modernize' in order to better suit modern man, is no less than to say that what was good enough for millions of saints and blessed ones and even our own Savior; is no longer good enough for us.  The hubris of making demands of a gift that God himself

 Today is Ash Wednesday, and the Christian world (especially here in the states) is plagued by a relatively recent innovation in church 'services' called affectionately by its proponents- "ashes to go".   I'll let the reader soak that in for a minute.   Yes, clergy will stand on street corners throughout the nation to administer ashes to people who happen by and want to receive them.  Many have argued that this extends the Christian message and Lenten observance to more and more people, but does it really?   Or does it rather cheapen the sign and symbol of what those precious ashes actually represent? The ashes we receive today are taken from burning the palms we blessed the previous Palm Sunday.  In that, they symbolize both the mortality of humanity's actions; as well as how quickly our voices of praise and celebration can turn to dust and be lost to the winds of time.  How loudly we exclaimed "Hosanna" to the savior, only to turn our backs and cas