The Practical Parson

 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