Thursday, June 28, 2012

Hell hath no fury...

... like a blackmailing serial-liar ridiculed.

At which point I would like to on the very best of legal advice stress this salient aphorism is utterly bereft of any pertinence to the following comment left several hours ago elsewhere on this site:
"Someone called David Ould has sicked his lawyers onto Dobby, and Dobby has fled. Long live Dobby!"
Once again in response to the very best of legal advice I would also like to categorically claim that I have absolutely no idea of what my correspondent might be talking about. When it comes to accusations of defamation I've always found it fascinating to note how those most eager to defend their reputation are invariably those whose reputation is the least defensible, which renders this whole affair most mysterious indeed.

Nonetheless, as one renowned for the seriousness with he takes his pastoral responsibilities I am, of course and as always, more than happy to discuss this and/or any other matters with those whose hunger for enlightenment leads them to contact me privately.

That said, let me now move on to an entirely unrelated matter of an altogether different nature. It just so happens that a young man rejoicing in the title and name of the Reverend David Ould, who currently serves as a Deacon (or in the quaint ecclesiastical patois compulsory in the Australian Anglican Diocese of Sydney, an "Assistant Minister" - commonly abbreviated to "Ass Minister" for reasons undoubtedly self-evident) at St. Augustines's Anglican Church, Neutral Bay (a.k.a. "Neutral Bay Anglican Church" - a moniker at least half true; an impressive statistic within the context of the sect known elsewhere as "Jensenism") is seeking a new parish.

Even though David Ould hasn't made public his reasons for leaving his current employment, there's bound to be a perfectly good reason as to why his position will be terminated at the end of this year. In fact, I'm sure that if you call him on +612 9953 1830, or +61425 362598, or send an email to he'll be only too happy to provide a most entertaining explanation. One which may or may not be entirely dissimilar to any rumors currently spreading fasting than monkeys on ice skates. Although possibly not as funny.

And while there’s hardly any point discussing those reasons here – as the very best of legal advice also made perfectly clear to me – I would none the less like to extend a personal invitation to the members of any parish nomination committee who have courtesy of the Holy Spirit and Google landed here whilst investigating the possibility of David Ould joining their ministry team: you are all more than welcome to contact me to discuss his suitability for the position you have in mind.

Whether you, for example, represent a medium-to-large congregation wishing to downsize by shedding a significant percentage of parishioners; or you are seeking a Minister who considers compulsively Googling his own name as synonymous with “pastoral care”; or you're merely seeking someone not ashamed to do whatever it takes (legal or otherwise) to stop others from laughing at him, I am only to happy to provide a reference outlining the fascinating things I have evidence of little David Ould getting up to – at this point do I need to mention that I have on the very best of legal advice an assurance that truth is a defence against accusations of defamation in both David Ould's jurisdiction and my own?

I’m Father Christian, and I really don’t like Pharisees.

Sunday, June 10, 2012

ACNA Exegesis.

If there’s one thing that really cheers an Old Doctrinal Warrior’s heart in the aftermath of the Great Anglican Schism it’s a good “we wuz robbed” gripe. Mind you, My Beloved Sinners, these are rarer than you might think, since the only laments that really press the bossanova button on my organ are those written by former clergy. The cries of laity now alienated from parishes in which they and their families may have worshipped for generations are too often tinged with sadness to make them truly enjoyable, especially since more often than not they’ve only been caught up in this whole mess as a result of obediently following their parish Priest. Indeed, until he got stinging nettles in his surplice about God’s love for homosexualists they quite probably didn’t even know there was a Bishop of New Hampshire, much less care about any predilection His Grace may have towards musicals featuring Barbra Streisand.

On the other hand, the sounds of wailing and gnashing of teeth coming from those who, having stirred up their congregations to quit the Anglican Communion, are now finding that this also means leaving behind all the property belonging to the wicked, godless, apostate institution they quite happily vowed to serve at the time of their ordination a few years previously are another thing altogether. The most prolific practitioner of this esoterically pleasurable literary form, the delightful little Matt Kennedy, will of course be quite familiar to all Faithful Sinners, but it gives me enourmous pleasure to introduce a new star in the disgruntled Firmament of Orthodoxy – Layman David Wilson of freshly invented ACNA parish of Christ the Redeemer in Canonsburg PA.

Indeed; I can’t recommend his masterpiece of the genre, which can be found here, highly enough. While succinct, it still manages to convey a deep sense of disgruntlement at the consequences of actions undertaken entirely at the behest of the author, who in turn manages to deny all responsibility for how things have worked out. While shrouding the entire mess in a deep cloud of dishonesty - everything I’ve always insisted the Anglican Realignment is about!

Although I must note that it appears to contain just one teensy typo: the second paragraph opens with
“The Episcopal Diocese sued for our shirt. We hereby give you our coat. Matthew 5:40.”
That should actually read “The Episcopal Diocese sued for their shirt”. And while we’re at it, the sentence ought probably also be amended to read: “In deep apprehension of the consequences should we do otherwise, we hereby also give you your coat as ordered by the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas in accordance with the United States Constitution.”

I’d also recommend ditching the Matthew 5:40 reference. Like any true Conservative, it’s been a long time since I bothered myself too much with anything in the Gospels, but last time I looked it didn’t seem that Jesus was discussing the return of property to those from whom you’d swiped it. Nor do I recall Him mentioning anything about the owner first needing to sue before Our Lord’s followers should feel any scruples about returning their ill gotten apparel…

I’m Father Christian and I teach the Bible.

Friday, June 1, 2012

In which a sinner's questions are answered...

The following comment recently arrived in response to a homily I delivered way back in October 2008. In order than all My Beloved Sinners might share in the blessings of my wise response, I have generously felt called to share the exchange in a post of its own:
I (a female) am currently engaged to my partner (a male) - although we are not planning a religious marriage ceremony, we are going to be planning a 'marriage' ceremony of some kind. My sister and her partner (a female) recently came to visit us and we started discussing the countries where same-sex marriage is currently legally recognised. To my surprise and utter dissapointment, there were only 10 countries in the whole world on this list and the UK is not one of them (correct me if I am wrong). I have recently looked into the UK governments same-sex marriage views and was pleased to read that Nick Clegg thought that " although civil partnerships have been a step forward, until same sex marriage is permitted it is impossible to claim gay and straight couples are treated equally."

My sister and her partner are now engaged and as we are living in a 'democratic society' where the human rights act (1998) states that '[one of] your human rights [is]' 'the right to marry and to start a family' (, I was wondering when my sister and her same-sex partner will have the same 'human rights' as myself and my opposite-sex partner in regards to marriage?

I still find it surprising and am saddened by the thought that in 2012, this most basic human right for same-sex couples is being violated. Given your position on marriage, I was wondering where you sit on other human rights? Do you for example, feel that the right to Nationality is applicable only to specific groups? Do you think it is just that the right to a fair trial should be limited only to a certain group, say heterosexuals?
My Dear Sinnerette,

As a Biblical Conservative I always insist people understand that I take the Word of our Saviour St. Paul literally - except, of course, when it comes doing anything inconvenient (not to mention just plain weird), like making vows involving cranial depilation). Consequently when persons of your gender ask questions I usually respond with an instruction that they ask their husband, or whichever other complementarian-with-a-penis owns them. Unless, of course, answering their question will bring sufficient kudos to make it worthwhile contradicting my inviolable convictions – as is the case, for example, when asked questions like “Father Christian Sir, how may I minister to your every need?” Or “Where should I send the keys of the new Ferrari I’ve bought you?”

Now whilst your question clearly falls short of these nobly spiritual examples, and you and the man with whom you intend to become subordinate are shameless about your intention to deprive some Godly Clergyman such as myself the Surplice Fee, Pre-marital counseling charge, Wedding Administration Donation, and Church Premises Usage Offertory (along with the opportunity to further make a fortune in commissions by insisting you only use our authorized florist, photographer, caterer, hair & makeup stylist, wedding cars, and bridal couturier) – all of which comprise an integral part of any genuinely Biblical marriage – I have nonetheless been led by the Generous Righteousness of my heart to answer your questions. No doubt you shall out of gratitude respond appropriately, though you’d better move fast, since summer wedding slots at St. Onuphrius’ are almost all taken, and the Fall weather here in Ichabod Springs can be a little chancy: at that time of year local breezes tend to blow from the direction of the town’s famous pesticide factories, and those brides not going through the motions for the sake of a green card usually become a little upset when blood-red airborne wastes stain their dress and veil. (Nor is releasing doves a wise move: last time someone tried that the entire flock didn’t make it fifty yards before poor little bird cadavers plummeted down upon the happy throng. Fortunately though, the bride and groom came from a long line of Forteans and I was able to convince everybody that what they had just witnessed was an inexplicable omen of unparalleled blessing – thereby earning a further gratuity from the city chamber of commerce, who are always happy to pay a little something to ensure our only major industry continues unimpeded. But I digress…

I’ll begin by addressing your question as to where I “sit on other human rights”. Clearly you have little experience of Biblical Authorities of my renown, but let me be perfectly clear that I have never sat on anyone. Granted, Consuella does from time to time sit on me, but that is totally within the context of a purely Biblical relationship. And there was that one time with Evangelical Eric, but that was at a “Beans ‘n’ Beer” party the Parish held to celebrate one of the Saints’ days, and everyone was sitting on him. Besides; he’s my Curate and I can do with him whatever I like.

Next you ask if I “feel that the right to Nationality is applicable only to specific groups?” That’s a much more complex question, since you fail to say if you are referring to Christian Nations or foreign ones. Obviously only Christians can enjoy the privileges of citizenship in a Christian Nation, since how could an unbeliever ever be expected to understand the joys of paying tithes and listening to interminable expositions of Pauline minutiae? Yet the Scriptures do talk about making foreigners welcome (eg Deut. 10:19 - that’s because Our Loving Book understands how important it is for Christians to have people desperate enough to work for subsistence wages as cab drivers and house maids. Although it’s important to not get carried away here: as any Arizona Conservative will explain, Leviticus 19:34 (“But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you…”) should never be taken literally on account of it not being explicitly about homosexuality.

Lastly, you wonder if I think “it is just that the right to a fair trial should be limited only to a certain group” – let’s just be perfectly clear about this: it’s what the Bible thinks which matters. That the Bible just happens to agree with all of my presuppositions has absolutely nothing to do with the way I choose to interpret the Sacred Words dictated from Heaven to Saint King James (or, if you happen to be reading this from within the Diocese of Mordor, to a uniquely profitable business owned by Archbishop Jensen and his family). So, with this in mind, I would urge any Unbeliever to consider 1 Corinthians 6:1-7, which makes it absolutely clear that legal matters are to be resolved not by pagan secular apostate courts, but by the Church Leadership!

Not, of course, that I expect hearing this marvelous news will bring you any comfort, since clearly you, unlike me, are not sufficiently righteous to have been called to enjoy the power and privilege commensurate with the call to serve god’s sinful flock – and even if you were, the fact that you can’t hygienically urinate while standing in any case precludes you and fifty-something percent of the population from enjoying this particular patriarchal perk. But for those of us who made the right choice vis-à-vis our genitalia it’s perfectly straightforward: any legal matter (and I can’t emphasize this strongly enough – the text of Scripture here makes no distinction whatsoever between civil and criminal matters) involving a Christian can only be decided by a suitable Righteous Christian leader. Like me. Which is why, as I keep telling the godless liberals at Inland Revenue, I can with a perfectly clear conscience insist my returns have been ruled acceptable by the highest court in the nation.

Trusting this clears matters up for you, and brightens whatever brief time you have remaining prior to an eternity in the Fires of Hell.

The Rev. Dr. Father Christian Troll,
(I teach the Bible.)