Stand Firm

Sure would be nice if that happened . . .

From NRO:

Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell is absolutely right to warn against Obama’s gigantic stimulus-spending package. McConnell says it “will be the largest spending bill in the history of our country at a time when our national debt is already the largest in history.” As a result, he says the bill “will require tough scrutiny and oversight.”

According to McConnell, scrutiny should include this simple test: “Will the yet unwritten, reportedly trillion-dollar spending bill really create jobs and grow the economy — or will it simply create more government spending, more bureaucrats, and deeper deficits?”

The Republican leader is drawing a clear line in the sand. Okay, good. But the GOP has got to do more. It must start talking about tax cuts to grow the economy. And it must get back to the supply-side by talking about lower marginal tax rates on individuals, businesses, and investors.

We don’t need bailout nation. Nor do we need the government picking winners and losers in a massive, Keynesian, new-New Deal spending extravaganza. And it’s not Obama’s middle-class tax cut that’s going to get us out of this economic jam. At best his vision is incomplete. But at worst his aversion to successful earners and investors is a real obstacle to full economic recovery.

from here (PDF)

by Phil Johnson

...In my message that morning a decade ago, I pointed out that the spirit of that kind of panic-mongering was 180 degrees at odds with a whole string of Jesus' commands in Matthew 25-33. I mostly just explained the biblical text.

I admit I wasn't prepared for the reaction I got that morning. There was a smallish group of people in the church who were fully into the Y2K hysteria, and they approached me in a phalanx as soon as the service was over. The guy who would have been their spokesman (if his wife hadn't kept interrupting him) was so angry he was red in the face and spitting when he talked. He said he was going to meet with the elders and demand equal time to tell the people of Grace Church they needed to start stockpiling food and preparing for the looming crisis. He likened me to me a holocaust denier.

I stood there and listened to them for ten minutes or so until they began to calm down a bit. I let them talk and did not interrupt, except to ask how they thought Matthew 6:25-34 applied to our society in 1999.

As the spokesdude began to lose some of his steam, he said, "Look: all I know is that if you're wrong, you are guilty of placing the people of our church in mortal jeopardy by not encouraging them to stockpile food and prepare Y2K bunkers. But if I'm wrong, the worst that will happen is that I will have to come back and apologize to you for losing my temper."

"Will you do that?" I asked.

...more

I don't see a theological "argument" anywhere in this piece. I see a lot of references to current societal norms -- but am not certain what that has to do with the practices of the church. And the historical example of the "abbess" is precisely the wrong example as the abbess was not purporting to be ordained and is, in fact, the perfect example of women in leadership and "rising to heights of power" -- if that's what this has come down to -- without ordination.

From the Times Online, where there is more:

Senior politicians are in favour of breaking up the all-male enclave of the 26 bishops in the House of Lords, the cleric tipped to become Britain’s first female Anglican bishop believes.

Canon Jane Hedges says that there is increasing discomfort at the highest levels of the Establishment that the power wielded in the Lords by bishops is entirely in the hands of men.

As Canon Steward at Westminster Abbey, she is in a position to know. She has access to the corridors of power and has met nearly everyone at the highest levels of the Establishment, from the Queen and the Prime Minister down.

In an interview with The Times, Canon Hedges, 53, said: “We pick up from parliamentarians that there would be strong support for women bishops.”

Unlike some male bishops who have recently attacked the Government for pursuing economic policies that have contributed to the country’s financial woes, she is also urging a more conciliatory response to the recession. She believes that worshippers should use the unique status of the established Church, the only institution with a presence in every parish, to help to rebuild a sense of community and encourage people to help each other.

Doesn't the 12/50/1000 standard for dioceses penalize small parishes?

The question refers to Canon 1 of the Provisional Canons of the Anglican Church in North America which reads:

“A diocese, cluster or network is a grouping gathered for mission under the oversight of a bishop consisting of a minimum of twelve congregations with an Average Sunday Attendance ("ASA" calendar year) of at least fifty each and a collective ASA of at least 1,000. These requirements may be modified on a case-by-case basis by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the Provincial Council.”

The Canons and Constitution are designed to encourage the growth and development not only of existing dioceses, networks, and clusters (I'll be using one word, “diocese” from this point on, because dioceses, networks and clusters are used as equivalent terms) but also to provide incentives for the creation of new ones. The hope is that congregations across North America will form regional and/or theological affinity groups for the purpose of growing into a diocese and applying for representation in the Provincial Assembly.

But unless some kind of measurable standard for the size and shape of dioceses is established at the outset there could be at least tfour negative consequences.

First, the Provincial Assembly (in which every ACNA diocese is represented by a minimum of a bishop two clergy and two members of the laity) could easily cease to fulfill its representative function. Delegations from dioceses with say 10 parishes of less than 20 people at worship each might have the same legislative clout as delegations from diocese with 15 parishes of over 60 worshipers apiece.

Second, the legitimacy of the province could be called into question by the inclusion of paper “dioceses” in the Provincial Assembly. There is an unfortunate tendency among some Anglican groups to consecrate bishops for and form “dioceses” comprised of small numbers of small congregations. A province made up of “dioceses” like this would be more pretense than province.

Third, there could be a proliferation of bishops. The unregulated proliferation of bishops or, for lack of a better phrase, “episcopal inflation” plagues conservative Anglican bodies in North America. Some bishops exercise their “jurisdiction” over little more than a handful of parishioners. Episcopal inflation within an ecclesial body tends to de-legitimize the body as a whole and produce damaging cynicism in onlookers both within the and outside the organization.

Lastly, the ACNA is presently made up of a number of existing Common Cause jurisdictions that hold to a variety of sometimes conflicting theological principles. Without measurable standards for the creation of dioceses, jurisdictions could be accused of “stocking” the Assembly for the sake of gaining legislative power.

The benefits of the 12/50/1000 standard are fairly evident by contrast with the negative consequences that have already been described, so I'll name only a few of that are not implied above. The 12/50/1000 standard:

1.Promotes unity in the ACNA through the breakdown of existing jurisdictions. For the first few years after the formal establishment of the ACNA, jurisdictions like CANA and the REC will be formally represented on the Provincial Council. Afterwards, the Provincial council will be elected by the delegates to the Provincial Assembly. Representation in the Assembly, from the start, will be by diocese, in accordance with the 12/50/1000 standard, not jurisdiction. CANA, for example, will not be represented as CANA. Instead each group within CANA meeting the 12/50/1000 standard will apply for representation on the Assembly. If successful, the various jurisdiction blocs within ACNA will, over time, melt away and dioceses will become the building blocks of the province

2. Provides for honest self-assessments. Some have questioned the use of Average Sunday Attendance to measure the size of a congregation and diocese. The ASA standard is not perfect. My own congregation, for example, probably has about 110-115 regular worshipers, people who attend at least twice a month. But our present ASA is around 90-100 because a good portion of our regulars have jobs that require them to work on Sundays and others are college students who go home for weekends and holidays. So ASA does not provide a perfect measure of a congregation's size and health because the actual numbers can be depressed by various circumstantial absences but it far exceeds the other commonly used measures. “Membership” and “Communicant” numbers are far too unreliable. Many congregations boast membership numbers that dwarf the actual worshiping congregation. The temptation for leaders to console themselves with membership numbers while the actual Sunday worship crowd dwindles is great. ASA provides an honest assessment of size and health in precisely the venue that matters...the pews. And it will hopefully discourage mission complacency on the part of highly endowed, high membership parishes.

3.Creates incentive for newly forming dioceses. The 12/50/1000 standard provides a goal toward which any group of congregations, anywhere in North America, organized regionally or by theological affinity can strive. Once the 12/50/1000 measure is met a grouping of congregations willing to live within the Constitution and Canons of the Province can apply with great confidence for representation in the Provincial Assembly.

Finally, some have mistakenly assumed that the 12/50/1000 somehow prevents dioceses from including small parishes and congregations as “congregations” or “parishes” in their polity. This is not true. The standard has nothing to do with the internal definitions or standards for parishes within various dioceses. It is assumed that dioceses that meet the 12/50/1000 standard will include any number of smaller congregations. The standard is s provincial measure only. It does not define or describe what constitutes a parish on the diocesan level.

The 12/50/1000 standard, then, is not a “penalty.” Rather, it is a measurable way to ensure the legitimacy, quality, and the mission focus of dioceses within the new province and the province as a whole.

From The Telegraph:

The poll of General Synod members found that only half of them would support the compromise deal proposed by the Church.

After years of bitter wrangling over the issue, a report was published last week that advocated creating a new class of clergy to cater for traditionalists who refuse to accept women's ordination.

However, 41 per cent of respondents said they would not back such a solution, and a further eight per cent said they were undecided.

Figures on both sides of the debate argued that providing "complementary" or "flying" bishops for opponents of female bishops was unacceptable.

While traditionalists said that this did not represent a satisfactory safeguard, supporters of women bishops claimed it is too great a concession.

The overwhelming majority of the Synod - 70 per cent - believe that Anglo-Catholic priests will leave the Church if the current proposal becomes law.

Earlier this year more than 1,300 clergy, including 11 bishops, warned that they would consider defecting from the Church if they do not receive proper safeguards when women become bishops.

One of the top lawyers in the nation in the battle to protect traditional marriage, historically Christian lifestyle choices, parental rights and the key freedoms provided by the U.S. Constitution is warning that there eventually could be no lawyers left to take up those disputes.

That's because of a recommendation before the State Bar of Arizona – the organization that licenses attorneys – to require all new lawyers to swear they won't let their personal religious perspective on homosexuality affect their representation of any client. Mathew Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, warns that the proposal is just the "tip of the iceberg."

According to reports in Arizona, the state bar is considering a major change to its existing oath that requires lawyers to affirm they won't "permit considerations of gender, race, age, nationality, disability or social standing to influence my duty of care" to clients.

The proposal in Arizona is to add "sexual orientation" to that list.

The concept would demand that Christian lawyers affirm they would pursue child custody cases for lesbians and "marriage" rights for homosexuals just as they would pursue any other issue for clients, regardless of their religious perspective.

Not agreeing to the demand would end a Christian lawyer's career before it even starts, since attorneys cannot practice law without bar association permission.

Already, several dozen attorneys have sent a letter objecting to the plan, and concern has been raised by the online Catholic.org report.

"Are these lawyers going to be excluded from their profession because of their religious beliefs? Or will they have to give up their beliefs in order to continue practicing?" the report asked.

The entire article can be read here.

From here, where there is more:

What Maltby neglects to tell her readers at this point however is that that votes in 1993 introduced women priests on the understanding that the doctrinal discernment in this area was not yet complete and that the Church of England, as part of the wider catholic church, was in a period of reception as regards this innovation. That meant that the Act of Synod and accompanying documentation explicitly acknowledged that those who objected to the ordination of women on theological grounds did so (and still do so) with integrity and as fully participating members (and clergy) of the Church. There was therefore absolutely no "theology of taint" intended by the provisions for discenting parishes and furthermore, the Synod understood the necessity for such provision.

And it’s worth pointing out here of course that there are plenty of us opposed to women’s ordination who have no issue with male bishops who have ordained women. We have, after all, read Article 26:

Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.

Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty, by just judgment be deposed.

On with Maltby:

The point is this: I have a very ‘high’ view of the Eucharist – if my bishop does not share this view, by the reasoning that gives us complementary bishops, I should be entitled to a bishop who agrees with me for surely Eucharistic theology is as important as disputes over ordination. But no. From disagreements over the Eucharist, the Bible, even the theological meaning of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we Anglicans feel no need to haul in a complementary bishop.

Not even in the slightest. The Anglican position on the Eucharist from the Articles can be easily seen:

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

It’s very clear that if you believe in transubstantiation and yet assent to the 39 Articles you are perjuring yourself, pure and simple. In the same way, to take a Zwinglian view (that the elements are only ever bread and wine and do not in any sense becomes tools by which we receive from Christ in the Eucharist) is also proscribed by the first paragraph of the Article. So the Anglican position is actually rather clear - what happens at the Lord’s Table is neither simply a memorial nor the magical transformation of the elements into Christ himself, but some other mystery somewhere between these two rejected heresies. Many priests like myself are more than happy with such a position, and for those who believe that doctrine cannot be expressed in such a manner (the denial of what is not true rather than the explicit affirmation of what is true), then they need to take another read of the Athanasian Creed.

So back to Maltby. It’s very clear that the Anglican Church has settled its mind as to what occurs on the Lord’s Table, but furthermore, it has also decided that no provision needs to be made for those who might afterall believe something slightly different to their Bishop in this regard (for example my Bishop might take a position more akin to Calvin, I one more akin to Cranmer or Hooker). It has however decided that since the final discernment as to whether it is correct to ordain women has not been made, it is perfectly acceptable to make provision in this regard for those who object to the 1993 innovations.

It is therefore simply incorrect for Maltby to argue that "if my bishop does not share this view, by the reasoning that gives us complementary bishops, I should be entitled to a bishop who agrees with me". The Articles show very clearly that on the matter of the economics of the Eucharists there are incorrect interpretations and there are correct interpretations (or to be more precise, there are interpretations that are not incorrect). On the matter of women’s ordination however the Synod has clearly argued that there is no one valid correct interpretation (we are in a period of reception) and that therefore allowance can and should be made for those who object to the innovation.

On to the killer paragraph:

Why is that? One is left with the sad conclusion that the draft legislation and its code of practice isn’t really trying to deal with genuine theological difference – the Church of England has that in abundance – it is trying to deal with women. I don’t blame the hard working members of the drafting group for this – this reflects state of the Church of England. Women are the problem, not a gift, which needs a solution. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘complementary’ as ‘completing and perfecting’. What, I wonder, could possibly be ‘incomplete’ about a woman in episcopal orders (answers on a post card, please)? Maude Royden, the first Anglican woman to preach in the Church of England in 1919, sparking enormous controversy at the time (as it still would in Sydney), once remarked ironically ‘I was born a woman and I can’t get over it’. The Church of England, it would appear, bereft of any irony, cannot get over it either.

Maltby’s argument descends to the usual position of those who object to the objectors - that they are afterall just misogynists and the provisions being made for them pander to such prejudice. And really, one cannot fail to see why she should resort to such a response, because she doesn’t use Scripture in her argument and the procedural / ecclesiastical objections she raises are simply incorrect. The only way therefore to argue against those who have genuine theological and ecclesiastical objections to women’s ordination and consecration is to allege that our objections are not afterall theological but stem from prejudice. If we can be portrayed as prejudiced and bigotted against a certain group then it becomes much easier to demonise us and dismiss our arguments, not on the basis of good Bible study or reasoned ecclesiology but simply because our viewpoint is not acceptable in the enlightened 21st Century.

I met April Dobbs some years ago. She is a conservative Episcopalian attending St. John's, Roseville, in the Diocese of Northern California. Looks like she's been busy!

[Received via email]

We (Rick and April Dobbs) first visited Kabale, Uganda, in August of 2006 as part of a Sister Parish program within the Episcopal Diocese of Northern California. We were unprepared to be so moved by the people, and especially children, of Uganda. We met so many orphans, many living with relatives who were already struggling to live day to day. We found out there are over 1 million orphans living on the street, and there was no orphanage in the Kabale area. We founded a non-profit, Shepherd’s Love, to provide fund-raising for the building of the orphanage (and other projects in the future, God willing). God provided us with the opportunity to build Twinomujuni Orphanage with the help of Rev. David Rurihoona and his son, Fred Rurihoona. Twinomujuni Orphanage will house up to 64 children and 10 infants, providing food, shelter, schooling, religious instruction, medical care. Most important, Twinomujuni Orphanage will provide love, nurture and a family atmosphere for children who have never had those things. Shepherd’s Love is non-denominational.

Twinomujuni Orphanage
Now built and licensed, Twinomujuni Orphanage began accepting children December 1, 2008.
For a donation of $50.00/month, (about $1.75/day) you can sponsor a child to live there.

Lent & Beyond, the Anglican prayer blog, continues to do great work tracking Anglican events -- check out their January calendar.

Imagine a fan so full of admiration that he takes your name and moves into your house. Your family has always tried to reach out to others and so you allow him to stay with you as an act of kindness.

Weirdly, after this fan moves in he becomes quite critical. He decides that many of your costumes and ways are unworthy of the family name and begins to demand that you change them. Your own children stop coming home, because the interloper has become so obnoxious.

At that point, charity finally exhausted, you demand that he leave. He then barricades himself in his room, which he points out you have called "his room," and refuses to leave. He calls you a false and hateful person who has missed the "spirit of the family." Neighbors who have not followed the situation wonder why you are being so mean to a family member. You simply wish that he would go form his own family and leave you in peace.

This story might help a neutral observer to understand what is happening in American Anglicanism.

Over the last half-century, the American Church has become an embarrassment to the global Church. They ceased to be Anglican in any meaningful sense, or in some cases even Christian, and the rest of the Anglican world finally decided to clean house. Certain people hijacked the American Anglican "family name," but had no real ideological connection to the historic faith.

The world is telling them to go find their own house.

The entire article is here.

H/T: Transfigurations

Preached at S. Pauls upon Christmas Day. 1626.

The whole life of Christ was a continual passion; others die martyrs, but Christ was born a martyr . . . His birth and his death were but one continual act, and his Christmas-day and his Good Friday are but the evening and morning of the one and the same day.

A Sermon by John Donne

This article made me think of a comment on a thread last week about the self-defensive actions of Israel. Are these people really that uninformed or are they seeking to deliberately misrepresent the facts. It saddens, but does not surprise, me to know that the PB agrees with these protestors. My experience in the Episcopal Church has taught me that otherwise good people will buy into a load of crap if it is packaged prettily and brought into the room very slowly. It amazes me that anyone who has the ability to read and think can believe the propaganda that Israel is the aggressor. They have conveniently forgotten that it is not Israel who is targeting citizens at coffee shops and riding on buses. There is a huge difference between being the aggressor and defending your right to live in peace. I pray that something happens to help them realize the facts but the aforementioned experiences in The Episcopal Church tell me that is not likely to happen.

The ugly face of Israel and Jew hatred was revealed on the streets of Fort Lauderdale, Florida last week as hundreds gathered to demonstrate against Israel's self-defensive war against Gaza's Hamas terror group.

Up to 300 men and women, white and black, Arab and Caucasian, teenagers and gray-haired, spewed their venom at the Jewish state.

According to Tom Trento, a concerned American citizen who mingled among the demonstrators, filming them and then posting the video on YouTube, the gathering at a busy intersection of a main street boulevard, was protesting Israel and American support of Israel.

"This was not Gaza, it was not Paris, it was not London, it was not even Detroit," the horrified Trento said on commentary following the video. "This was Fort Lauderdale, Florida!"

Wearing trademark checkered PLO kaffiyeh head dresses, the anti-Israel demonstrators wore and waved banners sporting slogans ranging from "Stop US aid to Israel" to "Nuke Israel."

It's "time to go!" yelled a man through a megaphone. "Occupation is a crime," bellowed another, apparently unaware that Israel three years ago ended completely its "occupation" in Gaza, and was only fighting the Arabs there today because they had turned the Strip into a mecca for terrorism.

As the crowd grew more verbal, the language became uglier.

"You are losers - losers," a young woman shouted, addressing a small group of about 18 Israel supporters standing outside the First baptist Church on the other side of the road.

"Your mother is a whore," another screamed, then began to chant: "Nuke, nuke Israel. Nuke, nuke Israel," followed by "Go to hell; go to hell; go to hell!"

Another woman, wearing a headscarf, shouted: "Go steal other lands. Go! Murderers! Go back to the oven! You need a big oven."

Here is a video of the demonstration if you can bear to watch it.

Today, after the service and immediately prior to the dismissal, Father Rob Hartley of St. Johns, Clearwater, announced his resignation from The Episcopal Church. The Senior Warden and remainder of the vestry also announced their resignations.

St. John's, Clearwater, was a mission of The Diocese of Upper South Carolina and had experienced steady growth since 2003.

They will be establishing a CANA congregation in North Augusta, SC, with some 60 congregants, and have acquired access to temporary facilities for offices and worship.

Rob is a faithful priest and a friend, and I am deeply sorry for his departure. What a pleasure it has been to get to know him.

Rob has struggled with his ministry within The Episcopal Church for some years now. From my own perspective, in observing his struggle and the instigating factors of that struggle, the decisions -- and not merely the most obvious one -- of the General Conventions of 2003 and 2006 indicated a departure from the Christian view of the primacy of Holy Scripture and the person of Christ for the majority of the leadership at the highest national levels of The Episcopal Church. This was deeply troubling to Rob.

Beyond his struggle with his ministry in The Episcopal Church, there was his belief that the diocese of Upper South Carolina had not stood sufficiently or publicly against the new direction of the national leadership of The Episcopal Church. The lack of a diocese with a clear and strong identity to counter the stances of The Episcopal Church at the national level was also deeply troubling to Rob.

I wish Rob and his congregation well. And I wish my diocese, the diocese of Upper South Carolina, well.

How good and pleasant it is
when brothers live together in unity!

It is like precious oil poured on the head,
running down on the beard,
running down on Aaron's beard,
down upon the collar of his robes.

It is as if the dew of Hermon
were falling on Mount Zion.
For there the LORD bestows his blessing,
even life forevermore.

Psalm 133

Read all about the investigation here:

What happened to the Confession of Sins at the Episcopal Church of Our Saviour? It seemed to have disappeared on Christmas Eve from the 10:30 pm service.

Looking for clues I went around asking questions.

One of the answers is hidden in the back of your Prayer Book,

"Q: What is required of us when we come to the Eucharist?

A: It is required that we should examine our lives, repent of our sins, and be in love and charity with all people." (Catechism BCP pg. 860)?

That kinda sounds like a requirement to me.

How did we get to the time where we can drop the Confession before receiving the Eucharist?
Well, it just took a few well placed strokes of the pen. Some of the alterations in the 1979 BCP were too subtle for those of us in the pews to notice, but one of them was to allow the confession to be omitted "on occasion."
The 1928 Prayer Book instructions were unambiguous

"Then shall this General Confession be made, by the Priest and all those who are minded to receive the Holy Communion, humbly kneeling."

From Compass Direct News:

Chinese police detained house church leader Zhang Mingxuan, along with his wife Xie Fenlang and co-pastor Wu Jiang He, at a police station in Hebei after a BBC journalist attempted to interview him on Monday (August 4).

International affairs journalist John Simpson phoned Zhang to request an interview, as required in a handbook given to journalists reporting on the Olympic Games in Beijing. Zhang agreed to the interview, but as Simpson traveled to meet him, police seized Zhang and his companions and moved them to a local police station.

When Zhang informed Simpson of their whereabouts using a cell phone, Simpson drove to the police station and shouted a few questions across the courtyard to Zhang, who was visible through an open window on the second floor of the building, as shown on BBC video footage.

Public Security Bureau (PSB) officials had banished Zhang and his wife from Beijing for the duration of the Games, fearing they would try to meet with visiting foreign officials. After forcing Zhang and Xie to leave their home and evicting them from several other temporary residences, police on July 18 entered a guesthouse where they were staying and drove them to Yanjiao in neighboring Hebei province.

A really delightful article in the Wall Street Journal on the glories of books:

I suspect reading is about to make a big comeback in America, that in fact we're going to be reading more books in the future, not fewer. It is a relatively inexpensive (libraries, Kindle, Amazon), peaceful and enriching activity. And we're about to enter an age of greater quiet. More people will be home, not traveling as much to business meetings or rushing out to the new jobsite. A lot of adults are going to be more in search of guidance and inspiration. The past quarter century we've had other diversions, often expensive ones—movies, DVDs, Xboxes. Books will fit the quieter future.

At any rate, 2008 was my year of reading furiously. I'm not sure why, nor why it involved a lot of rereading, a lot of going back to old texts as if I were on a hunt in which trails had to be retraced. I spent my youth reading novels, and learning life from them. Then at some point in my 40s, all I wanted was what was true. What happened in the war, at the battle, in that important life? I ask people my age, "Do you read mostly nonfiction now?" They almost always say: "Yes." Is this connected with age? Here's a twist: Lately I want to turn back to novels again.

I reread Edmund Burke and discovered Conor Cruise O'Brien's great biography of him. I was moved to see, or to notice for the first time, that Marie Antoinette had learned of Burke's stirring defense of her, and his portrait of her, before she died. Maybe that's how she could walk with such dignity to her death on the guillotine: because she knew she had defenders, and she knew they were well-armed. But the French Revolution continues its draw, I think because we sense in it—the heads on the pikes, the terrible dragging down of everything—such a dramatic telling of the demonic at work in history.

I read a lot of biographies this year. "Henry James, the Mature Master" by Sheldon M. Novick was very good, though I continue to wonder why James himself fascinates me when his work, actually, does not. The first volume of Alistair Horne's admiring and authoritative "Harold Macmillan" set me on a journey for Great Lives Within the Ends of Empires. Or maybe that journey got me to Macmillan. Whichever, the journey continues.

Just before Macmillan there was "The Duff Cooper Diaries," which gave me great pleasure. Cooper, the 20th-century British diplomat, was a man of real liveliness. He found life delicious when he wasn't depressed. He was utterly worldly and yet quite down to earth: Half the book is his waking up hung over and wondering how to explain his latest infidelity to the wife he adored. Then he'd go to lunch and stop Hitler. (Cooper's diaries helped me come down from Arthur Schlesinger's, a great treat of 2007. He was in his way so small-d democratic and bedazzled by celebrity that he'd write things like, At luncheon I questioned the legitimacy of Tonkin Gulf, and was delighted to see Ann-Margaret had come to see it the same way.)

Predictions from six NRO writers -- from which the predictions of one are excerpted below. See what you think:

Jonah Goldberg
The push for climate-change legislation will intensify as the Obama administration targets more dollars to “green jobs,” even though 2009 will be the coldest in years and the “temporary halt” of global warming will enter its second decade.

Some funny, some not so funny, from A New York Times front-page story will report that a panel of psychological “experts” has found that opposition to gay marriage is a mental illness.

Iran will announce it has a nuclear weapon (though it will be unclear if they’re telling the truth).

Barack Obama will denounce Iran’s news as “divisive.”

Iraq will continue to prosper (and the press will give Obama the credit), though fighting in the Kurdish north will grow more worrisome.

Rod Blagojevich will be sentenced to time served.

By the end of 2009, the biggest problem facing the U.S. economy will be rampant inflation.

The dollar’s weakness will cause liberals to argue for a merger between the dollar and the euro. All of the proposed names for the new currency will be silly enough to guarantee that the idea goes nowhere.

The Huffington Post and the Daily Beast will merge and become the Beastly Huffington.

— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and the author of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.

From the Telegraph:

In the straw poll of members of the General Synod, the Church's parliament, an overwhelming majority of those questioned said that the bishops were right to speak out.

The survey also uncovered serious concerns over the state of British society and Labour's lack of support for the family.

This newspaper questioned 71 members of the 467-strong Synod, one in seven of the total. Of those questioned, 86 per cent said the bishops had been "right to criticise the Government at this particular time".

Nearly half, 48 per cent, said it was time for a change of government, while 45 per cent agreed with David Cameron's claim that Britain is a "broken" society.

The findings follow a clash between the Church and the Government over accusations that its economic polices are "immoral".

Writing in The Sunday Telegraph, Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, says that the bishops were justified in condemning the Prime Minister's approach to "buying his way out of the recession".

He suggests that Labour would have been more open to such frank criticism under Tony Blair and has become less willing to cooperate with Gordon Brown as Prime Minister.

Below are a few of the questions and responses, but make sure you peruse the entire brief survey from the Telegraph:

Do you agree or disagree with David Cameron that Britain is a "broken" society?
Agree - 45 per cent
Disagree - 44 per cent
Don't know - 11 per cent

Are the bishops right to criticise the Government at this particular time?
Yes - 86 per cent
No - 14 per cent

Is it time for a change of Government?
Yes - 48 per cent
No - 41 per cent
Don't know - 11 per cent

Do you believe - as the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds claimed - that the Church is tarnished by its relationship with Parliament?
Yes - 9 per cent
No - 86 per cent
Don't know - 5 per cent