About

Anglican gallimaufry and other delectables.

Samizdat was the clandestine copying and distribution of government-suppressed literature or other media in Soviet-bloc countries. Copies were made a few at a time, and those who received a copy would be expected to make more copies. This was often done by handwriting or typing.

This grassroots practice to evade officially imposed censorship was fraught with danger as harsh punishments were meted out to people caught possessing or copying censored materials.

Vladimir Bukovsky defined it as follows: “I myself create it, edit it, censor it, publish it, distribute it, and [may] get imprisoned for it.”

My name is David Jenkins; I write this blog for my own entertainment and to poke fun at the religious establishment. As Kingsley Amis said: “If you can’t annoy somebody, there’s little point in writing”.

Note that all posts and comments here represent the views of their authors alone. In particular, the views expressed in comments are those of the commenter. They are not my views and should not be interpreted as such by virtue of their being allowed to appear on the blog.

The opinions in my posts and comments are not those of ANiC or the parish I attend even if they occasionally appear to coincidentally resemble them.

15 thoughts on “About”

  1. So? Why did you include this? Or, is this an Essentials’ plot to become more out of touch with the reality of the this world than they are?

    Reply ↓

  2. Mary,

    I’m not sure whether you are referring to the whole About page or the specific reference to Essentials. If the latter, it is to reinforce the point that this is my personal blog and I am not speaking on behalf of any organisation.

    That being cleared up, I find the suggestion that this blog is a plot rather quaint.

    Reply ↓

  3. I love your fan mail. I could imagine Christ and the Apostles receiving similar comments related to their teaching had the technology existed 2000 years ago.

    Reply ↓

  8. Re: “I write this blog for my own entertainment”

    Reminds me of the quote (along the lines of) “Freedom of the press belongs to the person that owns one”.
    I guess we all have the ability to own one now.

    Reply ↓

  9. Hello David,
    How do I send you an email? We are the “Free Anglicans” located in Hepworth Ontario. The building that we rent from the Town of South Bruce Peninsula for our Sunday Worship services is possibly going to be sold or domolished, and I would like to send you more information.
    In Faith,
    AMPisAnglican
    http://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/FileStorage/7F905D2667C74A08BAA93D424F84E340-Public%20Notice%20re%20Hepworth%20Community%20Centre%20April%2014,%202010.pdf

    Reply ↓

  11. Bill,
    I think I’ve commented on three of his articles, all from the Anglican Journal – you’re right I’m not particularly positive.

    I hadn’t seen the articles you link to and I’ve only had a quick scan but, from what I saw, it seems he takes a theologically orthodox approach to Christianity.

    Having said something good about his thinking, here I go again: In his section on 21st Century Anglicanism, I think he goes off the rails. It’s almost as if he is desperate to accommodate to the liberal drift of the church of which he is a member, in spite of his theological orthodoxy:

    1. Anglicanism is a way of being Christian, but not the only way of being Christian.
    2. Anglicanism is pastoral (as opposed to legal or moralistic).
    3. Anglicanism is liturgical (as opposed to confessional).
    4. Anglicanism depends on dialogue (it is dialectical).
    5. Anglicanism is catholic: it affirms the great teaching tradition of the universal church.
    6. Anglicanism affirms reason: an openness of mind, a toleration for diversity, a willingness to pursue truth without defensively claiming to possess it.
    7. Anglicanism respects experience: a readiness to adapt to changing circumstances; a willingness to revise accepted norms in light of contemporary knowledge.

    I’ve numbered his points; I would take issue with 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7. While in some contexts some of them could be innocent enough, in the context of the Anglican Church of Canada, I think they have been and are thoroughly noxious.

    Reply ↓

  14. Just discovered your site. Wonderful. Not sure who said it but someone in the past two months referred your site and at the same time said he saw The Anglican and The Journal as the Canadian equivalents of Pravda .

    Reply ↓

  15. David: There is a typo in one of your Category titles: “Aniglican Network in Canada” should read “Anglican Network in Canada”.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Reply