March 23, 2017

August 4, 2009


Is This the Stupidest Anglican Idea Ever?

If it’s not, it’s gotta be in the top 3:

Before giving up totally on the Anglican Communion, let’s have all the men—Rowan Williams, all the male Primates, all the male bishops, all the male priests, all the male laymen—take a vow of silence on this issue for a year and let the women of the Anglican Communion work on reconciling us to one another.

Let’s let the people—women—who really DO make up the largest numbers of Anglicans in the world work on finding a way we can all live together in love despite our differences.

Let’s make IAWN (International Anglican Women’s Network) the instrument of Communion.

Let’s do what Jesus did time and again. Empower these women. And then listen to them.

Wonderful things could result.

Well, um… no, they couldn’t. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to come up with a worse recipe for complete disaster.

For one thing, the IAWN is a collection of complete nutcases. Here’s just one example - the closing creed at an IAWN service in 1992:

We believe in God who carries us in her womb and gives birth to us;

who cradles us in her arms and feeds us at her breast;
and who teaches us to walk, and to walk together.

We believe in God who shows us in Jesus’ life and death that she dances in a child and beats with a drummer;
shines through the eyes of the youth;
who wanders with the landless and lives in the favelas;
who weeps with the children and suffers with the abused;
and who stands in solidarity with the oppressed.

We believe in God who says “I am becoming who I am becoming”;
who shatters our false idols and our incomplete images of the Holy;
who breaks the chains of our slavery to riches, consumerism, traditions, patriarchy, divisions, and fears;
who breaks the chains of our slavery due to sexism, racism, classism, illiteracy, poverty, oppression, post-colonialism, exploitation, militarism, and violence;
who challenges us to let go of the chains of slavery in our minds, and allows her transforming Spirit to flow freely;

We believe in God who calls us to celebrate and dance;
to scatter to all corners of the earth to do justice for all peoples;
to respect and embrace the whole of her creation;
to see ourselves in the other.

We believe in God who fills us with her power to do what is required of us!

So they believe in a lot of things, except for… hmmmm… what’s missing here… can’t quite put my finger on it…

For another, if women should be in charge of the “reconciliation” process because they make up the largest numbers of Anglicans in the world, then doesn’t it follow that the majority of this “reconciliation” group be made up of the particular kind of women who are in fact the majority in the Anglican Communion?

Of course it does. In which case, that would mean an African woman in her mid-20’s, with young children, in the provinces of Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, and Rwanda. Meaning: It ain’t gonna happen. This is, after all, Katie Sherrod’s idea, and there’s no way the white, western, privileged, aging-hippie set she represents is going to turn over any decision-making power to women who were brought to Christ - in the way real Christians are, not in the new-agey, syncretistic way Sherrod and her sisters operate - by men like Peter Akinola and Henry Orombi. No way, no how.


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

74 comments

“lives in the favelas”? m-kay….

In addition to what Greg wrote, the author assumes that somehow women are better than men. I like women better than men, but I’ve then again I’m a heterosexist. Any enterprise that assumes that everything will work because group A is present or group B is absent is pretty much doomed from the start.

The reason for the complete FAIL of such an idea is that the selection criteria is inherently flawed. Instead of selecting people on merit, they are selected on category membership. Any sufficiently large group of people will have an adequate number of loonies, moonbats and wingnuts to derail even the noblest endeavour.

I have just been informed by my wife, that I am not heterosexist, but heterosexy. I accept her amendment….

[1] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 8-4-2009 at 11:48 AM · [top]

I think it’s great!  Except with one twist.  Let’s get just the white people out of the process.

[2] Posted by Chris Molter on 8-4-2009 at 11:49 AM · [top]

#2, I could go for that…

[3] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 8-4-2009 at 11:49 AM · [top]

Yeah, you gotta love Katie’s “solution” to what she claims is the problem of one group oppressing another by systematic exclusion. What’s the solution? Why, systematic exclusion, of course! That’s just brilliant, Katie. Brilliant.

I have been baptized.

[4] Posted by Greg Griffith on 8-4-2009 at 11:55 AM · [top]

I wonder who Katie stole that idea from.

[5] Posted by Christopher Johnson on 8-4-2009 at 11:55 AM · [top]

Well, Chris, that *is* Jenny Te Paa in the header image at the IAWN site. Just sayin’.

[6] Posted by Greg Griffith on 8-4-2009 at 11:57 AM · [top]

GG is completely right.

Katie Sherrod is talking about white women like herself, and women who think like she does.  She is not talking about women in Rwanda. Or Nigeria. Or even women in Chicago who don’t subscribe to her point-of-view.

I am just relieved when I read something by Katie Sherrod that she didn’t plagerize.  That at least is a step in the right direction.

I have been baptized.

[7] Posted by DietofWorms on 8-4-2009 at 12:02 PM · [top]

Have any of these people ever worked in an all-female office, or attempted to supervise an all-female staff?  I’ll bet that even in lefty radical feminist Anglican-land there are some who still haven’t outgrown middle school.  We women have our problems; they’re just generally a different set than the men’s.

[8] Posted by Katherine on 8-4-2009 at 12:04 PM · [top]

Katie Sherrod.  Katie Sherrod.  Katie Sherrod.  Where have I heard that name before…....
Oh I remember. 
Wow.  She really doesn’t like men.

[9] Posted by Jackie on 8-4-2009 at 12:04 PM · [top]

I think it would be a better idea to have Katharine Jefferts Schori, Bonnie Anderson, Gene Robinson, Susan Russell (and everybody else connected with Integrity, the Chicago Consultation, Claiming The Blessing, etc. – sorry to repeat myself), Elizabeth Kaeton AND Katie Sherrod take a vow of silence on this issue for a year - “silence” to include court pleadings.

[10] Posted by Phil on 8-4-2009 at 12:14 PM · [top]

Hmmm….I could almost go for this, except for one part-
“Let’s make IAWN (International Anglican Women’s Network) the instrument of Communion.”
The last thing we need is a few TEC liberal women running things (more or less what already happens).  Let’s do it this way-
Form an actually democratic organization in which-
Each church gets to send 1 woman for each 100,000 women who attend on an average Sunday- so
TEC sends 4
CoE sends 6
Canada, Scotland, Ireland, Wales share 1
NZ and Australia get a couple between them.
Nigeria sends 100
Uganda sends 45
Sudan sends 15
well, you get the picture.
Of course, to be fair, men should be allowed a vote, even if all the reps are women.
Perhaps Jane Williams could chair the meeting.

[11] Posted by tjmcmahon on 8-4-2009 at 12:26 PM · [top]

#8, Katherine, et al, Cats are way easier to herd.

[12] Posted by john1 on 8-4-2009 at 12:27 PM · [top]

It’s a great idea.  The meeting should be held in a central location, easy for the majority to get to.  Kisangani would be perfect, unlike some out of the way place on the fringes of the Anglican Communion—New Jersey or Fort Worth for instance.

[13] Posted by Dorpsgek on 8-4-2009 at 12:35 PM · [top]

The most ridiculous part is that they think they actually represent women.

[14] Posted by Positive Phototaxis on 8-4-2009 at 12:35 PM · [top]

I do believe Jenny Te Pal is in the banner photo.  She is on the Covenant Design Team.  She seems to hold a great deal of power throughout the communion—seminary dean in New Zealand, etc… 
Last year, we were treated to her as a pre-diocesan convention speaker by the cathedral in Denver.  There, I learned that the WHOLE PROBLEM with the communion is MEN (not just white men either!).  You all wouldn’t believe…well you would…the number of “amens” and “yea that’s right” around the room.  The “elites” really do hate men—men even hate men!  Meanwhile, you bet your bottom dollar that a priest who is canonically resident, one Ephraim Radner, was not invited, and was not invited to speak ever when he lived here as an expert.  I just love the “inclusive” and “liberal” crowd. 

Speeches like that always remind me of the great baseball movie, The Natural.  I can just hear the sport’s psychologist say, “loosing is a disease…as dangerous as cancer…”  I wish I had pulled a Roy Hobbs—just got up and walked out.  I’ve gotten better at just getting up and leaving.  I’ve got plenty of sins to take to the cross without taking on the sins of the world.  So, IMHO, get up and walk out on these people that play this victim card all the time.  You can never please them, never be guilty enough for them, anyway.  They’ll just keep smacking anyone who will take it.

Sarcastically, maybe men need the substitutionary atonement but women do not? 

Seriously, preaching to the choir here, have women and children prospered in the wake of the sexual revolution?  Has widespread birth control, no-fault divorce, and the whole agenda furthered civilization, or lead to destabilization of families, increased out of wedlock births (which impoverishes women and children, and is a sub-standard situation for children to thrive), and given the power of demographics to Islamofacists?  Yes.  Yes.  and Yes. 
Itching ears…

[15] Posted by Theron Walker✙ on 8-4-2009 at 12:37 PM · [top]

Let’s let the people—women—who really DO make up the largest numbers of Anglicans in the world work on finding a way we can all live together in love despite our differences.

No, Katie, not in the world, only in your world.  You and TEC drove off most of the men (in many dioceses, not all) who have not renounced whatever is un-PC about their masculinity.

The majority of all Anglicans in the world, the real world, is likely much more balanced in gender as well as in other important ways.

[16] Posted by Milton on 8-4-2009 at 12:39 PM · [top]

Even if your not in TEC if you life in Fort Worth and do not have your head in the sand, you know Katie Sherrod. She became3 the self proclamed spokesperson for those who remained with TEC after November 08. Now she’s on the EC so I’m afraid those of you still in TEC will hear her creed for years to come. She makes Schori and Anderson look like wall flowers.

Sounds like a few of those who have already posted know somwthing of Katie’s background.

[17] Posted by bob+ on 8-4-2009 at 12:40 PM · [top]

Stupidest idea ever?  This is tough…can we get a Study Group appointed to look at it?

[18] Posted by Jeffersonian on 8-4-2009 at 12:45 PM · [top]

In a word….NO!
In a name: Ragsdale
Summary: Case Closed
Whatever they are smoking please do not entice my children to try it.
Intercessor

[19] Posted by Intercessor on 8-4-2009 at 12:57 PM · [top]

From this heresy, Good Lord deliver us!

[20] Posted by Denise on 8-4-2009 at 12:58 PM · [top]

I wonder what word they utter at the end of a prayer?

Half the world’s problems begin with men. (This is old)
Mental illness
Menstrual cramps
Menorrhagia
Menopause
Menace
Meningitis
And last but not least…MEN!

[21] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 8-4-2009 at 01:09 PM · [top]

“We believe in God who says “I am becoming who I am becoming”
Gotta love it!  So God is not the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.  We have an evolving God - perhaps originating in the same primordial ooze from whence Katie came herself and the result of some random intersecting of atoms? ether? imagination?

[22] Posted by DaveG on 8-4-2009 at 01:10 PM · [top]

I remember an Anglican priest in our diocese(the real one in San Joaquin) spoke of his mission residence in Uganda. People will walk for hours to arrive to service and the crowds can be in the thousands. Eucharist can take up to 4 hours so that all can receive Holy Communion Then they have to walk the distance back to their homes and villages filled with the joy of the Holy Spirit.
I would bet my paycheck that none of these Christians know who Katie Sherrod or TeaParty is.
Thank you Lord.
Intercessor

[23] Posted by Intercessor on 8-4-2009 at 01:25 PM · [top]

Speaking as a woman…
I find this suggestion, along with the kind of women who made this suggestion, to be utterly and completely offensive. 
Speaking as a woman…
I believe I have a moral responsibility to speak out on behalf of my brothers in Christ who are being robbed of the “right to be heard” in our modern church and culture.
Speaking as a woman…
I find salvation and not oppression, freedom from slavery, in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Don’t impose your own Pharaoh over my redeeming King.
And speaking as a woman…
I sincerely wish those women who choose to make the rest of us look like saps and/or shrill raging lunatics would sit down and shut up until such a time as they actually have something helpful and godly to say.

[24] Posted by Free Range Anglican on 8-4-2009 at 01:25 PM · [top]

Not even close to a Top 3 stupid idea Greg! Common, I mean of all the bad ideas TEC and the loony left have come up with, this ranks in your Top 3?!
I would love to see some sort of poll done to see what are the worst ideas TEC has come up with.
Some food for thought in no particular order. Please note that many of these ideas were acted upon.
- Ordaining Vicki Gene as a priest and then bishop.
- Installing Schori as PB.
- Suing for property that will be empty if TEC wins.
- Supporting anything coming from the UN.
- Thew Forrester- ordaining him
- Jack Spong- ordaining him
- Katie Sherrod- ordaining her
- Condoning homosexual sex but forbidding adultery. (HUH?!)
- Susan Russell- ordaining her
And the list goes on and on. I think I have shown that this idea by good ole’ Katie is nothing compared to some of these all time great instances of stupidity by TEC and the goulsih left.

Crusader44

[25] Posted by Crusader44 on 8-4-2009 at 01:35 PM · [top]

#24 Subscribe. 

She makes me feel slimed as a woman.  In no way do I agree with her, or her “creed”.  She gives me the “ICKS”!!!

[26] Posted by Crabby in MD on 8-4-2009 at 01:42 PM · [top]

Oh please, may I be on that committee, commission, study group, indaba, ubuntu, whatever?  Pretty please?
I promise I’ll take my Prozac first, and leave the boxing gloves at home.  I just want a shot at “reconciling” with Ms. Sherrod and her ilk….
BTW, admission to whatever event that they have in mind should be charged according to median household income….

[27] Posted by GillianC on 8-4-2009 at 01:48 PM · [top]

What a bunch sexists

[28] Posted by texex on 8-4-2009 at 01:49 PM · [top]

Crusader44,

FYI, Ms. Sherrod is a lay person.  I disagree with the entire list you offered although I think ordering KS might be a good idea, she has not to my knowlege sought access to the ordination proocess.  Contrary to some theories not all progressives are clerics.

FWIW
jimB

[29] Posted by jimB on 8-4-2009 at 01:50 PM · [top]

Whar I loved is that Mark Harris praised this post by Katie—talked about how great Katie was—and then immediately proceeded to give his opinions on a whole bunch of things. Uh, Mark, if you agree—shouldn’t you now start being silent?

Expect women will say that’s just like a man….

[30] Posted by Toral1 on 8-4-2009 at 01:55 PM · [top]

I am woman, hear me roar
In numbers too big to ignore
And I know too much to go back an’ pretend
‘cause I’ve heard it all before
And I’ve been down there on the floor
No one’s ever gonna keep me down again

CHORUS
Oh yes I am wise
But it’s wisdom born of pain
Yes, I’ve paid the price
But look how much I gained
If I have to, I can do anything
I am strong (strong)
I am invincible (invincible)
I am woman

You can bend but never break me
‘cause it only serves to make me
More determined to achieve my final goal
And I come back even stronger
Not a novice any longer
‘cause you’ve deepened the conviction in my soul

CHORUS

I am woman watch me grow
See me standing toe to toe
As I spread my lovin’ arms across the land
But I’m still an embryo
With a long long way to go
Until I make my brother understand

Oh yes I am wise
But it’s wisdom born of pain
Yes, I’ve paid the price
But look how much I gained
If I have to I can face anything
I am strong (strong)
I am invincible (invincible)
I am woman
Oh, I am woman
I am invincible
I am strong

FADE
I am woman
I am invincible
I am strong
I am woman

[31] Posted by Looking for Leaders on 8-4-2009 at 01:57 PM · [top]

What disgusting garbage she preaches!

[32] Posted by Cennydd on 8-4-2009 at 01:58 PM · [top]

But how are women going to run the Communion for a year and do laundry and clean house at the same time?

[33] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 8-4-2009 at 02:06 PM · [top]

#33, I take it you don’t expect your wife to be reading this?

[34] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 8-4-2009 at 02:09 PM · [top]

Not to mention making sammiches.

[35] Posted by Greg Griffith on 8-4-2009 at 02:20 PM · [top]

Interesting point Toral1 (#30) - This really should be adopted as an optional rule. All the “men” who agree with her should proactively implement the rule in their own lives. Those who can smell it without stepping in it… shouldn’t.

Tara #24

I believe I have a moral responsibility to speak out on behalf of my brothers in Christ who are being robbed of the “right to be heard” in our modern church and culture.

I’m afraid that you don’t realize that you’re making their point for them. See how superior women are to men? It took centuries for men to stand up and defend women who were being marginalized. Now that the roles are reversed… it only takes hours before some women are willing to stand up for the oppressed men!

In arguing against them you have proven them right. wink

[36] Posted by Positive Phototaxis on 8-4-2009 at 02:24 PM · [top]

I won’t say what is on my mind for fear of being banned…..and the other thing I’m thinking may take the tread where we all hate to go…..

[37] Posted by TLDillon on 8-4-2009 at 02:34 PM · [top]

#24 - Tara - THANK YOU!

These feminists are Un-women.  Anti-woman. 
Bitter.  Angry.  Wounded.  Acting out of the Fallen Flesh.  Unregenerate.  Blind. 

They have made an idol by trying to make God and the church over in their own image. 

Neither bears any resemblance to Mary, Ikon of holy womanhood, The Ikon of the Church.  Mary surrendered herself to the Word.  She allowed the Word to enter her and grow.  She faced shame, rejection, misunderstanding, even death because of her committment to the Word.  She nurtured the Word and gave it life.  Mary brought forth The Word, as the fruit of her own body and offered Him as food and life for her fellow human creature as she symbolically laid Him in a manger.

Mary is the model for womanhood and for the true life and role of the Church. 

We relate to The Word of God as we surrender and give our whole selves to nurture the Word and let it grow in us. 

Women respond to the Word differently than men.  We bring life as we reflect, ruminate and ponder and meditate upon the word in our hearts, the sword of the Word pierces our hearts, (the word for woman, Nequebah in Hebrew means pierced) as we allow it to grow in us. 

Anne+Kennedy’s sermons are perfect womanly reflections, giving life to the Word.  Matt+Kennedy’s sermons on the other hand, are manly sermons, bringing the Word to remembrance (Zawkar, male in Hebrew means to call to remembrance), preaching the principles, precepts.

Katie and TEC are preaching reflecting an unnatural, false manhood and womanhood,  reflecting an Ikon or image of the effeminite ineffectual male and of the dominating masculinized female.  What they are teaching is against the definitions, design in God’s Word and is incongruent with God’s image, the Holy Ikons written in Scripture. 

The Church and Her members are supposed to be living Ikons of Holy God, of His Truth, Love and Life, to bear His light into the world.  We cannot allow them to distort and darken these Ikons as they are doing.  Many are being led to perdition because of these rebels who reject the Word of God.  (Romans 1:18-32)

[38] Posted by Floridian on 8-4-2009 at 02:38 PM · [top]

discrimination is alive and well in TEc

[39] Posted by TLDillon on 8-4-2009 at 02:39 PM · [top]

How does one pronounce the acronym IAWN…seems like it would be ‘yawn.’  As an alternative to putting IAWN in charge, perhaps those making this proposal should give it a miss, and proceed directly to the “giving up totally” part.

wink

[40] Posted by tired on 8-4-2009 at 03:01 PM · [top]

Who they really need in charge in stead of IAWN are young people. Surely a mass meeting of (S)tereotypically (L)eftist (E)piscopal/(A)nglican (P)rogressive (Y)outh would also produce a conference of ubuntu and indaba and stuff. I mean the one follows the other, right?

[41] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 8-4-2009 at 03:05 PM · [top]

#40 Tired…With the proper inflection I have heard it pronounced as “I Own” as in I own your church property worth millions of dollars without paying one cent for it….
Intercessor

[42] Posted by Intercessor on 8-4-2009 at 03:15 PM · [top]

Another real woman wishes that real men of God would step up to the plate and take on the yoke of leadership.

This real woman knows that things run so much better in a church/parish setting when men are zealous for the Lord and His work. 

Take the lead, guys, and we will assist you (or follow) as the task/road requires.

[43] Posted by Jill C. on 8-4-2009 at 03:41 PM · [top]

I don’t think the tabernacle at my parish is big enough to hold a whole year’s worth of reserved Sacrament.

Or are we supposed to go an entire year without the Eucharist being validly celebrated?

[44] Posted by Athanasian on 8-4-2009 at 03:52 PM · [top]

I like this example better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO6DORwBzuA

[45] Posted by Festivus on 8-4-2009 at 03:53 PM · [top]

Perhaps the ladies of the IAWN need to watch this instructional video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8injvP1lJ8I&feature=PlayList&p=F164AA6F7F65C0CD&index=0

[46] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 8-4-2009 at 04:00 PM · [top]

Amen, (#43) Jill C!

[47] Posted by zana on 8-4-2009 at 04:02 PM · [top]

subscribe to #24 & #43

[48] Posted by Connie Sandlin on 8-4-2009 at 04:07 PM · [top]

[49] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 8-4-2009 at 04:20 PM · [top]

There is a deeper level of exclusion and discrimination than that mentioned by Greg already:
with promoting IAWN to be the agency goes the assumption that the members of IAWN would be the change agents, which means only those women who were or are enlightened enough to become members already.
My guess is that all of the Anglican women in the Communion who fit the description as average Anglican women would not, by IAWN standards, be enlightened enough.  Thus, they, IAWN exec comm, would speak for them.

[50] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 8-4-2009 at 04:25 PM · [top]

Lord have mercy. These ladies are not *able* to speak for me. In the last few days we have had several examples of how TEC “includes” by excluding. It’s terrible to deny gays the miter, but it’s OK to deny every man in the church and most of the women a voice? Where is the evidence that women are able to reconcile us? The notion that women are inherently more peaceful than men is a myth. When did Jesus “time and again” “empower these women”?

[51] Posted by oscewicee on 8-4-2009 at 04:42 PM · [top]

I am shocked, SHOCKED! and APPALLED at the number of men who have presumed to comment on this thread instead of pledging silence.  Do you not understand the proposal at all?  Instead of opening your mouths, you should be silent in church and be content to learn from your wives ... or girlfirends ... or significant others ... or whatever.  Surely this is the correct understand of Paul’s letter to Timothy.  Truly, you are all missing the point.

progressive carl ... ita.

[52] Posted by carl on 8-4-2009 at 04:48 PM · [top]

really?

[53] Posted by Calhoun on 8-4-2009 at 05:14 PM · [top]

I don’t know how well letting “the women of the Anglican Communion work on reconciling us to one another” would work.


I HAVE, however, seen the ladies of our Altar Guild working harmoniously and in a gracious, dolphin-like manner with the mother of the bride and maid of honor on the morning before a wedding at our parish…


Lord have mercy! Forget vestments, I thought we were going to need body bags by the end of the morning.

[54] Posted by Athanasian on 8-4-2009 at 06:05 PM · [top]

So this is pronounced like “yawn?”  Some jokes write themselves.

[55] Posted by Bill2 on 8-4-2009 at 06:20 PM · [top]

Actually, I have to disagree with you on that one, Greg.  The Episcopal Church is far too masculine in its identity.

[56] Posted by J Eppinga on 8-4-2009 at 06:45 PM · [top]

Is This the Stupidest Anglican Idea Ever?

No, here’s a stupider one:
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2009/08/new-push-for-samesex-marriage-gay-ordination-in-church-of-england.html#more
Let the outing begin in CoE?

[57] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 8-4-2009 at 06:46 PM · [top]

I would propose a new program, to be called “Cash for Clerics.”  I propose that we trade in clerics who emit too much hot air.  The more the hot air, the more credit you get on the trade-in.  So for example (and this is just an example for illustrative purposes only with no reference to any actual person, alive or dead), you could get 10,000 pounds for extremely erudite and urbane clergy like the Archbishop of Canterbury, whereas a cleric whose knowledge and preaching skills are limited to the Bible and orthodox Christian belief would go for, say, fifty pence. (It is quite possible that congregations will decide to keep those clerics with limited trade-in value.)

It’s a wonderful way to upgrade the ecological quality of the clergy throughout the Anglican communion, as well as making a meaningful contribution to fighting global warming.  Those clergy who are traded-in can take their pick of becoming delegates to the United Nations, members of the U.S. Congress, or doing late-night infomercials for Sham-Wow and other products.

[58] Posted by Jim the Puritan on 8-4-2009 at 07:20 PM · [top]

“Stupidest Anglican Idea Ever”... sounds like a great Jeopardy category.  I’ll take Stupidest Anglican Idea Ever for 500 please.

[59] Posted by Payton on 8-4-2009 at 07:34 PM · [top]

So where do I get a look in? And do you suppose that I shall get invited into the higher councils of the church of my birth and baptism? After this brief has been so signally ignored? Or was that because my spouse co-signed it, and that after all these years we still co-operate, not to say love each other?

[60] Posted by Dr. Priscilla Turner on 8-4-2009 at 07:41 PM · [top]

No, it’s the number one bad idea!

[61] Posted by Fr. K on 8-4-2009 at 09:02 PM · [top]

#7 . . . Katie Sherrod thinks . . .?  That’s news to me.

[62] Posted by Iona Pilgrim on 8-4-2009 at 09:07 PM · [top]

Greg, you realize that in accordance with one of the corollaries to Johnson’s Law an even stupider idea is bound to come along now that you’ve called this one out on its preeminent stupidity.

It’s like you guys won’t stop saying C’thulhu’s name out loud….

[63] Posted by Ed the Roman on 8-4-2009 at 09:44 PM · [top]

It wouldn’t be a bad idea for Sherrod to tell her husband to shut his pie hole at engagement parties. His nasty comment certainly did not bring out the peace pipe.  Neither one of those two will ever be nominated for the Anglican Peace Prize.

[64] Posted by hellcat on 8-4-2009 at 11:07 PM · [top]

I somehow don’t think +Robinson could/would do it. He would probably think it is a stupid idea as well. What do you do with the transgenders? Which camp would they fall into? Could they chose?
It gives a whole new meaning to ‘Welcome to the Episcopal Church”. You are welcome but if you are a man need to keep your month shut for a year. But keep you wallet open.

[65] Posted by martin5 on 8-5-2009 at 12:25 AM · [top]

I have just finished writing up the story of joining the Filipino Catholic organisation “Singles for Christ.”

Now, let me explain something about British culture.  The Feminist agenda hit the UK HARD in the 1960’s.  Indeed, I would say the social revolution of the 1960’s hit the UK harder than any other country.  As a result, women started to compete with men.  There was nothing that women would not compete with. It became an insult to hold a door open for them, give them chocolates, etc.  So, women entered the workplace – determined to complete with the men on their own terms.

Result?  Lots of very masculine women in power suits ‘fighting for women.’  Lots of rather confused, emasculated men. 

Further result?  Because women, in their hearts wanted a ‘real man’ but the women were already at the male level that existed before so sensitive kind, gentle guys were no longer ‘manly enough.’  Hence the saying (which did not exist fifty years ago) “Nice guys don’t get the girl.”  So the women became obsessed with ‘Type-A’ guys.  Only then they had to compete with them.  So the guys had to up their game to compete with the women who were competing with them in order to be attractive.  I didn’t help that social Darwinism took a clear hold over education as well, re-enforcing the competition for sex ethos.

Result?  A totally over masculine culture.  Women who despise their feminity, dress like men (or, more likely now like prostitutes as they are “in charge of their sexuality) and guys trying to be Heathcliff from “Wuthering Heights.”  It’s no surprise knife crime among children is going through the roof.  Mercy is becoming seen as weakness.

November 2001. I drop in on the SFC.  My jaw drops!  The girls are all dressed as… girls.  They look pretty. They are proud of their femininity.  The guys are caring, gentle and look after the girls.  The girls love it because they feel protected.  The girls take orders from the guys – the guys help out and are supportive.

It is, by UK terms, an ‘unequal pairing.’  But the guys can afford to nice and kind and gentle and still be regarded as men (the non-Christians who turned up in their bike leathers who ALWAYS had the girls in a Church cooing in the UK would scare an SFC Filipina off!) and the girls had the joy – yes – joy – of focusing on family, feeling looked after and protected by the husband without him having be a gorilla.

I have NEVER seen anything like it in the UK.

Eight years on down the road, married to an Indonesian, it still stands.  As the girls in the community say “We are proud of our feminity.  We rejoice in it.”  Yes, the feminist lobbies LOATH Asian girls!  The number of Brit guys I know who have given up on Brit women and have married Asians is no odds to anyone, not least because British women don’t want to marry.

Conclusion:  Sorry, there is such a things as two sexes.  Work within what the sexes are designed for, work with God’s plan and it works.  (And the girls in the SFC/CFC are VERY active and often work.  But they don’t COMPETE with the men on their terms.)

I’m not saying Filipinos, or Asians as a whole, do not compete and do not have very low periods.  But the teaching in the SFC/CFC supports the ‘old school’ Christian teaching of gender roles.  And it works!  It doesn’t in the UK because even where such is taught in the Churches no-one can extract themselves from the culture.

And that was one of the biggest reasons I joined up.

Feminism:  The pursuit of power and ‘fulfilment’ at the cost of love and happiness.  It’s smashed my country to pieces – along with other things.

[66] Posted by jedinovice on 8-5-2009 at 02:49 AM · [top]

This is not an “Anglican” idea, but a lunatic’s idea on how to gain even more power under the guise of helping the faith. Kind of like spending asking the 235 million of us to shell out THOUSANDS of dollars (each) in more taxes to “help out” the 35 million who “can’t afford” health insurance, thus assuring our tax dollars will be well used in the political campaign to keep the liberal left in power, for where else can you get such a large “war chest” to persuade a block of people to vote for you, because you put a chicken in their pot (with our tax dollars)...

Where’s the war paint?...

Live free or die…

[67] Posted by Amazed&Graced; on 8-5-2009 at 06:55 AM · [top]

TEC—The Exclusive Church, where men are not welcome.

All hail Asherah.

Geez.

[68] Posted by Restless Heart on 8-5-2009 at 08:42 AM · [top]

[69] Posted by C. Wingate on 8-5-2009 at 10:06 AM · [top]

A former Roman Catholic, now [by the grace of God] a member of the PCA, which grew out of the PC(USA) for similar theological reasons, and having close friends in TEC, it has been extremely difficult to watch the self-destruction of a once-great communion.  The good news is that my neighboring diocese in Ft. Worth has aligned itself with the African church; the bad news is that one of my best friends has made a decision through indecision.  Neutrality in this is not an option, just as staying in the Roman Church was not an option for me and my wife. 
I pray for my 7 siblings, including my priest brother, all of whom I love.  But trying to change Catholicism from within would be like trying to change the course of the Titanic from a rowboat.  Isn’t that what you face?  Ms. Sherrod, who lives not far from here, holds not a Biblical position, but a political one.  We are divided more because of values [which are what motivate her] than by theology.  Just as I pray for my Muslim and Hindu friends (with whom I often have reasoned discussions of our faiths), I pray for all those who try to undermine our faith from the Word-Faith preachers to heretics of various stripes.  And God isn’t finished with me yet either. 
The PCA holds to the five solas as your denomination once did, and as many of your members and parishes in the Anglican Communion obviously still do.  That is where you should start.  However, if you can’t find a church family there, we Reformed and still faithful Presbyterians invite you to join us.  Contrary to what Rome says, Protestantism is not in chaos; any of us who believe in the five solas (esp. saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to the glory of God alone, with the Bible not man as the sole authority) can fellowship with any other believers who hold to the same beliefs.  I pray that the Lord will rescue you from people like IAWN and others who would “tickle the ears” of those being led astray and return your church to orthodoxy, even if it means doing as we did, moving the faithful elsewhere under a new name.

[70] Posted by acaciadad on 8-5-2009 at 10:25 PM · [top]

^^^

Er, whilst I’m grateful that you left the Catholic Church on ideological grounds – it is good to be true to one’s belief -  and I don’t want to divert the thread so I’ll just make one comment…

You’ll have, er, difficulty, finding any Christian, anywhere, prior to the 16th Century who held to the 5 solas.  So, if the 5 solas = Christian, then there were no Christians prior to Luther (and, technically, not even him.)  Which makes Church history… interesting.

Still, I invite you to find those 5 sola Christians in the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 10th Centuries.

Really.  I did.  The result didn’t quite go as I expected mind you.

[71] Posted by jedinovice on 8-6-2009 at 03:34 AM · [top]

For the five solas prior to Luther, try St. Paul.

[72] Posted by acaciadad on 8-6-2009 at 01:45 PM · [top]

“For the five solas prior to Luther, try St. Paul.”

Sorry mate, that’s not an answer.  It’s an evasion.

That was not my question.  Where the true Christians in the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 10th centuries?

How come those taught by the beloved Disciple, John the Evangelist - the likes of Clement, Linus and Polycarp, speak not of the five solas?  How about Ignatius, or Laurence?  How about those monks and nuns that carried the faith in pagan Europe?  What about the desert fathers?

St Paul had his head cut off and everyone forgot the five solas for another 1,500 years?  “Whoops, sorry, it slipped our mind.  Still, nothing important, only the critera by which we are saved.  We kept the vestments!”

I went looking for the supposed proto-Protestant Church of the early centuries.  I was stunned to find Christians who spoke in more Catholic terms than the Pope!

In fact, my search was sparked by a strict (though good) brethren member who held the Eucharist was a pagan notion.  I put it to him that the early Church, however Protestant it might be (and I believed it was protestant) believed from the start in the True Presence.  So I took him, with his kind permission, through the historical sources.  I started at the 4th century.
“Ahh,” he said, “by then the Church had been paganised.”
So I went back to the 2nd century.
“Too late.”  He said.  “The Church had been paganised by then.”  I didn’t mention the Bible had not been compiled by then.
I went back to AD70.
“Yes, well, the Church was still throwing off its pagan background in those early days.”

????!!!???

If the sources were early - the Church had not thrown off paganism?
If the sources were late the Church had been paganised?!?

Talk about heads I win, tails you lose!  Of course, by the this logic, Pentecost had changed nothing.  The world remained pagan and Christianity was still born.  Those Nero fed to the Lions were really pagans who knew nothing of Christ. Which makes you wonder what the fuss was about.

Well, I wasn’t about to ignore the historical evidence.  What I had found actually shocked me and spurred me to find out once and for whether the early church was truly Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant.

The result was a surprise to me.

Now, I’m not looking to advocate the Catholic Church here.  This is a Protestant blog I approach with humility. But those who claim the Catholic Church is not Christian (heavily implied here) are cutting off the branch they are standing on.

If the five solas = Christianity then there were no Christians from St Paul to Luther.  Jesus’s mission was a complete failure until Luther turned up.  Sorry, Calvin really.
Now, you _can_ argue that a form of corrupted Christianity that equated to Catholicism ‘limped on’ but was genuine Christianity that could bring salvation but needed a ‘service pack.’  I would disagree but it would be a reasonable claim and the reformation becomes just that; a re-formation, and not a complete reboot. 

But, to hold that Christianity continued beyond AD70 latest, you can’t hold that the five solas = Christianity.

Better the Apostles or the Nicene creed.  Unless the Church was hopelessly paganised by then at which point you can’t even rely on Augustine.

As I say, I’m not selling the Catholic Church here.  I’m just pointing out that anti-Catholicism is illogical and unhistorical.  I also state that many good Protestants have seen me through thick and thin and I owe many good Protestants my spiritual life!  Vineyard especially helped keep me going when I was thinking about quitting the whole Christian thing.  I look forward to meeting many of my compatriots on this blog in Heaven, God’s grace, whether they swim the Tiber or not.  I also expect to find a fe desert fathers and a couple of non-five-sola Catholic saints up there too.

But I’m just crazy.

[73] Posted by jedinovice on 8-6-2009 at 02:59 PM · [top]

Vote “Yes” for women clergy.

[74] Posted by Hopper60 on 8-18-2009 at 10:29 AM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.