Total visitors right now: 92

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Spinning GAFCON: the smell of fear

Tuesday, June 24, 2008 • 7:26 am

Why, you might ask, do revisionists spill so much ink over what they seek to portray as an ineffectual, badly planned, narrow, schismatic conference that will have no impact and mean nothing in the end. Why not simply ignore it and go about your business? Fear. At least that is what it looks and smells like. Leftist bloggers and columnists reacting to GAFCON are corporately doing their best impression of a large quivering mass of fear. I am not sure what, exactly, they are afraid of (they’ve largely won things after-all) but when all your opponent can do is spew scorn, bitterness, and condescension, you know you’ve got them.

The revisionist spin, laid down almost as soon as GAFCON was announced, has been three pronged: 1. Exaggerate every error and portray every move as an error 2. Portray difference as discord and 3. Portray the conference leaders as bent on breaking with Canterbury despite their clear words to the contrary.

Why, you might ask, do revisionists spill so much ink over what they seek to portray as an ineffectual, badly planned, narrow, schismatic conference that will have no impact and mean nothing in the end.

Why not simply ignore it and go about your business?


At least that is what it looks and smells like.

Leftist bloggers and columnists reacting to GAFCON are corporately doing their best impression of a large quivering mass of fear.

I am not sure what, exactly, they are afraid of (they’ve largely won things after-all) but when all your opponent can do is spew scorn, bitterness, and condescension, you know you’ve got them.

I hope to address, eventually, all three prongs of the leftist spin but this morning I want to concentrate on the first prong: Exaggerate every error and portray everything as error. The “Gaffe” prong is helped along by the unfortunate acronym of the conference. And there have certainly been mistakes along the way—big ones. I think that it would have been of first importance, for example, to feel out the Bishop of Jerusalem and Archbishop Mouneer Anis before announcing the decision to hold GAFCON in Jerusalem and at least have a prepared response to the inevitable public disassociations that were ultimately and dutifully published by the Episcopal Church’s bishop in Jerusalem.

I’ve been here for about three days and so far GAFCON has been nothing short of a logistical miracle. A conference of this size in this location without the support of the local bishop would normally take at least a year to organize. The GAFCON people have done it in a matter of months and thus far the meetings, talks, transportation, and tours have gone off flawlessly.

The supposed PR “gaffes” that Mark Harris discusses here are more figments of fevered leftist tripe and imagination than reality. 

It is not, for example, a “gaffe” to put Susan Russell on a do-not-admit list. It’s a feature.

Secondly, the reporting of the exchange between the advocate for gay sex and Archbishops Orombi, Akinola, and Jensen has been atrocious. There is both video and audio of the exchange. It is not difficult to follow the line of inquiry. 

When Archbishop Orombi asked for evidence from the advocate of gay sex that any bishop associated with GAFCON provinces advocates violence toward homosexual people, the advocate for gay sex provided none. Instead he put forward an example of people who claim to have been beaten raped in African prisons. Yes, lots of people, gay and straight, have suffered that sort of brutality in both African and American prisons. It is a terrible thing. But the Archbishop asked for evidence of any GAFCON bishop advocating violence against homosexual people, not for evidence of the violence itself. It is understandable that Archbishops Orombi and Akinola were confused at this point. The ground had shifted under their feet.

Then the New York Times reporter pipes up with the “when was the last time you beat your wife…” question. “I haven’t heard you condemn violence against homosexual people.” (paraphrase)

Of course you didn’t. Why should you?

The advocate for gay sex began with a public accusation, failed to provide any evidence, and brought up instead a horrifying example of violence.

And the New York Times slams the archbishops for not condemning the horrifying example of violence.

Me: “So Presiding Bishop Schori, why do you support the imprisonment of dissenting rectors?”

PB: “I don’t.”

Me: “Yes you do”

PB: “Can you name anyone from the Episcopal Church who supports that?”

Me: “Sure I can. Just last month in Canada a pastor was fined $7000.00 for preaching that homosexual behavior is condemned in scripture.”

PB: “But do you have any evidence that this was something the Episcopal Church advocates?”

New York Times: “I did not hear you condemn the imprisonment of dissenting rectors.”

The problem is that some of the leftist press operations have arrived with their headlines already written. “Anglican Schismatics Hate Gay People and Their Pets” and they interpret everything that happens through that lens.

This was not a “gaffe”. It was not a forced error. It was a headline grabbing accusation manufactured by the gay sex advocate and exploited by the New York Times reporter who seems unable to follow the logic of an exchange.

Finally, many revisionist sites are in mid-whine that GAFCON is a conference and not just a pilgrimage. This complaint is rather baffling. No one has ever said GAFCON was only a pilgrimage. It is, in fact, a pilgrimage, but not a mere pilgrimage. One need look no further than the acronym itself: “Global Anglican Future CONFERENCE”.

I’ve known for some time that our revisionist friends are hopelessly ill-equipped to deal with questions of logic and reason but I did assume that they could read.

Of course GAFCON is a Conference and of course things will be done and decided and acted upon. But GAFCON is also a pilgrimage. The decisions we make here will be informed by our time of prayer at the holy sites and guided by God’s Word written.

96 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook

I can smell the fear all the way over here in Wales!

[1] Posted by Martin Reynolds on 06-24-2008 at 08:04 AM • top

I have noticed reaction to GAFCON seems to look like, I been surprised by the amount of coverage on the reappraisers’ blogs.

As for the NYT’s questions and/or the smell of fear ... I think 2 Cor 2:15 comes to mind of how the same can be either a sweet aroma or foul stench. We sometimes forget that Christ is a stumbling block and the Gospel is actually offensive because it deals with our sin.

[2] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 06-24-2008 at 08:10 AM • top

The first thing a state does when it transforms itself into a worker’s paradise is seal the borders. Not to prevent illegal immigration but to keep the workers from leaving. True believing radicals can not handle competition.

Since the CoE, ACC and TEC can not prevent people from leaving, the only thing left to do is ridicule, mock and otherwise attempt to diminish any alternatives to their brand of false witness.

As far as seculer media, no other group is so concerned with being up to date than reporters. Add to that a need for controversy to increase sales or embiggen ratings and a group with the attention span of blow flies, and you get a media that by and large has an interest in reporting on trouble. Don Henley’s song “Dirty Laundry” pretty much still describes the main stream media.

The other side to that is that fewer and fewer people trust the MSM for anything, much less news. The future of news will likely be unfiltered and amateur, like Kevin Kallsen at GAFCON or Michael Yon in Iraq or Zombietime in San Francisco.

As fresh as a blushing June bride.

[3] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 06-24-2008 at 08:12 AM • top

I pray the presentations and videos are published as a conference proceedings and in various formats for self-study and discussion.

Having this information centrally available on the web would be enlightening contrast to the writings of the revisionists.

[4] Posted by Dr. N. on 06-24-2008 at 08:15 AM • top

If there is any fear here, it’s certainly not from the liberal side, else why would you feel the need to post this defence of GAFCON? As you say, what have they to fear? It’s easy to portray the media as evil liberals out to get you, but when you’re getting uniformly poor coverage from ALL the main UK press (Times, Telegraph, Guardian & Independent), who are by no means all ‘liberal’, then you know you’re in trouble. You’ve been able to post virtually no positive reports from the press on SF since it began.

As for the press conference issue, at least get your facts right. The ‘NYT’ reporter is actually Riazat Butt of the UK Guardian. And if it’s just a misunderstanding why not post the full transcript of the relevant parts on SF for all to see and form their own conclusions, rather than the poorly transcribed version you have up? It’s freely available.

I shall now retire. Let the mocking commence! :-D

[5] Posted by Mick on 06-24-2008 at 08:24 AM • top

I’m not at all wedded to ++Canterbury.  But one thing I do like about GAFCON’s decision not to split is it makes all those throwing around the s-word (schismatic) look rather foolish.

[6] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 06-24-2008 at 08:26 AM • top

It makes no sense to me.  They have the churches.  They have the gazillion dollars’ worth of bequests.  They own the NYC Financial District, for heaven’s sake.  (or maybe not for Heaven’s sake) They have the press.  They have the sound bites.  They have the shoes.  They have the “just so out there” robes.  They even have sporks.

I’m of the impression, having read much of the writings of our worthy opponents, that they don’t give a fig who walks.  If they end up smaller, they are still swimming in money and they can cherish the concept that they’ve blown off the chaff and can get on with The New Thing.

So why do they even care?  I am truly confused on this.

[7] Posted by GoodMissMurphy on 06-24-2008 at 08:27 AM • top

Dear Mick, having answered a previous post request regarding what is the most dishonest entity in my life with “the media” I am inclined to believe more the various reports from the participants rather than the media.  The media is all about selling stories.  They aren’t in the least interested in the very real dilemma of displaced Christians looking for safe harbor.  Make no mistake, this conference flies in the face of all that is holy to the media:  political correctness and total enslavement to the prevailing culture.  I am enjoying simply reading the various sermons and certainly the initial pre-conference booklet.  What a sense of joy, of hope.  We have been on a tossing ship for a decade and now we see land.  God is good and merciful.

[8] Posted by GoodMissMurphy on 06-24-2008 at 08:34 AM • top

RE: “It is not, for example, a “gaffe” to put Susan Russell on a do-not-admit list. It’s a feature.”


“That’s not a bug—that’s a feature, sir.” 

So true—music to my ears.  Hopefully their list of the non-invited is much larger than six however.

[9] Posted by Sarah on 06-24-2008 at 08:35 AM • top

And the amusing thing about the “banned” story is just how feverishly the progressive activists have promoted it [several advertising links already over here] when the reality is that even moderates over here are thinking “whew—good idea”. . . . ; > )

Invitation only event.  And the revisionists—including the Jefferts Schori pretentious announcement of her “eyes and ears” representative—turned away.  Simply awesome. 

No, Bishop Jefferts Schori—we’re over here in Jerusalem to get away from your heresy, and we’re certainly not going to allow your representative heretic in as a sop.

[10] Posted by Sarah on 06-24-2008 at 08:38 AM • top

When the sheep gather, why would they invite the wolves to sup with them?  Somehow I don’t think “the listening process” would be on the menu.

The whole tempest over the “banned”  (ooooh!) individuals is the reddest herring they could come up with.

[11] Posted by GoodMissMurphy on 06-24-2008 at 08:38 AM • top

Was KJS’s mole turned away?  I had not read that.

[12] Posted by GoodMissMurphy on 06-24-2008 at 08:40 AM • top

I too have noticed the extensive spin.

GAFCON is a witness to the truth.  To the extent that we do witness to the truth - and intefere with their notions of progress - then our very existence is painful to them. 

Perhaps the bigger lie is that they can and will “tolerate” reasserting orthodoxy. 

Proverbs 12:17 “A truthful witness gives honest testimony, but a false witness tells lies.”

[13] Posted by tired on 06-24-2008 at 08:43 AM • top

#7, GoodMissMurphy you wrote:

I’m of the impression, having read much of the writings of our worthy opponents, that they don’t give a fig who walks.  If they end up smaller, they are still swimming in money and they can cherish the concept that they’ve blown off the chaff and can get on with The New Thing.

So why do they even care?  I am truly confused on this.

If you or I walk, they do not care. So long as it is individuals who leave, little or no attention is paid. But when a church leaves, it gets noticed. Even more so when a diocese leaves. San Joaquin is getting ‘tough love’ from 815 because it was the first diocese to walk. I’m betting Pittsburgh will get even more attention from 815 if they leave.

The reason is that very few people know where the Diocese of San Joaquin is located. No offense to those who live there, but it is geographically obscure. Everyone has heard of Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh leaving will attract national media attention. And the demographic that attends the Episcopal Church is also the only demographic that pays attention to the mainstream media anymore.

So while they do not care about individuals leaving, they really do not wish to look bad. The hierarchy wants to answer questions about the MDG’s and sporks, not about why their church under their leadership is hemorrhaging members.

The Episcopal Church: We blink at reality more than fifteen times a minute.

[14] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 06-24-2008 at 08:46 AM • top

#12, GoodMissMurphy, Bp. O’Neill of Colorado is in Jerusalem to “advise” the Bishop of Jerusalem, and O’Neill has been identified as one of the people who won’t be admitted.  I suppose he’s the “mole,” although he’s not secret.

[15] Posted by Katherine on 06-24-2008 at 08:56 AM • top

The NY Times is by no means of uniform quality.  It is not surprising that they’ve assigned one of their less capable reporters to GAFCON.  The people who run it could care less about religion and are accordingly ignorant of it, by Harvard’s standards, among others’.  They have also adopted pro-homosexual advocacy as a matter of editorial policy, an anti-Judeo-Christian stance by the measure of most synagogues and churches, Jews and Christians, worldwide.  Most of their reporters covering religion cannot distinguish it from party-circuit, arm-chair sociology;  in other words, reading the Times on religion is not worth the time of anyone who wants to know about it.  Its circulation numbers have plummetted and may still be plummetting. (Hasn’t it been in merger talks recenty?  They certainly have been cutting staff left and right.)  They are trying to sell copy to a tiny vociferous cabal which is largely preoccupied with itself.  It is no wonder that TEC is headquartered on an island of supreme self-immurement, its natural habitat.

[16] Posted by Seen-Too-Much on 06-24-2008 at 09:05 AM • top

The New York Times was there?  If I know them, they didn’t just write the headfline first, they wrote tne entire bleepin’ article. The NYT doesn’t report the news, it creates it.

As for the Guardian, don’t get me started on that pathetic little rag.  It’s been a joke among conservatives for decades.  (Google “Grauniad” and you’ll see what I mean.)

[17] Posted by st. anonymous on 06-24-2008 at 09:11 AM • top
[18] Posted by Marie Blocher on 06-24-2008 at 09:15 AM • top

Perhaps what they’re afraid of is that they will be treated as poorly as they have treated us?

[19] Posted by Nasty, Brutish & Short on 06-24-2008 at 09:19 AM • top

#1 Are you sure it is Fear that you can smell all the way over in Wales?

[20] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 06-24-2008 at 09:23 AM • top

This is a Conference for those who are tired of the real issues not being addressed or dealt with. The revisionists are not happy because they are not in control of this Conference as they are of Lambeth and as they have been over other meetings, Dromatine, DES, etc…
Because God is in control of this Conference and He is amoung His faithful and will bless His faithful and good fruit will come of this Conference because the revisionist are not in control and God is. That scares them to no end. Pray for them!

[21] Posted by TLDillon on 06-24-2008 at 09:29 AM • top

Pageantmaster !!! That was very baaaahhhhhhd of you!

[22] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 06-24-2008 at 09:30 AM • top

Fear, I believe is the root cause of anger. I believe that folks are afraid because the movement is much larger then they imagined, and they have no power to stop it. They are angry, and strike out to hurt. It is so sad.

[23] Posted by FrVan on 06-24-2008 at 09:30 AM • top

Mick (#5), why would you want to be mocked?

Attributed to Luther (who knew the devil on a first-name basis): “The best way to get rid of the Devil, if you cannot kill it with the words of Holy Scripture, is to rail at and mock him. Music, too, is very good; music is hateful to him, and drives him far away.”

[24] Posted by Ralph on 06-24-2008 at 09:34 AM • top

Two points.
Moustalker, just because Dio San Joaquin is in the Central Valley of California, does not make it obscure.

Unless of course, one’s consideration of obscure is anywhere not in NYC, SFO, LAX, LHR etc…. you know .... all fhe swish and tuned in centers of power and style.

By that consideration, I suppose that Uganda and Nigeria are simply off the map of the known world.

MIck, what a truly unfortunate name for the reporter from the UK Guardian, being as he seems to be an aplogist for the homosexual agenda.

[25] Posted by Scotsreb on 06-24-2008 at 10:02 AM • top

“Invitation Only” events are great for Country Clubs ... I’m just having a hard time reconciling that concept with the Gospel.

[26] Posted by Susan Russell on 06-24-2008 at 10:06 AM • top

#25, that is exactly what I meant by obscure. The perspective of the bicoastal, for whom the country outside of some very few metropolitan areas is ‘flyover country’. FWIW, I live in flyover country.

Pessimistic reappraisers see the tomb as half-empty. Optimistic ones see it as half-full.

[27] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 06-24-2008 at 10:06 AM • top

#26, Invitation only events like Lambeth or the Episcopal Church’s General Convention? Those events?

As fresh as a blushing June bride.

[28] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 06-24-2008 at 10:08 AM • top


[29] Posted by Theodora on 06-24-2008 at 10:16 AM • top

#26, Invitation only events like Lambeth or the Episcopal Church’s General Convention? Those events?

Hmmm….yes, I seem to remember something about some bishops not being invited to Lambeth who were invited to Gafcon.  Maybe, if those bishops had been invited to Lambeth, and the ones who committed schism and heresy in 2003 (and before and since) not invited, there would have been no need for Gafcon. And then there are a couple bishops, one from Zimbabwe and one from New Hampshire, not invited to either.

And within TEC, I doubt very much that I would see any welcome at the local diocesan convention, much less GC.

[30] Posted by tjmcmahon on 06-24-2008 at 10:18 AM • top

Susan,  I believe the Last Supper was an invitation-only event, else why all the secrecy and follow a certain man instructions given to those disciples who were to prepare the room? 

But, you make a good point that the kingdom is open to everyone who does truly and earnestly repent of their sins and is committed to amendment of life.  It is important that church related deliberations be open. 

I would very much like to attend the meeting of the TEC Executive Committee where the matter of attorney fees for the various lawsuits around the country against parishes is discussed.  Specifically, I would like to attend that meeting so that I can let members of TEC around the country know exactly how much of their treasure is being spent in suing fellow Christians, a figure that, to date, has not been forthcoming from 815

Would that meeting be an open meeting?  Or is it by invitation only?

[31] Posted by Rick H. on 06-24-2008 at 10:22 AM • top

Of course they have seen to it that some not be allowed to attend. This meeting is focused on reparing what some of these people have been a part of destroying. Why not?

[32] Posted by FrVan on 06-24-2008 at 10:31 AM • top

And let us not forget, Holy Communion is an invitation only event, the invitation list limited to those who are baptized and have confessed their sins.

[33] Posted by tjmcmahon on 06-24-2008 at 10:32 AM • top

Actually, Susan, the Gospel very well could be “invitation only” as many parts of church tradition have taught for 2,000 years. Here are some New Testament passages that seem to indicate that God chooses people. And the entire Old Testament speaks about God chooses people.

Matthew 20:23 “Jesus told them, ‘You will indeed drink from my bitter cup. But I have no right to say who will sit on my right or my left. My Father has prepared those places for the ones he has chosen.’”

Matthew 24:21 “And he will send out his angels with the mighty blast of a trumpet, and they will gather his chosen ones from all over the world[a]—from the farthest ends of the earth and heaven.”

Mark 10:40 “But I have no right to say who will sit on my right or my left. God has prepared those places for the ones he has chosen.”

Mark 13:20 “In fact, unless the Lord shortens that time of calamity, not a single person will survive. But for the sake of his chosen ones he has shortened those days.”

John 13:18 “I am not saying these things to all of you; I know the ones I have chosen. But this fulfills the Scripture that says, ‘The one who eats my food has turned against me.’”

Romans 8:28-30 “And we know that God causes everything to work together[m] for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose for them. 29 For God knew his people in advance, and he chose them to become like his Son, so that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And having chosen them, he called them to come to him. And having called them, he gave them right standing with himself. And having given them right standing, he gave them his glory.”

I Thessalonians 1:4 We know, dear brothers and sisters, that God loves you and has chosen you to be his own people. “

II Peter 1:10 “So, dear brothers and sisters, [ Greek brothers.] work hard to prove that you really are among those God has called and chosen. Do these things, and you will never fall away.”

Revelations 17:14 :Together they will go to war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will defeat them because he is Lord of all lords and King of all kings. And his called and chosen and faithful ones will be with him.”

[34] Posted by texex on 06-24-2008 at 10:32 AM • top

“Invitation Only” events are great for Country Clubs ... I’m just having a hard time reconciling that concept with the Gospel.

Now Susan, I know my bishop not been invited, but honestly no hard feelings, please stop talking about Lambeth Conference on this thread.

[35] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 06-24-2008 at 10:38 AM • top

#33, Not at Susan Russell’s church it isn’t. Last I heard they had communion of the unbaptized. Of course, that is just hearsay, so maybe the good Rev Russell will visit us back and give us the inside scoop.

The Episcopal Church: all of the ritual, none of the theology

[36] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 06-24-2008 at 10:40 AM • top

#26 Susan… Why in heavan’s name do you think you should be invited to GAFCON. You, your friends, and your political agenda have gutted the Episcopal church. Leave us alone. You refer to the Gospel. You have torn out so many pages that don’t suit your agenda that what is left doesn’t make any sense. Go back and look at the pictures of the happy couple in England or in your oun church and if that doesn’t result in the ICK factor, you are living in denial.

[37] Posted by SteveinOHIO on 06-24-2008 at 10:42 AM • top

Susan, is it possible for a particular party has misbehaved so often in the past that one can reasonably exclude them? It’s judgmental of you to make such a comparison. Are parents of a misbehaving toddler ‘country club’ snobs for hiring a babysitter instead of taking her to the movies? Why can’t you put a more charitable interpretation on things?
Are you afraid? If you are, I suspect what frightens you the most is that who you are is not set in stone. There is still time for you to repent.

[38] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 06-24-2008 at 10:44 AM • top

Susan, I am struck by the irony of one who so misuses the Gospel complaining about the misuse of the Gospel.

[39] Posted by desertpadre on 06-24-2008 at 10:45 AM • top

I will put it in terms that you can understand, Susan:  You and your friends are not welcome, and neither are your ideologies.  You may as well admit that it is you and others like you who are directly responsible for the schism which Anglican Christianity is now experiencing.

[40] Posted by Cennydd on 06-24-2008 at 10:50 AM • top

I am finding GAFCON and the reaction to it to be very interesting.  In my opinion, GAFCON is both much LESS “important” then many think, yet also so very much MORE “important” then they realize.  Let me explain.

So many critics of GAFCON (both CommCons and liberals) have fixed in their minds that the primary goal of GAFCON was to formally break with the See of Canterbury and establish a completely new, completely distinct global communion.  You can see this pre-conceived notion in the MSM headlines - read the headlines, then read the actual stories - they don’t match up.  The media so desperately wanted to issue the story “harsh conservatives cause Anglican schism because of their hatred of gays.”  The problem is, this simply is not the truth.  The liberals and media will interpret anything less then this outcome as some sort of “failure” on the part of the conservatives and a sure sign of dissension in the ranks.  But I have never believed that GAFCON had any plans to formally rupture the Communion.  As such GAFCON is much less “important” then many critics have thought (and I use the word “important” in quotes on purpose).

The liberal fear of GAFCON, is I think, borne out of the liberals’ gradual realization that GAFCON is actually far more “important” then they had realized.  The MSM don’t get it - all they want is their “evil conservatives are mean to gays” headlines.  But I think some of the liberals are realizing GAFCON’s true “importance”.  That is, I think that GAFCON is the first concrete step in creating a true communion within the Anglican federation.  GAFCON is not leaving the “Anglican Communion”, they are not formally breaking with the See of Canterbury.  Rather they will begin work to reform Anglicanism from within - and the liberal bureaucracy of Lambeth Palace and the ACO will have NO POWER TO STOP IT!!!  This, I think is what the liberals fear the most.  GAFCON would seem to be creating - within the “Anglican Communion” the engine for the long-term transformation of the Communion.  I think that liberals know that despite their rhetoric, theirs is a dying brand.  The growing, live Anglican Provinces are joining GAFCON.  The dying, liberal Anglican Provinces have controlled the Anglican bureacracy, but GAFCON is bypassing that bureaucracy without leaving the Communion.  GAFCON is essentially telling the liberal Provinces that they are now completely irrelevant.

I think that the intelligent liberals are petrified of GAFCON, the MSM is ignorant of what is going on and just want their headlines, and if you combine these two, you get the sort of media coverage we’ve been getting.

[41] Posted by jamesw on 06-24-2008 at 10:52 AM • top

Hundreds of smiling African faces, and Susan Russell compares it to a Country Club.  Everything is backwards in the “liberal” mind.

[42] Posted by Nasty, Brutish & Short on 06-24-2008 at 10:52 AM • top

Susan - LOL.  The new Title IV revisions are all about inclusion, right?  And all the lawyerly appeals to “unique polity” are Gospel, right?
Look at the pictures of GAFCON - compare them to pics from a typical TEC gathering and tell me which represents inclusion and diversity.
I note that Ruth Gledhill’s human interest pieces are only about LGBT.  So I guess you are right on point if “inclusion” is reduced to only LGBT clergy.
You don’t represent an inclusive church - you represent a faction that is doing quite well seeing to its own interests.  By every measure, TEC has shriveled while your faction has profited.
Don’t expect global Christians to build more stuff for your faction.  You have TEC, and plenty of money to prop up some LGBT clergy positions and pensions for years.  Enjoy.  But don’t complain when people try to build a church that includes humanity beyond ordained LGBT baby boomers.

[43] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 06-24-2008 at 10:56 AM • top

By the way, let’s stop the knee-jerk reactions to everything Susan Russell says.  You know VERY WELL that the liberals have “invitation only” or “swear loyalty oaths” events all the time.  It is perfectly acceptable - and Susan Russell knows it is perfectly acceptable - for strategizing events to be invitation only.  Susan is simply trying to bait people here before running away.  Please don’t fall into the trap.

[44] Posted by jamesw on 06-24-2008 at 10:58 AM • top

Susan who?  The left of political or religious persuasion excel at distraction.  Do not let that happen.  Keep praying for these godly men and know that we are all sparrows.  God’s eye is on us and even when we are tossed by the storms His hand is alway ready to catch and hold us.

[45] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 06-24-2008 at 11:00 AM • top

To use metaphors from a previous thread, Susan Russell has made her single post, “counted her coup,” “rolled her grenade” in and left.  She is no longer interested in reading what is written here.  Let’s stop wasting our energies on her and return to the larger issues, as so excellently dlineated by NB&S;[#42].
Eyes on the Prize,

[46] Posted by rwightman+ on 06-24-2008 at 11:00 AM • top

Sorry, that was jamesw {#41].

[47] Posted by rwightman+ on 06-24-2008 at 11:01 AM • top

#41 jamesw

That is very interesting.  I agree we are seeing the emergence of a biblically coherent ‘covenant’ group involving the majority of the communion in GAFCON and the GS but also in other countries.  This is very much as described by Rowan Williams’ June ‘06 essay on reasons for being an Anglican.  It is emerging however not in the institutionalised way he anticipated, controlled by him and the instruments, but in a more direct way with Anglican churches and individuals covenanting among themselves.  Those who do not join in will be on the periphery.  The divisions created by TEC and ANiC are becoming institutionalised and set in concrete.

There was a brief moment following Dar when there was a scheme in place which would have restored TEC and ANiC in their relationship with the rest of the Communion.  What a pity that that opportunity was undermined rather than embraced.

Interesting and rather sad.

[48] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 06-24-2008 at 11:07 AM • top

Sue counts coup (again):

“Invitation Only” events are great for Country Clubs ... I’m just having a hard time reconciling that concept with the Gospel.

That’s because TEC-flavored heretics divorce the commandments given by Christ and His apostles from their “gospel.”  If you did not eviscerate Scripture thus, you’d have no problem reconciling the idea of barring heretics from GAFCON, with the Gospel. 

But then again, if that were true then the non-invitation would be a non-issue.

[49] Posted by J Eppinga on 06-24-2008 at 11:11 AM • top

<blockquote>“Invitation Only” events are great for Country Clubs ... I’m just having a hard time reconciling that concept with the Gospel. <blockquote>
Gee how about the illegal Remain Episcopal San Joaquin Convention that appointed (not elected) Mr. Lamb in March 2008 where not only were people turned away but those who were accepted into the meeting had to sign a “loyalty oath” to TEC to get in. Short memory you got there Rev. Russell.

[50] Posted by Intercessor on 06-24-2008 at 11:39 AM • top

Sorry JamesW..quite right you are…make that Rev. Ohwhatshername.

[51] Posted by Intercessor on 06-24-2008 at 11:50 AM • top

It’s all planned, folks.  The progressives are doing a blogging form of “love bombing” - only they seemed to have left the “love” part in the car.

Very interesting - obviously they have learned a thing or two since Columbus.  But it has “strategy” written all over it.  Instead of ignoring GAFCON (as has been their strategy in the past) the leading blogging activists have changed course.  Again, one has to admire their persistence and their tenacity. 

What I think we’re seeing is a preview of how they are going to handle Lambeth.  Thanks for the head’s up, guys!


[52] Posted by BabyBlue on 06-24-2008 at 11:57 AM • top


“Invitation Only” events are great for Country Clubs ... I’m just having a hard time reconciling that concept with the Gospel.

Only a priest who has improper priestly formation can make such a ridiculous and false statement.  Being a priest is an ‘invitation only’ profession.  God has called them, not everyone to the priesthood. The prophetic disobedience of ‘76 with the ordination of the Philadelphia 11 was not based on anything contained in the Gospels, but, as we were told by the bishops involved, the women had obviously been called by God.  The argument for the ordination of openly gay men and women to the priesthood was exactly the same. 

Reverend Russell, your compulsive need to always play the victim card as a bat to beat others with while advancing gnosticism in Christianity has reached the tipping point.  You are now sawing off the branch you and your fellow gnostics have been sitting upon for the last 30+ years.  Which is quite biblical, as it is the bible itself that instructs that we are the ones, by our actions, who separate ourselves from God.

[53] Posted by Mrs. Lawrence on 06-24-2008 at 12:32 PM • top

“Invitation Only” events are great for Country Clubs ... I’m just having a hard time reconciling that concept with the Gospel.

Ms. Russell, you and your buddies were dis-invited for the same reason trolls are banned from internet forums: because you are not interested in discussion and debate, only in being obnoxious and disruptive.

[54] Posted by st. anonymous on 06-24-2008 at 12:46 PM • top

People should not reply to Susan Russel.  She is not going to answer a question.  Her purpose is to toss a “bomb” and watch from the distance to see what damage she might be able to cause.  Don’t take the bait.  Ignore her.  History certainly will.

[55] Posted by DaveG on 06-24-2008 at 01:17 PM • top

Please do not continue to accuse Ms Russel of throwing grenades.  Throwing grenades is a guy thing.

[56] Posted by Old Soldier on 06-24-2008 at 02:14 PM • top

DaveG (#55) Of course, history will ignore Susan Russelland her crowd… And I do not think that anybody here on SF really thinks that she is going to read what we have to say. But it is good for all of us to note how she and her cohorts think and respond to the things that we discuss here.

Her rhetoric in remarkably infantile. The use of the term “country club” can ONLY be construed as an implication that the folks at GAFCON represent a “wealthy elite,” while she and her fellow-gnostics stand in solidarity with the downtrodden and weak.

In Nigeria, people who earn ONE DOLLAR A DAY are considered to be MIDDLE CLASS. People who earn TWO DOLLARS A DAY are considered to be UPPER-MIDDLE CLASS. People who earn THREE DOLLARS A DAY are considered to be WEALTHY… The fact that you are wealthy in Nigeria does NOT mean that you will have access to clean water, electricity, or ANY SORT OF MEDICAL CARE. It simply means that, compared to the people around you, you can buy a lot more of the stuff that is available to people living in Nigeria. From the perspective of a North American, there is, in fact, VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY little stuff avaialble to be purchased in Nigeria—at ANY price… Yes, there are people in Nigeria who enjoy incomes that are comparable to incomes enjoyed by most Americans. But there are very few people who fall into this category. For the most part, these relatively wealthy people constitute what we would term (for lack of a better phrase) the “government” of Nigeria. There are also a few brigands and warlords who enjoy fairly good incomes. These people are PARASITES who have a vested interest in keeping everybody else in Nigeria way below the poverty level.

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church is paid a salary in excess of $1,350,000. Her perks and benefits constitute, roughly, an additional $750,000 per annum.

These are FACTS.

I am curious, how much does Susan Russell earn in a year? How much does her diocesan bishop earn?

I would LOVE to hear Susan Russell chime in here and give me her most conservative estimate of the net worth and annual income (from endowments and real estate—forget about money that any or all of the living parishoners throw into the plate over the course of a year) of TRINITY WALL STREET… I would LOVE to hear Susan Russell’s most conservative estimate of the NET WORTH of the Church Pension Fund…

Does ANYBODY know of ANY revisionist bishop who DOES NOT belong to a country club??? I don’t—and I know most of the current HOB pretty well…

Who does she think she is kidding??? Not us…

[57] Posted by bluenarrative on 06-24-2008 at 02:18 PM • top

Old Soldier
I was going to accue her of dropping a turd but thought the elves might get upset.

[58] Posted by DaveG on 06-24-2008 at 02:51 PM • top

Mrs Lawrence, who says Susan Russell is a “Reverend?”  I sure don’t!

[59] Posted by Cennydd on 06-24-2008 at 02:55 PM • top

I was going to accue her of dropping a turd but thought the elves might get upset

We don’t got no stinkin’ Elves over here. But, where has the dreaded Commenatrix been lately?

the snarkster

[60] Posted by the snarkster on 06-24-2008 at 02:58 PM • top

“The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church is paid a salary in excess of $1,350,000. Her perks and benefits constitute, roughly, an additional $750,000 per annum.”


[61] Posted by FrVan on 06-24-2008 at 03:00 PM • top

Sorry Snarkster
I had my blogs confused.  Forgive me Dom I mean Commentatrix.

[62] Posted by DaveG on 06-24-2008 at 03:15 PM • top

“The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church is paid a salary in excess of $1,350,000. Her perks and benefits constitute, roughly, an additional $750,000 per annum.”

Not sure that passes the sniff test.

But if it is true it would mean KSJ is paid 150-200 times what the average priest is.

[63] Posted by texex on 06-24-2008 at 03:36 PM • top

The Office of the Presiding Bishop had a budget of around $1,600,000 in 2007, but that includes her salary, her staff’s salaries, expenses, benefits for the PB and her staff and all sorts of other stuff. I’m trying to track down her actual salary, but I don’t believe it would be anything close to $1.6 million.

Our Episco-burgers are made only from freshly ground beef exclusively from Newark oxen and Los Angeles sacred cows, slaughtered canonically with our proprietary razor.

[64] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 06-24-2008 at 03:47 PM • top

I tried to verify some of this, so I went to GuideStar & poke around a bit, I did find:


Interesting, that’s the only rendition of the name I’ve found, but wouldn’t you know it, no IRS Form 990! We better put Emily on the case immediately!

[65] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 06-24-2008 at 03:49 PM • top

I think it’s actually “The Dread Commenatrix” (similar to “the
dread pirate Roberts”) 
Just thought I’d throw that out there…

[66] Posted by jamesk on 06-24-2008 at 03:55 PM • top

To be fair to bishop Schiori, my recollection was that the PB was paid more like $135,000 than $1,350,000 (admittedly, recollection, and times, and salaries, do change- just got a 2% raise myself).  Although my guess is that the PB’s penthouse suite courtesy of Trinity Wall Street would fetch a huge sum as a rental.  The perks are probably more than the salary.

[67] Posted by tjmcmahon on 06-24-2008 at 04:10 PM • top

The Reverend Russell is most assuredly a priest in the eyes of the Episcopal Church.  Whether she is one in the eyes of God, may be another story. She should not ever be ignored.  She and her half-truths, conversational hand grenades, and outright lies should and must be refuted at each step.  Why as a former Episcopalian, now Catholic do I refute her?  Simply because, it is because of the agenda she and her comrades are pushing on this great country.  They have already gotten the Catholic Church out of the adoption business in Massachusetts with a new and unconstitutional law that required the Catholic Church via Catholic charities to adopt children out to gay couples, or not adopt at all.  Catholic Charities chose to stop adoptions and the orphans of Massachusetts now suffer only so the gays feel better about themselves.  The Reverend Russell, if she were completely open and honest, would say she liked to see the Catholic Church out of both the adoption and marriage business altogether, unless they open it up to gays, lesbians, and transgendered.  We know this because no one at All Saints in Pasadena, much less the Episcopal Bishop (Shaw) of Massachusetts said this ruling in Massachusetts was a travesty concerning the right to practice freedom of religion.  Never forget the Reverend and her comrades has far more destruction planned than that of the Episcopal church.  She’s an ambitious and obviously talented woman, ready to take down anything in her path.  Really, the only thing curious about her appearances here is why does she appear here?  She doesn’t need to. Is she sensing the tide turning away from her?

[68] Posted by Mrs. Lawrence on 06-24-2008 at 04:25 PM • top

Mrs. Lawrence, I think an excellent barometer of the effectiveness and powerful witness of GAFCON is the level of pouting amongst our worthy opponents.

[69] Posted by GoodMissMurphy on 06-24-2008 at 04:27 PM • top

I’m with Mrs. Lawrence.  Ignoring Susan Russell and all the rest is what got us in this mess in the first place.  A few days ago, people were on here arguing that we should be ignoring Gene Robinson.  No, no, no.  We can’t ignore them.  They are our evidence.  We can’t make our case without proof.

[70] Posted by Nasty, Brutish & Short on 06-24-2008 at 05:26 PM • top

NSB (#70) is right.  Ignoring them and hoping the Susan Russells will just go away is what has brought all of this trouble about.  The trouble is, the Susan Russells just don’t go away.  They’re like that escaped mental patient in the Halloween movies from the ‘70’s, they keep coming back to cause more damage.

Their words and actions are the evidence and to make the case against their fatuous yet dangerous beliefs, they are needed….

[71] Posted by Mrs. Lawrence on 06-24-2008 at 06:22 PM • top

I do think Russell’s post-modern rhetoric is so relativist and sophomoric that it’s hard to take her seriously… she’s too “smrt” by half. However, I agree with Mrs. Lawrence, the office of heretic should be respected and combated!

[72] Posted by texex on 06-24-2008 at 07:45 PM • top

Must admit, it’s very refreshing not to have daily sniveling and self-masturbatory press conferences from the “Simple Country Bishop”®: V.GENE ROBINSON.  Yet another feature of GAFCON.  One that we surely won’t be able to enjoy about Lambeth.

[73] Posted by midwestnorwegian on 06-24-2008 at 08:14 PM • top

If we are all so happy about exclusion (I am, by the way), why on earth did GAFCON admit an ‘official representative’ of the LGCM in the first place?

[74] Posted by Derek Smith on 06-24-2008 at 09:32 PM • top


He’s press not a participant.

[75] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 06-24-2008 at 09:49 PM • top

frvan wrote: Fr Van wrote: Fear, I believe is the root cause of anger. I believe that folks are afraid because the movement is much larger then they imagined, and they have no power to stop it. They are angry, and strike out to hurt. It is so sad.
Fr Van, your comment reminded me of something Screwtape wrote to his nephew:

...hatred is best combined with Fear…It is often the compensation by which a frightened man reimburses himself for the miseries of Fear. The more he fears, the more he will hate. (<u>The Screwtape Letters</u>, XXIX )

[76] Posted by kyounge1956 on 06-24-2008 at 09:51 PM • top

Thanks for the clarification, Matt.

[77] Posted by Derek Smith on 06-24-2008 at 10:10 PM • top

But, where has the dreaded Commenatrix been lately?

I have often found in my travels that another component of fear is respect.  Respect is a very good thing, don’t you think, Mr. Snarkster?

[78] Posted by commenatrix on 06-24-2008 at 10:20 PM • top

the smell of fear

From the TEC progressive point of view something has gone very, very wrong here.  One of 2 things was supposed to happen.  Either a)++Rowan was supposed to act harshly against those who attend Gafcon, or b) those who attend Gafcon were supposed to break communion with ++Rowan.  They were so sure of the second that they wrote headlines about it before the conference even started.
It was the end of last week when the wall started to crumble, and in a place where they probably thought they had total control- NPR.  The NPR report said something outloud that we all knew, but TEC had been in denial about since the announcement of Gafcon. The 300+ bishops and primates at Gafcon represent 2/3 of all Anglicans who went to church last Sunday.
While ++Rowan might have expended some rhetoric against Gafcon over the last few months, and while he may have dissuaded a few bishops from attending, he certainly has not really used the influence of his office to try to stop it.  No one has been declared out of communion, no invitations have been pulled.  One begins to wonder if, in his heart, he might not think it a “sensible” idea (as he was once quoted concerning the granting of asylum to conservative dioceses).
  The greatest blow to the progressives is that no one at Gafcon seems in any hurry to leave the AC, in fact, the orthodox seem encamped in the Communion for the duration.  And this (combined with that 2/3 figure) scares them silly.  Since 2003, the increase in the Church of Nigeria is greater than TEC’s total membership.  The orthodox in the Communion are fully awake now.  And there are so very many.  Suddenly, TEC no longer sees itself enabled to destroy the Covenant process.  The realization is coming upon them that the ABoC will not be negotiating with TEC to make the Covenant as liberal as they would like.  He will be negotiating with ++Akinola and ++Orombi, to try to preserve a Covenant that the CoE will be willing to sign.

[79] Posted by tjmcmahon on 06-24-2008 at 11:20 PM • top

Respect is a very good thing, don’t you think, Mr. Snarkster?

Well, Aretha Franklin (Blessings be upon her) thought so.

the snarkster

[80] Posted by the snarkster on 06-25-2008 at 08:34 AM • top

Yes, TJ - and the deconstructionists are now building on their own misreading of the situation by claiming that not breaking from Canterbury shows GAFCON was a failure.  Trouble is, the premise is wrong.  No GAFCON leader ever said they planned to split the church at Jerusalem; they said the opposite.

[81] Posted by Phil on 06-25-2008 at 09:35 AM • top

Potter - for past examples - Google
For examples related to Lambeth…just wait….they’re coming…

[82] Posted by midwestnorwegian on 06-25-2008 at 09:51 AM • top

The Episcopal Church has its reports from Jerusalem.

[83] Posted by Dr. N. on 06-25-2008 at 10:00 AM • top

#70,#71, yep, unfortunately it’s necessary to answer the fool according to his/her folly, lest they convince others they are wise. You might be tempted to think that the flaws in their arguments are so self refuting you can ignore them. But empirically, you can see how widespread these flawed arguments are accepted (if you point out an error - you’re a country club racist snob!). They need to be refuted.

[84] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 06-25-2008 at 10:03 AM • top

Susan Russell comes on yet another thread here on SF and drops a revisionists bomb comment and she gets bombarded back with sound comments with facts to back them up and then again she never reappears to stand her ground and back her bomb-comments up! What a joke! smile

Susan don’t you have a few more gay/lesbian weddings to perform? Why are you so worried abut what we Orthodox Conservative Christians are doing when you have so much to do yourself with same sex marriages and blessings to further your relative politically correct church?

I know, I know, I won’t get an answer because you don’t have one least not one that is based on truth, scripture, and honesty and facts. But, hey I’m also with Rick O.P. about the money for lawsuits thing and why don’t you and your comrads do as you seek others to do Susan…. like full disclosure monies being spent and where it is coming from and open invitations to your closed door meetings?

[85] Posted by TLDillon on 06-25-2008 at 10:17 AM • top

The chief value of this forum is the poignant dialogue.  I learn alot from the exchanges.  As a result, I ignore trolls trying to get a rise out of people.

Focus on the issues and ignore the personalities involved as much as possible.  Yes, the Loon Left have many characters worthy of disgust and ridicule. Bloviating over substance is a better use of energy.


[86] Posted by FrJim on 06-25-2008 at 12:30 PM • top

Has anyone responded to #5?


[87] Posted by FrJim on 06-25-2008 at 12:31 PM • top

Has anyone responded to #5?

Greg did by a whole separate thread about MSM’s cartoonish handling of GAFCON. On this thread I think we decided not to take the bait and just ignore him.

[88] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 06-25-2008 at 12:51 PM • top

Regarding drive-by posts:  I think that there are a number of posters who just can’t abide to actually read the responses to their verbal grenades.  I confess that I have every once in a while written something I knew was over the line and I actually felt anxiety about reading comments.  I just didn’t want to know.  (not on this rather civilized forum, however)  I have learned that when I do that it is time for a blogging break.

[89] Posted by GoodMissMurphy on 06-25-2008 at 12:55 PM • top

Frank Griswold’s salary—in excess of $1,1250,000—was made public by some idiot at 815 at the start of his tenure in office. At the same time, it became public knowledge that Ed Browning had been paid about $980,000 per year. There was an IMMENSE public outcry when this was revealed. 815 never denied or disputed the published reports—but they DID institute security measures to make sure that such information was not made public again. Griswold got several “raises” while he was PB, but such public reporting of these raises was always cached in terms of a percentage—never hard numbers. It is based on THIS information that I have offered a CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE of what the current PB’s salary is… Nobody in TEC has EVER suggested that there has been any sort of reduction in the Presiding Bishop’s salary… Yes, the numbers are astonishing—and scandalous. Especially when you consider that The Son of Man had nowhere to lay His head.

[90] Posted by bluenarrative on 06-25-2008 at 01:19 PM • top

FrJim:  What’s to respond to?  The mainstream media reports have not been credible - it is clear that what they wanted to report (i.e. nasty anti-gay conservatives make formal split from Canterbury) did not happen and they have been trying to spin their stories to compensate.

Regarding the “gay rape and torture” questions at the press conference, it reads to me like a set-up by two Western liberal journalists trying to take cultural advantage of two Africans and force an error.  A media-savvy Westerner, like Abp. Jensen, spotted the agitprop immediately, but I am not sure that the Africans did.  Gay activist reporter asks a very leading question containing unsubstantiated and false accusations.  The important phrase of the question was “the gospel is already compromised by bishops support the jailing of lesbian and gay people throughout Africa…”

So Akinola responds to the actual question, that he does not know of any - that is, know of any bishops who support the jailing of gays in Africa (which is a true statement, because the controversial Nigerian legislation dealt with political advocacy of homosexuality).  The gay activist reporter, however, then cleverly acted like he had asked a DIFFERENT question (i.e. did Akinola know of gays being jailed in Africa), thus making Akinola sound dishonest.  So Akinola is forced to change track in mid-question and responds to the activist’s second question, that he doesn’t know of any gays imprisoned.  So the activist then brings up the issue of an asylum claim in the UK that has nothing to do with Nigeria.  The activist’s example only shows that there was some police abuse involved, and the fact that the British government accepts the woman’s story, but wants to send her back to Uganda to a different area where she will be safe would suggest that the problem is not Uganda “laws” but an individual incident of police abuse.  But the activist reporter tries to then dishonestly suggest that this incident is representative of all the laws in Africa.  Akinola then responds to the activist’s attack on the African laws, saying that the actual laws reflect African social mores.  Orombi then steps in to suggest that the Church of Uganda does not, actually, write the country’s laws.

To this point in the press conference, then, the activist reporter has made numerous false claims and slanderous suggestions.  His sole example, did not actually support the assertion he was attempting to make.  Yet despite this, the liberal Guardian reporter says “I didn’t actually hear you condemn at all the rapes of gays and lesbians in your countries”.  Well, that was never asked - the activist reporter was asking a DIFFERENT question, and brought up ONE example which suggested it was an isolated incident.  Orombi then responds with actual proof that homosexuals are not imprisoned and raped just for being homosexual, but the reporter immediately dismisses this evidence, and acts like the isolated example is the norm.  The two liberal reporters were being very dishonest, and I think were fishing for a negative quote, rather then honestly asking questions.

Peter Jensen, being from the West, and being aware of the dirty tricks used by liberal reporters, realized he had to jump in.

Now, I think that the GAFCON organizers should have been prepared for this kind of sleazy tactics.  I hope that they better prepare the African bishops attending Lambeth for this sort of sleazebag ambush by the liberals.

[91] Posted by jamesw on 06-25-2008 at 01:31 PM • top

Regarding drive-by posts:  I think that there are a number of posters who just can’t abide to actually read the responses to their verbal grenades.

My dear GoodMissMurphy, I can assure you that people like Mick, Susan Russell, Jake, et al do indeed read every single response to their little trollish grenades. Not only do they read them, they revel in the disruption, disgust and anger they cause. I have yet to see Susan Russell go toe to toe with anyone on this site and I have been posting and lurking here almost since the beginning. I have seen a few revisionistas worthy opponents that would carry on a dialogue but the great majority steadfastly refuse to defend their their outrageous beliefs, here or anywhere else. Their purpose is served by just derailing any discussion that they don’t like. Go to one their sites, however, and any post you make will rarely see the light of day.

the snarkster

[92] Posted by the snarkster on 06-25-2008 at 01:45 PM • top

I know I’m in the minority here, but I thought Ruth Gledhill’s “banned” story was funny. I have laughed and laughed about it. Her blog was interesting today too. reflections on the journalists present for Gafcon were very interesting—- especially David Virtue. I don’t sense “fear” with her. Some other media writers quoted here I have found to be disturbingly obtuse. I am glad SF is here to give us the truth.

[93] Posted by FrVan on 06-25-2008 at 01:55 PM • top

All this throwing of verbal bombs from Susan and her crew, and the ham handed foolishness of the MSM finally reminded me of a very appropriate analogy that applies to what is going on at GAFcon.  Read the story of Nehemiah.  He finally acknowledged the fact that the walls were down, and Israel was in shambles.  He inspects the damage, and then calls Israel to “arise and build”.  What do the surrounding big shots do?  They sneered.  They tried to distract.  They belittled. They taunted.  Check out Nehemiah 2:17-20

But keep reading.  They organized, had specific tasks and assignments, and set about a “good work” to rebuild the walls.  The more they worked to rebuild the wall, the more pissed their opponents came, and how did they express it?  Jeering, sneering, condescending language.  Why?  Because the opposition to the good work were truly afraid of the result of that work.

Pay special attention to Nehemiah chapter 4.  They “did their work with one hand and held a weapon in the other”, which tends to support the discussion on this thread.  We both have to defend, and keep working, and pray to the God who will fight for us, and lead us in the work.  Nehemiah didn’t get distracted from the task, they ignored the jeers intended to distract them and only defended themselves when folks were physically attacking them.  In our case, it is helpful for us to remind one another of the two faced lies that folks like Susan Russell hurl at us, and to remember the truth of the situation.  God is calling us to rebuild.

It’s fear all right.  They don’t want the walls rebuilt.  It’s a huge work, the damage is massive.

As Nehemiah said….“Let us arise and build”.

[94] Posted by Charlie Peppler on 06-25-2008 at 02:23 PM • top

#95, your post fascinated me. Last month, the Holy Spirit led me to dig into Ezra and Nehemiah with some depth.  For you to quote the material in this context was delicious - Ezra and Nehemiah restored the defiled ground that was once a holy city engaged in sacred rites, leading to a holy people.

Could it be that GAFCON, held in the same geographical location, is a 21st Century Christian, Anglican reprise?


PS: Thanks to #89 and #92.

[95] Posted by FrJim on 06-25-2008 at 03:41 PM • 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 about the crisis in our church. 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. 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 that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.