Snowballs and Buddha

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 • 9:00 am

In this post charging that “the older Anglican tradition of respect has gone,” the author at that Episcopal “majority” site (you know, the one with the extremely tiny membership) then asks:

Who are these people who will not talk with us, who attack us incessantly and who envision a pure church of order and discipline (where according to Canon Anderson the guilty are punished)? Who then are these people? We have a descriptive phrase, harsh indeed, but by now it fits. These are ecclesiastical fascists.

To which the first commenter writes:

Lisa, how can you write “the older Anglican tradition of respect has gone” and then call all those who disagree with you “ecclesiastical fascists?”

Lisa explains that she didn’t write the article, but Tom Woodward informs us Bill Coats did, and in any event, Tom has some observations of his own:

I understand your concern with the term “ecclesiastical fascists.” However, if you agree at all with what Bill Coats has written, the term is descriptive. The behavior is what is derogatory, not the description.

IF Bill is wrong in his analysis, then so is the term. I, for one, am tired of being called a heretic, an apostate, an enemy of the Gospel of Christ in writing and in public—especially after 43 years of fairly dedicated service to Jesus Christ in his church.

Coincidentally enough, over at Episcopal Majority, there’s a lengthy and detailed examination of the theology of Tom Woodward:

Buddha loves me, this I know;
for the Buddha-book tells me so.
When I hear that great big gong,
I know I’ve been gosh-darn wrong.
Yes, Buddha loves me!
Yes, Buddha loves me.
Yes, Buddha loves me:
The Buddha-Book tells me so.

The post refers to some sharp exchanges between The Rev. Woodward and our own Matt Kennedy. Be sure and check it out.

9 Comments • Print-friendly • Print-friendly w/comments • Share on Facebook

Comments:

especially after 43 years of fairly dedicated service to Jesus Christ in his church.

That kind of got my attention. How is one fairly dedicated to the service of Jesus? Either you’re dedicated or you’re not. I guess that would be like being fairly pregnant.

the snarkster

[1] Posted by the snarkster on 12-19-2006 at 11:15 AM • top

Perhaps,Snarkster,it’s the ancient revisionist model of ‘dedicated service’ that Fr.Woodward alludes to in his comments.Yet for all his indignation and citation of ‘loyalty’ to Christ and the church there seems to be a rather hollow ring when reading various offerings of his on this board.

[2] Posted by paddy on 12-19-2006 at 12:06 PM • top

I knew I disagreed with Tom Woodward on lots of things but good golly - this is what he is claiming is orthodoxy?

[3] Posted by JackieB on 12-19-2006 at 02:57 PM • top

Wormwood Woodward is back again? This posting must be from an imposter. The core motivation of old wormy is who gets the real estate, the trust funds? Don’t see any whine about money & red doors so it must not be from wormward. Troll alert.

[4] Posted by teddy mak on 12-19-2006 at 05:30 PM • top

“Who are these people who will not talk with us?”

Who won’t talk with whom? Since when did orthodox leaders refuse to answer telephone calls?

[5] Posted by Irenaeus on 12-19-2006 at 10:13 PM • top

Nice going, Greg. You have taken a fun, satirical piece I posted on my blog completely out of context so you can play “Gotcha!” When I read your hatchet job on me, I recalled a seminary professor’s charge to a student who was always half-texting. He said, “I want you to preach on the text “Hang all the law and the prophets.”

I have two books published by Seabury Press, several that I have co-authored for Fortress Press, a couple of Roman Catholic presses and articles for Modern Liturgy, The Witness and other magazines. I was supported for election to the Church Pension Fund Trustees at our last General Convention by the Anglican Church Network (your people!). Out of all that record, you pull out a playful, satirical piece as the lynchpin of my theological thinking.

I believe it is time to brush up on simple matters of courtesy as well as honesty. This piece has neither.
Tom Woodward+

[6] Posted by TBWSF on 12-26-2006 at 08:26 PM • top

Alas,we poor befuddled Re-asserters,can’t tell the difference between ‘satire’ and thinly veiled diatribe,poor unfortunate dolts that we are and then we have the audacity to make fun of the satire or the theology of the much esteemed and published author of said piece,wayward buffoons and paltroons we be.
Alas,good Rev Dr,don’t be too upset over it,we couldn’t help it,blame it on the tie dyed vestiments and may queen investitures.

[7] Posted by paddy on 12-26-2006 at 09:31 PM • top

Tom, this definitely says more about your skills as a satire writer than it does about my courtesy and honesty.

[8] Posted by Greg Griffith on 12-27-2006 at 04:39 PM • top

TBWSF: “When I read your hatchet job on me, I recalled a seminary professor’s charge to a student who was always half-texting. He said, “I want you to preach on the text “Hang all the law and the prophets.””

Oh, so they call that “half-texting”? It reminds me of when I attended St. Barnabas’ Anglican Church in Ottawa. Our parish eventually got tangled up in a ruinously expensive project to replace our falling-down church hall. On our patronal festival, I recall kneeling at the collect, and whispering to my husband, “O Lord God Almighty, who didst endue thy holy Apostle Barnabas with singular gifts of the Holy Spirit: Leave us not, we beseech thee, DESTITUTE.” (Of course it goes on, “...of thy manifold gifts…”)

[9] Posted by Dr. Mabuse on 12-27-2006 at 08:11 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.