Total visitors right now: 107

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

From Elizabeth Kaeton’s Blog: “Let’s Not Do This in Cyberspace”

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 • 9:13 am

Brad Drell points us to this post by Elizabeth Kaeton, where in the comments Kaeton essentially calls our friend Phil Snyder an ignoramus because he has the gall to ask Kaeton for a Scripture-based justification for blessing homosexual behavior. She then gets in a huff because Phil either hasn’t read the pieces Kaeton believes make the case, or hasn’t swallowed their weak conclusions.


I have asked several of my reappraising brothers and sisters to justify changing the moral teaching on this and to use biblical and traditional support. So far, none have done this. Can you show me a biblical example of God blessing homosexual sex? Can you show in tradition where it was called blessed?

It is not the orientation that is a bar to ordination, it is calling “sin” “not sin.” It is saying that God blesses homosexual sex when Scripture is unequivocally against homosexual sex and calls it “sin” every time it is addressed.

Please help me understand your moral thinking on this. From where I sit, it seems to be “There are several people who naturally are attracted to members of the same sex, so God must have created them that way and homosexual sex (in the right contexts) is good and blessed.”

Phil Snyder

St. Elizabeth of the Perpetually Huffy responds:

I have no idea what it means to be a “reappraiser”. I suspect it’s sort of like being a “feminist.” To quote an early activist, “I only know that I am called a feminist when I refuse to be treated like a doormat.”

I only know that I am called a “reappraiser” when I refuse to accept what someone else defines as “orthodoxy,” or their image of God and their image of Jesus.

I think there is a word for that, Phil. It’s called idolotry.

In case you weren’t aware - the church - our church - has been in dialogue about the issue of human sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular for over thirty years.

Volumes - VOLUMES, Phil! - have been written.

Check it out. There are very recent entries for your edification.

Go to the website. Check out the Theology Statement that, oh, BTW, I helped to write, for the Blessing of Same Sex Relationships.

Go to and watch the video Voices of Witness.

Go to the archives of TEC and see what some specially created commissions have studied and said.

Go to the General Convention web site and read the response to The Windsor Report: “To set our minds on Christ.”

Read something - anything - of what’s been written about what scripture really says about homosexuality.

Peter Gomes’ THE GOOD BOOK is as easily accessible as any and makes the point that it is easier to justify slavery and the oppression of women by reading the bible than it is to condemn homosexuality.

Then, Phil, once you have done your homework and if you still want to have a discussion with me - let’s not do this in cyberspace.

I was able to see around the giant chip on Kaeton’s shoulder just long enough to consider two of her statements:

In case you weren’t aware - the church - our church - has been in dialogue about the issue of human sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular for over thirty years.

Wait a minute - I thought we hadn’t been engaged in a dialogue at all, Liz. I thought we were all waiting for the dialogue to begin. So we have been “dialoguing” for three decades?!? You’d think after all that time the reappraiser argument would have been distilled into a couple of NPR-friendly sound-bites that every leader of Ms. Kaeton’s position would have memorized. To think she can’t offer Phil even a couple of sentences in the way of Scriptural justification almost implies that, well… could it be they just don’t exist.

Then, Phil, once you have done your homework and if you still want to have a discussion with me - let’s not do this in cyberspace.

Why not? Why not “do this in cyberspace”? What exactly is the point of your working so hard to become so visible in this debate, of having your own blog, if you’re not going to have this most fundamental, most important debate on it? You’re obviously all too willing to tell those people who supported you in Columbus that you don’t need their tears; you can’t seem to relate fast enough or in too much detail how you cried in the shower over all this; and you go on for hundreds of words about your deepest reflections on your role as the Episcopal Church’s doormat… why are you now so shy about simply offering Phil the simple, Scriptural explanation he’s asked for? And on a blog where you approve beforehand all comments that appear on it?

Something’s wrong here, Liz. I’d say it’s a mystery, but in fact it’s all too transparent.

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

Liz does seem to fly off the handle sometimes.  It is surprising to me that people don’t call liberals for what they often are: totalitarians.  They like to pretend that they are all loving, and compassionate toward all, but their responses to conservatives betrays them.

[1] Posted by Tony on 08-01-2006 at 09:56 AM • top

Question: “Can you show me a biblical example of God blessing homosexual sex?”

Answer: “No.”

[2] Posted by GrandpaDino on 08-01-2006 at 10:04 AM • top


[no]..but read this…

shell game

never blessed

Integrity’s arguments become the “authority” for the proposition for which it argues.

[3] Posted by Going Home on 08-01-2006 at 10:10 AM • top

Go Phil!  I am always encouraged and humbled by the way Fr. Phil encounters his “worthy opponents” with grace and dignity.  When I feel like popping off, Phil has a gracious word that sums up my argument.  And in so many cases, those “worthy opponents” fire back with sarcastic venom.  (“Out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks,” from both Fr. Phil and in Ms. Kaeton.)  Keep it up, Father P, I’m in your corner in prayer.
—YSIC, and in the Dio of Dallas

[4] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 08-01-2006 at 10:11 AM • top

Man.  She’s something on a stick, isn’t she?

(still LOL over “St. Elizabeth of the Perpetually Huffy”!!!!)

[5] Posted by CarolynP on 08-01-2006 at 10:29 AM • top

Ya know, we take a lot of heat for “proof texting,” but we have a pretty good model when Jesus faced his Most Unworthy Opponent in the desert: “It is written: `Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”  (Mt 4:4) Jesus was most certainly using the Word as a weapon against Evil.  Ms. Kaeton seems to consider scripture used in this way as idolatry, arrogance, and even violence.

[6] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 08-01-2006 at 10:38 AM • top

The Definition of ‘dialogue’ for Elizabeth Kaeton and those who have oriented themselves to variant means of sexual gratification:  1. The indoctrination of the public consciousness (of well-meaning, kindly, naive, ignorant and uninformed people)  with an apologetic, a complete paradigm with contrived idiom and concepts over a period of three or four decades. 

The ‘gay’ paradigm is a complete man-made fantasy civilization, like Disney World or the land of the Hobbits in Tolkein’s stories with its own laws, words, characteristics unique to its world-view.  ‘Gay world’ is completely fake ‘man-made’ and not based on reality or science and is not God-made, God-blessed.  There is no support or evidence in Scripture for homosexual practice or lifestyles.  The whole counsel of Scripture stands against it - rather it is, as Romans 1 says, the result of the supression of the truth of God.

[7] Posted by Theodora on 08-01-2006 at 10:59 AM • top

If you break down “dialogue” into its smallest parts, “dia” and “logos,” one cannot help but find TGEC’s “toe-the-line-or-else” operating style anything but dialogue… for them to suggest otherwise is simply ridiculous…

This from someone who went to one of “their” seminaries and engaged in an excruciating process of listening to their monologue for three years… I experienced first hand their “inclusion” when I was shunned socially for having a different viewpoint, when those who share biblical orthodoxy in common with me were absolutely ridiculed publically and privately in the classroom and outside it.

I have listened to the best scholarship Kaeton could be referring to, I have pointed out the assumptions in it, I have pointed out the humanism and anthropocentrism and libertarianism in it, only to receive ad hominem attack in return for trying to initiate real dia logos rather than letting the mono logos go unchecked.

I too appreciate Phil’s tone, because to lose patience is to respond in kind to the absence of the fruit of the spirit.  While we may very well be all physically “welcome” at TGEC’s table, we are not welcome to open our mouths and pour out our hearts without being accused of bigotry, homophobia, and lack of charity; by the time we are finished taking arrows from their rhetorical quivers, we look a great deal like St. Sebastian.

Dialogue my foot.

[8] Posted by Christoferos on 08-01-2006 at 11:13 AM • top

I agree with Phil’s+ point, but I wonder if he would have been more successful if he’d avoided the term ‘reappraiser.’ 

I don’t like being called names and I don’t think Kaeton does either. 

I find that the best approach is to ask the question straight out: “Where do you get the Biblical support for your teachings?” People tend to respond positively to that approach.

As it stands, Phil+ comes across as already knowing the answer- he knows homosexuality is wrong and that Kaeting has no scriptural support to offer. It looks like the only reason he’s asking the question to Kaeting is to embarrass and insult her. 

So it’s no wonder he got a “huffy” answer.

[9] Posted by m+ on 08-01-2006 at 11:23 AM • top

Three Cheers for Phil!  I can only hope as an aspiring Deacon, that I can live up to the example he’s setting.

I can’t help but read thise comments in the light of Romans CH 1 and wonder when the LORD will give the TEC over to its own folly.  For the Duped and the Duplicitous, I also can’t help but hear the word of Christ in the Gospels where he clearly states “You’re in error because you don’t know the scriptures”.

Everyone of us has (or had) an “Orientation” intristically woven into our fallen natures.  The sinful nature is bent, bent towards the counternatural and the toxic.  Yet every one of us can be freed from that orietaion, and re-orientated in the Imago Dei!

Pax Y’all

[10] Posted by aterry on 08-01-2006 at 11:27 AM • top

I believe that Fr. Phil is actually Deacon Phil, but I could be wrong.

When I’ve asked questions like “Where do you get the Biblical support for your teachings?” what I have gotten is some fuzzy reasoning about Jesus and the Gospel of love.  I have found it hard to push liberals beyond their fuzzy love reasoning (if you can call it reasoning).

[11] Posted by Tony on 08-01-2006 at 11:36 AM • top

Yeah, I agree with MB here.  I hate it when my liberal friends ask me accusatory questions like that.  It makes me want to strangle them (in Christ;))

[12] Posted by Matthew Moore on 08-01-2006 at 11:37 AM • top

Kaeton’s screed reveals so many signs of incoherence it’s hard to know where to start, but here goes:

Nowhere in Phil’s comment does he actually call her a “reappriaser,” so one has to wonder where she got the idea he was using the term to refer to her specifically.

Even if he had, her objection to the term “reappraiser” is pure baloney, since she knows exactly what it means, and exactly why Phil uses that term to refer to those on the other side of the theological aisle from him: It’s because they have so strongly objected to every other label that’s been applied to them (liberal, revisionist, etc.) They can’t be pigeonholed, don’t you know; their cosmically complex worldview can’t be adequately described by mere words. So logically, we must bow to the rightness of it.

Sarah wrote a great piece about labels recently - can’t remember if it was in the comments or in an essay - that basically makes the superb point that people who nitpick about labels; squirm at the very idea of there being such things as labels; indeed, insist that labels are completely useless… are people who want to gut the meaning of all words, except the ones that further their agenda (in this case, “inclusion,” “tolerance,” etc… those labels have very specific meanings, and Kaeton & Co. know exactly what they are. They’ll happily bore you for hours examining the most minute details of their definitions).

Nitpicking over Phil’s use of “reappraiser” is Kaeton’s version of a magician’s use of misdirection, and a not terribly well-executed version at that: “Stop staring at my laughably weak argument that God blesses homosexual behavior. Oooh! Here! Look at my objection over the use of an innocuous and perfectly suitable description!”

[13] Posted by Greg Griffith on 08-01-2006 at 12:54 PM • top

A Question…......  NOT on topic.
Why do I get separated from Matt Kennedy+, by “name backspace=“1”  ??? in the “Members online: LIST?

[14] Posted by Grandmother on 08-01-2006 at 01:12 PM • top

One of the many little details of web housekeeping I haven’t had time to attend to. Also, for some reason I never see it, which makes it harder to troubleshoot.

[15] Posted by Greg Griffith on 08-01-2006 at 01:15 PM • top

Well, I was going to send you a screen shot, but its fixed now.. Thank you, I don’t feel so “alone”. LOL
Grannie G.

[16] Posted by Grandmother on 08-01-2006 at 01:28 PM • top

Cindy T. & Michael B (et. al)

I am not Phil+ nor “Father Phil.”  I am a Deacon in Christ’s Church and I serve in the Diocese of Dallas.  In my diocese, Deacons are not called “Father” (or “Mother”).  I appreciate the respect you intend to show, but I don’t want to come across as deserving the respect of a Priest or as someone who thinks he is a Priest.

I am proud to serve as a Deacon and to be a Deacon. 

Phil Snyder

[17] Posted by Philip Snyder on 08-01-2006 at 01:36 PM • top

Brother Phil, cheese
Sorry for the misplaced ordination!  Not sure how I got the wrong idea… no matter.  I stand by the rest of my post!

[18] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 08-01-2006 at 04:51 PM • top

And there I was thinking you were at least an archbishop, Phil.

cool grin

[19] Posted by Bill C on 08-01-2006 at 07:29 PM • top

Thomas (Dumb Ox) - why would you want to do that to me?  What have I ever done to you?

Phil Snyder LOL

[20] Posted by Philip Snyder on 08-01-2006 at 07:45 PM • top


I won’t make that mistake again, Phil.  Henceforth you remain


[21] Posted by Bill C on 08-01-2006 at 07:57 PM • top


Sorry for using the wrong title.  I meant no disrespect.

Do liberals use the term “reappraiser” to describe themselves?  I’ve only seen and heard it used as a mild pejorative in orthodox circles.

Yes, the letter did not attribute any title to Kaeting directly but it was implied. And semantic arguments aside, my point was that if we seek to convert the other side from their ways, then we should strive to avoid making them defensive. 

After all, you’re less likely to listen if you suspect you’re being insulted (even if that isn’t the case.)

[22] Posted by m+ on 08-01-2006 at 08:10 PM • top

Complaining about terminology is a tactic, and I don’t think we should fall for it.  A similar attempt is underway at Fr. Jake Stops The World where the term “walking apart” is now getting on the nerves of the opposing team, and a call has gone up to ban it.  One of the commenters on the thread lets slip the real reason for trying to change the terminology: “This type of language is the framework of the AACN folks. We can’t let them run with it. If we do, then they setup the rule of the language game and will win because they control the terms of the dialogue.”

So this seems to be less about hurting feelings than about scoring points.  Challenging terminology is an attempt to move the conversation from the actual issue (where the complaining side doesn’t feel they can win easily), and divert it into a safer channel where, with luck, they can put their opponent on the defensive.  Don’t fall for it.  It’s similar to the tactic at GC06 of falling back on the parliamentary rulebook to stymie discussion of topics that could allow the opposite side to score points.

[23] Posted by Dr. Mabuse on 08-01-2006 at 08:34 PM • top

“If we do, then they set up the rule of the language game and will win because they control the terms of the dialogue.”

This is pretty stiff denial.  What has not dawned on them is that the conversation is over.


[24] Posted by Theodora on 08-01-2006 at 08:58 PM • top

I wonder how they’d like:‘deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ for another gospel;which is really not another,only there are some disturbing you,and want to distort the gospel of Christ.But even though we,or an angel from heaven,should preach a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you,let him be accursed…..As we said before,so I say it again,if any man is preaching a gospel contrary to that which you received,let him be accursed.’
Galatians 1:6-9

[25] Posted by paddy on 08-01-2006 at 11:32 PM • top

Well, I looked at her post again and Greg and I have been banned.

Here is my chronology and comments on the event if you want to look at them.

Phil Snyder

[26] Posted by Philip Snyder on 08-02-2006 at 10:29 AM • top

Phil Snyder—that is AWESOME!!!  ; > )

Your link made my day.  Honestly, it’s a privilege to be banned by that site.  Reappraisers really can’t afford to hold a conversation with you in public and online . . . too revealing. 

Good work!

[27] Posted by Sarah on 08-02-2006 at 10:36 AM • top

Ms Kaeton has decided we reasserters are “bottom feeders,” but hopes we may yet be redeemed:

“So then, a little prayer:

Blessed are you, Lord God, for you have created all that lives and moves and has its being.”

Like the AIDS and Ebola viruses, avian flu, etc which we are currently fighting to eradicate, but are surely part of some Great Plan.

“We thank you, this day, most especially, for the creation of Bottom Feeders.”

By which I mean, not catfish, but those who dare disagree with me…

“Through them, you help us dispose of theological refuge.”

Or do I mean “refuse”?  You know, I’m not sure about that “volcanic larva” I mentioned in a previous post, either.  Memo: buy dictionary… 

“In them, we have a living example of what can happen when the human potential to do good is overcome with fear.”

Unlike me and my friends, who are perfectly enlightened and super-awesome and…oh, yes, humble.  See below:

“We humbly ask that you so shine the light of your Christ on them and us that our paths may be illuminated and whatever we do, being guided by the Holy Spirit, all will give praise and glory to your Name, from age to age.”

And they will release we’re Right Right Right and they were Wrong Wrong Wrong.


P.S.: I’m Right and they’re Wrong!  Right?

[28] Posted by st. anonymous on 08-02-2006 at 11:10 AM • top

It’s a real honor, though, to be called a bottom-feeder by Elizabeth Kaeton.

If it were Kendall Harmon that would be another story.

It’s not the label that’s all that important to me.  It’s who is doing the labelling.  ; > )

[29] Posted by Sarah on 08-02-2006 at 11:25 AM • top

I’m just not getting a Love and Inclusion vibe from this. confused

Full post here:

[30] Posted by st. anonymous on 08-02-2006 at 11:37 AM • top

I had a fundamentalist baptist friend whom I was helping to move once.  I was loading things into the back of a rented truck, and his son asked me, “Are you one of my father’s real friends?”  I asked what that meant and his son told me that his father’s real friends were Christians. 

The way Liz responded to Phil reminded me of this: “Turns out that “Your Brother in Christ Phil” is only a brother in Christ by baptism, by certainly not by spirit - which is pretty mean, low down and nasty.”

Only a brother in Christ by baptism!  Not in spirit!  I guess Phil isn’t a real friend to Liz on the liberal fundamentalist front.

[31] Posted by Tony on 08-02-2006 at 12:01 PM • top

Josip provided this link on another thread - check this out to see how qualified and ethical the new PBess is!!  (We could ask Liz to defend this, but she’s too busy and we’re not worthy.)

[32] Posted by CarolynP on 08-02-2006 at 01:44 PM • top

Carolyn and Tony (et. al.)

Could we please refer to Elizabeth Kaeton either by “Elizabeth” or “Mother Kaeton?”  She has indicated a dislike for “Liz” and as respectful people, we should acceed to her desire not to be called “Liz.”

How we treat those who disagree with us will show how much we love Jesus.

Phil Snyder

[33] Posted by Philip Snyder on 08-02-2006 at 02:04 PM • top

But, Greg, ya gotta admit you did bait her a bit by calling her Liz and all.

Just another example of how much the “labels are demeaning folks”  [heinafter:LADF] - [NOTE:Kaeton does not qualify as a “Worthy Opponent”] - really favor dialogue. 

The problem seems to be in word usage. By dialogue, the LADF’s mean “We will continue talking until you give up from weariness.” Most of us on the reasserting side have a concept of dialogue that resembles a reasoned debate where both sides are interested in ascertaining the truth.

I have reached the conclusion that most of the LADF’s have no desire to participate in a debate, because (1) they know their arguments are not convincing and (2) they really do not have a desire to know the truth; they prefer affirmation to correction.

[34] Posted by Allen Lewis on 08-02-2006 at 02:10 PM • top

Phil,thanks,you’re aces in my opinion cool smile.James Stewart,the expositor and scholar,brought out a wise comment in his book A Faith To Proclaim that I believe fits:‘I would indeed go so far as to suggest we Christians stop being diffident and apologetic and on the defensive,and carried the war to the opposing camp.The true strategy-when unbelief attacks our Christian faith and labels it credulity,the superstitious expedient of the unintelligent-is to draw attention to the towering,prodigious credulity of the critic himself.‘p.138

[35] Posted by paddy on 08-02-2006 at 02:23 PM • top

Here is what I have found to be true about our worthy opponents, when they can not persuade you to their way of thinking eventually, it will come down to name calling, hatred and angered filled verbiage , we, those who stand firm in Jesus and his Word are (according to them, I have read these words on this site and others):
1. Ignorant
2. Stupid
3. Uneducated
4. Bigoted
5. Unloving
6. Hateful
7. Bottom Feeder

You know our worthy opponents can call me all the names they want, I know I am not any of the above except perhaps a bottom feeder.  I wish to address a few:

1. Ignorant:  We of the orthodox are not ignorant- we know an agenda when we see one, if anything we have been complacent.
2. Stupid: No sorry we are not stupid, far from it.
3. Uneducated: I think it would surprise our worthy opponents to find out how many PHD’s, Master’s and bachelor degrees the orthodox have. Not to mention rigorously studying God’s Word.
4. Bigoted: No, We can listen to you. but are you willing to listen to us or is your opinion the only opinion.
5. Unloving: My sister is gay. I love her with my whole heart. However, I have shared with her ( in a loving way)  the Good News of Jesus but it is up to her to accept it.
6. Hateful: Please see above
7. Bottom Feeder (This is a new one! ): I point this out- without bottom feeders the oceans and lakes would be full of refuse/ weed chocked and stinking. Oceans and Lakes with Bottom Feeders have clear water because the bottom feeders make sure that the oceans/lakes are cleared of all the junk which would muddy up the water.  (Draw your own conclusion)

As a matter of fact the more curses which are leveled at the orthodox, reminds me that those who follow Jesus, who choice the narrow door with face persecution.

[36] Posted by A Sheep on 08-02-2006 at 02:42 PM • top

Carolyn P,

Elizabeth Kaeton doesn’t have to answer for Bishop Shori’s resume.  To me, it looks like she and the Rector decided to call the Adult Education courses a “School of Theology” and, since she was in charge, that she would be called “Dean.”  I don’t know how big the adult education program was.  To me, it sounds like a little harmless resume enhancing.

We have bigger fish to fry.

A Sheep - we are bottome feeders.  It is our task to clean all the “bodily waste” that the “nice” fish put out!

Phil Snyder

[37] Posted by Philip Snyder on 08-02-2006 at 02:54 PM • top


I really appreciated your follow up to the original comment on Elizabeth’s blog.  It’s sad that it only received the “bottom feeder” response.

[38] Posted by m+ on 08-02-2006 at 03:12 PM • top


I called her “Liz” because I thought “Elizabeth” was too stilted. “Ms. Kaeton” obviously wasn’t right, and of course neither were a whole host of other variations.

I had seen her referred to, in friendly terms, as “Liz” some months ago, so that’s what I used. Honestly, I didn’t give it a lot of thought. I guess now, though, I’m glad I didnt go with my first idea: “Hon.”

[39] Posted by Greg Griffith on 08-02-2006 at 06:44 PM • top

Pretty easy to see who Elizabeth Keaton represents, by her words, and by her actions.  She was written about long, long ago…

As for labels, i’ve got no problem with them.  If she likes to call me a “bottom feeder”, then she’ll have no problem being called a sodomite, or even “Lizzy the Lezzie”.  And if she does, well she’ll just have to follow the example of Christ (for a change) and forgive me.

[40] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 08-02-2006 at 06:48 PM • top

Could have been worse Greg,‘Miss Thang’.I actually heard that in a church.

[41] Posted by paddy on 08-02-2006 at 06:51 PM • top

Just a little background on Lizzy, found online:

According to a press report in The Guardian, “Mrs Kaeton has been living ‘monogamously’ with her partner Barbara, a nurse, for 22 years. They were both previously married and knew each other’s families. After they fell in love and their marriages broke up, they lost custody of the four children from their marriages. Five years later the couple regained custody, adopted another child and had another through in vitro fertilisation.”

Just so ya know…

[42] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 08-02-2006 at 06:52 PM • top

Kaeton’s banning of Phil and me (I haven’t been back, so I’m not sure what the nature of the “ban” is, exactly) is simply the latest proof that what most revisionists are after is not a dialogue, but a monologue. Susan Russell is the same way: It’s her way or the highway. She and Kaeton are not interested in honest debate, because honest debate begins with making the case that Scripture reveals God’s blessing of homosexual behavior, and of course neither one of them have anything more than a modern-day Marcionism to offer on that point. So then where does that leave us? It leaves revisionists wanting to relegate the Bible to a status that isn’t primary, and that, of course, is a deal-breaker. Educated, intelligent people can discuss for hours finer points of theology and ecclesiology before having to grapple with that broad question, but that’s where debate always breaks down, no matter which angle you come at it from.

Kaeton knows not who she tangles with when she implies that I’m uneducated, ignorant, or just plain unintelligent, and I can say with equal confidence she knows not who she tangles with when she describes any number of orthodox Christians that way.

Tell you what, ELIZABETH - Stand Firm is a truly open and honest forum. Refrain from spamming and making death threats, and you can pretty much say anything you want. You’re hereby cordially invited to come over here and make your case. If it’s so obvious, so simple, then surely you can spare the half-hour to jot it down, and likewise, surely we bottom-feeders can muster the smarts to understand it. Type slowly, though - we don’t read so good.

[43] Posted by Greg Griffith on 08-02-2006 at 06:57 PM • top

Greg,glad to be counted with you,Phil and Stand Firm as a ‘bottom feeder’.
Curious though,how would Ms.Kaeton’s seminary grades go up against a number of the ‘bottom feeders’ here?

[44] Posted by paddy on 08-02-2006 at 07:12 PM • top

I dunno, Greg.  I have had conversation with Susan Russell on her blog and I have found her respectful. Nothing like Ms. K. (is it okay to call her Ms. K?).
Maybe it has to do with you and that microphone/video deal at GC.

[45] Posted by Tony on 08-02-2006 at 07:21 PM • top


Grades are not the issue.  Intelligence is not the issue.  Training is not the issue.

The issue is faith.  Are we willing to say “Yes” to God when He calls?  Are we willing to submit our own wills and agendas to the authority of The Church Catholic (not RC Church, but the whole Church)?  Are we willing to follow God where He leads - no matter how uncomfortable that makes us?  In short, we we willing to die daily to sin so that we may be raised in New Life?

I am!  (Although I am not very good at it)

Phil Snyder

[46] Posted by Philip Snyder on 08-02-2006 at 07:22 PM • top

I fully agree Phil,thanks for helping me get back on track:}

[47] Posted by paddy on 08-02-2006 at 07:32 PM • top

Marty, here’s Kaeton’s writeup for another webpage:

“A “passionate pilgrim on the journey toward w/holiness of life,” Elizabeth’s joyful commitment to the Gospel and her baptismal vows is evident in her life and work. She and her spouse Barbara, a nationally certified Hospice Clinical Nurse Specialist, have lived in committed relationship since October 1976. They were registered as domestic partners in New Jersey in July 2004. They have loved and nurtured six children of their own, and were actively involved in the lives of six other foster children.”

Bit of a difference from the Guardian account, isn’t there?  This one seems more… sanitized.

[48] Posted by st. anonymous on 08-02-2006 at 07:37 PM • top

st. anon, same difference either way—really no different that what was written about them so very long ago:

“They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.”

Nothing new here.  Prophetic?  You’re a few thousand years too late Liz.  We saw you coming.

[49] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 08-02-2006 at 07:49 PM • top

One has to wonder how the two of them got those four children back. Was is by the courts? Or did the husbands just give up? Lots of possible explanations. Probably none of our business, but nevertheless curious. And one wonders about the in-vitro child. Who bore it, and who was the sperm donor. Again, none of our business, but a facinating facet of the lesbian lifestyle. Means lots of problematic issues down the line when the kids start asking questions about their genetic (health) histories. Hope the ladies have good answers.

[50] Posted by Gulfstream on 08-02-2006 at 09:02 PM • top

Gulfstream, one has to wonder how a child is supposed to “Honor his mother and father” when his father is nowhere to be found. 

One wonders how a child is supposed to assimilate “gender equality” when he doesn’t have a father at all, only because mom doesn’t like men much anymore.

One wonders how someone with such a strong sexist bias—so strong it’s worth breaking up a family over, and breaking most solemn vows made before God—manages to get elevated to the priesthood of a “respectable” church.

Come judgement day, yeah, I sure hope these ladies have some good answers.  For now, I will pray for the kids who have to live with the mess these women have made of their lives, and for the Episcopalians who have to live with the mess they’ve made of their church.

Satan rejoices over broken homes, broken promises, and empty churches.  So does Integrity, apparently.

[51] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 08-02-2006 at 09:33 PM • top


I think you got that right—I am sorry to say.

It is so, so sad.

We who are still trying to pick up the pieces are in great pain.

But guess what, folks? The Good News of the Gospel of Jesus is going to prevail, and that is very BAD news for the reappraisers (revisionists, liberals, whatever; sorry Ms. Keaton.)

I am blessed because I am hyped by the fact that eleven months after Katrina, and returning to a slab, at 3 PM tommorrow the concrete trucks will begin to rebuild my house. TBTG. BTW, it will be an all concrete house. Fool me once, etc.

[52] Posted by Gulfstream on 08-02-2006 at 10:00 PM • top

Gulfstream,congratulations and blessings on the rebuilding of your home,good idea that concrete.
Amen,on the Gospel prevailing,it will and with great power.

[53] Posted by paddy on 08-02-2006 at 10:31 PM • top

Greg says:

Honestly, I didn’t give it a lot of thought. I guess now, though, I’m glad I didnt go with my first idea: “Hon.”

Yeah, good thing you didn’t do that, Buddy Ro! Waaaaay too Southern for a Joiseyite!  tongue laugh

Ms. Kaeton gets a mite techy about names and labels, yet seems perfectly fine with plastering some on those she dislikes like Phil Snyder and Greg Griffith. I was especially touched by the “Bottom Feeder” prayer that she so smugly posted over on Lisa’s Mutual Whining Society site.

I must confess it is difficult to know how to respond to such behavior. I think the best answer - for me at least - is to read as little of their self-pitying and self-congratualtory ranting as possible. That way I will not have wasted my time by reading meaningless drivel.

[54] Posted by Allen Lewis on 08-02-2006 at 10:35 PM • top

Might have been fun to see the fireworks had someone called her ‘Lil Darlin’

[55] Posted by paddy on 08-02-2006 at 10:51 PM • top

That’s the reason I only lasted about 3 weeks on the HoB listserve.  I thought I had a pretty strong stomach, but after a while, you have to ask yourself what’s to be gained by hanging out and reading that horrible stuff day after day. (Mother Kaeton is a regular contributor.) Got better things to do with my time and energy.  I’d much rather be over here with y’all! wink

[56] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 08-02-2006 at 11:53 PM • top

“Mrs Kaeton has been living ‘monogamously’ with her partner Barbara, a nurse, for 22 years. They were both previously married and knew each other’s families. After they fell in love and their marriages broke up, they lost custody of the four children from their marriages.”

This could be the basis of an episode of Desperate Housewives (btw, never have watched it).  It would certainly be different.

[57] Posted by Tony on 08-03-2006 at 05:25 AM • top


Elizabeth Kaeton is not the issue here.  We should remember to engage the arguments and not the person when in debate.  Personal attacks and snarky comments take away from our witness to Jesus Christ as Lord.

I received a gracious email from her about the exchange where she apologized for calling me a bottom feeder.  That is enough for me.  Please refrain from speculating on her life or lifestyle.  She has found a way to some happiness in the world.  We disagree with the sexual component of her relationship, but we should at least let her be happy - even if we cannot bless that relationship.

Phil Snyder

[58] Posted by Philip Snyder on 08-03-2006 at 10:47 AM • top

Phil, Wow…
Your last comment was one of the best embodiments of agape that I’ve seen in a while.

Concerning your “misplaced promotion”, I’d propose referring to you and other Deacons on this forum as “/Phil” or “/[NAME]” in acknowledgement of your Diaconate.

Keep the Faith Friend!

[59] Posted by aterry on 08-03-2006 at 11:44 AM • top


Thank you for the kind words and respect.

I am reminded of Matthew 20:25-28:  “... You know that the rulers of the gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.  It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant (diakonos), and whoever woudl be first among you must be your slave (doulos); even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Following my Lord, I come not to be honored, but to honor others.  The the Bishops and Presbyters put honorifics before and after their names.  I come to serve.

Phil Snyder

[60] Posted by Philip Snyder on 08-03-2006 at 12:45 PM • top

Snippets from Ms Kaeton’s blog:

“I do not apologize for the terms “bottom feeder” and “mean, low down and nasty” in application to those who post on STAND FIRM.”

“I again apologize for my confusing you with Mr. Griffith and the rest of the Stand Firm folk. Clearly, yours is the voice of moderation in that place. But, as my grandmother used to caution, “If you lay down with dogs, you may get up with fleas.”

I admire your Christian charity, Phil.  But the fact remains her “apology” was to you only.  And while Kaeton is indeed not the issue, she is drawing attention at the moment because her attitude is so *typical* of the paganized, politicized, neo-Montanist entity that your ECUSA has become.

I am from the Anglican Church of Canada, and believe me we have our Elizabeth Kaetons too.  My own parish suffered under one for many years, and she is *not* missed.

[61] Posted by st. anonymous on 08-03-2006 at 01:00 PM • top

Phil, thanks & Amen to your comment beginning “Elizabeth Kaeton is not the issue here”

needed words, but I fear too late on this thread.

[62] Posted by Karen B. on 08-03-2006 at 01:31 PM • top

Here is the note I left for Mother Elizabeth - we all need to chill out here (as my kids would say).  Some of the comments and insults found here make me a bit ashamed of us.

This whole exchange is quite sad - it proves that the name-calling and bigotry is on BOTH sides of this present controversy - unfortunately it is not “see how they love eachother”, it is “see how human they are”.  The childish insults “over there” are no better or worse than your classifying the whole lot as bottom feeders “over here”.

see how human we all are - BOY do we need more Jesus in all this!
Thank you Brother Phil for your gentle spirit.

[63] Posted by GillianC on 08-03-2006 at 03:07 PM • top

I invite you to read my comments on giving and taking offense at my blog, The Deacon’s Slant:

Phil Snyder

[64] Posted by Philip Snyder on 08-03-2006 at 03:15 PM • top

The above all makes for very interesting reading, but what is the answer to the original question:

“Can you show me a biblical example of God blessing homosexual sex? Can you show in tradition where it was called blessed?”

[65] Posted by BillS on 08-03-2006 at 04:25 PM • top

No, EK is not the issue, but her words on her blog are another reminder that the love and inclusivity party are anything but.

[66] Posted by Tony on 08-03-2006 at 04:29 PM • top

Back where I come from…(no grammarians, please) East Tennessee…the best eatin’ fish around, and the largest, were the bottom feeders.  There were the blue river catfish that weighed over 400 pounds, of course, most were of the 6-12 pound table variety.  But the point remains, as Mother Elizabeth put it, the best stuff in the river or the tank goes to the bottom, and we all process garbage, in one way or another, every day. 

The real problem is to be able to benefit from that garbage in some way.  If you garden, like we do, and compost it properly, you are making that garden into a ‘bottom-feeder’, and it will grow the most lucious vegetables you have ever seen…Nothing wrong with bottom feeding, just be careful how you use it, too much ‘good compost’ will burn a garden up,and similarly, too much haranging will spoil even the most evenhanded and fair minded conversation.

Much has been posted about ‘dialogue’, and rightfully, in a lot of cases, it has been called ‘monologue’, for that is what it has fallen into.
I am not advocating anything but listening and speaking, with civility. 

Yes, some are in TEC, some of us have left TEC, some are undecided about TEC,; but the point remains, we all are heavily invested in TEC, and WE must make the difference in these trying times ahead of us all.

As my bishop exhorted at my diaconal ordination,“We are ALL deacons, not ‘just deacons’, but all deacons…as we seek and save in His name.


[67] Posted by Chip Johnson+, cj on 08-03-2006 at 05:37 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.