Travesty

Your rhetoric is nothing short of ugly.  I ask ,why, why do you you come to the south and spread your so called truths?  Is it because you have no reference group in the northeast?  Is it because you find the south an easy target to promulgate prejudice?  Where is your love?  Where is your mercy?  Where in God’s name is your desire to reach out to others so that we, as human beings may one day be one? 

I hate to quote scripture - I find it so often used as a weapon.  But, if I might cite one passage it is Matthew “Go and learn this,“I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” For I have come to call not the righteous but the sinners.”

Think about this when you spew your prejudicial, virtiolic rhetoric to your audience.  Think about it as you go to sleep, comforted by your righteousness.

Think about it when you refuse communion with your bishop, think about it when you see the dying, the aged, the hungry, the lost, the black the white the yellow the red.  Think about it when you need confirmation for your ‘orthodox’ views.  Orhodox does not mean hatred, it means Jesus’ message.

Heidi

While I am on a roll to defend my faith, to defend my love, to defend my God given thoughts, I must ask - Do you even know Mark Andrus?  Do you know the man behind the Bishop Regalia?  He is a man of intense love for the Father.  He is a man who cherishes the gifts we have been given by God.  He is a man who speaks of love. 

I made the terrible mistake of telling him some things that were said about him on the Stand Firm web-site.  Things such as he takes our youth to Taize in France and brain-washes them, utterances of heresy…I have never seen a man more wounded.  He could only lower his head.  I imagine he was wondering why.  Why he has loved us all and he has given his life to God, could people say such things. 

I took the hatred I heard on this site and hurt him.  I will always be sorry for that error.  But, I will never forget that he continues to spread love for all despite the attacks he bears.

Heidi

”  I ask ,why, why do you you come to the south and spread your so called truths?  Is it because you have no reference group in the northeast?”

Uh, Heidi, I’m in Central New York. Stand Firm is a NATIONAL WEBSITE.

I know you hate to quote scripture, but I do encourage you to read it.

As for my “hatred”. Please define what you mean by hatred and tell me, specifically where you find “hatred” in what I have written.

BTW bishop elect Mark Andrus was elected bishop of California, not Northern California. This article has NOTHING to do with him.

Duh, I know where Mark was elected. You would find fault no matter where he was elected…as you said in a previous post.  I find hatred in the fact that you cheapen scripture and do not allow it to evolve.  The good Lord surely wasted a lot of divenely inspired authors if this were so.  I find hatred in the fact that you cheapen your fellow church members who do not act, nor believe to your letter of the law as Matt Kennedy sees it. I find hatred in the fact that you cheapen yourself by not taking communion with your bishop; it is the Lord’s scarament. But most of all I find hatred in your inability to learn that we are all apart of God.  We all struggle, some more than others. We want to know the way and the truth, we want to love, we want to give.
Heidi

Heidi, Matt:  Peace.  Not only does +Mark not need our defense, neither does the Gospel.  It is a difficult lesson for the “orthodox” to believe, but no, God does not need their defense.

The trouble comes when we have differences not directly addressed, be it by scripture or by “the historical teachings.”  These differences tend to become axes of trouble: political, theological, social trouble.  The truly amazing thing about the current troubles is that they really are about epiphenominal isues.  Dragging in “scriptural orthodoxy” is not quite disingenous, but pretty close.  Just because it’s “not quite disingenuous” doesn’t mean it should be dismissed, but things are way out of proportion as to what the “orthodox” would have us swallow in terms of judgementalism.

The “orthodox” have dug into a trench which cannot abide anything but their definition of holy.  The “establishment” is into a trench which cannot find room for differences, despite what they say.  We need a level field, with the trenches filled in.  I love you all.

Heidi,

Love, tolerance, inclusivity and joy ooze from every word you type.

Rather than name calling, why don’t you tell me how you understand Jesus’ very clear words with regard to divorce?

Terebinth,

I have got to say that I can’t help but love you too. 

I do not have rhetoric to stand on, I only have faith.
I also ‘troll’ this site because my son will be a delagate at his years’ convention.  He will represent the southern third of our state.  He will not vote as Stand Firm would like.  He will vote with love.  He is the youngest ever in our state to be a Postulant to Holy Orders and will attend seminary this fall - of course a liberal one, much to the consternation of those who would condemn him for his choice. 

But, I have got to tell you if one here dares to question his motives, or dares to question his faith, they will insprire my wrath - a mother’s wrath, a mother who has watched him grow through the suicide of his father, through his wonderfully spiritual growth at the University of AL with so many awards I can’t begin to cite them.  Hey, google him…the Stand Firm google mocks him by comapring him to Sponge - his name is Jack…

I know that Stand Firm is a national web-site Matt, I just wonder why you aren’t more visible in your geograpic territory?

Heidi,

Again, I am simply overwhelmed by your love, inclusivity, warmth and non-judgemental open-mindedness to those whose views are unlike your own. You are the quintessential revisionist. Thank you for commenting.

As for my regional visibility? Hmmm…everyone here, including the bishop, knows exactly what I think and our stand here in CNY could not be more visible.

You know Matt, I have a dream,,I see it now.  You are not far from White Plains, the home of John Larson, who wrote Rent, and died the morning of its debut…I see the original cast members on your alter, singing “Seasons of Love.”  That is how you might experience the true love of our Lord.  Oh, but it is just a dream…..

Heidi,

It’s almost embarrassing to continue this, but after that last post, I do have to ask, what on earth are you smoking?

Matt: really, let’s not get into embarassment.  I will leave your revelations about your divorcing parishioners alone, how ‘bout leaving Heidi’s maternal emotions alone, OK?  The point is you have a very special parish obviously.  It wouldn’t work broadly (I’m thinking Africa…)  Heidi cites some very pulling emotions, can you relate or only retreat into judgement?  Hello?  Would you actually propose that the response you document to a failing marriage within your purview should be the policy of Big Church?  Any big church?

Funny - I will have to go and read the label…I seem to wonder, though, Matt, don’t you have anything more inspired to say?  No scriptural rhetoric you can call upon?  Have you exhausted the Gospel and are now delving into pop culture? 

So sorry for your embarrassment - suppose I need to find some hell fire and damnation to counter your criticism…
But I can’t -seems all I can think of is ‘five hundred twenty five thousand six hundred minutes’ seasons and minutes to express our love for the Lord, our love for one another

You tell ‘Terebinth’ she is absurd, you wonder what I have been smoking.  You critisize your Bishop, you crisize mine.  I am so sorry for for the dissention I need to express.  I, but I abound in love for my church, warts and all.

I confess that I have become a follower of liberation theology because I have a daughter who tauts it.  I confess that I love the fact that I have a daughter who is a hippie-wannabe and thinks the Bishop in Negeria needs to just ‘get over’ his hate. I confess that I have a son who loves the Lord with all his might, and just cannot understand the controversy.

If I am smoking anything, Matt, I am smoking a wonder for this phenomenon we call life, a wonder that we have the intelligence to look beyond the obvious, to choose.  To know that we do not choose between pain and no pain, but between the pain of loving and not loving.

Heidi

Terebinth, Heidi,

Really, this is fun and all but rather than spewing incomprehensibilities, returning to the article, what do you disagree with?

Is divorce without cause a good thing? Do you think God smiles on it? Why or why not?

Do you think someone twice divorced and remarried without cause should be bishop?

Matt: I do not know the man as priest or bishop.  I expect that like lots of us, the part about his divorces does not really define his ability to lead, although it is not a plus.  There are these saints in N CA who seem convinced of his overall fitness, for the time being that has to work for me.

I would not apply that “work for me” part so far as to gays, but I would let it go to divorced. 

On the other hand I am a little surprised that you—a priest of the apostolic faith—would air marital troubles within your purview so liberally.  Do you expect us to subscribe to your actions because we might agree, or because they are supposedly scriptural?  Your actions in outing a member of the faith (apparently in favor of his estranged wife) are not recommendations for general favor.  I will stop before I sound too much like your seniors, which I am most assuredly not.  Just something for you to think about.

Heidi:  don’t take Matt and his ilk too seriously.  They are great at sound and fury but signify not so much.  That is the great pity because they have some good things to teach but their lessons get lost in the spray.

Terebinth,

Interesting that you use the word “outing” here.

In fact the last step in the Matt 18 process is informing the whole church. It is supposed to be above-board public knowledge.

In any case, all of that was done long before I wrote this article.

The problem orthodox people should have with with serial divorce without cause is the same problem that we have with homosexual behavior. Both are sins clearly defined in the scriptures. 

The issue, as always, comes down to repentance. If VGR were ready to repent of his sinful lifestyle and heretical teachings, then I would be more than willing to lay down my arms. All Christians are obligated to confess their sins and return to the Lord. We do it every morning. Of course the problem is that these bishops deny that these things are sins in the first place, so repentance in the second is impossible.

What I find unsettling is your inability to focus on matters that I can hold onto, matters I can cherish as I walk through my day, my week, my year. Those are the messages I hear from Jesus.

You want to discuss divorce?  Discuss it with those who suffer for the myriad of reasons with which it appears.  Just as you do not know Mark Andrus, I have to wonder if you know the Bishop of whom you speak. I would never asume to know others..

You want to put yourself on a pedastal of pure faith?  Please be careful, for it is so easy to fall.

terebinth, I take these messages seriously.  I see how they hurt others.  I see people hurt by the messages.  I fell semse of duty so to speak. 

You want to fight?  You want to judge?  I say, let’s do it with honesty for all our human frailties…

I’ve been married for over 25 years.  I know that there is a much deeper level of love in the 25th year than I was in my first 7 years of marriage.  The difference was only made available after years through the construct of another.  That “another” was my wife.  Her construct was one of forgiveness from my bull$#!+.

If she had not forgiven, then I never would have known her forgiveness nor the area from which that forgiveness came.  It was from Christ, Himself!

Had I not accepted that forgiveness, nor the area from which that forgiveness came, (God,) then the marriage would never have lasted.

If a man keeps getting married, even at his running for bishop, then there is something ultimately wrong with his relationship…not only with those that he is married to, but also with his relationship to Christ. 

If I decide to draw a line as to my acceptance of such a person that fights against the authourity of marriage, how dare anyone to say that I am unaccepting of Christian values!  Shame on those that would demand my acceptance of that “bishop’s” integrity, and the demander of my vote, when those failures are absolutely un-Christian after a few realities in his life as seen by all that would vote for him!

It is exactly like saying that “a person still desiring the war in Iraq is wrong because Christ is about peace!”

Good gosh, Hiedi and Terebinth,...get a rudder!

Matt: a travesty is a crude or ridiculous misrepresentation or distortion. Maybe for your heading you meant “tragedy,” which would not have so badly misled me.  You see what I took from your story was how badly you had shortchanged and duped these two saints trusted to you. 

It may be a surprise to you Matt but even “a trusted leader in my parish” can be less than honest with the priest.  Especially if (s)he has faint reason to believe there might be less than whole love coming back from him.  When you wrote Matt: “Maybe I was wrong?” about the Spirit, did it perhaps occur to Matt that it was you who were wrong?  That this man was actually pleading for you to convince him that he had misread the Spirit?  Only you were there, only you can handle this ambiguity.  But your story leaves a lot of room to wonder whether there might have been some way besides dragging out the NT orders for discipline that might have ended more positively.  Now I do not deny that those orders are there, and for good reason.  So are lots of other definitions of proper behavior in the situation you describe.  Frankly I surmise that the man was prepared to hear from you “that these things are sins in the first place, so repentance in the second is impossible.”  Why should he try in the face of that, Matt?

Terebinth,

The “travesty” I pointed to in the article is the California event referred too in the last line.

As for your suggestions in the rest of the article, since you speak out of complete and utter ignorance, you’ve ended up getting it all wrong.

But in a more general sense, what do you mean by “love”

When revisionists speak of “love” I generally get the sense that they mean, “accepting” a person’s every act or behavior, however destructive. That is never love as the bible understands it.

1.  It was an election: can’t be a travesty by definition.

2.  Please dont call me revisionist.  You know not of what you label.  Love comes in 3 parts: agape, eros, filios.  Only eros can be destructive.  Maybe going down that road w/your trusted member would have been more productive?  Maybe if you had been less label oriented and more interested in his wholeness?  I don’t know I wasn’t there, just having to read between your lines Matt.  But in a general sense, you failed.  Think about why.  Try to avoid tragedy, it is not God’s way.

Terry,

More often, a man of God will fail when it comes to the un-adulterated perceived liberty of a sinner.  That sinner will stand strong in his liberty against all the holiness (and freedom) that God has to offer.

Only a fool would venture a comment at this point, so here goes.

Thank you, Fr Kennedy, for addressing this most urgent issue with such Biblical integrity and compassion.  The ravages caused by divorce are beyond calculation.  And it truly is a scandal (to use Ron Sider’s phrase) that Christians, including evangelical Christians, have a divorce rate higher than the society at large.  The church must begin to address this.

A few years ago, I had a brief encounter with a local man I did not know that involved driving him from his dilapidated apartment in an old house in the middle of our small town (since burned to the ground) to the mobile home he used to live in and still owned out in the woods.  He seemed like an articulate and intelligent man.  As we were driving, he mentioned that his “ex-wife’s first husband” was now living in the trailer.  When we got there, the only sign of life was a teenage girl sunbathing notwithstanding the black flies and mosquitoes.

Since that brief encounter, I have often tried to comprehend the true costs in terms of broken lives, financial distress, ruined childhoods, anti-depressants, alcohol and drug abuse and who knows what else lie behind the multiple broken relationships summarized by that simple phrase “my ex-wife’s first husband.”  I can’t.

Divorce may be no-fault, but it is not no-consequence.  You will probably never know the marriages and children you have saved by applying Jesus’ teaching as if He really meant it.  One thing we can be sure of is that that teaching was offered in love and not in judgment.  The church has to address this issue.  Thank you for doing so.

Matt, you are just too loving and gentle to the two arch-revisionist that troll SFIF!  You have just called them out and exposed their placing the selfish “love” above the clear word of God and His clear commandments.  You did exactly what the scripture demands—-really surprising for an ECUSA priest.  To have done less would be to hate the sinner by letting him continue in his sin without warning and disciplining him. It would be lack of Love for the Lord of the Lampstands who asked “Why call me Lord when you do not the things that I command.”  Praise God for your stand and pastoral love for your flock and your love for the Lord.  The revisionist are pretty much hopeless since they can’t see.  Unless the Lord opens their mind and hearts to the truth they also will some day suffer judgment. Just thought I would touch lightly on this subject.  Peace and Power Brother—-INCOMING!!!

Thanks be to God for Mark and Micaiah!  They have articualated what I was feeling in more worthy words and thought. 

Peace! and keep up the good and Godly work, Matt!  May your wife be blessed, also, as she endeavors under your wing of safety!  She is a wonderful, happy, and smiling reality that you, Matt, are blessed to behold!

God bless you, Matt’s Wife!  I absolutely know that you exist and are a present representative of God in Matt’s life! 

Peace~

Fr. Matt - I thoroughly enjoyed the article.  Your faith and courage shone through.  As I read the comments, I kept saying - don’t comment, don’t comment, don’t comment.  Next thing I know I’m logging in.  Oh well - here goes -

It truly amazes me how the revisionist can throw stones and sit back and call it righteous (after all you DISAGREED with them - how dare you!) You wrote an article that appropriately addresses Scripture.  Divorce is truly a hard subject and one that our society has allowed itself to be duped about.  We seem to have missed the fact that it is part of our “if it feels good, do it” society.  Too many of us have fallen into the “me first” culture and have broken a sacred vow - such as a wedding vow.  I did not see your article as throwing stones but instead throwing your body over the breach to try to save a fellow traveller from the pain that this will bring to himself and others. I would love to see you write on the subject of individuals who divorced prior to becoming committed Christians and then remarried. 

As to the Bishop of N.CA - wow!  I guess they forgot to read the Books of Titus, Timothy or Jude for surely if they had read them, they would not have even nominated a thrice married/twice divorced individual!  Possibly we should seek to do mission work to CA by bringing in copies of the Bible that haven’t been redacted.

I really have to ask Heidi - the only love that can hurt you is eros?  So what about a mother who fails to properly discipline a child because she (she thinks)loves too much?  Scripture hint:  “What Father whose child asks for a fish would give him a stone?”

All Peace to my fellow travellers.

Matt, I want to thank you for this article. I too think you have hit on a very important point for us all. There are those who will not or cannot see the most loving points you are making. May I quickly share a similar experience in my ministry.

A husband and father of three children, very active in our parish, decided he was no longer in love with his wife and moved out saying he “needed space.” As has been my experience when that phrase is used, he indeed already had a girlfriend on the side. His wife was, of course, devistated. At this point I want to make it clear that I was then and am clear now that there was enough blame to go around regarding the failure of this marriage for both the husband and wife.

What made this situation so very difficult was that shortly after leaving his wife and moving in with his girlfriend, he and the girlfriend started attending Sunday worship together at our parish, sitting within a few feet of the woman who was still his wife. This caused a great scandal in the parish.

I made an appointment to visit both the husband and his girlfriend primarily to get their views of the situation. Their responses showed me that the situation was as it appeared. At this meeting I made it clear that this was a scandal for the parish and that unless they stopped their present immoral behavior, I would have to withhold communion from them per the rubrics in the BCP. They were, of course, very angry and did not understand my “hateful and unloving” attitude. They did not attend our church after that. There followed a very difficult divorce that had significant consequences on their children. The ex-husband eventually married the girlfriend. The children and former wife remained active in the parish.

Fast forward about 8 years. After a time of very strained relationships between the ex-husband and the ex-wife, and after lengthy periods of prayer by many, the difficult interactions among all the parties began to thaw. By this time the ex-husband had a son with his new wife. The ex-wife had remained, and still is, single.

In the meantime the ex-husband and his wife began to attend another Episcopal Church in our community and, despite the revisionist views of the rector actually were converted to Christ along with his wife through someone outside the church. After GC06 he realized he could no longer attend this parish and was faced with the fact that the only orthodox congregation anywhere close was mine.

He approach his former wife and asked if she would feel comfortable if he and his wife and son began attending my parish again. This was brought to me by his former wife for my opinion. She said she hated the idea but knew that that was her “old nature” and not God. She would be open. After much prayer, I told her that I would if all parties met confidentially with me and confessed their sins before God related to this horrible divorce. That would include all the parties: ex-wife (who admitted that she was not perfect during their marriage), ex-husband, and new wife.

Amazingly enough all agreed to do this. The two hour meeting that followed (along with another not long after) was a very difficult but glorious event. All came clean about their sin. All sincerely repented of their actions. All were forgiven by God. This could not be a completely “clean” situation because there was going to be no divorce and re-marriage of the ex-wife, what with the new son and all. However, a very bad situation was redeemed as well as it could be. Now two years after these meetings, all are now active parishioners again and our church is the stronger for what has happened. We have been able to model another way, a way the world does not understand. It is God’s way.

Here is the kicker. Both the ex-husband and his new wife said to me that this reconciliation with one another and with God would never have been able to take place if I had not taken the strong stand I had 8 years before. Please tell me. Was my disipline loving or unloving. I hope the answer is obvious, but, sadly, for some it probably won’t be.

Wow, what a wonderful story Vernon+, thank you for sharing that. I think the boundaries to communion and relationship provided in the bible make authentic relationships possible. Unless they are upheld relations between pastor and parishioners, wives and husbands, etc…quickly and easily descend into superficialities. If you had let the husband continue attending with no repurcussions, your witness and authority would have been compromised, the gospel obscured and those implicated left alone in the darkness with their guilt. But by doing what you did, the light of truth worked its way throughout the whole. Thank you again for this post and for your witness.

Friends, if you will look back you will see that Matt corrected his ambiguity about the travesty.  Travesty does not relate to the divorce story, he is calling the election of a twice divorced bishop in N CA a travesty.  This in light of the fact that he cites no knowledge of the ciurcumstances surrounding those CA divorces, and he asks that we swallow his anecdotal experience as applicable to them.

Like bishops and people in general, all divorces are not created equal.  If the “orthodox” would return to strict adherence to the NT criteria for church leaders, they will have substantial problems. Both Matt & Vernons stories are great, but they cannot be applied to unknown situations in judgemental ways: travesty.

The circumstances were they were divorced.  This man holds a place of high shepard in the church.  I stand with Matt+ on this.  Scripture is clear on this issue.

Heidi,

John Paul II had it right when he said about liberation theology “To make the church into a secular political institution and to see salvation solely as the achievement of social justice was to rob faith in Jesus of its power to transform every life.”

In terms of the liberation of women, the break down of the family unit has placed a huge burden on the backs of women.  The acceptance of serial divorce has been a part of that breakdown. Accepting serial divorce or other forms of sexual misconduct, gay or straight, and ignoring it in the selection of our Bishops, is the antithesis of true agape love. If we love our fellow parishioners, we will support the election of Bishop’s who best model God’s will for our lives.

I posted this over at Brad Drell’s site a week or so ago:

“Divorce is problematic even among the orthodox. I well remember what happened many years ago when the rector of my parish refused to marry a parishoner’s daughter in the church because she had been divorced. This parishoner was one of the founders of the parish and one of its major financial supporters. He was so conservative that he refused to die until he was promised a 1928 BCP Funeral Eucharist and he never took a single communion from a female priest, yet he was willing to go against the church’s teachings on divorce and remarriage. The priest, incidentally, was forced out over the situation.”

It is about time we all realized that our secular divorce culture has been a catastrophe for generations of children and families. This is a prime example of what happens when a church embraces popular culture instead of standing firm for what Christ has called for us to do.

the snarkster

PS: If you just stop responding to Heidi’s vicious invective, maybe she will just go away.

Snark: “a prime example of what happens when the church emraces popular culture…”

If you haven’t been to Rome, and haven’t seen the “arms” of St Peter’s “embracing the people,” I recommend it.  Leaving aside the architects of St Peters (sincere and genius all of ‘em), the concept was to embrace all—at a safe distance.  Well we have a new (!) idea.  The church is not opposed to popular culture, it is a leader of it.  So we need leaders.  Not smarms, not judges, not charlatans.

Terebinth,

The Church should always embrace people. But it should not necessarily embrace everything people do. What is so hard about that concept? Why do revisionists insist on identifying the essence of a person with that person’s behavior?

Matt: I make no such insistence.  Quite the contrary. As I remember it, you made that insistence. It was you who cited your own experience with divorce in your parish, and then applied it to unknown persons .  Well, your experience is good but not applicable to N CA.  It was you who substituted the “essence of a person with that person’s (meaning the bishop elect of N CA)‘s behavior.” Again I ask: do not label me, I am not a revisionist as I gather you define same.  I wonder, does it make you feel better to come across with these labels, or is it just some kind of shorthand?

Fr Kennedy:  You are getting a small sample of what it is like to stand against the revisionist juggernaut.  The slime machine goes into high gear any time someone who could influence the faithful in opposition to the heretics raises his head above the trenches.  In his book, The Vision of the Anointed, Thomas Sowell points out that leftists have concluded that they have figured out all of life’s profound questions, and that they will therefore not entertain any debate or discussion of such issues.  If anyone seeks to engage them on those issues, the “progressives” attack their putative opponents as intellectually inferior, or mean-spirited, or both.  I think we see a perfect example of that in the postings of Terebinth and Heidi.

Terebinth, you and Heidi have been making that insistence throughout and in all of my interactions with you that has been an assertion throughout. For example because I make a distinction between behavior and the person, I can acknowledge that the bishop elect of N Cal is a human being loved by God. At the same time, I can recognize that by biblical standards his serial marriages render him ineligible for the office of bishop. Likewise nobody needs to “meet Gene” before deciding whether or not a non-celibate homosexual should be bishop. That judgement has already been rendered by God. You can read it in Lev 18:22, Romans 1:18-32, 1 Cor 6:9, etc…

Does this mean that Gene Robinson deserves “hatred” and/or contempt? Of course not. It simply means that his unrepentant rebellios behavior is sinful.

Right.  Not talking here about gay bishops, talking about divorced ones.  Very different issues.  My beef with you seems to be similarly different from Heidi’s beef w/you.  Please avoid the “lump together and throw” strategy. 

To label the election in N CA as a travesty is an attack on the integrity of those voters.  You may not like their choice, and consider it a tragedy or whatever, but to demean it as a mockery is beyond foolish Matt.  This is not a small thing.  For instance: how would you respond if they had done the same to you?

Terebinth, both the election of VGR and the election in N Cal are/were “travesties” in that they both made mockery of God’s Word. Both have that quite in common.

The elections were “travesties” and I place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the laity and the clergy.  The clergy - they are the ones who are suppose to be the leaders - shepherds because they are suppose to guard His flock from the wolves that constantly prey on His church.  Where were they?  I’ll tell you where they were - sitting there telling us sound asleep laity not to worry about it because what some eccentric did in some parish far away did not affect the way we did things in our little parish.  And those with the pointy hats - oh shame on you for not just opening the door to these preying wolves but inviting them in and telling us they are sheep.
The laity - let’s start with blame for not standing up and throwing the whole group out when they let Bishop Pike get away with his antics and let’s not even get into the Righter trial or the Spong heresy.  And now - now that it is hot enough to wake us up and get us off our seats - for not turning where we should have for guidance all along - to the Lord in heaven who promised to be with us always.  He left us with the ability to become fully armed in His Word and we left the manual sitting on the shelf collecting dust instead we became complacent and relied on the shepherds to guard the gate.  Well - that was then and this is now.  The time to stand firm is truly here.  It is only with the strength and courage that the Good Lord gives us that we will survive this battle - yes it is a battle.  I give thanks everyday for clergy like Matt who have invested the time and energy to drench themselves in the Word and still believe it to actually BE God’s Word.  I ask forgiveness for coming to His table for comfort and succor and not for strength and courage.  And with His help, I and many others ask for redemption of His church.  Give us whatever it is we need Dear Lord to accomplish Your Will for Your Church and the grace and wisdom to accept whatever it is you give.

Finally, Amy, I join with you in believing that it is our duty to stand firm and wage this battle fully armed in His Word.  I do not know that the outcome will see us sitting in an ECUSA pew but I do believe that only the Good Lord can find a way.  And believe me - it WON’T be a third way.

God’s peace to all.
Jackie

Good post Jackie! Couldn’t have said it a bit better myself.

Just a few quick thoughts before I sally forth for lunch: I have been commenting on these various blogs for a long time now. I have seen a lot of people (yes, myself included) go over the line by a little or a lot. I have to say that Heidi’s posts at the beginning of this thread were amoung the worst I have seen. Terebinth, who has berated us constantly for incivility, did not have even the mildest of rebukes for her venomous rants. Once again, I have to ask Terebinth the same question I have her/him many times before: Why is it that you have so little to say about the excesses of the revisionistas? Why do you constantly revile the orthodox for simply attempting to Stand Firm for their beliefs in the face of constant and unrelenting attacks from the revisionistas?

the snarkster

Isn’t it interesting how the revisionist revile the orthodox for hypocracy in opposing the sodomites, but say nothing about divorce, and when our good brother applies scripture equally in the divorce and serial adultry sin they go balistic.  Who is the hypocrit?

Snarkster,

I am personally happy for Terebinth that he has such an ally in Heidi.  I believe that both of their comments offer a striking glimpse into the minds—and hearts—of reappraisers.

Why begrudge Terebinth a helpful voice in his never-ending quest on this blog?

I am glad for him.

Moderately yours,

Sarah

Sarah: I don’t begrudge Terebinth anything. I just believe that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander also. If he/she is going to berate the orthodox for the tone of their posts, the same should apply to the revisionistas.

the snarkster-live from the RedNeck Riviera (Orange Beach, Alabama)

Snark,

Dare I say, (oh slow down my foolish heart….)

ROLL TIDE!!!!

Folks, someone said the best response to Heidi is to ignore her, so I did.  Sorry it didn’t please. 

As to reciprocity, I would ask any and all the question I asked Matt,which he then ignored.  How will each of you feel when someone labels your proper election a travesty?  Remember it means mockery, a crude and ludicrous parody.  If this is the respect we have for decisons made properly by others, there is really no hope for peace.  Really I think Matt meant “tragedy” but it escaped him and it’s too late to rectify.  With tragey I agree.

sorry the D in tragedy slipped me there.

Geez, Terry. What does the fact that a decision was “properly” made have to do with whether or not it was right. They could have passed a resolution to burn people at the stake or something and you say that if it was properly presented, properly voted on, and properly passed, that would be OK? Balderdash. Having said that, I do think that Andrus and California are a perfect match. They couldn’t have found a gayer straight person anywhere. My only regret is that California is not any farther from Alabama.

the snarkster

Sorry all. I got my thoughts mixed up. This thread is about divorce in Northern California, not Andrus in California. My bad. The mimosas have gone to my head.

the snarkster

Tavesty: noun An exaggerated or grotesque imitation. 

Is it an imitation of following the rules?  No.

Is it an imitation of electing someone who should be the proper representative of the Christian faith? Yes.

Hence, the election of a man divorced twice and married three times, which has never occured before in ECUSA, is a travesty.

Divorce on Nothern California and Andrus.  What’s the difference anyway.  Duhhh!

FWIW, I believe that the late Bishop Pike, the ‘60s canary in the Episcopal coal mine, was actually divorced and remarried a couple of times while he was Bishop of California.

So personally I’m shocked—shocked!—at Northern California’s choice…

Seeing as its not getting through the usual way let me try another.  To label that election (any election) a travesty is to impugn the integrity of the process.  If we’re going to consider the elections false in and of themselves, we have no way to go forward.  If you want to consider the outcomes wrong, that’s another matter.  If you want to not recognize the elected because of qualifications, OK.  But the process stands. Again, consider what are inviting: how would it sit with you if the election were in your own diocese and someone 2000 miles away labeled it illegitimate, a mockery, an imitation?  Calling an election a travesty is an invitation to chaos.

It is very important to consider the logical outcomes of your words used in heat or emotion.  VGRs election in ‘03 was many things, but it was not a travesty, hence the problems.

Terebinth,

I did not ignore your question, I answered it in my last post. It is NOT the process of election that is a travesty, but the outcome. The people elected someone unfit for the office. They are indeed to be impugned by the decision.

On the other hand, the process itself can be seen as a travesty when it is misused. For example. The “democratic” aspect of our Church was never intended to be turned against the core doctrines and principles of Christianity (like the authority of the scriptures). IF we were to hold a referendum on whether or not we ought to strike the 7th commandment from the bible, the process itself would be a travesty.

In that sense, the very possibility of electing a non-celibate homosexual man or a thrice remarried man to the office of bishop does indeed make the process something of a travesty.

I have to disagree with you terebinth.  The travesty started during the nomination process.  One of the purposes of a nominating committee is to make sure the candidates are qualified.  According to Scripture, they were not. 

The second travesty came into play when the clergy and laity did not send the nominating committee back to the drawing board to come up with qualified candidates.

The next comes when the laity and clergy then ratified what the nominating committee did.  They allowed unqualified candidates to run for the office of high shepherd.

Travesty all around.

the process itself may have functioned like a well oiled machine but when one starts with a faulty premises, it sours the whole batch.

I don’t see why anyone would not see it as a travesty…even Terebinth.  But, alas, Terebinth won’t see anything but the secularist agenda that Terebinth relentlessly fights for.  How many times must Travesty be explained to a close-minded indivual?  20?  30 times? 

Terebinth sees and will only recognize a wee portion of the word, travesty, and won’t look at the entire word and that word’s ramnifications.  So Terebinth attacks the writer of that word and being close-minded.  Typical. 

I wonder what “typical” means.

The fact that Res. B001 at GC03 failed to pass by a 60/40% margin was a TRAVESTY. The process was perfect, though. It was “properly” introduced, “properly” debated, and “properly” voted down all because 60% of ECUSA bishops didn’t have the cojones to reaffirm the Christian Faith. Of course, how could they, after they had just voted to confirm a bishop that was in violation of the most basic tenets of his own church’s stated theology and practice. What, pray tell, is the difference between the Northern California and New Hampshire elections? IMHO, nothing. Neither man is theologically qualified and both elections are a TRAVESTY.

the snarkster

Friends.  It’s good to note Matt’s new position: “something of a travesty”.  But the question to which you do not respond is the classic golden rule one: If your own elections (choose one, there’s gonna be a lot) are generally considered a travesty by others and therefore illegitimate, how will you feel?  What will you do?  On what solid ground will you stand, having (attempted to) pull down previous elections?  It is a classic case of going over the top now (what was so wrong with ‘tragedy’, Matt?), only to regret it later.  Every single enemy made today will require several allies to neutralize later on.

It’s all one big fat travesty and a continuing tragedy in ECUSA.  The beat goes on.  Deconstructionist can never know what a word means—-just what ever they want it to mean.  BLAHHHH

PM: an important part of the problem here is Matt stumbled into an improper use of his word.  If you don’t know them, get a good dictionary and learn the proper meaning of words—careful use of the language is important and will become more important as we get further into communication among different positions.  Of course if you don’t want to communicate then just bleat and give up: the issues will be decided for you.

Terebinth - Please allow me to plainly answer your question.  If our Diocese holds an election where all the processes are properly followed with the exception that the individual elected is not qualified to hold the office as outlined in the Bible - then, yes, I hope, I pray, I beg you to call that election a travesty regardless of how hard others worked to get the election process done to even the minutest detail.  I would consider it your duty to do so.

Terebinth -

Please allow me to plainly answer your question.  If our Diocese holds an election where all the processes are properly followed with the exception that the individual elected is not qualified to hold the office as outlined in the Bible - then, yes, I hope, I pray, I beg you to call that election a travesty regardless of how hard others worked to get the election process done to even the minutest detail.  I would consider it your duty to do so.

I sure hope Terry gets this one! 

It’s a copy and paste so Terry can get it.

Thanks Jackie, you took the words out of my mouth.

As for my “somewhat”, I suppose I was using a bit of sarcastic understatement. It is indeed a full fledged travesty.

As for doing unto others. That, of course, is the second half of the first and greatest commandment. The first half being, love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.

As Jesus said, “If you love me you will obey my commands”.

Electing someone who flagrantly and willfully disobeys and encourages others to do so is itself a flagrant and willful act of disobedience and rebellion. Thus, the election process, the election results, and the all the all those affirmative votes constitute a terible travesty.

Matt, you have so succinctly affirmed my point: “and the all the all those affirmative votes constitute a terrible travesty.”  So…the negative votes, the ones I suppose you might agree with, what are they Matt?  Chopped liver? When you call the election a travesty you disenfranchise all votes, Matt.  Do I take it that you would only allow votes which are “correct?”  I do not want to be sarcastically understated here.  Just how would you decide these things, Matt?  Acid?

Terebinth- I think it is time to re-evaluate.  Let us ponder together - are you a troll or does English evade you?

What part of these answers have you not understood?  The nomination was tainted therefore the process does not matter.  The affirmative votes only serve up further contamination.

Honest dissent is welcome, however, willful refusal to read the plain meaning of the words is a symptom of revisionism.

Jackie, I began with a careful (and I think diplomatic) correction of the meaning of “travesty,” as Matt had fallen away from the word’s proper use.  He had labeled the process of the bishop’s election in N CA a travesty.  What that does is demean the process, not just the outcome but the process itself.  It impugns the integrity of all who participated.  Surely that was not Matt’s intention—he meant to highlight the divorce issue, but his misuse of words overreached his intention.  This is not an isolated or unimportant problem, folks who get their emotions in gear before their intelligence turns over nearly always end up misleading.  So I ask you Jackie, who is willfully refusing to read the plain meaning of words here?  Or to put it another and much more pertinent way, how will Matt & Jackie react when someone labels their legitimate election a travesty?  I daresay they will be defending the process, inviting folks to disagree with the outcome if the want, but defending the process to the death.

If Terebinth we lived in a morally neutral Universe your comparative. equivalence between an election that turns out “my” way and an election that turns out another way might be a valid one. But we don’t God has revealed his law.

Thus, an election for bishop that has as a candidate one who’s life and/or doctrine overthrows God’s law is a travesty, both the process itself and the outcome.

As for the negative votes, these are less of a travesty. They voted correctly. But still a travesty in the sense that they participated in such a process.

I’ll not take your bait Terebinth and ask you to re-read the entries above.  I stand by them.  I personally believe the election falls into the following definition of travesty:

A debased or grotesque likeness: a travesty of justice.

Unfortunately ECUSA has been conducting a grotesque likeness of a Christian faith for all too many years.  Those who condone these unfaithful actions willingly lend themselves to this parody.

It’s late morning in Orange Beach and here I am sipping a bloody mary and recovering from a wild afternoon at the Flora Bama lounge yesterday.

Terebinth: You are trying to turn this whole thread into a debate on the meaning of “travesty”.
Let me make the following observations:

1. I don’t know whether Matt used the word correctly or not. I will say this, popular usage often does not hold strictly to a dictionary definition. I do know what he was trying to say, however, and so do you. What you are doing is bogging the discussion down in a pissing contest over definitions when it should about the wisdom of electing a serial monogamist as a bishop.

2. If you want to engage Matt+ in a war of definitions, challenge him to meet you in a neutral location and you can heave dictionaries at 30 paces until your arm gets tired but spare the rest of us your obvious smoke screens.

3. This whole thing is like the crew of the Titanic arguing over whether they hit an iceberg or a floating mass of sub-32 degree water in its solid state, while the ship sank under them.

4. The Titanic sank because it was steaming too fast through treacherous waters contrary to all accepted nautical practice. Sound familiar?

the snarkster

Snarkster,

your point 3 should be a Monty Python skit. Perfect.

sounds like a work report turned in by a newly hired who stated they cleaned the area with liquid water.

Terre would rather quibble over word definitions than face the fact that sin is being promoted in ECUSA.  The correct answer is still that it is a travesty and a tragedy.  No way it can be white washed away.  12 truck drivers will give you the correct answer.  Liberals never seem to get it right—same reason a burgler has trouble finding a policeman.  Cheers