tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post3734789758288457897..comments2024-02-15T03:32:25.686-05:00Comments on Preludium, Anglican and Episcopal futures: Focus on the Question, not the Messenger... the Proposal, not Bishop Sauls.Mark Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-399383733906792092011-10-03T07:45:20.524-04:002011-10-03T07:45:20.524-04:00I wonder if this is really Bart's blog, since ...I wonder if this is really Bart's blog, since he is frequently much more verbose than the host. <br /><br />I second David's comments.Counterlighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14345956180434795401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-47903413825873119832011-10-02T16:26:19.001-04:002011-10-02T16:26:19.001-04:00That's great David. Thanks for your opinions.
...That's great David. Thanks for your opinions.<br /><br />BartBartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-11366186955790844202011-10-02T16:22:37.472-04:002011-10-02T16:22:37.472-04:00You alone are responding. (and again, this is not ...<i>You alone are responding. (and again, this is not your private blog or a blog of David's confreres; it is public space).</i><br /><br />First, it is a private blog, it is Father Mark's blog and so far it is open for public comments, which he has stated is the way that he would like it to be and not have to moderate comments.<br /><br />Nothing stated in my comments appears to me to be statements that claim any kind of personal ownership by me of Father Mark's blog. I am expressing my personally held convictions here, as are you. I believe that because I know many of the folks here that your comments regarding GLBT morality are offensive to them, as they are also to me.<br /><br />I also believe that were I out of line in any way with my comments that Father Mark would tell me so. In all the years that I have commented here he has never called me to task, AFAIR, for any of my comments, even when other sisters and brothers disagreed with my beliefs.<br /><br />I think that folks are not responding much lately because they are bored with you and your monopolizing just about every thread. But it is good to see in another thread that you at least claim to be a member of TEC.Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-90695566088951882832011-10-02T16:20:26.768-04:002011-10-02T16:20:26.768-04:00If you believe Title IV is going to move forward a...If you believe Title IV is going to move forward and handle these matters straightforwardly, and even-handedly, given the wide variety of arrangements the church is now being asked to bless, you go right ahead. <br /><br />You are lifting up a big rock here. I agree with respondents at The Lead who see the Warner inhibition as a new and dangerous development. Where is the rule book that allows us to say receiving a sexual abuser for orders requires no public comment? is Warner the first 'unfaithful' married person who divorced and remarried? What are the odds that a process like this will become heavily politicized? <br /><br />You assure us that a Gay cleric who was married and had a sexual relationship prior to that marriage ending will be subject to Title IV. We'll have plenty of time to see if that is so. <br /><br />I firmly believe dioceses that are refusing to implement Title IV are doing so for very sound reasons. <br /><br />BartBartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-15875992803447667112011-10-02T16:03:01.332-04:002011-10-02T16:03:01.332-04:00Bart...when people enter marriage or civil unions ...Bart...when people enter marriage or civil unions they become candidates for simple straight forward charges of infidelity. Works for everybody, gay and straight alike.Mark Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-71502276005580359352011-10-02T15:50:57.768-04:002011-10-02T15:50:57.768-04:00'...many of us'?
You alone are respondin...'...many of us'? <br /><br />You alone are responding. (and again, this is not your private blog or a blog of David's confreres; it is public space).<br /><br />The point was prefectly clear and not remotely immoral. Do you mean to imply that married homosexuals would be rarely sexually active outside their marriages, with same-sex partners?<br /><br />That hardly comports with many such marriages I have known personally (which came to an end).<br /><br />The point being made--which you conveniently keep by-passing-- is that Title IV will probably not be used to call such behaviour 'infidelity' or otherwise declare it inappropriate.<br /><br />Infidelity will be a heterosexual affliction, and in the case of Bishop Warner, will be grounds for Title IV inhibition. Will Gay clergy be inhibited for 'infidelity'? Under what conditions?<br /><br />BartBartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-81361782207515404072011-10-02T15:23:16.436-04:002011-10-02T15:23:16.436-04:00Bart, I have purposely slept on my response to you...Bart, I have purposely slept on my response to you.<br /><br />I shall mark up your comments as one who is ignorant to the morality of GLBT Christians and not purposely malicious. But these last comments you make here are highly insulting to many of us who participate here. Please, better educate yourself to the subject and stop spouting the conservative party line about us.Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-37945007839270920802011-10-01T18:49:57.297-04:002011-10-01T18:49:57.297-04:00How very odd!
You mean to say that if clergyperso...How very odd!<br /><br />You mean to say that if clergyperson X who was married and had same-sex during that time would be chargeable according to Title IV? For infidelity, as with +Warner?<br /><br />Are you also saying that the idea that +VGR had same-sex while he was married is some horrible insinuation? <br /><br />Why would that be so?<br /><br />Bart<br /><br />BartBartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-59160214023725418612011-10-01T18:15:56.754-04:002011-10-01T18:15:56.754-04:00If his wife declared it 'infidelity' and f...<i>If his wife declared it 'infidelity' and for some reason it was sent on to Title IV review, it would be tossed out. The conclusion would be that he was Gay.<br /><br />Do you contest this?</i><br /><br />Yes, I contest this. Do you know of just such a case, or is this one of your many libelous assumptions about GLBT Christians? Such as this one;<br /><i>I would very surprized to learn that +VGR never had sex with men when he was married.</i><br />One of your most vile, libelous statements to date here on Preludium.Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-70086782155711943192011-10-01T17:07:34.142-04:002011-10-01T17:07:34.142-04:00Again you miss my point, David.
If +VGR had sex w...Again you miss my point, David.<br /><br />If +VGR had sex when he was married, it wouldn't count as infidelity. <br /><br />If his wife declared it 'infidelity' and for some reason it was sent on to Title IV review, it would be tossed out. The conclusion would be that he was Gay.<br /><br />Do you contest this?<br /><br />And, for the record, I would very surprized to learn that +VGR never had sex with men when he was married. But if wrong, the above points would still be valid.<br /><br />Just watch out for the Title IV powers. (Another reason TEC clergy ought to be careful about identifying themselves on blogs...).<br /><br />BartBartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-91657626103304105482011-10-01T16:15:24.126-04:002011-10-01T16:15:24.126-04:00Bart, do you have evidence that +Gene committed in...Bart, do you have evidence that +Gene committed infidelity? He did not meet his husband until after his wife and he had divorced. A divorce that she supported BTW. And now a second marriage that she also supports. There has never been any aligations that he was unfaithful to his wife.Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-455627561267438802011-10-01T15:52:24.441-04:002011-10-01T15:52:24.441-04:00Divided? I'd say it was 75% against he silence...Divided? I'd say it was 75% against he silence.<br /><br />Besides, you miss the point. People asked that she make some comment, any comment. She refused. She is a Bishop of the church and was responsible.<br /><br />BTW, the present Bishop of Nevada himself spoke of 'ordination' -- which did not instill great confidence in his grasp of the facts.<br /><br />He who wishes to live by a PB-at-the-top-Title IV system will die by that as well.<br /><br />+VGR can have sex with men, while married. Isn't this correct? Someone at T19 said it was OK because 'she knew.' <br /><br />I suspect the more honest statement is, by definition no 'infidelity' can occur if the person is in the GLBTQ category. <br /><br />Thus begins the start of the Title IV tag.<br /><br />BartBartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-17549778120459150372011-10-01T12:07:04.153-04:002011-10-01T12:07:04.153-04:00Bart, she inhibited him because that is the proces...Bart, she inhibited him because that is the process. Someone has begun the canonical process and she is following the canons. The canons do not require her to speak out about something just because some folks get their panties in a wad. Her office referred the matter to the current ordinary in Nevada who investigated the process and reported that he found nothing untoward. For me, I accept that. End of story.<br /><br />BTW, she did not ordain the man in Nevada. He was already ordained by a bishop in the Apostolic Succession. She received him. Folks here at Peludium were divided about the issue.Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-55608310094665185602011-10-01T09:10:51.116-04:002011-10-01T09:10:51.116-04:00+KJS has inhibited Warner (retired of Olympia) for...+KJS has inhibited Warner (retired of Olympia) for infidelity, but it did not involve a minor or somone with whom he had a pastoral relationship. <br /><br />The same +KJS has refused even to give a minimal statement about the decision to ordain a known sexual abuser in Nevada.<br /><br />There was plenty of outrage over that here at Preludium. <br /><br />But I gather now our Bishops must be brought before tribunals before they will give a statement to those they shepherd.<br /><br />BartBartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-29013310170239379972011-09-30T22:53:57.869-04:002011-09-30T22:53:57.869-04:00Wow, does anyone think that Bart looks cute in his...Wow, does anyone think that Bart looks cute in his Chicken Little costume?<br /><br />There is a process Bart, someone with standing to do so has followed it regarding +Warner. No one with standing to do so has followed the process regarding +KJS in regard to anything.<br /><br />It is a little cloudy and rainy here in Monterrey, TBTG, but no, the sky is not falling.Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-28620768650173267152011-09-30T21:40:23.365-04:002011-09-30T21:40:23.365-04:00I think identity is relevant. The Episcopal Churc...I think identity is relevant. The Episcopal Church is not an abstraction. Do you have any stake in this or not? How do we know you're not from the IRD? That organization is not exactly interested in the good health or viability of the Episcopal Church, among others. Your reluctance to come clean on this is getting suspicious.Counterlighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14345956180434795401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-45769307457510056862011-09-30T20:23:32.446-04:002011-09-30T20:23:32.446-04:00Good God.
Watch now as Title IV cuts its widest ...Good God. <br /><br />Watch now as Title IV cuts its widest swath.<br /><br />See The Lead.<br /><br />+Warner now in the spotlight. What about others? What about +Nevada before becoming PB? Lots of 'liberal' concern about all that, including from the family here at Preludium, now past its 'sell-by-date'? What happened to outrage about the handling of that case in Nevada, as previously registered here, or has it all now gone away/resolved itself.<br /><br />What a moral mess.<br /><br />BartBartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-14723153576943741872011-09-30T18:04:47.587-04:002011-09-30T18:04:47.587-04:00I'm sorry, I guess I was confused. I thought a...I'm sorry, I guess I was confused. I thought a blog was by definition a *public* site, opened to all concerned. I did not realize it was a club of David and his friends.<br /><br />On topic. <br /><br />Bonnie Anderson has responded as HOD President to the Sauls' model resolution. One might have thought the HOB or the PB might be closer to the front of that queue.<br /><br />It would be good to know how the proposal was perceived in the HOB. <br /><br />I still wonder whether we have countervailing tendencies here. One wants hierarchy and centralization so as to enforce a set of progressive commitments. But this is costing too much, literally.<br /><br />Another alleges to want democracy and process. But to the degree that this is also a call for a new TEC progressivism, it needs hierarchy and a new polity to 'get the job done.'<br /><br />How is this going to play out? The polity of TEC has been based in large measure on 'tacit agreement' and comity (contrast the Methodist Book of Order). But to move forward with something novel like <br />SSBs and BCP rites for that, when there is resistance, concern for diocesan viability, an budget issues -- this is creating strain.<br /><br />It is a time for creative thinking. I tend to agree that a Special Convention is not the best venue for that. The problem also strikes me as more urgent.<br /><br />BartBartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-66401452058223259562011-09-30T17:39:37.322-04:002011-09-30T17:39:37.322-04:00Actually Bart, we are a lot of friends here. And w...Actually Bart, we are a lot of friends here. And we have serious conversation. And of late their have been a number of serial nutcases who have stopped by, one after the other, to throw a lot of invective and insults at the good folks who participate here. Such that the good blogmaster had to moderate some comments and remove the ones from one particularly insistent nutcase.<br /><br />I do not care if you think knowing who we are is important, I think it is, and I will continue to ask who people are.<br /><br />BTW, there are lots of stories in scripture, lots of stories involved in the Gospel. I think stories are important. I think that you are seriously wrong on that point.Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-89738411263778139732011-09-30T16:40:51.830-04:002011-09-30T16:40:51.830-04:00David--you missed my point entirely. I don't c...David--you missed my point entirely. I don't care who you are because it is irrelevant to a discussion of the topic. All this fascination with people's identities gets in the way. Like deciding that a Sauls proposal is intelligible only if we know who he is and what he's up to, etc. Read the work of someone like Charles Taylor. Personal accounts often occlude. People don't always know what they intend or who they are. The story thing is overrated. Tell me your type. Let me know your sign. <br /><br />The Gospel alternative is: 'your life is hid with God in Christ.' All this concern with identity and personal story and particularity is doing great damage to the Gospel and the entire promise of putting on Christ, becoming in him a New Creation, dying to self.<br /><br />I can tell you I'm a member of TEC. Does it really matter that much? I doubt it seriously. <br /><br />I think you just default to the categories that fascinate you.<br /><br />It bothers you when someone doesn't get into that comfort zone. This leads you to make intemperate comments like 'another bothersome serial nutcase'. Why? because you want this blog to operate in accordance with your desires.<br /><br />I think the topic deserves serious attention and I don't intend to play this game again.<br /><br />BartBartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-89393756738249036062011-09-30T15:30:39.785-04:002011-09-30T15:30:39.785-04:00I am a well known person here. I am a former membe...I am a well known person here. I am a former member of TEC. I am now a member of la Iglesia Anglicana de México. I became a member of la IAdM when the TEC dioceses in Mexico became an autonomous province of the Anglican Communion. I am also one of a handful and as far as I know, the only male, Anglican solitaries in the world.<br /><br />Since you have now changed your name to TEC-Bart, can we rely on that to mean that you are a member of TEC? Are you a priest in TEC?<br /><br />You see, to me it is part of the topic. I believe that it would give more relevance to what you have to say here, especially when the topic is the possible future restructuring of TEC, if you were actually a member of TEC. Otherwise, yours is just more unnecessary noise from another of the many TEC detractors.Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-402648500986609812011-09-30T15:05:55.046-04:002011-09-30T15:05:55.046-04:00Does the Bishop of SC have a stake in the success ...Does the Bishop of SC have a stake in the success of TEC?<br /><br />You bet he does.<br /><br />It's just that he believes he is defending TEC against efforts to alter its character, mission, and historical identity.<br /><br />With that I wholeheartedly agree.<br /><br />Now, can we get into a discussion about the topic? <br /><br />(By the way, Charles Spurgeon was arguably the most read/listened to preacher of his day if not in all days. Ever read one of his sermons? He almost NEVER refers to himself, only to his topic: the power, majesty and transforming goodness of the Lord Jesus Christ.<br /><br />Here he is just like Chrysostom, Augustine, Aquinas and the great tradition.<br /><br />I take the move toward 'let me hear your story' as one of the more degenerative gifts of arminianism and baptist decisionism.<br /><br />I'd like to know far less about people here and far more about the Gospel and its mission in our life.<br /><br />I applaud Fr Harris on the choice of his name for this thread.<br /><br />I have no idea who David is and really don't care. I would rather he stay on topic.)<br /><br />BartTEC-Bartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-28062081140114660752011-09-30T14:57:00.033-04:002011-09-30T14:57:00.033-04:00I think Bart should answer David's question. ...I think Bart should answer David's question. Being outside the Episcopal Church certainly doesn't disqualify anyone from criticizing it, but it would be useful to know if he has any stake in this church's success or failure.<br /><br />I've been a member since 1982.Counterlighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14345956180434795401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-65419857747061653022011-09-30T14:46:46.522-04:002011-09-30T14:46:46.522-04:00On topic:
The Lead is now running Bonnie Anderson...On topic:<br /><br />The Lead is now running Bonnie Anderson's response to Sauls' model resolution.<br /><br />She does not believe a Special Convention is yet called for.<br /><br />I also think one needs to decide what problem one is addressing. Is it financial, entailing shrinking some things, PB's office, etc.<br /><br />Or, is it actually about the structures of the church and their order/disorder/overlap/underlap.<br /><br /><br />BartBartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-64095567541812890392011-09-30T14:37:23.068-04:002011-09-30T14:37:23.068-04:00David
Are you a TEC member control officer?
Our ...David<br /><br />Are you a TEC member control officer?<br /><br />Our faithful host has put the matter just right.<br /><br />'Focus on the Question, not the Messenger'. <br /><br />Amen to that. Stay on topic.<br /><br />BartBartnoreply@blogger.com