Posted on 03/05/2005 10:24:02 AM PST by sionnsar
WARNING: Strong language
To Liberal Episcopal Clergy:
OK, jackasses, I bet you didn't expect this 15 or so years ago when you decided that it was time to teach us, the laity, the proper enlightened views about sexuality.
Everything had gone so well in your project to educate us until then. First you shoved that stinking piece of s--t, the 1979 Prayer Book, down our throats.
Then you pushed through women's ordination (which I enthusiastically supported). You thought you had the routine down pat--it was just a matter of Using Psychology: workshops with relating games and small group sessions, politicking to get the vote through--then a little sympathy and pastoral smarm for the disgruntled, putting out small fires here and there and waiting it out until the we got used to the latest innovation so that you could move on to the next project.
You arrogant, patronizing jerks just never got the idea that you weren't the lettered gentlemen of your parishes and dioceses, the intelligencia surrounded by a lay peasantry. It never even occurred to you that any of us could have principled objections to your views or rationally considered objections to your policies--you were firmly convinced that any dissatisfaction on our part was merely a result of prejudice or irrational resistance to change, which you could overcome through group dynamics techniques, wheedling and manipulation. Surprise!
Of course it won't make a bit of difference if there is some sort of schism in the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church will continue on its slow but inexorable decline--no slower or faster than it would otherwise have done--churches will waddle through that stinking s--t liturgy every week and the Church Pension Fund will remain solvent so I doubt that you'll be losing any sleep over it.
--Dr. Harriet Baber is a Liberal Woman Philosophy Professor at the University of San Diego. She contemplates the damage done to the Episcopal Church/Anglican Communion. This noted was posted on The Enlightenment Project blog.
[Okay, I admit it. I edited two words slightly. --sionnsar]
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. The 1979 prayerbook is an abomination.
"At that time a meeting was held at Sketis about a brother who had sinned. The Fathers spoke, but Abba Pior kept silent. Later, he got up and went out. He took a sack and filled it with sand and carried it on his shoulder; then he put a little sand into a small bag that he carried in front of him. When the Fathers asked him what this meant he said, 'In this sack which contains much sand, are my sins which are many; I have put them behind me so that I might not be troubled about them and so that I might not weep. And behold, here are the little sins of my brother which are in front of me, and I spend my time judging them. This is not right. Rather, I ought to carry my sins in front of me and concern myself with them, begging God to forgive me.' The Fathers stood up and said, 'Verily, this is the way of theosis.'
The anger this fellow shows towards the revisionists and their in ECUSA is very human, but we are called to something better. What the Desert Fathers believed was not a passive acceptance of the Evil One, indeed it was a rejection. But this did not involve anger when it came to other people; it involved a certain detachment called "apathia". Abba Agathon gave some very appropriate advice to a young monk who once came to him complaining that another monk was leading him astray and into anger and resentment:
'If someone were especially dear to me, but I realized that he was causing me to do something less good, I should put him far from me.'
The last paragraph is dead wrong...the decline is much steeper, much faster than they could have anticipated. The point of no return has been passed..
I just realized that the author is a woman! My God!
I think anger can be good, and can lead to a leap in understanding both of ourselves and those we feel are endangering our welfare or the welfare of those we love, and those we love include the Church.
Yes. And I just found the blog. It's dated 2/25 -- right after the Primates' meeting wound up. This was clearly an angry outburst at the news, just as you suggest, AlbionGirl.
But what is also interesting is that a self-professed liberal so hates the 1979 liturgy (presumably preferring the 1928), and presumably some of the other "innovations."
'If someone were especially dear to me, but I realized that he was causing me to do something less good, I should put him far from me.'
I believe this is exactly what many Episcopalians and Lutherans are doing in these latter days, with respect to their corporatized churches. Some choose to issue a cri de coeur on the way out. It is not hypocrisy to protest the destruction of one's church.
Anger is a dangerous thing. On another thread I quoted Abba Evagrius the Monk:
"Anger is by nature designed for waging war with the demons and for struggling with every kind of sinful pleasure. Therefore angels, arousing spiritual pleasure in us and giving us to taste its blessedness, incline us to direct our anger against the demons. But the demons, enticing us towards worldly lusts, make us use anger to fight with men, which is against nature, so that the mind, thus stupefied and darkened, should become a traitor to virtues." Texts on Active Life no. 15
*** Anger is a dangerous thing.***
Added to this is the principle that we are ultimatley not at war with person or group of people.
This is ultimatley a conflict with spiritual forces of darkness. These men and women are (willing or unwilling) slaved of the evil one and are being promted by him in the fulfilling of his plains. They are quite literally spiritually blind. They will bear their judgement, nevertheless they "know not what they do".
"For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places."
This theologian's mocking and cursing tone indicated that she is, more than likely, part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Previous post.
ultimatley = ultimately
(Spell checkie no workie!)
Another Lefty who now realizes she's backed the wrong horse.
Very Orthodox of you, PM!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.