Friday, December 21, 2007

SFIF Banned on The Continuum

Okay, folks, enough is enough.

A little while ago, I sent the following comment to the thread "A Completely Bizarre 'News' Article in the Falls Church News" on Stand Firm in Faith. Within minutes, Sarah Hey deleted it as off topic:

"I am sorry to see that my co-host at The Continuum, Fr Robert Hart, has become the latest person to be banned from SFIF. We do not have a policy of banning people for engaging in reasoned discussion about any topic of concern to the church, something of which I am proud.

"I had thought of removing from the sidebar the link that I provide to SFIF, but will not do so, as that would simply be petty retaliation. I believe that the issues discussed here are important, though I am often in disagreement with what is said here."


Were there a thread on SFIF about freedom of expression, I would have perhaps posted my comment there. But it was on this thread that Fr Hart was banned, and so it was there that I posted my comment.

In light of the deletion, I have chosen to reconsider my initial inclination to "ban" SFIF at The Continuum by removing the link to it in the sidebar.

It is removed forthwith.

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

While we're on the subject of off-topic posts, a question (which doesn't need to be posted):

Does anyone know yet who was at the Common Cause meeting in Orlando? Particularly, was FACA involved or not?

Albion Land said...

Good thing this isn't SFIF. :>)

As to your question, I ain't got a clue.

Sandra McColl said...

I had wondered why it was still there for so long! I clicked on GetReligion when advised to do so, and find it very good indeed.

poetreader said...

me too, and my jurisdiction is supposedly involved. Haven't heard at all.

As to SFIF -- Ive peeked in there a number of times, and have been receivng their email updates, but I quickly sensed that there was no way I'd be welcome, so I never posted anything -- and won't. There's a spirit abouy it that makes me very uncomfortable.

ed

tdunbar said...

The Continuum's banner says:

A place where those who live in the Anglican Continuum, or who are thinking of moving there, might share in robust, if polite, discussion of matters theological and ecclesiological.


Now there may be some who have swum the Tiber but who still have friends or family with some sort of Anglican connection and so have an interest in Anglican conversation. Perhaps the banner notice might be broadened a bit.

While I'm posting: i browsed through this site's section on sacraments but am still left wondering: do all continuing groups recognize 7 sacraments?

Fr. Robert Hart said...

tdunbar:

We are happy to hear from Tiber swimmers, and our Orthodox friends too. Alice Linsley is Orthodox, and Bill Tighe is Byzantine Catholic.

Every serious CC jurisdiction is committed to 7 sacraments, and even to 7 Ecumenical Councils. This is in the Affirmation of St. Louis.

John said...

Before I am banned for going off topic wanted to ask a quick question:
Anybody suppose that the ABC's critique of the Manger and 3 Kings etc have anything to do with the liberal display of a carpenters shop in St Peter's Square to be "inaugurated" by the Pope on Christmas Eve (according to reports http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/14/wrome114.xml)?


WIlliams just named "The Very Revd David Richardson, currently the Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral, Melbourne is to be the Representative of the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Holy See and Director of the Anglican Centre in Rome."

Maybe he thinks he is making some points here by echoing Rome's recent transgression of the same stripe and trying to heat up the old ARCIC talks (worried about TAC taking their place perhaps)?


I know I am a conspiracy nut but the timing sure seems convenient.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

John wrote:
Before I am banned for going off topic wanted to ask a quick question...

I think you are confusing us with that other blog, the one named after a male enhancement product; that is, the one where the blogmeisters are afraid of anyone who has the power to disagree or ask them to account for their half----- opinions.

By the way, I don't think the Vatican Christmas display was "liberal." For some reason they chose to display a later period of the Lord's childhood, after the return from Egypt. Of course, I don't see the connection to Christmas

tdunbar said...

Fr Hart,

Thanks. I've just read the Affirmation of St Louis which seems encouraging, ie enough of a common understanding of sacramentality and ecclesiology for there to be useful discussion across differences.

I note the paragraph:

Re-establishment of spiritual, orthodox and scholarly theological education under episcopal supervision is imperative, and should be encouraged and promoted by all in authority; and learned and godly bishops, other clergy and lay people should undertake and carry on that work without delay.

And wonder that current status of that?

poetreader said...

Actually, I do see the connection. The Incarnation is not a merely theoretical point, but a practical recognition that the Eternal Word became flesh, a human being, and thus had to learn as do other human children. I find a display of this nature to be a fine statement of this great Mystery.

BTW. I love the way this comment thread is going: A deliberately off-topic thread seems an appropriate answer to those other guys.

ed

ed

Albion Land said...

BTW. I love the way this comment thread is going: A deliberately off-topic thread seems an appropriate answer to those other guys.

But remember: Big Brother is watching.

John said...

Fr Hart,

What could they possibly do with such a product are such not the focus of Leon Podles recent treatment?

Fr. Robert Hart said...

For the record, here is the comment I posted that so threatened the SFIF folks, that I was banned. As you all can see, I asked a tough but perfectly reasonable question.

The comment, deemed “off topic,” simply questioned the accuracy of SFIF in this report, and referred to what Bp.Minns is reported to have actually said. I have no axe to grind, no dog in this fight. I simply referred to the record, to the quotation not quoted here in SFIF . Are we to believe that the Falls Church reporter lied and made it up? If you say yes, I will ask Bishop Minns himself, and report his answer in my own venues. If he denies making the statement that was quoted I will report that too, just to be fair to SFIF.

So, was the reporter, according to you, lying? That is the question this all boils down to.


So, that was too much for the poor little dears? What are they afraid of? Don't they know that the position they have chosen to be in requires responsibility and accountability, and a hard skin? This sudden response came from Matt Kennedy:

You have been warned about taking this thread off topic and you have persisted. For that...reason, you are now banned.

So, it is unreasonable to ask for clarification and documentation, when a newspaper report is being denounced in angry (as in seething rage) tones, and the reporter is called "a liar, stupid or just plain lazy"- which brings to mind the Sermon on the Mount, and warnings about Hell fire. No one, not even the SFIF folks, have the right to demand credulity instead of meriting credibility. Asking for documentation, or clarification, is deemed "off topic." of course, that is transparently absurd.

I have the whole thing recorded, because I learned from Fr. Charles Nalls about why it is necessary to keep evidence of everything.

Anonymous said...

The emotional immaturity of the SFIF gang is almost legendary. When Matt Kennedy gave special permission for a thread on WO (a topic normally suppressed save in special circumstances), he prohibited use of the term "priestess," a term used freely by such writers as C. S. Lewis and Eric Mascall. When I inquired in moderate terms his reasoning for this prohibition, his only response was an angry ugly blast at me. The same pattern is exhibited in the gross obscenities which Greg Griffiths employs in private e-mails to his critics. They are a sad lot and need our prayers.
Laurence K. Wells

Alice C. Linsley said...

Matt Kennedy's wife is a TEC priest. That's why he banned the use of the word "priestess" at SFIF.

I appreciate the generosity of Albion, Fr. Hart and Pastor Ed, who permit a wide range of opinion at this blog. And even some of topic comments!

The 7 sacraments, the 7 ecumenical councils and the Nicene and Apostles Creeds should be recognized as the basis for unity among all Christians (especially if we can agree concerning the filioque clause). I know when I come to The Continuum blog that I will read edifying articles that stay within the context of this catholicity. That isn't true for many Anglican/Episcopal blogs.

John said...

Well that explains a lot.

Funny how a word which correctly identifies gender causes so much problem. Priest, Bishop, Deacon are all male pronouns. I do not call my wife 'husband' or 'Mr'. I expect Mr kennedy does not refer to his wife as his "husband" in normal conversation but expects others to refer to her by way of a male pronoun. Apparently he finds a gender correct pronoun offensive (and apparently that is more offensive that transgressing 2000 years of teaching and understanding of the work of the Holy Ghost in His Church).

Not just any male pronoun here but one by which is indisputably a possession of the Church because these words describe not what we confer upon ourselves but what God has conferred upon those He calls to lead His Church. That Scripture and Tradition amply prove the case is a simple thing to demonstrate.

Yet Mr. Kennedy apparently cannot agree to Ms. Vicki Gene desiring to be called 'Bishop' because in the same obvious way VGR's claims, like his wife's, simply to not meet the standard of Holy Writ. Both demonstrate disobedience.

As to the religious connotations regarding the phrase 'priestess' they are historical and the fruit of this incarnation has been clearly demonstrated over the last 30 years.

Seeing is believing and I am one who hired (signing the contract as a Sr Warden) a priestess and watched as she methodically twisted the common sense of Scripture, history, tradition, you name it, to justify her usurpation. In the name of inclusively she ran off any who challenged her. Hardly a way to debate intelligently but is this not what 'banning' is?

We cannot say all priestesses do these things but they cannot teach the Epistles and much of the Gospel in a neutral manner and not be scene as a one who does not fit the position they lay claim to.

I have some Baptist friends who attend Churches with Deaconesses who teach over men and even though Baptists do not have a complete understanding of the Office/AS they know the practice does not fit the plain sense of headship through out the Bible and it is very troubling to them.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Within minutes, Sarah Hey deleted it as off topic...

Albion,

I went to the thread in question at SFIF and the only comments deleted besides Fr. Robert Hart were the comments belonging to "GenePool".

[comment deleted—laughable and off-topic]

[33] Posted by GenePool on 12-21-2007 at 02:20 PM

[comment deleted—off topic, yet again, and commenter banned]

[34] Posted by GenePool on 12-21-2007 at 02:21 PM

-----

Albion, was your post name on Stand Firm "Gene Pool"? Also, Sarah Hey not only said that your comment was laughable and off-topic, but she also banned you!

If you are indeed "GenePool", Sarah Hey not only banished Fr. Robert Hart, but she also banished Albion Land(!).

Rather cheeky, eh?

Albion Land said...

No, I am not Gene Pool and no, as far as I know, I have not been banned.

Judge373 said...

Yea I've disliked every discussion I've engaged in on SFIF. I participated in that discussion on WO, and was shocked at the way I was treated by some of the women who argued with me. They were completely uncharitable. I'm so happy I grew up in a good continuing parish and didn't have to encounter similar sorts of people.

Thanks for this blog, Fr. Hart, Albion land, et. al. I say good riddance to SFIF - that place is infected by a nasty combination of incomplete theological thought (too prot) and blind political affiliation (ra-ra war and republicans) for me.

Sandra McColl said...

Mind you, the words I use for women who purport to be bishops wouldn't even get past the censor on this blog.

Albion Land said...

You might be surprised

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Within minutes, Sarah Hey deleted it as off topic:...

I went to the thread in question at SFIF and the only comments deleted besides Fr. Robert Hart were the comments belonging to "GenePool".

No, I am not Gene Pool and no, as far as I know, I have not been banned.

Wow! I went back and checked the thread again. Given that you're not GenePool, your comment was not only deleted, but the existence of your comment on Stand Firm was completely obliterated! There is no record whatsoever that you ever left a comment there.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

John wrote:
I expect Mr kennedy does not refer to his wife as his "husband" in normal conversation but expects others to refer to her by way of a male pronoun.

This is why I have always been respectful to women who think of themselves a priests, and have called them by the proper title. I call such women, "Father." Furthermore, it is correct to assume that Fr. Kennedy and Fr. Radner- that is, in each case, the wife- is herself the husband of one wife; and so Matt should be happy to be Fr. Kennedy's wife, just as she can be his wife when he celebrates. This wonderful interchange of sex roles in the sacraments has nothing to do, mind you, with the issue of "Same Sex Blessing."

I told you all before, I have the charism of sarcasm.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

When Matt Kennedy gave special permission for a thread on WO (a topic normally suppressed save in special circumstances), he prohibited use of the term "priestess," a term used freely by such writers as C. S. Lewis and Eric Mascall.

People who know, deep down inside, that they do not have the truth on their side, have reason to fear something as simple as a word. Words relate to thought, and thought is the work of Screwtapes's Enemy; therefore, Wormwood is advised never to provoke thought.

Alice C. Linsley said...

The sacerdotal priesthood has very ancient roots. It is verifiably one of the oldest known religious institutions. It is an office centered in blood sacrifice and sacred law, both from the earliest times pertained to males. It was taboo for females to even be present when an animal was sacrificed.

Two types of blood were regarded as powerful and produced anxiety in ancient human communities: the blood shed in killing (hunting and war) and menstrual blood and the blood shed in birthing (thus the birthing hut outside the village). There must have been a sacred law that kept the 2 bloods physically separate. We have hints at this in the Old Testament prohibition against boiling the baby goat in its mother's milk. God wants us to keep clear in our minds what is life-giving and what is life-taking. Only then are we able to see that the significance of Jesus, the Lamb of God and our great High Priest.

I regret that I didn't understand this years ago when I was a "priest" in TEC. I only came to understand these things because of the patience of some kind Anglo-Catholics who didn't give up on me.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Alice Linsley wrote:
I only came to understand these things because of the patience of some kind Anglo-Catholics who didn't give up on me.

Earlier I had written:
...I call such women, "Father."

I hope everybody knows I was joking. I do not actually try to hurt or insult anyone, but I do take a stand an hope to instruct.

Alice C. Linsley said...

Merry Christmas, Fr. Hart! May God bless you and your family and all the readers of The Continuum.

John said...

Off subject again here...

Just wanted to say on the way out the door to Vigil.... Merry Christmas to you all.




John

Sandra McColl said...

And on the Feast of Stephen (Oz time), may I chime in with my Christmas greetings. I have enjoyed the posts and our discussions and you have become my friends.

Alice C. Linsley said...

I owe an apology to Matthew Kennedy. His wife was irrationaly and unjustly attacked and threatened by a revisionist women priest Elizabeth Kaeton earlier this year. Somewhere in the comments at Keaton's blog I read that Fr. Kennedy's wife held a divinity degree and I assumed that she was ordained. That attack on Annr Kennedy was quickly deleted from the blogosphere so I can't check the comment. I do apologize for giving incorrect information. You know what they say about "assuming"!

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

I have the whole thing recorded, because I learned from Fr. Charles Nalls about why it is necessary to keep evidence of everything.

Fr. Hart, is it possible for you to post all that was recorded on that SFIF thread?

P.S. It's a sad thing to have to record everything for fear that it will be deleted, edited, or censored by a militant, over-reactive elf or moderator.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Yes, everything is recorded. If anyone ever comments there, it ought to be recorded as it appears on the thread.

It's a sad thing to have to record everything for fear that it will be deleted, edited, or censored by a militant, over-reactive elf or moderator.

I agree, and when these holy feasts are done, I will have more to say about the ethics employed by some Christian bloggers. I am going to call for a standard of honesty.

John said...

Anonymous asked...
"Does anyone know yet who was at the Common Cause meeting in Orlando? Particularly, was FACA involved or not?"

Here is a clip from D. Anderson's press release should say it all:

“A reality among the orthodox in North America is that there are several traditions, or if you will, three streams brought together: the Catholic stream, which emphasizes the role of the sacraments of Baptism and Holy Eucharist, and the traditional orders of ordained ministry in mediating the grace of God; the Evangelical stream, which emphasizes the supreme authority of the Holy Scriptures in faith and life, and the necessity of personal conversion and biblical discipleship; and the Charismatic stream, which emphasizes the present work of the Holy Spirit in miraculous power in the life of the believer and the Church: three streams and one river of Christian faith. Many of us find ourselves, surprisingly, in not just one stream, but two or all three steams at once. As a body, we want to uphold the validity and necessity of all three streams in a complete church.

Another reality is that there are two "integrities:" one theological position that does not ordain women to holy orders and another position that does, though not necessarily to all three orders. Within the Common Cause we are trying to create a space where these issues can be lived with and worked with, and as part of a global Anglican Communion, to come to a common mind, whatever and whenever that might be. In the meantime, both integrities will be respected”. - Bishop David C. Anderson/ CANA FLA.

Speaks for itself but one wonders how a “Bishop” (assuming the fellow has read a book or something to get where he is) can claim to be a part of a “stream” that hold “the supreme authority of the Holy Scriptures in faith and life” and at the same time posit that there are “are two integrities: one theological position that does not ordain women to holy orders and another position that does”.

I thought all theology came from One Holy Scripture yet one of these “integrities” clearly has no basis in any of the Scriptures. Either the fellow is ignorant or he is running a ploy. Anyway seems like a lot of the evangelicals and so called ‘charismatics’ are being sold a pig in a poke. No doubt your banning is due to these talking points and seems to be wide spread. A shame these people will never create an orthodox province based on an heretical premiss. You think any of these people believe their remarks will condemn them by future generations of the faithful?

One wonders what the San Joaquin folks are doing mobbed up with all of this double mindedness.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

The very phrase "two integrities" cannot come out of an educated man. Either you have integrity or you do not; it is a quality. "Two integrities" can only come from the mouth of someone who does not know the definition of "integrity." Furthermore, why was this term suddenly created, namely a plural form of a word that has no proper usage in the plural? The answer is, they cannot say "two traditions," since they have rejected the Tradition. They cannot say "two theologies" because their position, having no history that envelopes it within the Vincentian Canon, or in any past generation, cannot be the correct theology out of two, and when there are two theologies one of them has to be wrong. For the same reason, they cannot say "two doctrines." So, they invent a plural form of a non-plural word in order to prevent the human mind from thinking.

As is always the case with those who are taking the advice of Screwtape, their language is meant to scramble clarity and communication, and to eliminate thought.

Ken said...

Well said Fr. Hart.

I'm sure that "integrity" was used because the word has a positive connotation, akin to honesty or sincerity.

However, the WO "integrity" exists outside of Scripture and Tradition with only the {false} appeal to Reason of modern egalitarianism and "justice" for support. Unfortunately for WO supporters the best that can be said of them is that they are honestly mistaken or sincerely deluded.

But being mistaken or deluded is a shaky foundation for any venture, let along an effort to "stand firm in the faith".

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

As is always the case with those who are taking the advice of Screwtape, their language is meant to scramble clarity and communication, and to eliminate thought.

Fr. Hart, might the following website be an example of what you are speaking about regarding the perversion of the word "integrity" and the scrambling of clarity and communication?

http://www.integrityusa.org/

John said...

"Integrity" is also used as the name of the homosexual lobby in the TEC so there are three "integrities" by way of TEC.

If the Common Cause/SFiF folks faith is an 'integrity' based on emotionalism, as is the homosexualist view, how can they deny each other's reality? and are not these new continuers affirming the homosexualist view by their words and actions?

It may be that rather than a simple blind spot to the heterodox practice of WO, that pluralism and relativism have been so ingrained in these people that they, like cult members, have been brain washed. I don't make this observation in jest.

The liberal secularists in control of TEC have claimed for years that Traditional views of the Bible and the Faith Once delivered were ingrained as a matter of environment (Ma, Pa, Clergyman, Sunday School, etc) rather than a gift gf the Holy Ghost ( I used to hear this regularly from priestesses) that if only they could have a generation to adjust these misconceptions they could change the way people think.

Not a threat to take lightly all things considered.


The priestess who lied her way into a job at my old parish started the re-visioning process by throwing any KJV Bibles and 28 BCPs into the trash and turning Adult Ed into a quasi AAA class starting with Genesis .she attempted to demonstrate that the Bible was all tall tales and was only a matter of interpretation for our generation to possess.

For all these people, even the well meaning, there is no Truth and that is how there are many integrities.

I think that this is demonstrated by the lack of fear they demonstrate when they make such outrageous claims against the plain teaching of Scripture.

Anonymous said...

SFIF is so afraid on this matter that merely quoting the relevant passage from 1 Timothy 3 will get you banned -and- God's very words deleted!

Have they not banned God Himself from their blog? Have they not ratified Adam's fall by choosing for themselves what to call 'good' and what to call 'evil'?

Do they realize import of their actions? I seriously doubt it, and for that reason, I hold hope for their immortal souls.

Banned even the fact that Albion Land posted? Wow. Are they perhaps of the Church of Oceana, and not the Church of England?