I think you offended that Sydney Anglican when you said Sydney Anglican women are stupid. I wonder if Sarie is employed within the private sector to keep women subservient so that they can't be promoted to the equal status of their male counterparts, or receive equal rates of pay, or be refused the right to lead mixed gender groups within the work force? ...I mean working for the church is a vocation...I'm sure the people who work for the Sydney Anglican diocese get paid money.
Sure sounds like Sarie is a nice person...what with all those people jumping to her defense. I've seen a synod full of nice people and not one jumped to the defense of GLBTI people when they voted unanimously to boycott Lambeth because one gay bishop had been ordained in North America.Those same nice people remained silent when Ugandan gays were being persecuted after they aligned themselves with Nigerian and Ugandan bishops who were in favour of encarceration of gays and anyone prepared to treat gays as human beings...not to mention the 'nice' people's silence regarding the treatment of gay Christians within the Sydney diocese.
I admire this lovely celibate female. Unlike me, she is an evangelical virgin. My own sex-life is well-known all over the Internet. I chose a heterosexual lifestyle in order to have a subservient wife. My brother - who was once gay and wanted to snog a man - also has well-publicised sex life with a lowly woman.
ReplyDeleteWhat a bizarre response from George. 'I'm not going to engage with you until you apologise.'
ReplyDeleteOh no! Apologise quickly Clalmity or George won't talk to you.
I'm not much up on this Complementarianism caper - I thought I'd take a look at Mark Baddeley's posts on it over at The Briefing, but faced with 20,000 words of such turgid prose, I thought it would be safer to remain uncomplementary.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, is there something in it that says a woman can't respond to her own critics and needs a man to come to her rescue?
I wonder why Mr Withmeagrepowers thinks it's ok to call someone malicious, cowardly and hypocritical, but not stupid?
ReplyDeleteI notice on her website that Sari is a fan of Melinda Tankard Reist. You're lucky you didn't call Sari a Baptist or she too might have threatened to sue; though, as a Sydney Anglican, perhaps she wouldn't see that as an insult, rather a complement.
ReplyDeleteCalamity: This little Mr. George Athos really is something special, and you have my deepest gratitude for introducing us.
ReplyDeleteI must confess to have been feeling pretty flat since poor Rick Santorum was ousted from the presidential race, but when it comes to dishonesty little George is almost as invigorating as Dobby Ould and poor Rick combined (now there's a match that would set the sheets smouldering), and his breath of poisoned air has been just what I need to get back into the spirit of things.
Correction - the man's name is spelled A-T-H-A-S, and not A-T-H-O-S as in my previous comment. I fear that's the kind of mistake which will really annoy him, and one which he'll consider a far greater sin than anything pertaining to matters of social injustice. Which, when you think about it, is precisely what we've all come to expect when dealing with Jensenists.
ReplyDeleteNice of you to drop by and sorry about Rick Santorum...voting for a Mormon must be difficult for you. Now I've been pondering over this Sarie blog and have come across a huge coincidence. The blog was posted on 2.4.12 and Mr Athas started ranting on the 27.4.12. Now you along with a few others are aware of the computer tampering that has occurred in the past to silence people and the outrage that some complementarian males exhibit when women won't submit...well I think Mr Athos has been alerted to the blog entry not by Sarie but by another who often uses others to do his bidding. Why you ask? Well there was some significant correspondance written by a significant person whose story was encrypted on your blog quite some time ago. The correspondence dated 25.4.12 reads like this... "My final word after our lengthy discussion last night is just to say that anyone (like a control freak husband ) or any organization who / which destroys a person’s self esteem and confidence and forbids them to have any contact with their family ( who, might I ask, gave them the right to do this ??? ) does not get any votes from me. They are bullies."
ReplyDeleteAnd my response dated 27.4.12...
"I thought God gave them permission and God doesn't seem to be arguing the fact either." I think Mr Athas had better do a bit of investigating into the bullying tactics and dishonesty used to silence quite a few people and then he may realise the kind of organisation he works for.
This is both diabolically funny and incredibly sad. Keep the insults and condescension coming, folks.
ReplyDeleteOh the irony!
And btw, Calamity Jane, I have no idea what you're talking about above. But go to town on me. You seem to derive a strange pleasure from it.
Condescension Mr. George Athas?
ReplyDeleteThe irony rests with you, my dear Jensenite Deacon.
Now back to me...I must apologise to you Mr Athas if you thought I was pleasure seeking at your expense... because that would be wrong of me. My intent would be selfish. I just thought that you were responding to one of those standard "Heathen in the woods/ spiritual warfare" emails that gets sent out when someone obsecure criticises a viewpoint. Again apologies for my paranoia. God Bless
ReplyDeleteI still have no idea what you're talking about, Calamity Jane. But I appreciate the sentiment, nonetheless. It speaks to a more eirenic spirit.
ReplyDeleteAs I've said before, though, I feel you still need to apologise to Sarie King, and I won't back down on that. People can lampoon me all they like for asking it of you, but I'll still maintain it. It just wasn't constructive. Quite to the contrary, actually. Critique her views—fine! But the minute you make a personal attack, it's not right. If you can apologise to me, surely you can apologise to her.
Troll, you're actually quite funny. "Little George..." "My dear Jensenite Deacon..." You honestly can't see the irony in you accusing me of condescension here? Oh well. If it amuses you...
Dobby is cute isn't he?
ReplyDeleteHi George
ReplyDeleteI hope you got my apology. Click on the word blog on 7th line and its in the comments section. I admire you George... you withstood Fr Troll's anger and in the end showed some grace, thank you. The thing that I don't get is that you were offended by my comments about Sarie who no doubt is your friend but showed absolutely no concern about the people that have been damaged by members of this diocese or any concern about the behaviour of the diocese.All that Troll said is true, eventhough he was outraged when he said it. It is the whole turning a blind eye that reduces Sydney Anglican credibility for me...but who am I to judge great doctrinal warriors as Sydney Anglicans? Now George my friend...after our amicable conversations, you will be directed by those in authory to refrain from posting comments...you see it' seen as dangerous to orthodoxy.Your mission to gain an apology has been accomplished Special Agent George and you got it not by bullying dressed up as submission but because of the respect that I gained for you. George...now you know me. By the way... my friend Dobby used to look like this before his path crossed the Sydney Anglican diocese.
Calamity Jane, I didn't turn a blind eye. That's simply your interpretation of me refusing to engage your questions so long as there was no apology to Sarie. I suspect the reason she didn't respond to your criticisms of her is that she does not feel at all welcome to do so. Your tone was one of derision and of your personal superiority. You can hardly blame for her for not engaging you. Contrary to your caricature, I think Sarie is used to being treated fairly and equally within the diocese, but your attack of her suggested she was anything but your equal. Now that may not have been your intention, but if so, your words seriously backfired. However, I'm glad you've had the courage to make an apology.
ReplyDeleteYou took my tone as 'fatherly'? Really? Gosh! Well, I am a dad, I guess, and certainly known for dad jokes. But quite frankly, in talking to you I have no idea who you are, so you'll have to cut me some slack in addressing you. I can only go by an online persona. It's a bit of an unfair relationship we have going here. You know me, but I still have no idea who you are. You probably want to keep it that way, but just be aware that I can't really connect with you in a meaningful way as a result. We're largely talking at each other, rather than to each other.
I'm well aware of the opposition to Sydney. You're not the first person I've come across to voice it! I suspect your views are nuanced, but all I've come across here are generalisations and caricatures. I'm not on anyone's mission, doing no one else's bidding, and haven't been ordered by anyone to post or stop posting. Contrary to your depiction, Sydney isn't the Gestapo you think it is. I don't know what your own experience has been, and nor will I deny what you've experienced (who am I to do so?), but it certainly hasn't been my experience. You'll probably claim that this is because I'm an ordained man towing the party line. I guess we both have our own subjectivities. However, at the very least your depictions of the conditions under which I'm posting are untrue. Yes, the diocese is still Complementarian in ethos, and yes, this does have ramifications for those who don't hold to a Complementarian view. I'm not going to deny that. But it comes through a scriptural conviction. Surely you can see that, even though you may disagree with it. Furthermore, when you stack Sydney up against other Anglican dioceses around the world, particularly in North America, Sydney seems pretty darn tame in the way it sustains its ethos.
Anyway, we're not going to solve each other's issues in this forum. But I hope we can cross paths again in less antagonistic circumstances.
So Dobby used to look like me once upon a time???
Good one George!
ReplyDeleteHey George...creating dialogue is not backfiring! Got to stop meeting like this George...it's bad for my image!
ReplyDeleteName the time and the place.
ReplyDeleteFunny???!!! ME????!!!
ReplyDeleteThe Most Doctrinally Sound Orthodox Conservative Biblical Warrior since St. King James wrote the Gospel of Leviticus??!!!
Ok, ok - I'll break character once again...
Whether or not you find the dreadful Fr. Troll amusing is beside the point. As I believe I've tried to suggest to you elsewhere, it's not all about you.
Rather it's about the very large number of people who've been hurt, often deeply so, by sects like Jensenism (I appreciate you find terms like "sect" and "cult" pejorative, although I recently read a most convincing argument for their applicability by someone who spent many years far closer to those who developed the heterodoxy now commonly called "Jensenism" than yourself, and hesitate at contradicting their conclusion). If by bringing a smile to the face of just a few of those who've been disempowered and alienated by this gnostic false gospel (again, I'm not trying to offend you: just calling it as it is) - or better still, make them laugh out load and reconsider the faith, grace, and freedom once given to them by God - then as far as I'm concerned it's all worthwhile. And if in the process a few young men splutter and complain they've been treated rudely... well I must confess to having about as much concern for their feelings as our Saviour did for those of the Pharisees in Matthew 23. They'll survive, and if in the process thry've had just a small taste of what it is to be one of many marginalized brothers and sisters of Christ - someone gay perhaps, or female, or (God Forbid!) both, then they might just (I sincerely pray) learn something.
Or put things in a way which someone from a context which I believe not infrequently claims to stand in the tradition of the Reformation might find closer to home: remember what Luther said about laughing at the devil?
Finally: your comment about how "Sydney sustains its ethos" is simply too much for me to let slip past without pointing out the humor in that remark for a great many people viewing Sydney from the outside. Or inside - if the volume of communication I receive from those residing in the land often known as "Mordor" around those parts of the internet your leaders (if not necessarily yourself) would prefer didn't exist is any indication. Elsewhere on this blog I gave you a list of just a few of the more spectacular episodes for which Jensenism is famous around the world - your failure to in any way acknowledge these was wryly noted by several people whom I'm honored to call my friends, but who've been too badly burned in their interactions with your diocese to feel safe commenting publically. As also was your immediate attempt to shift the spotlight to my own diocese. You may not realize this, but these are tactics we've seen so many times before - just like your insistence any dialogue between us take place purely upon your terms. They are strategies used by those who love power more than God since time immemorial - but they cease being effective the moment those being held down start laughing at their oppressors.
Just like the small child in the story of the Emperor's new clothes, people are learning to laugh out aloud at those preaching injustice, discrimination and hate. If you don't like it then the solution is simple - although it might cost everything you hold dear: turn and follow Jesus.
Don't worry Fr Troll...I don't think you're funny! You are the second most unfunny doctrinal warrior in the worldwide Baptist Church... second only to the one who when told to **** off and come back when he was ready to submit, for being abusive to an Anglican and denigrating him as an adulterer...retaliated to the female blogger with..."What do you do when you get a hard on at 3 o'clock in the morning"...implying she had a penis because she 'stood up' for the person he was publicly naming and ridiculing all over the blogsite!Did you like the pun!
ReplyDeleteThanks for your own thoughts, Troll.
ReplyDeleteAnd Athas: thank you for living up to everything I was told you'd do in response to my comment. It's reassuring to see the predictions of my friends with more experience of the Jensenist cult than I proven correct. Although at this point you really do remind us all of the rich young ruler in Mark 10:17-27.
ReplyDeleteCalamity - I recall that occasion: it was just before the blog on which the exchange took place was shut down: I was about to leave a comment of my own when the blog ceased to exist. It really was hilarious: the certainty with which young fundamentalist in question (Dobby perhaps?) was convinced he was talking to a man really did show how unaccustomed members of his cult are with the idea of a woman arguing with conviction and intelligence. The pun was a classic, but his total unawareness of his own idiocy was hilarious - undeniably much funnier than anything I've ever been able to come up with!
You're most welcome, Troll.
ReplyDeleteNo, little George, I don't think I'm welcome at all. You're displaying the renowned Jensensist predilection for lying again.
ReplyDeleteYour comments are repulsive. I'm not sure how George manages to respond to you with such grace, or why he replies at all: your comments paint you as an angry, illogical, antagonistic little man acting brave as he hides behind the anonymity afforded by his sunglasses, and the internet.
DeleteSam ...I don't find Christian Troll offensive at all. It's those who turn a blind eye to the damaging effects of orthodoxy, in my mind, who are truly offensive.
DeleteJane: First, I did not say I found Troll's comments offensive - I said I found them repulsive. And I do. Perhaps that is the intention of his persona, in which case he is succeeding.
DeleteSecondly, you lack credibility when you say that you don't find his behaviour offensive at all. An objective outsider would no doubt conclude that his tone, manner and many of his comments would offend the recipient. Again, I think this is Troll's aim.
Finally, addressing the logic of your comment: Is offensive behaviour/speech is nullified by the fact that one perceives the recipients behaviour/speech to be offensive?
Are the acts of violence by Muslim extremists last week acceptable because they find the views expressed in the film offensive?
The means do not justify the ends. Especially when one claims to be a Christian.
George...at least Sarie had the right to demand an apology from me without fear of litigation, threat to her workplace and denigration of her reputation. She retained the right to her 'freedom of speech'... I'm not sure mine would have been respected if I had failed to submit. Insight is sometimes a problem George, and speaking from experience..."What the eye doesn't see; the heart cannot feel." Don't open your eyes too wide George because what you see might become a problem for you. George I think this has been a good lesson in submission. Submission, for the weak, works far better than equality and no I'm not referring to you George...your OK but naive. I'm not the only shadow boxer! Two bits of advice for you George... don't ever think Sydney Anglicans have the patent on Jesus because I can assure you they don't... and take care whose battles you fight or you will become dispensible. Having said that I admire your loyality to Sarie and I have no quarrell with Sarie or you, however women who preach submission are just as responsible as men for empowering personalities who require control to function in relationships.
ReplyDelete"You sound like someone who has some faith in the Lord Jesus, and on that basis I urge you to put things right." Your words George... but intended for someone else. George put your head down and your bum up because it could be a bumpy ride...but remember I'm on your side!
ReplyDeleteNot sure what you're getting at there, Calamity Jane. I don't for a moment think Sydney Anglicans have the monopoly on Jesus (good grief!). In fact, I don't know any Sydney Anglicans who do. I'm glad you say you have no quarrel with Sarie, though I have to say that clearly wasn't the impression you initially gave in your original blog post, and that was what I responded to. For doing so, I've been derided, pigeon-holed, lampooned, semi-psychoanalysed, scorned, misrepresented, and treated with condescension. Well that's fine. I might be naive, but I am a big boy too. And I can see how you and your friends like and seem to enjoy playing hardball. But as you and some of your friends here do, I too will come to the defence of a friend against perceived injustice.
ReplyDelete(All that's the cue for Troll to comment on the irony of my hypocrisy, talk about me getting my just desserts, and how he knew I'd say that and how I've met his every expected stereotype of a Sydney bully and that I'm a liar and then how he knew that I would say all that too...and that... and then something else about the terrible evil people running Sydney and what they're going to do to me, followed by a caricature of me in some way...all done in love, of course. And Dobby will now probably post something about me as a heretic or some such thing, but we all know he's just envious of my dashing good looks.)
I was the most gorgeous hunk in Sydney Diocese, George, until Mr Jensen gave me the sack. You have heretically claimed God wrote part of His Word on an old rock. There is no reference to this in the Revised Standard Version. You owe God an abject apology.
ReplyDeleteYou should have stayed with Sydney, Dobby. Then you could've retained your hunkiness, just like I have.
ReplyDeleteGeorge I'm not responsible for what Troll and Dobby say ...but looking at Dobby's blog, I'd say he thinks you're OK. Well at least the last time I looked. I fully understand where Troll is coming from because he dropped his persona and was honest with you. Your response,in my opinion, was shallow and reinforced the stereotype we have of Sydney Anglicans...it's all their way. The ones we've encountered generally censor dialogue and resort to threats by using their position to weild power. Most of what people know of Sydney Anglicans is gleaned from the proclamations and declarations posted on websites about their biblical authenticity and everyone elses heresies. The extremism makes the postings easy to parody. Now George, you hounded me for Sarie's apology ; an apology in many ways I feel unwarranted because the descriptor 'stupid' is far kinder than the word 'irresponsible' in the teaching of submission...not all women are educated nor do they all live with husbands like you, who don't substitute abuse for submission. George it was my relationship with you that made the difference. I believed that I had hurt you by hurting one of your friends and that mattered. I don't know Sarie and probably never will. Your response to Troll didn't cut it, and short changed the openness you were privledged to witness. If I was an ordained person doing God's work then I probably would have said something like " Eventhough I personally can't do anything about it, I am genuinely sorry that you and your friends have been hurt." And you know George...we probably would have said "Thank you." I feel like I'm doing a Sydney Anglican customer satisfaction survey here! Spend a bit of time reading Anglican Mainstream, LCMI, ACL, Standfirm, Phillip Jensen.com and you too could be as bitter and twisted as me! Just let me say one more time... submissive women are not just quaint; they are vulnerable. These high profile Sydney women are empowered women but those to whom they are preaching submission, are not always in a relationship based upon mutual respect. And I agree with Troll regarding the comment about maintaining ethos...This comment wasn't good enough! "Furthermore, when you stack Sydney up against other Anglican dioceses around the world, particularly in North America, Sydney seems pretty darn tame in the way it sustains its ethos." It implies that you can be oppressive and use inappropriate means of control because it's not as bad as what someone else is doing.
ReplyDeleteAsk yourself this George...why does a man, Christian or not, want his wife to be submissive, and what is it about him that makes him obsess about biblical verses that are used to silence and control women? To me, it says something about the psychology of the male. But what would I know... I'm only a woman who refuses to know her place as subservient to her husband! Hope you haven't got tickets on yourself in thinking you're an Adonis like Dobby?
I'm streaks ahead of Dobby in the Adonis stakes. I've often been called a Greek god. And in saying he could be hunky like me, I was using 'like' in the manner of the radical subordinationists of the Early Church who argued that the Son was not of equal substance with the Father, but only 'like' him in an approximate sense—an inferior, in other words. He may have (or have had) a six-pack. But I have a keg!
ReplyDeleteMy apparently shallow response to Troll was deliberate. I don't deny his personal perceptions of Sydney, though they differ from mine. But quite frankly, trying to engage with an unknown online persona who continually pigeon-holes you to the point where nothing you say is ever treated without contempt... well, I have better things to do.
Calamity, I have no doubt that Christian men have gotten submission wrong in the past. Too often we've treated women badly, and someone has had to rescue them and help them pick up the pieces. But this does not mean that submission itself is the problem. Submission is a basic facet of Christian life and it's seen in all types of relationships. Submission in marriage is biblical, but never does it mean the husband is superior to the wife. Anathema! Husbands and wives are equal. Otherwise the biblical concept of marriage oneness doesn't quite make sense. But a husband is a husband, and a wife is a wife. They are not merely generic 'spouses'. Equality does not mean a suppression of one's being or identity, even within the oneness of marriage. We tend to associate submission with conquest, power, and subjugation. But this is not the biblical model of submission, which involves love and sacrifice. Husbands are called to love in such a way that they present their wives holy and blameless to God. Submission is framed with this goal in mind. A loving husband is not one who wields power to silence and control, but who acts in love.
Anyway, I'm probably not saying anything that you haven't heard before. We could probably go on like this forever, and yet we probably have other pressing things demanding our attention (I certainly do). We'll agree to disagree on certain things, I guess. But I'm glad you and I have managed to start talking civilly. This is your blog, so I'll let you have the final say. No doubt Troll and Dobby will also have a word. But honestly, Dobby should've hung around me more. I could have turned him into my equal.
"Thank You George"
ReplyDeleteReligion is a waste of time.
ReplyDelete