Thursday, October 18, 2012

Sydney Anglican, Haydn Sennitt, admits that he was not faithful to his wife after marrying her...but judges others who have grappled with religious beliefs and same-sex attraction!

Haydn says that his story is his ...and he is not like other sexually conflicted Christian men who have battled homosexuality.  Haydn criticises Anthony Venn - Brown for separating from his wife, and refers to Anthony as a "so-called" Christian!  Haydn's story is similar to Anthony's... but Haydn stresses that his story is not like others because...  no two things that look the same necessarily are, in much the same way that simply because a table has 4 legs and a turtle has 4 legs that therefore a turtle is a table... but that individuality only apples to Haydn... and not other same-sex attracted individuals who he classifies as sexually broken promiscuous sinners! Haydn goes onto admit  ...It is very true that I was not always faithful to my wife after we got married and we are working through those things in individual and marriage counselling. A lot of my unresolved brokenness has affected our marriage and I am responsible for it. But we’re working at it and our relationship is getting stronger because GOD is with us and very much been the instigator and sustainer of our marriage...   if I was ‘born gay’ how could it be that I would have the biological ‘equipment’ to sire two children and enjoy sexual intimacy with a woman?

Well at least my husband remained faithful until our children were raised and we decided to separate. 
YES Missy...only  Sydney Anglicans would employ someone  :
1. with an extremely promiscuous past, who implies that all gay people behave as he did 
2. sought out a friend to introduce him to his non-English speaking sister, so he could marry her
3. who has been married only a short time and cheats on his wife...but then criticises other gay and lesbian Christians who accept their sexual orientation and don't embroil heterosexuals into their sexual/religious conflict! 
Shouldn't religious leaders who preach hatred and prejudice against gay and lesbians be held responsible for the lives they destroy in the name of God?


  1. What must his wife think, having the sordid details of her married life splashed across the internet? That guy shows no respect for her feelings.

    BTW there is quite a good article on the 'Dangers of gay conversion' on the Eureka Street site. Haydn gets a mention for his dodgy doings at a Sydney school.

  2. Do you know what this blog post screams out? Your inability to understand grace and forgiveness. You actually want to condemn someone for having sinned and now publicly repenting of it for all to see? And at the same time you accuse conservatives of being un-pastoral?

  3. The Sydney Anglican Diocese is un-pastoral in its behaviour towards women and gays. It uses its complementarian women, and post-gays like Haydn, to push its stance. Grace and forgiveness does not present itself as using a young man like Haydn Sennitt, who is still grappling with his same sex attraction and receiving marriage counsellng, to teach others about the evils of homosexuality... or to judge others for that matter...who have come to the realisation after many years, that being same-sex attracted is part of their identity. In my opinion as a woman, Haydn is showing a total disregard for his wife (and children for that matter) by publishing his sexual life so publicly. Haydn is a product of unpastoral behaviour by his father when he rejected him, and Christian unkindness and prejudice, when being threatened with expulsion from his church for his SS behaviour. Eventually who suffers...not the minister who threatened to expel him or people like David Petersen or the Jensen Bros, who use him to promote their bigory...but naive women who agree to remain submissive when they enter into a 'blessed marriage" with men who are already battling same-sex attraction? Haydn is entitled to turn his back on his same-sex attraction but Sydney Anglicans have no right to use this young man to talk about overcoming SSA by using his marriage as enticement that change can happen. It is nothing short of exploitation. There has been no mention of what happens to women and children in the long term, which is the typical of the misogynist behaviour exhibited by Sydney Anglicans.

  4. If Sydney Anglicans are so into forgiveness and grace why won't they ever make Haydn or any any other uncloseted GLBT a minister? The man who made that comment two above needs to look at the log in his own eye before claiming to find specks in anyone else's.

  5. Why isn't Calamity Jane an atheist?

    If you think that the Bible is mistaken when it clearly condemns homosexuality 6+ times, then what standard are you using to judge it? You can't declare something crooked without having a reference as to what is straight.

    Therefore, by Occam's Razor, you should use /that/ moral standard as your guide. Throw out the Bible as useless garbage if you don't intend to follow it, or follow it if you don't believe it's useless garbage.

  6. Why is Tom O a daft fundamentalist? If he can show where Our Lord condemned homosexuals, he might have a point. Otherwise he should get back into his hate-filled Sydney Church.

  7. Tom O is exactly right. Which is why he's so diligent when it comes to following the Bible that he's chopped of his right hand (Mk 9:43), removed one of his feet (Mk 9:45), and plucked out an eyeball (Mk 9:47) - activities all further countenanced by his consistent reading of Matthew 18:8-9.

    Oh and by the way Tom - I'd really like your jacket, which means you'd better get it here along with your shirt asap (Matthew 5:40), and I'm going to be taking your car later this week. Which you can't ask me to return. Ever - see Luke 6:30.

  8. Dear Dr. Christian Troll (by the way, real humans don't have names like that),

    I am certain that somewhere, somehow, someone taught you how to read. I am also sure that those fine teachers taught you the meaning of the word "if." In case your memory needs refreshing, "if" is a very funny word. It is a conjunction, which means that it connects two clauses together. However, it has twist: Let X be the first clause and Y be the second clause. "If X then Y" means that should the first clause be true, then the second clause must also be true. But should the first clause /not/ be true, then the second clause need not be true.

    So, let us analyze Mark 9:43, Mark 9:45, Mark 9:47, and Matthew 18:8-9. Notice the presence of the conjunction "if." This means that if your right hand, foot, or eyeball /don't/ offend you, there's no need to cut them off. This is the case, since evil doesn't come from body parts, but from a man's innermost soul (Matthew 15:18).

    As to Matthew 5:40, that cumbersome conjunction appears once more. If you sue me, I am most certainly obligated to give you my cloak, but you haven't initiated a lawsuit.

    However, I will give you credit when credit is due. You could take my car, if I had one. And if you had that car, you will also have to give an account to God of how why you used that car, for it is written: "For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil." (Ecclesiastes 12:14)

  9. Dear Anonymous,

    I take it that you approve of suicide, since our Lord does not mention that either.

    Not only that, but the cure rate for depression is almost as good as the cure rate for homosexuality: antidepressants do not statistically differ from placebos, and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy fails to meet the criteria of science (

    Lastly, God made the depressed person that way, since there is a plethora of evidence to suggest that some people are biologically predisposed to depression. Considering that God made that person that way, and since suicide harms nobody without consent, we should therefore encourage all depressed people to kill themselves.


  10. Lastly Calamity Jane, the difference is that Haydn had an affair, and then repented remained faithful to his wife, while the other man continues his smashed-mouth rebellion against the God of all creation.

    While it is understandable (though not unexcusable) for a liberal to fail tounderstand that repentance is a prerequisite for forgiveness, I am certain she will come to terms when she has to give an account to God.

  11. Tom... in my opinion...fundamentalists with attitudes like those of the Sydney Anglican diocese, put innocent people through hell... and fundamentalists are the ones in need of repentance, for the damage that they have done to God's children. As you say Tom...Let God be the judge...not fundamentalists!

  12. All of you are smart people. But if I used the power of logic and well-choiced words to argue why you're wrong, but do not do it in love, I am but a resounding gong, or a clanging cymbal (1 Corinthians 13:1). Instead, I speak with great love for Haydn Sennitt.

    When I saw what accusations are hurled against him and scoffing, I cried. Truly, the words of the Psalmist have been fulfilled:

    `But I am a worm and not a man,\
    scorned by everyone, despised by the people.\
    All who see me mock me;\
    they hurl insults, shaking their heads.\
    ``He trusts in the Lord,'' they say,\
    ``let the Lord rescue him.\
    ``Let him deliver him,\
    ``since he delights in him.'' ' (Psalm 22:6-8)

  13. ...But Haydn doesn't do what he does because he's crazy, or brainwashed, or neurotic, or filled with evil hate. He does what he does because of the three that remain: faith, hope, and love.

    (1) By faith, Haydn's conscience convinced him of his sin, and even if the scripture does not teach that homosexuality is a sin, we are still obliged to follow our conscience. Paul said that anyone who, by his conscience, felt the need to be a vegetarian must, because anything that does not come from faith is sin, and their lack of faith condemns them. (Romans 14:23)

    Not only that, but guilt is not shame, and someone is guilty because of his own conscience, and not social pressure. For proof, consider this:

    Despite having supportive parents who accepted him for who he is (even if his mother took a bit longer), and despite being in a university that encouraged LGBT people, this could not silence his conscience. Ultimately, his conscience testified against him, and he felt the need to go off himself. Haydn made peace with his conscience, even if it meant making war with his flesh.

  14. ...(2) By hope, Haydn understands that his desires do not, in any way, dictate his life, and he understands that the way of the flesh does not always align with the way of the spirit. For it is written, `I don't really understand myself, for I want to do what is right, but I don't do it. Instead, I do what I hate.' (Romans 7:15) Everyone in the sin nature shall do what they hate, but by hope Haydn understands that the sin nature shall be overcome, and that all those mocking and scoffing at him are not to be followed, neither are the Babylonian psychologists and therapists. This is to fulfill what is prophesied in Isaiah,

    `Stop trusting in mere humans,\
    who have but a breath in their nostrils.\
    Why hold them in esteem?' (Isaiah 2:22)

    Even you understand this, for the same sinful flesh gives people the urge to kill themselves, for no reason. So should the person who suffers from biological depression assume that God made him to end his life? God forbid! He should understand that all of creation is groaning (Romans 8:22) and that those who suffer from the frustration of biology should grown inwardly, so the Spirit may supply us with strength (Romans 8:23).
    (3)Lastly, Haydn demonstrates pure love by his devotion to Christ, for Christ himself said, "There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends." (John 15:13) By giving his life and becoming a slave to Christ, he demonstrates a perfect love that few people are called to do. All of the mockers and scoffers shall pass away, but his love shall be an eternal rememberance in the New Jerusalem. (Revelation 22)

    As to your objection regarding Judgment, What Haydn does is not judgment, but warning, which is again another act of love. For the prophet Ezekiel himself wrote, `When I say to the wicked, ``O wicked man, you will surely die,'' and you do not speak out to dissuade him from his ways, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood.' (Ezekiel 33:8). And these words were spoken to fulfill what was written in the law: `Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.' (Leviticus 19:17)

  15. No little Tom - they do have names like "Christian Troll" - look here and try accepting that there might be more in heaven and earth than is dreamed of in your theology. (Although I'll concede the gentleman there is not me).

    "If" your hand has offended - come now my boy, don't try claiming you've never partaken of a certain vice so endemic to young men: I'd say there's no "ifs" about it. You know you've fulfilled the first clause - since when does your hermeneutic give you license to read the second figuratively?

    And I'm still waiting for your jacket and shirt...

    As for your "knowledge" regarding depression: please, please, please tell us that you're not in a position to influence anyone who may be in need of treatment. Your assertions in this regard move beyond ignorance, and into the realm of being actively dangerous. Which in turn says a great deal about your theology.

    1. That link you showed me was interesting. I always find culture clashes to be funny.

      As to why I refuse to do the action in those verses, the reason given seems not to persuade you. So let me give you a better one: `Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.' (1 Corinthians 6:19-20).

      My body is not my own, therefore I am in no position to harm it, but rather to honor God with it. Because every point of scripture must agree with every other, I must take those verses figuratively.

      I will give you my jacket and shirt once you give me the passwords to all of your blogs. Keep in mind Jesus' words in Luke: "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them." (Luke 11:46). Now, is it sinful to place burdens on people that they cannot carry, and not do anything to help them?

      With regards to depression, well, can you prove that suicide is morally wrong? Aristotle must've had you in mind when he was thinking of someone who can only argue with rhetoric and not dialectic.

  16. Since when does Scripture saying anything about passwords to blogs? Your're reading your culture into the text my boy - sounds like you're really a liberal after all.

    And why "must" you take those verses figuratively on the basis of other Scripture and not - for example - those pertaining to sexuality? Is it not God (according to your reading) who is telling you to detach limbs etc? So are you now trying to tell us you honor God by disobeying what you believe God told you to do?

    Lastly: you may feel that making reference to Aristotle adds a sense of gravitas to your comments, but doing so in the context of attacking ad hominem isn't what one might call "a good look". Perhaps it might be better idea to think things through a little more before attempting to appear philosophically astute? Mmmmm?

  17. With respects to passwords and culture, Luke 6:30 specifically says `Give to everyone who asks you.' In more precise terms, this is the same as saying `for all x : for all y: asks(y, me) --> give(I, y, x).' Unless the definition of the quantifier "all" has changed in 2,000 years (and judging from the work of Archimedes and Euclid, it hasn't), it would appear that I'm not reading my culture into the text.
    By the way, I'm not against giving to everyone anything they ask of me. It's just that, as a university student, I don't own much per se, because the university and my parents own almost everything I have. For me to relinquish what is really an allowance to a stranger would be seriously negligent, in addition to showing hatred to my parents and university authorities. (Romans 13:1).
    As to why I `must' take those verses figuratively in light of other scripture, it is because if I didn't, then I would always disobey God regardless of what I do. If I amputated myself, then I would be disobeying the commandment to honor my body, and if I honored my body, I would be disobeying the commandment to amputate myself. Not only did God order all of his followers to do something in Mark 9:43, he also ordered all of his followers to do something in 1 Corinthians 6:19-20. Because all scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), it follows that 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 is God-breathed and Mark 9:43 is God-breathed. Thus, any interpretation must agree with the scripture everywhere. This is in concordance with Jesus's interpretation of his command in Mark 9:16, which means that it is better to lose something material than something eternal.
    On the other hand, when it comes to sodomy, the scripture does not leave much room for interpretation, and it strongly seems to me that any `interpretation' suggesting that it's O.K. stem from a lack of faith (God didn't know about modern science, not all scripture is inspired by God, there is no soul and everything is determined by biology, God would never want me to make a personal sacrifice for him, etc...) it is the lack of faith on the part of the interpretor which is why sodomy-friendly readings are incorrect. This is why I interpret scripture the way I do.
    Lastly, an ad hominem is when you use a negative characteristic of the person making the argument as a reason for the argument being invalid when the argument has nothing to do with the person. If I were to say, `Dr. Christian Troll is stupid, therefore his political policy is flawed," this would be an ad hominem, but if I were to say `Dr. Christian is stupid, therefore he needs to go to a special needs school,' or if I were to say `Dr. Christian's political policy is based on a factual error, therefore it is flawed. Also Dr. Christian is stupid," neither of those would be ad hominems. My comment was like the last example: an off-hand insult that has nothing to do with the argument. However, it definitely was sinful (Matthew 5:22), and so I repent of saying it.

  18. Tom O "is stupid, therefore he needs to go to a special needs school". Or Moore College, as it is known.
    Little Tom fails to understand that Haydn had an affair because he is a homosexual acting according to his God-given nature. No amount of fundamentalist scripture-quoting will alter this fact. God loves gay Haydn as he is. It's a pity Tom and his Jensenite ilk can't do the same.

  19. Anonymous fails to understand that Luke Kenneth Anderson killed himself because he is a depressed person according to his God-given nature. No amount of fundamentalist scripture quoting will alter this fact. God loves him and his suicide. It is a pity that Anonymous and his Jensenite ilk can't do the same.

  20. By the way, I don't normally go look out for opposite-minded people and pick debates. That is stupid at best, and sinful at worst, for it is written, "He who loves a quarrel loves sin." (Proverbs 17:19)

    Actually, I totally support your movement to get your congregation to do whatever they want. I am not a fascist, nor do I want my liberal brethren to stop their sincere feelings.

    But this is personal. Haydn Sennitt is a big beagle puppy. And my reaction seeing these words of hate was the same as when I saw the infamous video of a scientist abusing and screaming a beagle: this must be straight from Satan himself.

    Don't touch Haydn. I love my brother. Stop this and I'll be gone forever, and ever.

  21. Do you also love the way Haydn preaches a lie Tom? Or what about the way he uses the name of Christ to lay burdens on others which he is unable to carry himself? Other people also love their brothers and sisters, Tom, and we're sick of seeing them harmed (and our Lord Jesus misrepresented) by the false gospel of hatred which Haydn and those whom he tries so desperately hard to please proclaim.

    Despite your protest to the contrary, it looks like you do enjoy arguing Tom; you enjoy it very much. That's not unusual among young men, and I very much doubt you've said anything most people here haven't heard a great many times before: I dare say there was a time when some of us might have said similar things with exactly the same naive certainty. But we grew up, and discovered God to be far more wonderful than the closed and fragile construct in which you are currently so desperate to defend.

    1. If Haydn preaches a lie, then prove it.

      If Haydn lays burdens on others and he is unable to carry them, then prove it.

      I argue because we demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:5)

      Your discovered god is far more `wonderful' only because you simply declared you and your feelings to be god. Feelings are a far more pathetic, fragile, and capricious god than anything I believe.

  22. I hope you don't feel attracted to women, Tom. If you act on 'feelings' - like love, for instance - you may end up marrying one. Haydn 'feels' attracted to men. But he had to marry a woman and live a lie. How would you 'feel', Tom, if you were told to marry a man? Wouldn't you be as confused and messed up as poor Haydn?

  23. But I thought you didn't want to argue because your reading of the Bible told you it's a sin. Now you seem to be telling us you believe it to be a good thing. You're really not at all consistent, are you?

    And please don't make wild sweeps of presumption about what others believe when you obviously have no idea. It's not only very rude, and crassly ignorant, but it really does make you look like a prat.

    The proof of Haydn's gospel being a lie is twofold (at least), but so far you haven't displayed any inclination to look at either of them: firstly the long-term fruit of any "ex-Gay" effort, and secondly, the teaching and life of our Lord Jesus. But you've already shown yourself as unwilling to look at those in any way other than through filters of preconception and early 20th century dogma.

    1. "And please don't make wild sweeps of presumption about what others believe when you obviously have no idea. It's not only very rude, and crassly ignorant, but it really does make you look like a prat."

      Oh please, have you no idea how succinctly this sums you up? Have you forgotten how quick you were to do exactly the same thing to me?

    2. With regards to quarreling, Proverbs only states that he who loves a quarrel loves sin. If you claim that I cannot make wild sweeps of presumptions about what others believe, then the same applies to you presuming that I love quarreling simply because I am in one. I, however, gave you not one but two good reasons as to why I am in a quarrel: the first one is because I defend all brethren who are fighting the way of the world; of course, if you proved that Haydn is a hypocrite (say, by video evidence of him pursuing manflesh when he says he doesn't), I will gladly call myself a rude, ignorant prat. The second one is 2 Corinthians 10:5. I strongly recommend that you read this beautiful verse.

      With regards to the long-term fruit of any `ex-gay' effort, I completely agree with you. However, on the front page of Liberty Christian, they explicitly state that they do not advocate sexual orientation change. With regards to Jesus, you seem to forget that Jesus also said the words in Mark 10:6-9. Jesus choosing exactly one man and one woman and one lifetime as the only acceptable standard for marriage is exactly the same as forbidding anything involving not exactly one man or not exactly one woman or not exactly one lifetime. It also follows from this that Jesus condemned any attempts to redefine marriage to include polygamy, bestiality, or homogamy.

      The reason why I don't consider modernist approaches to interpreting scripture is because it is very, very difficult to make a 'gay-friendly' gospel without saying that Jesus was mistaken on the above verse. Once you've accepted that, it's very hard to judge scripture by anything other than your personal feelings or (even worse) your friends' personal feelings.

      I'm warning you out of selfless love: this way of scripture interpretation leads to death. As Jesus himself said, "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth." (Revelation 3:15-16)

      And I conclude my post in a similar way to Jesus: "Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent." (Revelation 3:19)

    3. Let’s see now Sam… you’re shown as being on the staff of parish with someone whose name has become an internet byword for narcissistic dishonesty, and you’re on record as defending a diocese responsible for spreading untold pain and division around the world (of which the sad, sad letter in Calamity’s preceding post is but one example) – one in which the leaders continue to cover up the details concerning their loss of $160 million worth of their parishioner’s asses, which has earned a global reputation for nepotism, which was the only place in the Communion to recognize the pro-apartheid schism in South Africa (even Nigeria, Kenya & Tanzania et al drew the line at that one), which funnels vast amounts of church funds into a company in which members of the Archbishop’s family are major shareholders, and where the leaders have never repented of the shameful role a cover-up of gross sexual abuse played in their rise to power. The same place which excludes women from serving as they have been called by God to do – and then has the sheer gall to claim Jesus as the reason for their commitment to injustice and hatred… tell us please Sam: given your defence of that which most would consider indefensible, in what way can any presumption I may have made concerning your faith be described as “sweeping”?

  24. Was the similarity between Tom’s answer to Father Christian’s request for his shirt and the Pharisees’ justification for not giving as summarised by Jesus in Mark 7:10-13 intentional? Because the resemblance sure says a lot about where Tom’s convoluted fundamentalist apology originated.

  25. Tom: you write "on the front page of Liberty Christian, they explicitly state that they do not advocate sexual orientation change"

    ... and then you ask why people call Haydn and his colleagues liars?

    You say you agree with my point concerning the long-term fruit of ex-Gay ministries like Liberty - but do you really have any idea of what that "fruit" is? I'll tell you: an ocean of people broken, hurt, and disillusioned by years of trying to be something they're not and never could be - and who have been misled by unqualified charlatans (albeit well-meaning ones) like your friend Haydn into believing the only way God will only ever except them is if they become that which they just can't.

    And BTW: what on earth do you mean by "modernist approaches to interpreting Scripture"? Especially since by the far the most recent hermeneutic here is that of your own fundamentalism. And why are you so frightened by "feelings", and so desperate to pretend your own exegesis has been constructed in some sort of Randian Objectivist vacuum?

  26. Huh Sam? And the facts I've cited don't bother you in the slightest?

    No matter what I hear about you Jensenists, the reality never ceases to surpass it.

    1. Huh Troll?

      I have no idea what you are talking about -given that I'm not Australian, and only moved here this year. Your lie that I am on record defending the diocese is just a springboard for your tired invective.

      That's why you proved my point. Your lack of knowledge hasn't for a moment stopped you making sweeping judgements.

      Thankfully some liberals show a generous spirit and are ready to talk rather than spit fire.

    2. No little Sam - it's you that is lying, which means you've certainly made a move to the right place. Several of my especially beloved readers reside in the fair city you once called home, and they're most adamant that while there you made no secret of your admiration for the darkness of Mordor. Which, I dare say, is why you forsook your nation's own fine seminaries for the Delphi of Jensenism.

      So now how about you come clean: is your loyalty to the cult you've embraced so great that you would have us believe the facts before you bring no disgrace upon our Lord's church? Do you really think there's nothing evil about religious leaders acting as the Jensens and their ilk have done?

      I'll stop spitting fire when people like those you're currently serving - albeit under a cloud of ignorance - stop twisting Christ's Gospel of grace into a falsehood of hatred toward those whom Jesus showed nothing but compassion and love. Till then, my boy, it's game on.

    3. My dear Troll - you seem to be missing the point again, as is your custom.

      I accused you of judging me before knowing anything about me. Which you did. Any information that you gain post hoc only confirms your prior ignorance.

      So you hear that I am positive about Sydney? Seriously beloved grandfather, what did you expect? Would I have chosen to come to Moore College if I wasn't generally positive about it, and about Sydney?

      I must admit I am surprised to hear reports of my 'adamant admiration' for Sydney. Either you've overstated it, or your friends make it their business to keep tabs on evangelical nobodies like me – in which case I am touched.

      Whether or not there is any truth to your claims I don't know. I do know that those whom I have met within Mordor show a genuine love for the gospel and for others. I don't claim that people here have not made mistakes. I doubt that they would either.

      So you want me to 'come clean'? I never attempted to hide anything and have always used my full name knowing that I can be tracked down. How about a little quid pro quo? No? I didn’t think so. It’s much easier to talk tough and say inflammatory things, even if it is a persona, when you never have to face the consequences of what you say. But so that there is actually something on the record:

      I am an evangelical. I am supportive of Moore College. I even bought a college hoodie and a coffee keep-cup (who says evangelicals don't care about the environment?), but I didn’t buy the tee-shirt because I don’t like the design (who says Jensenists aren’t free-thinkers?). It is pretty ridiculous to lump all ministers, churches, leaders etc. into one group and make comment about ‘the Diocese’ – I would never want to make such a sweeping statement – but I am supportive of the few ministries that I have seen here.

    4. Didn't think you'd answer my question concerning the Jensens... nor any other for that matter. Do you speak to each other in the same oblique fashion, or is this something reserved for outsiders?

      Where on earth did you get the idea I'm not aware of any positive ministries in Sydney? At the very least you could have bothered to read some of the other comments on this page. And how do you suppose I could keep abreast of your cult’s plans concerning my part of the world without strong network down there? Of course there are faithful Christians in the Diocese of Sydney. But everything I've ever heard from them leads me to conclude that they have little or no support from those wielding power. And if they're a woman, or a gay man... forget about it.

      My first introduction to you came through a charming piece of vitriol you left either here or my place. After then seeing where you minister (nice company you've chosen to keep) you really didn't rate another thought until surfacing again with - guess what? More vitriol! And then still more - at which point it seemed fair to send you a little in return. Although - again predictably when it comes to Jensenists - you clearly can’t take a punch anywhere nearly as enthusiastically as you throw them.

      Following which I was told of your origins, and that you're seen as part of the fruit of expansionist efforts in that part of the world: a Jensen/ACL attempt to counter the terrible girl-germs taking hold there perhaps? Either way that explained much. Is such reasoning "post hoc"? Maybe, but how the process in any way "confirms my ignorance" is something of which I truly am ignorant.

      And now I'll let you in on a secret Sam: most people reading this know exactly who I am: certainly those in my part of the world do. In fact for them there's no secret about my identity whatsoever, and with them I most certainly do have to face the consequences of what I say.

      The others fall into two categories: the first are those for whom I have great respect - such as the owner of this blog. Because of the threats and blackmail (ask the lovely people with whom you worship for an explanation of this if you don't understand - because Calamity's regulars will know exactly what I'm talking about) directed towards those who dare mock cults like Jensensism I choose to protect them from being dragged into in efforts to silence criticism. The nice people with "a genuine love for the gospel and others" (yeah right) can engage all the bottom-feeding lawyers they wish, but they can't force anyone they find into revealing me because they don't know themselves.

      The second group unaware of my real name are also the people who get most annoyed by the fact. Which clearly includes you, and despite your claim to never make rude presumptions, you've waded in deeper than a fish tickler holding onto a big 'un. Because there are actually three reasons for my not revealing myself to people like you, and you've missed all of them:
      (1) You've never asked: if you want to know who I am then you can for a change try showing a little courtesy to someone who doesn't see the world as you do;
      (2) Many of the people who do know me have been terribly hurt by the kind of people who get worked up about my anonymity, and being in on a joke at the expense of the fundamentalists who have stamped upon them is both empowering, and, let's face it, a lot of fun;
      (3) It annoys the snot out of people who take themselves far, far too seriously, and God knows they deserve to taste a little of what they've happily dished out for so long.

    5. Your post deserves a reply and I have done so via email.

  27. Anglican Priest in SydneyOctober 24, 2012 at 12:40 AM

    Welcome to Mordor Father Christian!

    As I've written to you before, when it comes to reality they're like Scientologists.

    Thanks for taking an interest in the challenge we face here. Your prayers are always appreciated, and you're much loved by everyone in our congregation.

  28. Thank you Father.

    You are indeed quite right - although at least the $cienos have John Travolta. Pulp Fiction would not have been half as memorable if it had starred Dobby Ould.

    Prayers for all of you laughing in the face of this beast from everyone here at "St. Onuphrius'"

  29. I hate to break it to Haydn but I've been as gay as Christmas for over 40 years and I too have had "successful" sexual relations with a woman. I could also name at least a few thousand other gay men who have fathered children through intercourse. It don't mean a thing . . . .

    And no, I don't worship the bible so I don't really care what a semitic writer a few thousand years ago had to say about sex with temple prostitutes and such. Sorry but that dog don't hunt anymore with anyone outside your fantasy camps of purity.

  30. It is commendable that haydn has owned up publicly to something many of us have know about for some time. Had we been the nasty vindicitive type of people we are often portrayed to be we could have used that knowledge to scandalise and publicly humiliate Haydn and discredit his message. Having been through this myself I could never be the perpertrator of such and act. It would be one of the worst experiences a person can have in life. I wrote to him about this in a loving and gracious manner.

    When I became aware that his he had revealed his personal downfall on his blog and mentioned me after the ABC interview we were both on I wrote to him personally....and I think it appropriate to put some of that correspondence here......I said.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  31. Hi Haydn

    I did think that the assumptions you have made about the meaning of my déjà vu statement on the ABC has taken things a little too far.

    EG "The implication, hint hint, is Change did not work for me, and therefore it cannot for Haydn. We have many things in common: both were/are married, have two daughters, identify as Christian, and even once/do attend the same church, therefore expect him to go down the same track that I have. Haydn’s really gay, and nothing he can say or do to the contrary will change that. Haydn, why fight yourself? There is no integrity in that. Why stick to your wife and children and deny ‘who you are’ and live with a ‘lack of integrity’ when you can join others who ‘understand you’? You’re ‘lying’ to yourself and everybody else and one day you can and should leave your family because it’s all a hopeless sham."

    These are rather heartless statements and assumptions that I wouldn't make. You and I do have many similarities in our journey. Fortunately I have not had to deal with sexual abuse or a tortured relationship with my family as you seem to have had. Your brief time living as a gay man with the many meaningless and often anonymous sexual encounters is tragic. I lived like that myself for some time before I got married. And like you some of that continued during my marriage life. It appears from what you have said and written that this was mostly at beats, sauna's or a part of the gay 'scene'. I am not sure...this has never been fully clarified. My life today though living as an openly gay man is very very different. Its moral, full of wonderful people and most of my gay friends are in monogamous committed relationships. You and I previously were obviously moving in the wrong circles.

  32. Cont'd
    This is certainly not just about me. story or your story. We now have 40 years of 'ex-gay' history to draw on. That patterns are quite clear. I have worked with 100's of people like myself and like you. Currently I am working with a high profile ex-gay leader in the US who is in the process of facing the reality late 50's. And another man I worked with recently early 60's. When you speak about the decisions and choices people like us have had to make you make it sound like the issue was that we left the marriage to live a 'gay life' you seem to be insinuating it is about sex and that we choose selfishly. Or that we have 'given in' to our homosexuality. This is very far from the truth and demonstrates that you are unaware of the personal pain we have experienced in coming to a place of acceptance. Believe me it was and is never that easy. It's unfair that you speak so demeaningly about this.

    I do feel sad for you.....and your wife. This is not a condescending sadness in any way. It is genuine compassion having experienced myself some of your pain and seen how my former wife also suffered. You have blogged about your unfaithfulness and betrayal of your marriage vows. I am saddened to read that in such a public space and wonder what impact these sorts of disclosures have on your wife's mental health and sense of self worth.

    A women recently emailed me her story after Ron Brookman said at the marriage equality committee that he had recently performed the marriage of 3 men who were 'former homosexuals' .

    "My story... I am straight and I was married to a closeted gay Christian man. This is a scenario that occurs over and over again in the Christian world. The gay man or women has heard all their lives from the pulpit that they are an "abomination". Mostly there is never even a distinction made between same-sex attraction/orientation and same-sex behaviour. So gay Christians learn to hide, to never be authentic, to never reveal their struggles. They marry a person of the opposite sex because that's what is expected. This is a marriage doomed to failure. The unsuspecting straight partner knows something is wrong but can't work out what. The gay partner eventually finds every excuse in the book to avoid intimacy and most often also becomes emotionally distant and detached, depressed and anxious. The straight partner has lost not only an intimate partner but also a friend and companion, and their self-esteem is quite often shattered in this facade of a marriage.

    I'm sad for Ron Brookman's wife, and for the wives (and children if these marriages don't make it) of the other men he talks about in this interview. I'm sad for everyone who will believe what he says. I'm sad for myself... separated, now divorced from my Christian, closeted, gay-in-denial ex-husband (also in ministry). I'm sad for my ex-husband's first wife and children. I'm sad that he quite possibly will do this again to a 3rd woman because of fear and shame, and because of messages like this one from Ron Brookman that say that it's possible to be a "former homosexual". I support honesty, authenticity, and integrity. And... I should also have said that I'm very very sad for my ex-husband, and for all the unnecessary anxiety, depression, fear and shame that keeps him in the closet."

    So we all suffer in this together in this terrible dilemma of being gay in a Christian culture that is ill-informed about sexual orientation.

    How do I know all these things......from the experience of working with 100's of people who have tried the path of marriage....some used to attend Liberty....many other ex-gay style programs..

    As always I am willing to dialogue or chat with you. Our meeting and the content will remain confidential if that is what you desire.

    1. I didn't receive a personal reply to my email but I am assuming that this post on his blog the next day is his answer

      it gets sadder unfortunately.

      I am reminded once again what Archbishop Jensen said on ABC's Q&A and was reaffirmed by Haydn that they would like to discuss the issue homosexuality in an atmosphere that is not volatile but respectful ......but when the opportunity to do this is offered then it is either ignored or soundly rejected. :-(