Blog powered by Typepad

« Bush's Speech at the UN | Main | Terrorists live freely in the US »

Sep 22, 2004


David Huff

I mean, I don't care who's offering the sacrament....

Really like this post, esp. the last paragraph. Sums it up well for me, too. And one of the things that bugs me about the "neo-conservatives" in the ECUSA is that they do care so much about something that's essentially none of their business. When this is expressed towards priests and bishops, it quite frankly becomes modern day Donatism.

Norris Battin

"Ritzy Suburbs." Are these the places where there is no grief, pain, broken relationships, drugs, unplanned pregnacies, relatives serving in Iraq, unemployment, mental illness, and questions of faith? Where can I find one? Please.

John Wilkins

A ritzy suburb is one where houses are worth more than $750,000 and has a quaint downtown. I'm sure that every family has issues. But they can more easily pay for the issues to go away.


John, Tell me you don't really believe what you wrote is response #3. I minister in a "ritzy" place and life may arrear to be peaches and cream on the surface but scratch just a little below the surface and the pain and brokenness is there. They don't pay for the issues to go away, they delude themselves into thinking that what they buy will ease the pain. But it just delays the inevitable. Some of the saddest, most broken people I've met are the "ritzest". Unfortunatly, because they have so much they fail to recognize any need and never experience the transforming power of Jesus.
BTW I think your response to "what do you think will happen?" may be true for you locally but is not true for all of us globally.

John Wilkins

I don't deny pain and brokenness at all. I also minister in one of those suburbs. But money simply gives more options to them. I see this as a fact. Poor people and rich people aren't really any different from each other, except what money brings - some degree of comfort and a cushion from the more extreme forms of human misery.

Peter O

In response to the opening comment by David Huff, it appears that you betray an completely inadequate understanding what the Donatist controversy was. I suggest you go back and read Giles Fraser's original piece in Church Times last year making the same point you did in, and then move on to the comprehensive deconstruction made by myself and others the following week.

To say that the actions of those who reject unrepentant sinners is Donatism is to demonstrate that you don't actually understand what Donatism is.

David Huff

No thanks, not interested in re-reading a "comprehensive deconstruction" whose point is "why it's not Donatism if I don't like them."

I've also decided that getting into protracted discussions with conservatives involved in trolling on more progressive church blogs really doesn't do my blood pressure any good. Besides, the self-appointed guardians of church purity are getting too much press lately anyway :)

Tom Roberts

Good Party line response, Brian. Anti Donatists of the world unite, all we have to lose are our chains!

Joey W

Peter O,

So conversely, if the conservatives/orthodox catch liberals/revisionists "trolling" on their websites, it must be OK for them to be insulted and ignored? Apparently you, in your inclusiveness, only welcome any opinion that agrees with yours. That's not the best way to learn or engage in meaningful dialogue, is it?

After seeing what one "troll" did on a conservative website (posted an obscene photograph that could well have resulted in legal prosecution against the blog and the blogmeister) and the repeated DOS attacks against another website, plus the daily virus attacks against a website I have a direct connection to, I find such criticism a bit lame. You don't have to agree with others, but you can often learn from them, even if you don't alter your own views.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Friends and Family