Has he considered announcing he’s not only Anglican, but Muslim? Favored treatment that way; part of the home team, not an “Ecumenical Partner” or some such. Take along a fellow half his age, claim he’s a “Long time companion”? You have to understand what gets saluted these days. It’s a little like getting in to Studio 54 used to be. The bouncers let in who makes the joint look interesting.
The man has shown himself to be an enemy of the Episcopal Church. The action is completely appropriate. It’s about time the Episcopal Church stood up for itself.
#7, I think you’ve overlooked the “church” part in the “Episcopal Church.” Can we try to remember we’re Christians here? Matt is no enemy to the Episcopal Church. Our leadership may feel he is, but they’re being presumptuous if they think they speak for the rest of us in this matter.
RE: “The man has shown himself to be an enemy of the Episcopal Church.”
Yes — all that live blogging really is damaging to “The Episcopal Church” [sic] . . . which actually means the national leaders who are driving the agenda at this point in history.
But Kendall, that is why there is so much cynicism. They won’t give the real reason for their action, when it’s plainly clear this is retribution for +Adams.
nwlayman writes: It’s a little like getting in to Studio 54 used to be. The bouncers let in who makes the joint look interesting.
I remember those days well … what it took to walk directly in and avoid the line was being fashionably dressed, good-looking, and well-groomed … credentials weren’t essential. Still … being listed in Debrett’s, Burke’s and/or the Social Register didn’t hurt. Barring that, having a celebrity or pretending European royalty in tow was a big plus.
Matt is always well-dressed … is a good-looking man … and appears to be well-groomed. And even if he is well connected … well … General Convention isn’t Studio 54.
Alli B writes: #7, I think you’ve overlooked the “church†part in the “Episcopal Church.†Can we try to remember we’re Christians here?
Alli B, you are correct … but so few at this website will agree with you. A good number — if not the majority — are eager to exclude the Episcopal Church from those who qualify as Christian. Matt has helped push that agenda.
#15, you are using generalizations and they are not accurate. “A good number—if not the majority—are eager to exclude the Episcopal Church from those who qualify as Christian.” That is simply not the case.
A number of us are increasing worried that TEC is losing touch with the center of the Christian tradition for sure.
If you wish to engage in debate, you need to charatcerize those with whom you differ accurately.
Well, that does not surprise me all that much that Matt Kennedy was blacklisted from media event credentials. He is a nice guy but a bit of a lightning rod individual. Perhaps TEC was trying to avoid another naysayer and try to keep a more positive focus. I am sure that assessment is naive but I try to be charitable.
Kendall, I respect what you are saying. You have never suggested that I am not a Christian … nor have any of the “Elves” … and this is your website. Unless I am mistaken, you too are Episcopalian.
I have confused the website with the comments contained herein. There are, however, many who post comments — here and particularly on Stand Firm — who are more than willing to suggest that the Episcopal Church is not Christian.
Please accept my apology, I will do my best to differentiate between the website and the comments made by those visiting the website.
What do you find “strange” about TEC’s action? It’s perfectly consistent with the way it has treated those whom it considers abandoners of communion.
Does not sound inclusive to me.
I don’t. I figure Gladstone “Skip” Adams made a phone call.
Access to a supposedly public meeting is usually denied when the conveners of the meeting feel threatened by the presence of the person denied access.
This act of denial actually pays a complement to Matt+’s ability to report on events that have to do with ECUSA.
I am very curious as to why Matt+ was denied credentials.
What are the conveners afraid of?
What is it that the revisionists want to hide from reasserters?
Has he considered announcing he’s not only Anglican, but Muslim? Favored treatment that way; part of the home team, not an “Ecumenical Partner” or some such. Take along a fellow half his age, claim he’s a “Long time companion”? You have to understand what gets saluted these days. It’s a little like getting in to Studio 54 used to be. The bouncers let in who makes the joint look interesting.
No personal offense KSH, but call it what it ostensibly is: “Nefarious”.
The man has shown himself to be an enemy of the Episcopal Church. The action is completely appropriate. It’s about time the Episcopal Church stood up for itself.
Let’s not get too cynical please #5. If it has to do with Matt’s actions in the diocese and Bishop Adams, then they should say as much.
#7, I think you’ve overlooked the “church” part in the “Episcopal Church.” Can we try to remember we’re Christians here? Matt is no enemy to the Episcopal Church. Our leadership may feel he is, but they’re being presumptuous if they think they speak for the rest of us in this matter.
RE: “The man has shown himself to be an enemy of the Episcopal Church.”
Yes — all that live blogging really is damaging to “The Episcopal Church” [sic] . . . which actually means the national leaders who are driving the agenda at this point in history.
But Kendall, that is why there is so much cynicism. They won’t give the real reason for their action, when it’s plainly clear this is retribution for +Adams.
Sarah, one needn’t consider his blogging.
nwlayman writes: It’s a little like getting in to Studio 54 used to be. The bouncers let in who makes the joint look interesting.
I remember those days well … what it took to walk directly in and avoid the line was being fashionably dressed, good-looking, and well-groomed … credentials weren’t essential. Still … being listed in Debrett’s, Burke’s and/or the Social Register didn’t hurt. Barring that, having a celebrity or pretending European royalty in tow was a big plus.
Matt is always well-dressed … is a good-looking man … and appears to be well-groomed. And even if he is well connected … well … General Convention isn’t Studio 54.
RE: “Sarah, one needn’t consider his blogging.”
And what does one need consider, First Family Virginian. One waits with bated breath.
Does one consider that he left TEC — and that is an insult past bearing?
Does one consider . . . what?
How has Matt “shown himself to be an enemy of the Episcopal Church.”
Unless by “the Episcopal Church” you mean . . . . flaming revisionism?
Alli B writes: #7, I think you’ve overlooked the “church†part in the “Episcopal Church.†Can we try to remember we’re Christians here?
Alli B, you are correct … but so few at this website will agree with you. A good number — if not the majority — are eager to exclude the Episcopal Church from those who qualify as Christian. Matt has helped push that agenda.
Tolerance is a two-way street.
7. Dear First: The Episcopal Church is its own worst enemy. We aren’t your enemy.
#15, you are using generalizations and they are not accurate. “A good number—if not the majority—are eager to exclude the Episcopal Church from those who qualify as Christian.” That is simply not the case.
A number of us are increasing worried that TEC is losing touch with the center of the Christian tradition for sure.
If you wish to engage in debate, you need to charatcerize those with whom you differ accurately.
I am not sensing the thread is going anywhere positive, and is in danger of going offtrack. Please keep your comments on the posted item.
Well, that does not surprise me all that much that Matt Kennedy was blacklisted from media event credentials. He is a nice guy but a bit of a lightning rod individual. Perhaps TEC was trying to avoid another naysayer and try to keep a more positive focus. I am sure that assessment is naive but I try to be charitable.
Kendall, I respect what you are saying. You have never suggested that I am not a Christian … nor have any of the “Elves” … and this is your website. Unless I am mistaken, you too are Episcopalian.
I have confused the website with the comments contained herein. There are, however, many who post comments — here and particularly on Stand Firm — who are more than willing to suggest that the Episcopal Church is not Christian.
Please accept my apology, I will do my best to differentiate between the website and the comments made by those visiting the website.