Thanks for the linke pendennis88. Wow, that’s a weak argument from Jim Naughton based on a single statement Dan+ made at GC last year (and taken out of context). He’s grasping at straws to come up with a reason to deny consent.
Jim Naughton is using a device well practiced by political animals. A “juicy” snippet is extracted from a speech -how far in the past given doesn’t matter – and the offending passage, bereft of context or nuance is used to discredit and bring into disrepute in a manner which rallies the troops. Dan said not a thing about individual gay people, or even all gay people. He said something about TEC’s willingness to redefine sexual and marital relationships. I do hope Dan doesn’t rise to the bait!
Hopefully Mr. Naughton, who I know follows this blog, can understand that his analysis was biased and not to the point at all. What Fr. Martens was saying, I believe, was that the church’s preparation of a liturgy and providing it (everyone knew what “generous pastoral response” meant) for SS unions, was bastardizing the sacrament of marriage and was shameful before the Lord … similar to when Adam and Eve were ashamed before the Lord when they had done what God told them not to do. Mr. Naughton has put his own partisan interpretation on the word “shame” in order to do exactly what #6 is saying. But Mr. Naughton is an old hand at this sort of thing in support of the reappraiser point of view.
Excellent choice! Contratulations Fr. Dan!
Err, “congratulations.”
Marvelous!
I can’t say that I have always agreed with him, but I have always found him agreeable and worthy of respect. I pray for him in the consent process – the Diocese of Washington (DC) has already called for the consents to be denied: http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/sexuality/dan_martins_and_resolution_c05.html#more
Thanks for the linke pendennis88. Wow, that’s a weak argument from Jim Naughton based on a single statement Dan+ made at GC last year (and taken out of context). He’s grasping at straws to come up with a reason to deny consent.
Jim Naughton is using a device well practiced by political animals. A “juicy” snippet is extracted from a speech -how far in the past given doesn’t matter – and the offending passage, bereft of context or nuance is used to discredit and bring into disrepute in a manner which rallies the troops. Dan said not a thing about individual gay people, or even all gay people. He said something about TEC’s willingness to redefine sexual and marital relationships. I do hope Dan doesn’t rise to the bait!
Hopefully Mr. Naughton, who I know follows this blog, can understand that his analysis was biased and not to the point at all. What Fr. Martens was saying, I believe, was that the church’s preparation of a liturgy and providing it (everyone knew what “generous pastoral response” meant) for SS unions, was bastardizing the sacrament of marriage and was shameful before the Lord … similar to when Adam and Eve were ashamed before the Lord when they had done what God told them not to do. Mr. Naughton has put his own partisan interpretation on the word “shame” in order to do exactly what #6 is saying. But Mr. Naughton is an old hand at this sort of thing in support of the reappraiser point of view.
Yep, and we have no problem in seeing right through him.
It’s a shameful thing to see the basest, most politicized smear tactics applied to a member of one’s own church.
In regards to Mr. naughton, why do we expect the unredeemed to act any differently than unredeemed?