Actually it should be titled “Radical liberal current leaders of TEC contemplate implications of Osama bin Laden’s death.”
Do you think any of these people yet understand how irrelevant their musings are to the vast majority of Episcopalians in the pews?
*If* most Episcopalians were to actually read these words [which they won’t] the people quoted would merely demonstrate just how broad the chasm is between them and most Episcopalians in the pews actually think, feel, and value.
Which is why . . . the radical distancing and detachment of Episcopalians in TEC continues to grow — with the results being the only thing that these leaders care about — less money and declining diocesan power and influence.
This kind of article filled with their bloviating comments merely serves as Exhibit #39,432.
Most of the comments cited in the article seemed to be variations on the theme of relief (and acknowledgment of the justice of the action) coupled with exhortations not to rejoice in the death of the wicked (a stance also adopted, I believe, by the Vatican).
I was also struck by the fact that Susan Russell has a son serving in the U.S. Army. Like any other parent of a serviceman, she deserves our commendation at what must be a difficult time.
I agree, Jeremy. The Episcopal comments have expressed the same sentiments as comments from the Vatican, the evangelical leaders in my neck of the woods, and Rudy Giuliani on Nightline last night. I see nothing radically liberal about them.
Don’t we all feel glad when any villain dies, yet also feel accountable to God and the rest of humanity if the death comes from our “terrible swift sword”?
RE: “Most of the comments cited in the article seemed to be variations on the theme of relief (and acknowledgment of the justice of the action) coupled with exhortations not to rejoice in the death of the wicked (a stance also adopted, I believe, by the Vatican).”
Yup.
And note that I did not comment on the content of the comments.
I merely commented on *who* was doing the “commenting.”
Their musings are utterly irrelevant to the vast majority of Episcopalians. Irrelevant.
Their moral vacuity makes their remarks of little to no interest — as the readership of ENS demonstrates.
When the Pope speaks, I’m interested.
When the academic who teaches at yet another of our failed radically revisionist seminaries and who co-chairs the theological resources subcommittee of the Episcopal Church’s Standing Committee on Liturgy and Music pontificates about his notions of the meaning of “Easter” — I don’t give a flying fig.
When a failed bishop in of another failing diocese pronounces that he’s “feeling very solemn about the whole thing” — I don’t give a flying fig.
When a bishop of the Diocese of Newark — a diocese that strikingly embodies the words “epic fail” — emotes about human nature — I don’t give a flying fig.
When Jim Richardson blogs about his self-congratulatory unease with other people’s actions — I don’t give a flying fig.
When failed theologians offer up alternative ideas for other people’s behaviors coupled with superciliousness about “American exceptionalism” and sneering about being a “biblical literalist” — at which all the other sneering revisionists can simper and gaze admiringly at their own reflections in the water — I don’t give a flying fig.
When a dean of another declining cathedral pronounces about what “we Christians” think — as if he can even imagine what “we Christians” think — I don’t give a flying fig.
When yet another revisionist bishop of yet another rapidly augering into the ground diocese announces what he thinks is “the most important work” of the war against those who wish Americans death and destruction and what he thinks the work of “Christians” is — I don’t give a flying fig.
When another clueless revisionist priest chatters about “diplomacy” for mass murderers — I laugh — and beyond the few calories involved in that laughter, I don’t give a flying fig.
They’re certainly peddling their wares all right. My only point is that their wares are not selling. And despite their wares not selling, ENS acts as if what they think or say actually matters to much of anyone.
At some point, two or three, or four or five of those people are going to figure out that nobody cares and close to nobody’s reading [other than, you know, folks on blogs who are pointing out how little what they say is important].
And folks reading this blog are going to recognize — yet again — that in the entire list of individuals quoted in that story, not one was even remotely to the right of far-left.
Like . . . Seriously? Do they actually think that of the Episcopalians who have been blog-wined and dined for the last 7 years aren’t going to even notice that?
Sarah–yes, but I thought that this statement was almost perfectly balanced:
The Very Rev. Samuel T. Lloyd III, dean of Washington National Cathedral, said in a May 3 statement that those at the cathedral “share with our fellow Americans a sense of relief that Osama bin Laden’s life of hatred and violence is over.”
“As followers of the Prince of Peace, however, we Christians regret profoundly the necessity of this killing,” Lloyd added.
Yes, and since we are not yet living in the realm of the Kingdom, it will be necessary to eradicate evil. Evil cannot simply be prayed away. “Will you persevere in resisting evil, and, whenever you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord?”
And note that I did not comment on the content of the comments.
I merely commented on *who* was doing the “commenting.â€
Also from Sarah (highlights mine)
*If* most Episcopalians were to actually read these words [which they won’t] the people quoted would merely demonstrate just how broad the chasm is between them and most Episcopalians in the pews actually think, feel, and value.
It seems to me that you are talking about their words and perhaps now engaging in a little revisionism of your own 😉
I am no longer on HoBD web (thanks be to God above) but I am curious about what has been said there. Does anybody know? I was on there on 9/11/2001 and the comments then were sickening.
Well, Brian — again, the “what” of the words does matter, I suppose. But my original point is [though now expanded and explained further] . . . is the headline is ridiculously wrong. These aren’t garden variety “Episcopalians.” These are just the usual flaming idiot revisionist foamers that ENS trots out from time to time as if their thoughts and values actually matter.
Hard for me to expound on that and pay absolutely no attention to their words. But I think most could agree in reading my comments that I have focused pretty much like a laser on the sickening, corrupt, and incompetent nature of these individuals.
Gross.
Seriously — does ENS have absolutely zero sense at all? I could go drag this little piece of self-serving narcissism to any number of Piskies in my or plenty of other dioceses and the rolling of eyes that would ensue would embarrass Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged.
And then you’d have the inevitable conversation: “like . . . who [i]are[/i] these people?”
Back to the suggested title: “Radical liberal current leaders of TEC contemplate implications of Osama bin Laden’s death”
But from a historical point of view, one could say that about almost any denominational print medium.
In its heyday, the [i]Living Church[/i] and the [i]Churchman[/i] – though probably more widely read – no more represented the day-to-day expectations of “garden variety Episcopalians” than does ENS today. For that matter neither do Stand Firm or T19. We’re a self-selected “elite” (I use the term advisedly).
As you’ve pointed out, Sarah, most people in the pews just want the weighty debates to go away and leave them to get on with maintaining the community to which they’ve become accustomed. Is that a good thing? No, but it’s been the case since 1789 (or before) and I suspect that, after the dust settles, it will be the case in much of ACNA – look at the recent property settlements by individual parishes.
As to whether the statements made here have any value, again, that’s in the eye of the beholder. And that also applies to all of us who post here. I would contend – again as a historian – that the [b]record[/b] has an inherent value regardless of whether or not we agree with the sentiments expressed.
To put it into completely crass, practical terms — think about this from the point of view of “acquiring readers” who read.
Even first-year journalists understand a small trifle about acquiring good sources — not merely people who are perceived as somewhat competent and reputable [and obviously ENS doesn’t care about that] but people about whose thoughts [i]other people are interested[/i]. Why? Because when news people write about people about whom other people are interested or quote from people about whom others are interested, [i]then more people actually read their stuff.[/i]
Instead we have Yet Another Simpering Article filled with quotes from people about whose thoughts others care little to none and which is respected by few [save other various “theologians” of plummeting Episcopal seminaries and other failed bishops of failed dioceses].
RE: “In its heyday, the Living Church and the Churchman – though probably more widely read – no more represented the day-to-day expectations of “garden variety Episcopalians†than does ENS today.”
Hi Jeremy Bonner — I didn’t mean to imply that “garden variety Episcopalians” should or would be interested in the musings of anyone other than their own parishioners [although I did state that the musings of these folks were irrelevant to the vast majority.]
Here are some practical implications of what I’m saying.
1) Publications, it is hoped, are thingies that people read — hopefully lots of people, but at least significant percentages.
2) Granted, “reading” content-laden works is now an act done by an elite. So let’s just go for a good percentage of “Episcopalians who read substantive thingies and care about issues beyond their pew.” That immediately whittles us down to a minority percentage, given the nature of people in general.
3) So if our goal is to acquire at least a significant percentage of a minority percentage — some eyeballs of people who read substantive thingies, within The Episcopal Church, will ENS’s little ode to lefty academics and lefty bishops actually acquire eyeballs of a good percentage of people of the minority who read substantive thingies within The Episcopal Church?
4) Answer: no, because it either ignores or insults people from massive spheres within TEC: a) it does not acquire readers from people who are actually political conservatives in TEC [a huge chunk, take it from me, despite the hopes of TEC clergy] because the bias is clear — the ENS writer didn’t trouble to go out and acquire — for balance sake — some erstwhile thinker who casually insults canards of the political left, as the ENS writer did in acquiring some erstwhile thinker who casually insulted canards of the political right, b) it does not acquire readers from people who took huge joy from the death of Osama [note that I don’t say whether it was *right* for them to take huge joy — I only point out that many thousands of Episcopalians were toasting one another last night], c) it does not acquire readers from people who actually appreciate substantive theological content, whether they are left or right — obviously, those who do are entirely left out of this picture, and d) it [with rather blinding clarity] does not acquire readers from people who, you know, actually believe the Gospel in TEC — which are many — since the quoted come from the throng of current leaders who share an antithetical foundational worldview.
Now granted, Kendall has tripled the article’s readership by simply placing a link on his page. So hundreds of readers [would have been more, but they were turned off by the letters “ENS”] went to the link — [i]and had their every suspicion about the content and the character of the quoted confirmed![/i] So the chasm was — yet again — demonstrated and exposed.
So right here on T19, the vast majority of people who might have fallen into one of those four categories above went to the link — and found themselves either ignored or insulted or bored.
This is just not good business. And it’s not good “journalism” or reporting.
You’ve only got a couple of options as to why this kind of Ode would occur. Either 1) the writer doesn’t have any sources which fall into any of the above four categories [this is *very* possible, given the sources that the writer actually has] or 2) the writer does have such sources but didn’t want to call them.
I reiterate again that my comments have nothing to do with whether Christians should or should not rejoice at the death of bin Laden. I’ve already had my own discussions with friends — both Episcopalians and of other denominations — about that topic. It’s a perfectly reasonable topic to discuss.
Publications, it is hoped, are thingies that people read—hopefully lots of people, but at least significant percentages
I am not certain that this is the case anymore. ENS no longer has a print presence. With the dramatic increase in electronic media I think that special interests all have their own outlets. So in this case wouldn’t the target audience be liberal Episcopalians?
“And then you’d have the inevitable conversation: “like . . . who are these people?â€
Preaching to the choir, I’d bet, but if you want to know “who these people are”, all you need to do is go to the website of the Episcopal Urban Caucus. Brian has a point about the target audience.
Blog administrators/journalists probably have to by virtue of their jobs, but when I see letters like ENS, I usually don’t even bother.
RE: “So in this case wouldn’t the target audience be liberal Episcopalians?”
Well — obviously. But . . . I think the problem with “saying that out loud” is that it’s an official organ of The Episcopal Church and is funded by our national church budget.
It’s not as if it’s The Living Church or another independent Episcopal publication.
At least some vague pretense of even-handedness, or at least not blatant insults or indifference to huge chunks of The Episcopal Church, would be . . . useful? Sane? Convenient?
So . . . um . . . not only would traditional Episcopalians not read ENS, [see above four listed reasons], but we’re funding an official blatantly biased church organ that we do not read and that insults and/or ignores us.
Hah hah.
Actually it should be titled “Radical liberal current leaders of TEC contemplate implications of Osama bin Laden’s death.”
Do you think any of these people yet understand how irrelevant their musings are to the vast majority of Episcopalians in the pews?
*If* most Episcopalians were to actually read these words [which they won’t] the people quoted would merely demonstrate just how broad the chasm is between them and most Episcopalians in the pews actually think, feel, and value.
Which is why . . . the radical distancing and detachment of Episcopalians in TEC continues to grow — with the results being the only thing that these leaders care about — less money and declining diocesan power and influence.
This kind of article filled with their bloviating comments merely serves as Exhibit #39,432.
We must be reading different articles.
Most of the comments cited in the article seemed to be variations on the theme of relief (and acknowledgment of the justice of the action) coupled with exhortations not to rejoice in the death of the wicked (a stance also adopted, I believe, by the Vatican).
I was also struck by the fact that Susan Russell has a son serving in the U.S. Army. Like any other parent of a serviceman, she deserves our commendation at what must be a difficult time.
I agree, Jeremy. The Episcopal comments have expressed the same sentiments as comments from the Vatican, the evangelical leaders in my neck of the woods, and Rudy Giuliani on Nightline last night. I see nothing radically liberal about them.
Don’t we all feel glad when any villain dies, yet also feel accountable to God and the rest of humanity if the death comes from our “terrible swift sword”?
RE: “Most of the comments cited in the article seemed to be variations on the theme of relief (and acknowledgment of the justice of the action) coupled with exhortations not to rejoice in the death of the wicked (a stance also adopted, I believe, by the Vatican).”
Yup.
And note that I did not comment on the content of the comments.
I merely commented on *who* was doing the “commenting.”
Their musings are utterly irrelevant to the vast majority of Episcopalians. Irrelevant.
Their moral vacuity makes their remarks of little to no interest — as the readership of ENS demonstrates.
When the Pope speaks, I’m interested.
When the academic who teaches at yet another of our failed radically revisionist seminaries and who co-chairs the theological resources subcommittee of the Episcopal Church’s Standing Committee on Liturgy and Music pontificates about his notions of the meaning of “Easter” — I don’t give a flying fig.
When a failed bishop in of another failing diocese pronounces that he’s “feeling very solemn about the whole thing” — I don’t give a flying fig.
When a bishop of the Diocese of Newark — a diocese that strikingly embodies the words “epic fail” — emotes about human nature — I don’t give a flying fig.
When Jim Richardson blogs about his self-congratulatory unease with other people’s actions — I don’t give a flying fig.
When failed theologians offer up alternative ideas for other people’s behaviors coupled with superciliousness about “American exceptionalism” and sneering about being a “biblical literalist” — at which all the other sneering revisionists can simper and gaze admiringly at their own reflections in the water — I don’t give a flying fig.
When a dean of another declining cathedral pronounces about what “we Christians” think — as if he can even imagine what “we Christians” think — I don’t give a flying fig.
When yet another revisionist bishop of yet another rapidly augering into the ground diocese announces what he thinks is “the most important work” of the war against those who wish Americans death and destruction and what he thinks the work of “Christians” is — I don’t give a flying fig.
When another clueless revisionist priest chatters about “diplomacy” for mass murderers — I laugh — and beyond the few calories involved in that laughter, I don’t give a flying fig.
They’re certainly peddling their wares all right. My only point is that their wares are not selling. And despite their wares not selling, ENS acts as if what they think or say actually matters to much of anyone.
At some point, two or three, or four or five of those people are going to figure out that nobody cares and close to nobody’s reading [other than, you know, folks on blogs who are pointing out how little what they say is important].
And folks reading this blog are going to recognize — yet again — that in the entire list of individuals quoted in that story, not one was even remotely to the right of far-left.
Like . . . Seriously? Do they actually think that of the Episcopalians who have been blog-wined and dined for the last 7 years aren’t going to even notice that?
Credibility Fail — again.
Sarah–yes, but I thought that this statement was almost perfectly balanced:
The Very Rev. Samuel T. Lloyd III, dean of Washington National Cathedral, said in a May 3 statement that those at the cathedral “share with our fellow Americans a sense of relief that Osama bin Laden’s life of hatred and violence is over.”
“As followers of the Prince of Peace, however, we Christians regret profoundly the necessity of this killing,” Lloyd added.
Yes, and since we are not yet living in the realm of the Kingdom, it will be necessary to eradicate evil. Evil cannot simply be prayed away. “Will you persevere in resisting evil, and, whenever you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord?”
From Sarah:
And note that I did not comment on the content of the comments.
I merely commented on *who* was doing the “commenting.â€
Also from Sarah (highlights mine)
*If* most Episcopalians were to actually read these words [which they won’t] the people quoted would merely demonstrate just how broad the chasm is between them and most Episcopalians in the pews actually think, feel, and value.
It seems to me that you are talking about their words and perhaps now engaging in a little revisionism of your own 😉
I am no longer on HoBD web (thanks be to God above) but I am curious about what has been said there. Does anybody know? I was on there on 9/11/2001 and the comments then were sickening.
Well, Brian — again, the “what” of the words does matter, I suppose. But my original point is [though now expanded and explained further] . . . is the headline is ridiculously wrong. These aren’t garden variety “Episcopalians.” These are just the usual flaming idiot revisionist foamers that ENS trots out from time to time as if their thoughts and values actually matter.
Hard for me to expound on that and pay absolutely no attention to their words. But I think most could agree in reading my comments that I have focused pretty much like a laser on the sickening, corrupt, and incompetent nature of these individuals.
Gross.
Seriously — does ENS have absolutely zero sense at all? I could go drag this little piece of self-serving narcissism to any number of Piskies in my or plenty of other dioceses and the rolling of eyes that would ensue would embarrass Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged.
And then you’d have the inevitable conversation: “like . . . who [i]are[/i] these people?”
Back to the suggested title: “Radical liberal current leaders of TEC contemplate implications of Osama bin Laden’s death”
But from a historical point of view, one could say that about almost any denominational print medium.
In its heyday, the [i]Living Church[/i] and the [i]Churchman[/i] – though probably more widely read – no more represented the day-to-day expectations of “garden variety Episcopalians” than does ENS today. For that matter neither do Stand Firm or T19. We’re a self-selected “elite” (I use the term advisedly).
As you’ve pointed out, Sarah, most people in the pews just want the weighty debates to go away and leave them to get on with maintaining the community to which they’ve become accustomed. Is that a good thing? No, but it’s been the case since 1789 (or before) and I suspect that, after the dust settles, it will be the case in much of ACNA – look at the recent property settlements by individual parishes.
As to whether the statements made here have any value, again, that’s in the eye of the beholder. And that also applies to all of us who post here. I would contend – again as a historian – that the [b]record[/b] has an inherent value regardless of whether or not we agree with the sentiments expressed.
To put it into completely crass, practical terms — think about this from the point of view of “acquiring readers” who read.
Even first-year journalists understand a small trifle about acquiring good sources — not merely people who are perceived as somewhat competent and reputable [and obviously ENS doesn’t care about that] but people about whose thoughts [i]other people are interested[/i]. Why? Because when news people write about people about whom other people are interested or quote from people about whom others are interested, [i]then more people actually read their stuff.[/i]
Instead we have Yet Another Simpering Article filled with quotes from people about whose thoughts others care little to none and which is respected by few [save other various “theologians” of plummeting Episcopal seminaries and other failed bishops of failed dioceses].
An Ode To Narcissus, by Narcissus
RE: “In its heyday, the Living Church and the Churchman – though probably more widely read – no more represented the day-to-day expectations of “garden variety Episcopalians†than does ENS today.”
Hi Jeremy Bonner — I didn’t mean to imply that “garden variety Episcopalians” should or would be interested in the musings of anyone other than their own parishioners [although I did state that the musings of these folks were irrelevant to the vast majority.]
Here are some practical implications of what I’m saying.
1) Publications, it is hoped, are thingies that people read — hopefully lots of people, but at least significant percentages.
2) Granted, “reading” content-laden works is now an act done by an elite. So let’s just go for a good percentage of “Episcopalians who read substantive thingies and care about issues beyond their pew.” That immediately whittles us down to a minority percentage, given the nature of people in general.
3) So if our goal is to acquire at least a significant percentage of a minority percentage — some eyeballs of people who read substantive thingies, within The Episcopal Church, will ENS’s little ode to lefty academics and lefty bishops actually acquire eyeballs of a good percentage of people of the minority who read substantive thingies within The Episcopal Church?
4) Answer: no, because it either ignores or insults people from massive spheres within TEC: a) it does not acquire readers from people who are actually political conservatives in TEC [a huge chunk, take it from me, despite the hopes of TEC clergy] because the bias is clear — the ENS writer didn’t trouble to go out and acquire — for balance sake — some erstwhile thinker who casually insults canards of the political left, as the ENS writer did in acquiring some erstwhile thinker who casually insulted canards of the political right, b) it does not acquire readers from people who took huge joy from the death of Osama [note that I don’t say whether it was *right* for them to take huge joy — I only point out that many thousands of Episcopalians were toasting one another last night], c) it does not acquire readers from people who actually appreciate substantive theological content, whether they are left or right — obviously, those who do are entirely left out of this picture, and d) it [with rather blinding clarity] does not acquire readers from people who, you know, actually believe the Gospel in TEC — which are many — since the quoted come from the throng of current leaders who share an antithetical foundational worldview.
Now granted, Kendall has tripled the article’s readership by simply placing a link on his page. So hundreds of readers [would have been more, but they were turned off by the letters “ENS”] went to the link — [i]and had their every suspicion about the content and the character of the quoted confirmed![/i] So the chasm was — yet again — demonstrated and exposed.
So right here on T19, the vast majority of people who might have fallen into one of those four categories above went to the link — and found themselves either ignored or insulted or bored.
This is just not good business. And it’s not good “journalism” or reporting.
You’ve only got a couple of options as to why this kind of Ode would occur. Either 1) the writer doesn’t have any sources which fall into any of the above four categories [this is *very* possible, given the sources that the writer actually has] or 2) the writer does have such sources but didn’t want to call them.
I reiterate again that my comments have nothing to do with whether Christians should or should not rejoice at the death of bin Laden. I’ve already had my own discussions with friends — both Episcopalians and of other denominations — about that topic. It’s a perfectly reasonable topic to discuss.
Look, I’m a Christian, and I’m glad the bum is dead! I lost friends on 9/11. End of discussion.
Publications, it is hoped, are thingies that people read—hopefully lots of people, but at least significant percentages
I am not certain that this is the case anymore. ENS no longer has a print presence. With the dramatic increase in electronic media I think that special interests all have their own outlets. So in this case wouldn’t the target audience be liberal Episcopalians?
“And then you’d have the inevitable conversation: “like . . . who are these people?â€
Preaching to the choir, I’d bet, but if you want to know “who these people are”, all you need to do is go to the website of the Episcopal Urban Caucus. Brian has a point about the target audience.
Blog administrators/journalists probably have to by virtue of their jobs, but when I see letters like ENS, I usually don’t even bother.
RE: “So in this case wouldn’t the target audience be liberal Episcopalians?”
Well — obviously. But . . . I think the problem with “saying that out loud” is that it’s an official organ of The Episcopal Church and is funded by our national church budget.
It’s not as if it’s The Living Church or another independent Episcopal publication.
At least some vague pretense of even-handedness, or at least not blatant insults or indifference to huge chunks of The Episcopal Church, would be . . . useful? Sane? Convenient?
So . . . um . . . not only would traditional Episcopalians not read ENS, [see above four listed reasons], but we’re funding an official blatantly biased church organ that we do not read and that insults and/or ignores us.