I can’t say I know much about Pittsburgh. But for one who always likes to print a trademark picture of himself looking like a bruiser you wouldn’t like to meet after pub closing time, Giles Fraser is a fine one to speak of others looking like “a bulldog chewing a wasp”.
This must be why there are more Muslims in holy-day services than Anglicans in Britain…because of all the puritans. What a ribald, broad-minded religion, Islam.
Mr Fraser is the leading ‘light’ of a gay-promoting organization – or website, to be more accurate – called ‘Inclusive Church’. His routine shtick is evo-bashing. He’s surrounded by start-up evangelical churches and he’s afraid – with good reason – of losing his younger congregants to the attractions of biblical preaching and lively worship. His dull liberal catholicism with choral music is a turn-off to anyone under 50.
An elderly parishioner in my Pittsburgh parish where I serve as Vicar asked me this question this morning. “I hear people saying Bishop Duncan is the ‘bad guy’ in this mess and others tell me he is the ‘good guy.’ All I know is that I want to support the bishop who stands for what I have always believed as I grew up and throughout all my 80 years of life: that Jesus is my Lord and Savior and that I am but a wretched sinner in need of God’s mercy and love. And that Jesus came, suffered and died on the cross so I might spend eternity with God.” “And for me,” he said laughing,”that eternity might be just around the corner.”
‘Brother,” I said, “that is EXACTLY what Bishop Duncan is fighting to assure. That we might be a church that proclaims that precise gospel message, the one you have always known, the one that Jesus preached and the Church professed for 2,000 years.”
Mr. Giles, if that isn’t the gospel you choose, then, yes, Bishop Duncan is indeed the ‘bad guy’ just as a shepherd is a ‘bad guy’ to wolves.
It is always a particular aggravation to here “puritan” used as a snarl word. The people who use it in this fashion rarely know anything about the Puritans, although this is obviously a matter of no consequence to them. It always seems to mean “blind, irrational, reactionary pseudo piety” or something of that sort. At other times., it is merely a synonym for prudish. It certainly makes no sense here, but as with all snarl words, its use tells more about the speaker than the spoken about. LM
Jeffersonian [#3]: Hmm . . . Muslims are growing in numbers because (it’s postulated) of their insistence on strict adherence to the beliefs and behaviors mandated by their faith. Ditto (it’s also postulated) for ‘reasserter’ Christians, and to some extent for the Mormons.
Except that the respective beliefs demanded by these three faiths are incompatible (as are the demanded behaviors to some extent).
And consider that the U.S. Marines are famous for insistence on strict adherence to their standards of (professional) beliefs and behavior — and they almost never have trouble filling their recruiting quotas.
So perhaps the growth in numbers might be better explained, not by the purported validity of the (incompatible) beliefs, but by the psychosocial appeal of belonging to a group that both demands and rewards strict adherence to standards.
[blockquote] The answer has something to do with the establishment of the reactionary Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry in the diocese back in 1976. This school saw itself as a bridgehead for ridding the Church of progressive theology. It has been feeding clergy into churches all over south-west Pennsylvania, dramatically changing the complexion of the diocese. [/blockquote]
And all the other competing seminaries are Snow White — and have been turning out sweet, innocuous little dwarves. Yeah right!
[blockquote] And it will be people from churches such as Calvary that will have to pick up the pieces and put things back together again. [/blockquote]
Good luck — they are a declining congregation (hit their peak in 2003) of slightly less than 400 ASA — so they will certainly be able to pick up the pieces left by the 8000 in the whole diocese.
[blockquote] All the world’s religions have dangerous and arrogant people who think they are the only ones with the truth.[/blockquote]
Aw shucks Giles — I don’t see you as that dangerous even though you think you are the only ones with the truth. You are rather cute really.
This is a disappointing effort full of caricatures and half truths. Did Giles even talk to people like, say, Geoff Chapman or Jim Simons? It does not appear so.
The odd thing about this commentary is that he has it exactly backwards. It is the progressives who are intolerant of difference! This became clear all the way back at GC1997 when women’s ordination was mandated for all dioceses.
[blockquote]So perhaps the growth in numbers might be better explained, not by the purported validity of the (incompatible) beliefs, but by the psychosocial appeal of belonging to a group that both demands and rewards strict adherence to standards. [/blockquote]
I think that’s part of it. Look at Rowan Williams, for example. There he is, holed up at Canterbury, trying to decide whether to put gay celibate or full-blown partnered gay bishops in charge of his Church and the poor guy is lampooned mercilessly. On the other hand, the fundy Islamic clerics are absolutely certain of the position of gays in their religion (usually under a pile of rocks) and there’s barely a whisper of indignation.
People know who’s serious about his religion and who isn’t, DC. The question is who is correct, isn’t it?
Kendall, I don’t know why you even bother posting articles by persons such as this who should only be responded to with phrases ending with “…and the horse you rode in on.” At least you could have the decency to post articles of greater importance such as ‘who are the Mets going to have as catcher in 2008’.
#2 BCP ’28: “Trinity is ‘reactionary.’ Can someone, preferably a conservative catholic, please take that one on?!”
Trinity has gone through a lot of changes in 30 years.
About 12 years ago my bishop called me, as one of the few Trinity grads in his diocese, into his office to tell me why he would not allow any of his postulants to attend Trinity; and, if I heard the rest of it right, would not have any more Trinity grads serving as clergy in his diocese. He offered 3 reasons:
1. Too theologically narrow.
At the time I attended I would have said it was more tolerant of a range of opinions on some subjects, at least, than any other seminary. Definitely more so than EDS or Virginia. It was practically the only seminary left in ECUSA where students who believed that God calls men only to the priesthood were mostly charitable (as far as I could tell) dialogue with female students headed for ordination. As to breadth or narrowness on theological things, a seminary where every student signs a Statement of Faith– one where part of being in the community is believing some things together– will be different from one where they admit you without asking what you believe about anything. I was offered admission to some other seminaries without being asked either about my faith or my sense of vocation. The specifics of the Articles of Faith weren’t something you would have a problem with, if you can say the Creeds and mean what you’re saying.
In theological studies, there was a clear evangelical bias, but not what I would call obscurantism. Studies in patristics were almost non-existent, but I think since then the seminary has tried to remedy that imbalance.
#2 (of my bishop’s complaints). Trinity didn’t prepare students to lead worship in Episcopal congregations.
It partly depended on who was teacing liturgics. A “conservative catholic” might have had a problem. If you expected to serve in a catholic-minded diocese or congregation, you weren’t going to get much training some of the “priestcraft” expected of you in your congregation. To me, Trinity seemed pretty reactionary toward any liturgical and devotional practices that had a catholic look.
If you wanted to perfect your diction, adhere meticulously to the rubrics, and conform to people’s expectations of dead worship Sunday after Sunday, there were other places where you could learn those things.
#3. Trinity was not supportive of women’s ordination.
By the time I entered, Trinity had been severely divided over the issue, and had come to a point where the various parties had respectfully agreed to disagree. An orthodox or evangelically-minded woman who believed she was called to the priesthood was in a pretty tough place at the seminary, and also with her peers, female seminarians at other schools. She would have been justified in feeling less than fully accepted in either setting.
Bishops like mine who made this accusation against Trinity perpetuated the stereotype by not sending their postulants there, including female postulants who would have preferred Trinity over one of the more generic TEC seminaries.
If now Trinity seems “reactionary” to Mr Fraser and the people at Calvary, it is because TEC has only pretended to listen politely to Trinity faculty’s and grads’ contributions to General Convention discussions and committee work. Persecution by blandness and marginalization.
[blockquote]All the world’s religions have dangerous and arrogant people who think they are the only ones with the truth. Anglicanism has generally had a more modest and generous view, allowing various viewpoints to co-exist. But these new puritans have taken advantage of Anglican theological hospitality to mount a raid on the soul of the Church. They want to close down the very openness that allowed them space to flourish in the beginning.[/blockquote]
Oh. I thought he was talking about TEC and Schori et al. You mean he isn’t?!?
What a pathetic, small-minded, nasty, hypocritical, slanderous piece of drivel. But not “puritan”. No – we know better than that.
to scaevola #17… Thank you for your comments regarding Trinity. I am a senior MDIV student at Trinity. Regarding the questioning of Trinity’s preparation of students to lead Anglican worship, Rev. Dr. Leander Harding and Rev. Martha Giltinan are doing a wonderful job training us in ‘low’ and ‘high’ practices – including incense. Rev. Giltinan has re-tooled the “mentored-ministry” (field-base) class to challenge students – her challenge resulted in my first-time experience of ‘high’ Anglo-Catholic worship (‘smells and bells’) throughout last year. Regarding the ordination of women, a diversity of opinions does exist among Trinity’s faculty, and they agree to disagree. Many of my friends at Trinity are women seeking ordination (Anglicans, as well as Presbyterians).
I can’t say I know much about Pittsburgh. But for one who always likes to print a trademark picture of himself looking like a bruiser you wouldn’t like to meet after pub closing time, Giles Fraser is a fine one to speak of others looking like “a bulldog chewing a wasp”.
Trinity is “reactionary.” Can someone, preferably a conservative catholic, please take that one on?! 😉
This must be why there are more Muslims in holy-day services than Anglicans in Britain…because of all the puritans. What a ribald, broad-minded religion, Islam.
edited
A tired, and utterly laughable, article.
“New Puritans”??? This guy doesn’t get paid for that nonsense, does he?
I’ve been trying to find a way to intellectually challenge this article.
So far I have not been successful.
Who is Giles Fraser? Am I to be impressed or not?
Mr Fraser is the leading ‘light’ of a gay-promoting organization – or website, to be more accurate – called ‘Inclusive Church’. His routine shtick is evo-bashing. He’s surrounded by start-up evangelical churches and he’s afraid – with good reason – of losing his younger congregants to the attractions of biblical preaching and lively worship. His dull liberal catholicism with choral music is a turn-off to anyone under 50.
The Gordian: watch it on the choral music.
An elderly parishioner in my Pittsburgh parish where I serve as Vicar asked me this question this morning. “I hear people saying Bishop Duncan is the ‘bad guy’ in this mess and others tell me he is the ‘good guy.’ All I know is that I want to support the bishop who stands for what I have always believed as I grew up and throughout all my 80 years of life: that Jesus is my Lord and Savior and that I am but a wretched sinner in need of God’s mercy and love. And that Jesus came, suffered and died on the cross so I might spend eternity with God.” “And for me,” he said laughing,”that eternity might be just around the corner.”
‘Brother,” I said, “that is EXACTLY what Bishop Duncan is fighting to assure. That we might be a church that proclaims that precise gospel message, the one you have always known, the one that Jesus preached and the Church professed for 2,000 years.”
Mr. Giles, if that isn’t the gospel you choose, then, yes, Bishop Duncan is indeed the ‘bad guy’ just as a shepherd is a ‘bad guy’ to wolves.
It is always a particular aggravation to here “puritan” used as a snarl word. The people who use it in this fashion rarely know anything about the Puritans, although this is obviously a matter of no consequence to them. It always seems to mean “blind, irrational, reactionary pseudo piety” or something of that sort. At other times., it is merely a synonym for prudish. It certainly makes no sense here, but as with all snarl words, its use tells more about the speaker than the spoken about. LM
Jeffersonian [#3]: Hmm . . . Muslims are growing in numbers because (it’s postulated) of their insistence on strict adherence to the beliefs and behaviors mandated by their faith. Ditto (it’s also postulated) for ‘reasserter’ Christians, and to some extent for the Mormons.
Except that the respective beliefs demanded by these three faiths are incompatible (as are the demanded behaviors to some extent).
And consider that the U.S. Marines are famous for insistence on strict adherence to their standards of (professional) beliefs and behavior — and they almost never have trouble filling their recruiting quotas.
So perhaps the growth in numbers might be better explained, not by the purported validity of the (incompatible) beliefs, but by the psychosocial appeal of belonging to a group that both demands and rewards strict adherence to standards.
[blockquote] The answer has something to do with the establishment of the reactionary Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry in the diocese back in 1976. This school saw itself as a bridgehead for ridding the Church of progressive theology. It has been feeding clergy into churches all over south-west Pennsylvania, dramatically changing the complexion of the diocese. [/blockquote]
And all the other competing seminaries are Snow White — and have been turning out sweet, innocuous little dwarves. Yeah right!
[blockquote] And it will be people from churches such as Calvary that will have to pick up the pieces and put things back together again. [/blockquote]
Good luck — they are a declining congregation (hit their peak in 2003) of slightly less than 400 ASA — so they will certainly be able to pick up the pieces left by the 8000 in the whole diocese.
[blockquote] All the world’s religions have dangerous and arrogant people who think they are the only ones with the truth.[/blockquote]
Aw shucks Giles — I don’t see you as that dangerous even though you think you are the only ones with the truth. You are rather cute really.
This is a disappointing effort full of caricatures and half truths. Did Giles even talk to people like, say, Geoff Chapman or Jim Simons? It does not appear so.
The odd thing about this commentary is that he has it exactly backwards. It is the progressives who are intolerant of difference! This became clear all the way back at GC1997 when women’s ordination was mandated for all dioceses.
[blockquote]So perhaps the growth in numbers might be better explained, not by the purported validity of the (incompatible) beliefs, but by the psychosocial appeal of belonging to a group that both demands and rewards strict adherence to standards. [/blockquote]
I think that’s part of it. Look at Rowan Williams, for example. There he is, holed up at Canterbury, trying to decide whether to put gay celibate or full-blown partnered gay bishops in charge of his Church and the poor guy is lampooned mercilessly. On the other hand, the fundy Islamic clerics are absolutely certain of the position of gays in their religion (usually under a pile of rocks) and there’s barely a whisper of indignation.
People know who’s serious about his religion and who isn’t, DC. The question is who is correct, isn’t it?
Kendall, I don’t know why you even bother posting articles by persons such as this who should only be responded to with phrases ending with “…and the horse you rode in on.” At least you could have the decency to post articles of greater importance such as ‘who are the Mets going to have as catcher in 2008’.
#2 BCP ’28: “Trinity is ‘reactionary.’ Can someone, preferably a conservative catholic, please take that one on?!”
Trinity has gone through a lot of changes in 30 years.
About 12 years ago my bishop called me, as one of the few Trinity grads in his diocese, into his office to tell me why he would not allow any of his postulants to attend Trinity; and, if I heard the rest of it right, would not have any more Trinity grads serving as clergy in his diocese. He offered 3 reasons:
1. Too theologically narrow.
At the time I attended I would have said it was more tolerant of a range of opinions on some subjects, at least, than any other seminary. Definitely more so than EDS or Virginia. It was practically the only seminary left in ECUSA where students who believed that God calls men only to the priesthood were mostly charitable (as far as I could tell) dialogue with female students headed for ordination. As to breadth or narrowness on theological things, a seminary where every student signs a Statement of Faith– one where part of being in the community is believing some things together– will be different from one where they admit you without asking what you believe about anything. I was offered admission to some other seminaries without being asked either about my faith or my sense of vocation. The specifics of the Articles of Faith weren’t something you would have a problem with, if you can say the Creeds and mean what you’re saying.
In theological studies, there was a clear evangelical bias, but not what I would call obscurantism. Studies in patristics were almost non-existent, but I think since then the seminary has tried to remedy that imbalance.
#2 (of my bishop’s complaints). Trinity didn’t prepare students to lead worship in Episcopal congregations.
It partly depended on who was teacing liturgics. A “conservative catholic” might have had a problem. If you expected to serve in a catholic-minded diocese or congregation, you weren’t going to get much training some of the “priestcraft” expected of you in your congregation. To me, Trinity seemed pretty reactionary toward any liturgical and devotional practices that had a catholic look.
If you wanted to perfect your diction, adhere meticulously to the rubrics, and conform to people’s expectations of dead worship Sunday after Sunday, there were other places where you could learn those things.
#3. Trinity was not supportive of women’s ordination.
By the time I entered, Trinity had been severely divided over the issue, and had come to a point where the various parties had respectfully agreed to disagree. An orthodox or evangelically-minded woman who believed she was called to the priesthood was in a pretty tough place at the seminary, and also with her peers, female seminarians at other schools. She would have been justified in feeling less than fully accepted in either setting.
Bishops like mine who made this accusation against Trinity perpetuated the stereotype by not sending their postulants there, including female postulants who would have preferred Trinity over one of the more generic TEC seminaries.
If now Trinity seems “reactionary” to Mr Fraser and the people at Calvary, it is because TEC has only pretended to listen politely to Trinity faculty’s and grads’ contributions to General Convention discussions and committee work. Persecution by blandness and marginalization.
[blockquote]All the world’s religions have dangerous and arrogant people who think they are the only ones with the truth. Anglicanism has generally had a more modest and generous view, allowing various viewpoints to co-exist. But these new puritans have taken advantage of Anglican theological hospitality to mount a raid on the soul of the Church. They want to close down the very openness that allowed them space to flourish in the beginning.[/blockquote]
Oh. I thought he was talking about TEC and Schori et al. You mean he isn’t?!?
What a pathetic, small-minded, nasty, hypocritical, slanderous piece of drivel. But not “puritan”. No – we know better than that.
to scaevola #17… Thank you for your comments regarding Trinity. I am a senior MDIV student at Trinity. Regarding the questioning of Trinity’s preparation of students to lead Anglican worship, Rev. Dr. Leander Harding and Rev. Martha Giltinan are doing a wonderful job training us in ‘low’ and ‘high’ practices – including incense. Rev. Giltinan has re-tooled the “mentored-ministry” (field-base) class to challenge students – her challenge resulted in my first-time experience of ‘high’ Anglo-Catholic worship (‘smells and bells’) throughout last year. Regarding the ordination of women, a diversity of opinions does exist among Trinity’s faculty, and they agree to disagree. Many of my friends at Trinity are women seeking ordination (Anglicans, as well as Presbyterians).