We respect and love Greg dearly. We recognize all too well the emotions and felt needs that led him to seek peace for his family, and a stable church situation. Those of us with children recognize the need to avoid non-Christian expressions of false gospels, as are found among so many leaders of The Episcopal Church; we also recognize the desire to find a sane and functional entity to join, and grant that currently Roman Catholicism provides structures that are sane and functional even as Anglican entities in the US do not. Those of us in Episcopal dioceses led by bishops who do not share the same faith also recognize the deep division that exists between layperson and clergy or bishop when the two do not share the same faith or preach the same gospel; it is a very challenging place to be as an Anglican.
Greg’s heartfelt statement of explanation as to how he came to make such a decision is a devastating indictment both on his former Episcopal bishop, Duncan Gray, as well as on conservative Anglicans throughout the US….
I’m glad you called attention to this poignant statement, Kendall. It raises some very important issues that are well worth serious discussion among orthodox Christians, and especially among us Anglicans. Needless to say, I as an “Ex-Reformed” Anglican have a very different take on Greg Griffith’s conversion to Roman Catholicism than the three proudly Reformed editors at SFiF.
So here are two or three initial thoughts to stimulate discussion here. First, I note with relief that it’s only Matt Kennedy, Sarah Hey, and David Ould who signed this statement. Tim Fountain and Allan Haley pointedly abstained. That illustrates the fact that SF has fortunately become a little more diverse in recent years in terms of the span of views represented among the site editors, and I certainly welcome that. Indeed, as regular readers of both blogs wil know, I became so frustrated with the stubborn, hardcore Protestantism and ultra-conservatism of Matt Kennedy and Sarah Hey in particular that I stopped posting comments at SF over two years ago. Now the blog’s staff will be even more diverse, and I’m grateful for that, as well as being deeply grateful that Greg wants to continue running the site, which is such a valuable resource for all of us who are striving to “contend for the faith once delievered to the saints” (Jude 3) and who want to connect with other Christian warriors in the Culture War.
Second, I welcome the three SF leaders’ insistence that doctrinal issues not be swept under the rug, as if pragmatic issues relating to the best practical parish option available in a given locality could trump core differences on vital dogmas. For example, I once made a tactical decision as a father somewhat similar to Greg’s decision. He has a 12-year old daughter, and he is rightly concerned for her welfare and future faith development in her teen years. When my wife and I moved to Chester, VA (I was a full-time doctoral student at Union Seminary in Richmond), we had two teenage children at the time. It didn’t tke long to decide that the local Episcopal Church would be a disaster for them. The EYC (youth group) was a joke. We ended up attending the local Assembly of God church (Cornerstone AG) for programmatic and pragmatic reasons: they had by far the best youth ministry in town. Moreover, the outstanding pastor back then, Wayne Mancari, was a highly unusual Pentecostal minister, who was fully comfortable with letting my wife and I exercise significant ministries in that parish for several years, knowing full well that we would never (re)join the denomination (wehad spent five years in the Assemblies when we were younger). So for three years during my docoral program, I was allowed to run the small group ministry (and occasionally preach) at that thriving AG church,and my wife led the drama ministry during that same time. But I remained a committed Anglican the whole time. Obviously, there were certain topics that I just chose to stay silent about, as a guest or adjunct member of the volunteer staff. Greg had gone further than that, and has crossed the Tiber.
Third, and last, personally, I have to agree with Matt, Sarah, and David, that while I as an Anglo-Catholic am far more catholic than they are, one of the main reasons why I linger on this side of the Tiber (or the Thames) is because I agree with them, and with Article XX of the 39 Articles, that the Pope and the Roman Church “hath erred,” and seriously erred, on some basic and essential doctrines, not the least of which is the proper understanding of justification by faith apart from works. However, my own understanding of that core doctrine would be more Lutheran than Reformed. I could happily sign the ecumenical JDDC signed by leading Lutheran and RC theolooians in 1999 (the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification). I don’t think those three editors a SF would be nearly as happy with that historic agreement.
But if I basically agree with the Protestant reformers on their core principle of Sola Fide, I am equally emphatic in my strong renunciation of the twin Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura. Regular readers of T19 know this, so I need not explain why I insist so firmly that while Holy Scripture is indeed our supreme and final authority in matters of faith and practice it is most assuredly NOT our only authority. Or our only divinely inspired one, which amounts to the same thing. Holy Tradition is an indispensable key to the proper understanding of God’s Word, and while secondary, is also of divine authority, but in a secondary way and to a lesser degree.
To sum it up, it could be fairly said that for Matt, Sarah, and David, as Reformed or Reformation Anglicans, Anglicanism at its best is really just the English form of magisterial Protestantism. Whereas for me, as a “3-D” Anglican (evangelical, catholic, and charismatic), Anglicanism at its best is a wholly different kind of thing, a genuine Protestant-Catholic hybrid. What drew me to Anglicanism was not its English and moderate or Via Media character, but rather its poential for fostering a unique synthesis of the best in the evangelical and catholic traditions (along with the charismatic tradition as well), making Anglicanism at its best (as say with the quasi-Catholic Caroline Divines of the 17th century like +Lancelot Andrewes, George Herbert+, +John Pearson, or +Thomas Ken) a true hybrid that is some key ways BOTH Protestant and Catholic, and perhaps more importantly, in other ways, Anglicanism at its best is NEITHER Protestant nor Roman Catholic, but a blend of the two that paradoxically combines the best features of them both (rather than splitting the difference between them, Via Media fashion).
Presumably, if Matt, Sarah, and David Ould were ever to give up on Anglicanism (like Greg), they would become Presbyterians of some sort (PCA, EPC, ECO?), or something similar. But as regular readers of T19 know, I decided years ago that if I ever grow so weary of the theological incoherence of Anglicanism and its seeming inability to ever discipline any wayward leaders for any reason (except political incorrectness) that I give up on the Anglican experiment altogether, there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that I will follow Greg’s example and swim the Tiber.
David Handy+
Having read Greg Griffith’s apologia for his swimnming the Tiber, I am fairly convinced that he will swim back to some form of political Protestantism which better serves his own (secular) political ideology. The telling comment to me was his description of Pope Francis as a failure and disappointment – apparently because he is more disposed to the poor than one of his (recently canonized) predecessors and because he takes the Gospel seriously about preaching the message of salvation to all people. I gave up on Stand Firm for many of the same reasons NRA did. What I also found objectionable was the consistent refusal to deal charitably with those Fr. Kennedy, Ms. Hey, and Mr. Ould disagreed with – even if they shared a commitment to Christian orthodoxy.
I must admit to discouragement when attempts to discuss theology are met with vitupation and hostility. Particularly when Scripture seems to get in the way of theological orthodoxy. Why bother to bring up an item that you are struggling with when you know to even question the theological orthodoxy will get your head bitten off.
I struggle with how the classic arguments of faith and works interplay. The Bible says yes to both. In fact Luther was so upset with James that he wanted it removed from the Canon. Scripture is clear the grace comes from God, but it is also clear that a human response is required. God told Abraham to move and in human response Abraham did so. Jesus is quite clear in giving us commands and it should be quite clear that He expects us keep them notwithstanding his work on the Cross. To simply say that, as a mantra, that we are saved by faith alone, does not seem to me to be helpful when we are struggling with our response.
“Greg’s heartfelt statement of explanation as to how he came to make such a decision is a devastating indictment….on conservative Anglicans throughout the US….” – as I wrote before, it is hardly an indictment on anything other than his personal circumstances. StandFirm’s uncharitable and downright mean spirited mis-characterizations of ACNA — flawed and human as it may be — are not to be given the credibility they presume. Their blog which once was so helpful in reporting news not otherwise covered has become an unhealthy place that I and many others I know now avoid.
I preferred Greg’s honest admission of a practical decision based on his family’s needs and his circumstances to this statement which is much too self-justifying.
Normally SF conflates the ethical/theological with the prudential. Here, because presumably Greg is a friend whom they know and love, they are moving beyond their default response. In their own conflicted way, they are making peace. And I am genuinely grateful for that. I doubt that same generosity of spirit will be extended to others who have to make similar kinds of decisions. But I welcome it at least in this instance.
This does raise interesting questions about the outer limits of rapprochement with Roman Catholics and who else might be welcome to blog at SF once they have become RC.
[i]Scripture is clear the grace comes from God, but it is also clear that a human response is required[/i]
And as we struggle to understand the relationship of those two [both individually and corporately], I agree it is discouraging and unhelpful to be informed that apparently that decision has been made in all finality for all times and for all people. To claim that God has a one-size-fits-all prescription would seem to obviate the need for anyone to read scripture for self-enlightenment…..which we are told was apparently one of the major errors of the RC in the middle ages according to those who followed Luther’s path.
[i]Their blog which once was so helpful in reporting news not otherwise covered has become an unhealthy place that I and many others I know now avoid[/i]
I am not quite there [yet], but may yet arrive…..as others actually upbraid me for continuing to peruse it……
These comments are an excellent summation of what I consider to be the deterioration of SFIF over the last few years.
A number of excellent and knowledgeable commentators there have departed either because they were banned directly or they became tired of the continuing sarcastic wrath and vitriol of, especially, MS. Hey, but also of Kennedy and Ould None seem to be able tolerate any criticism, no matter how minor, without lashing back and flailing about like terrified chickens who have encountered a fox. The current issue is a perfect example of that. It is interesting that Ms. Hey decided to respond to David Handy’s+ comment above (1) but only did so on SFIF and warned SFIF commenters not to respond there to her comments but to come here to respond. That seems to me to be almost neurotic as well as idiotic but also typical of Ms. Hey. And, Greg, himself, has not been without sin when it comes to the stoning of SFIF commenters, though to a lesser degree than the others.
Stonings have never been uncommon at SFIF, often initiated by the leadership with their faithful “yes” people quickly piling on. It is quite interesting in this case that the one being stoned is one of their own.
.
Episcoanglican (4) — You are quite right about SFIF’s antagonism toward the ACNA. It has been there from before ACNA was actually founded. Nearly all of SFIF’s senior commenters have been doomsayers and naysayers with regard to the founding of a Church which provides orthodox Anglicans shelter from the heresy of TEC.
And while I do not deny that there have been some start-up problems, I think the new communion has done exceptionally well in minimizing some dangerous political and theological issues. And though not by any means perfect, it seems to be off to a pretty good start.
I have struggled to understand why SFIF has been so antagonistic toward ACNA. I think I may have figured out why.
From the outset SFIF has promoted the reformation of TEC from the inside, apparently believing even at that late time that it was still not too late to save it.
In that respect, I believe that they were jousting at windmills. Nonetheless, I think SFIF believes(d) that the ACNA directly competes with and dilutes that objective and they have attempted to eliminate the competition by angrily demonizing it, apparently thinking they could be effective.
Greg, himself, takes a parting shot from his boat on the Tiber by calling much of ACNA’s top leadership “atrocious in judgment and in character.” Though some have asked him for clarification or substantiation he has not replied and that is disappointing. I am curious as to how he came to such a damning conclusion.
Greg and I have often been at odds but interestingly, it has not been about theology or Christology.
It has more often been about fairness and justice in SFIF’s treatment of commenters who have many times agreed generally with their commentary but have been slammed for not accepting every little nuance.
I have a great deal of respect and admiration and sympathy for Greg. I have “been there.” More interestingly, I learned that we have very similar religious backgrounds in a progression through the Baptist Church to eventually wind up in the Episcopal Church. I have experienced the same anguish that he has felt as TEC went into its death spiral.
But, God blessed me with the founding of a nearby deeply orthodox ACNA Church at a point when I had just about stopped attending church altogether, not really knowing what I was going to do.
Knowing what I was dealing with personally, it is easy for me to understand what led to Greg’s decision. I sincerely wish him well but, like Dan Crawford (2) said, I think he will sooner or later swim back.
In the meantime, many have and continue to discuss this as though Greg has physically moved to Rome, Italy, and is no longer with us. Greg still resides in Jackson, MS, and he still OWNS Stand Firm.
He mentioned that in his blog but many have seemed to have overlooked that comment. All of the SFIF Editors blog there at Greg’s pleasure.
And, that means those commenters who are calling for him to no longer participate in SFIF because of his “conversion” to Roman Catholicism are whistling in the wind.
Frankly, I think this will place in Greg in a more objective position to comment about TEC and ACNA activities and politics as well as secular politics and its impact religious freedom. And, that’s a good thing in my opinion.
My confusion is that I did not know one could make the kind of public statements Mr. Griffith has made once one was received into the RCC. Is this a new kind of RC accommodation or is his case unusual for some reason?
Just a few clarifications and corrections
1. NRA has created an interesting account of his decision to back away from SF. Sarah has corrected him here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/sf/page/31335/comment-sf/#507219
Although I do love the tag line: “stubborn, hardcore Protestantism and ultra-conservatism…” I think I’ll get a T-Shirt printed.
2. No one at SF is or has ever been banned for disagreeing with our thoughts on anything. If you can point to a time this has happened, please do. What occasionally does happen, however, is that a commenter will enter a thread and hold forth. When he is met with counter arguments, he becomes angry. Sometimes he decides not to comment anymore. And sometimes he even goes off to other blogs and to complain about how meanly he was treated at SF…when, in fact, it’s just that we actually argued back.
And it also sometimes happens that a disgruntled commenter will decide to plant comments about his pet issues on every thread on the blog…even under articles that have nothing to do with his pet issue. Then we will warn him to stay on topic. And, invariably, he will not. Then we ban him. And then he storms off to another blog to talk about how he was “persecuted” by SF for his orthodox views on _______… 🙂
3. I am in the ACNA so I do not hate it. I love it in fact. I have noticed, however, that many in the ACNA are allergic to criticism of the ACNA. These tend to think of everything decided by the ACNA as handed down from the throne of God. I think this is terribly unhealthy. SF will thankfully always be there to do our best to tell the truth as we see it. You are free to disagree of course.
4. someone suggested that we “conflate” the distinction between ethics and theology. On the contrary, what God has joined together we do not split asunder. Those who urge that sort of distinction in these conversations usually do so because they want to give false teachers (especially those who teach that same sex behavior is permissible) a pass by categorizing their teaching under “ethics” and then call it a disagreement over “praxis”. This, they believe, excuses their collaboration with those who promote a behavior Paul says leads people to hell apart from repentance (1 Cor 6:9).
5. The same commenter also suggests that our agreement with Greg represents a kind of “peacemaking”…a word that has been used to describe promoting the ministry of a bishop who performs same sex blessings and teaches that they are good. Well, I would only suggest that if you cannot tell the difference between blogging with a Roman layman who 1. believes Anglicanism is just about perfect (his words) and 2. who has reservations about Roman doctrine and 3. who has agreed not to discuss promote his new church or theology on SF so that SF can retain its doctrinal identity… and promoting the ministry of a consecrated bishop who blesses same sex unions and teaches that they are good and right…well, there’s not much I can say to that.
#2, I had exactly the same thoughts re: the fact that orthodox theology is not married to right wing politics in the Catholic Church in the same way that it is in many Protestant churches; however, I don’t necessarily believe that this guarantees a return trip across the Tiber for Greg. He seems like a smart guy and has always distinguished himself on SF as one who is actually willing to grapple with the issues rather than call ideological names. He may find his sojourn in the Catholic Church to be broadening in that he will interact with people whom he respects as Christians who have different opinions in a number of areas.
#9 Matt
You need to re-read the post. The conflation is between the theological/ethical AND the prudential. If you don’t understand the difference I am happy to tutor you but the blogosphere Is not the proposer forum, as your other (and oft-repeated) misconstruals illustrate.
So let me clarify one last time:
Taking a TEC bishop to an HTB conference, exposing him to the finest in orthodox teachers and preachers, introducing him to my friends all the while praying with and for him is not “promoting” his ministry. It’s lovingly challenging it. Most ACNA leaders understand the difference. I tried to do the same with another liberal TEC bishop in the early 2000 but he declined. I’ll keep doing it whenever I can.
As the Coventry, Anglican TV and NYT interview amply and repeatedly illustrate, telling a bishop that his church created schism in 2003, that he is in “error” and should “repent” is not “promoting” him or his errant ideas; it’s loving challenging them. If the leadership of our Church (our Archbishop and my bishop) believed your allegations were true they would have disciplined me and stopped my peacemaking efforts. Instead they have worked with Archbishop Welby to promote them.
Matt bearing false witness is still a sin and I ask you to stop it and to repent of your repeated, entrenched and systemic falsehoods regarding my peacemaking efforts. Ironically in the same passage you reference, Paul couples sodomizers with “revilers” as not “inheriting the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10). My greatest concern is not that you have taken on the attributes of your oppressors, though according to the apostle Paul your “reviling” clearly has. No, my greatest concern is that your continual and purposeful violation of gospel imperatives (and teaching others to do likewise) imperils others. This appears not as a “bug” of your theology but as a “feature.”
#2 Since SF has clarified how it is that NRA rarely posts there anymore, perhaps you’d be kind enough to explain to me how I came to be banned for life at SF even though I always scrupulously followed all the rules to the letter and Sarah Hey once referred to me as a valuable contributor?
The circumstances, as I recall them, were these. There was a post about (I believe) how any one of us is supposedly capable of great evil, even to being a murderous concentration camp guard (sort of “there but for the Grace of God go I†applied to Rudolph Hoss†) and I was arguing the contrary, using the word “you†as the word “one†was used 100 years ago, but no longer is. (That is, saying something like “if you rob a bank, you’ll go to jail†— not implying that you personally would rob a bank.)
I said something like “if you take a gun and shoot 20 people, then such-and-such.†You then posted a comment invoking a hithertofore unheard of prohibition on “implying commentator violence†and told me I would be banned for life immediately if I repeated it. [Note that: 1) the prohibition was completely nove,l 2) I hadn’t actually violated it, since I was by no means implying that any commentator was going to shoot anybody and 3) it was one of the very few times that I ever saw a person given one and only one warning – often 4 and 5 are given before permanent action is taken.]
As it happened, I never saw the warning because I went out to lunch. What I did see when I came back was an email telling me that Sarah had responded to my comment. I clicked on the “click here to see this comment†link in the email and enthusiastically continued the discussion by adding another comment. I did NOT see your “warning†comment since this was above Sarah’s comment and I had gone directly to Sarah’s comment via an email link.
I responded by saying something like “if you murder innocent children then…†And bam, that was it. Banned for life. Clearly a bald-faced defiance against your warning against the novel offense of “implying commentator violence†and no further investigation or discussion was needed.
When I saw my comment was deleted with the notation “commentator banned†it took me several minutes just to figure out what the heck was even going on. I had to scroll up, see the “warning,†figure out what it was supposed to mean, scroll back down, and then put two-and-two together.
Sarah had been saying in the thread something to the effect that she appreciated the clarify of my comments as they clearly illustrated the difference between two theological approachs, so I tried to contact her, thinking she would try to straighten out the misunderstanding. Radio silence.
And yes, after all these years, I really would like you to explain this.
Sorry, I meant #9 — Matt Kennedy, of course. Since he is explaining the circumstances under which commentators are banned for life at SF, which seem principally to be the inability to stay on-topic.
I am apparently sui generis.
Hi Tory,
re: “You need to re-read the post. The conflation is between the theological/ethical AND the prudential. If you don’t understand the difference…”
Ah, I see. The phrase was different but. But my response would be basically the same…it is never “prudent” to disobey the NT commands with regard to dealing with false teachers.
re: “I am happy to tutor you but the blogosphere Is not the proposer forum, as your other (and oft-repeated) misconstruals illustrate.”
I think I can do without your “tutoring” but thanks.
re: “Taking a TEC bishop to an HTB conference, exposing him to the finest in orthodox teachers and preachers, introducing him to my friends all the while praying with and for him is not “promoting†his ministry.”
Presenting him as a Christian brother, legitimizing his position as a Christian teacher within the visible church, suggesting joining together as Christians in common social justice causes, introducing a wolf to sheep…yes, this is promoting his ministry to the detriment of all those who struggle with same sex behavior. You reduce it all to adiaphora.
re: ” It’s lovingly challenging it.”
No. It is legitimization.
re: “Most ACNA leaders understand the difference.”
Oh, you might be surprised.
re: “I tried to do the same with another liberal TEC bishop in the early 2000 but he declined. I’ll keep doing it whenever I can.”
I’m sad for you, but far more sad for the fact that you are participating in the wicked work of the false teachers by giving them a platform and legitimacy.
re: “As the Coventry, Anglican TV and NYT interview amply and repeatedly illustrate, telling a bishop that his church created schism in 2003, that he is in “error†and should “repent†is not “promoting†him or his errant ideas; it’s loving challenging them.”
Telling If the leadership of our Church (our Archbishop and my bishop) believed your allegations were true they would have disciplined me and stopped my peacemaking efforts. Instead they have worked with Archbishop Welby to promote them.
Matt bearing false witness is still a sin and I ask you to stop it and to repent of your repeated, entrenched and systemic falsehoods regarding my peacemaking efforts. Ironically in the same passage you reference, Paul couples sodomizers with “revilers†as not “inheriting the kingdom of God†(1 Cor 6:9-10). My greatest concern is not that you have taken on the attributes of your oppressors, though according to the apostle Paul your “reviling†clearly has. No, my greatest concern is that your continual and purposeful violation of gospel imperatives (and teaching others to do likewise) imperils others. This appears not as a “bug†of your theology but as a “feature.â€
#14
There you go “reviling” again. Since you are impervious to apostolic warnings and brotherly exhortation, I’ll let someone else de-couple you.
sorry hit enter before the fact:
here’s the rest:
re: “As the Coventry, Anglican TV and NYT interview amply and repeatedly illustrate, telling a bishop that his church created schism in 2003, that he is in “error†and should “repent†is not “promoting†him or his errant ideas; it’s loving challenging them.â€
Telling a wolf that he is a brother and a legitimate leader despite his false teaching promoting his ministry and doing grave harm to the flock.
re: “If the leadership of our Church (our Archbishop and my bishop) believed your allegations were true they would have disciplined me and stopped my peacemaking efforts. Instead they have worked with Archbishop Welby to promote them.”
Yes, I know.
re “Matt bearing false witness is still a sin and I ask you to stop it and to repent of your repeated, entrenched and systemic falsehoods regarding my peacemaking efforts.”
I have documented all that I have said. Nothing I have accused you of is false. On the other hand, your post above is quite false.
re: “Ironically in the same passage you reference, Paul couples sodomizers with “revilers†as not “inheriting the kingdom of God†(1 Cor 6:9-10). My greatest concern is not that you have taken on the attributes of your oppressors, though according to the apostle Paul your “reviling†clearly has. No, my greatest concern is that your continual and purposeful violation of gospel imperatives (and teaching others to do likewise) imperils others. This appears not as a “bug†of your theology but as a “feature.â€
My greatest concern is that your concern and love for those who lead Jesus’ little ones to hell is greater than it is for those they so lead…so great that you are willing to legitimize their ministries as they do so in direct violation of the New Testament. It matters more to you, apparently, that the guys with collars can get along than that lots of people are being led astray by people whose ministries you legitimize.
You commented. I answered. You commented again. I’ve answered again. Our positions are well known. Do you see need to carry this further?
Hi Catholic Mom, let me see if I can get those details for you. I seem to remember events unfolding much differently.
This is not what was stated by Mr. Baucum in the Blessed are the hungry article when the announcement was made. Instead, this is what was stated,
As even the casual reader can see the two are not the same.
I challenge Mr. Baucum to list any untruth that has been posted at Stand Firm. You are welcome to your own opinion but as they say, you don’t get your own set of facts.
BTW, since the original link to Mr. Baucum’s Blessed are the hungry article no longer seems to be active at the Truro site, interested readers can find it here.
#17 Thank you. I would appreciate it. I think you’ll find the chain of events to be as I stated them — with the exception of the fact that my quotes were not verbatim, but from memory. I’m fairly confident, however, that the accusation of “implying commentator violence” *was* verbatim — a prohibition that exists nowhere on the site nor which (to my knowledge) has ever been invoked before or since.
I remember the words because they were so bizarre. Not to mention the fact that it was an absurd interpretation of what I was saying because why on God’s earth would I be implying that Stand Firm commentators were about to go berserk with violence — especially since that was exactly the point I was arguing *against* — that is, I was saying that good people do NOT end up as concentration camp guards or serial killers no matter what the circumstances.
#18 and 16
If it’s not, I’ll ask my staff to put it back up. Thanks for informing me. Everything I teach, preach and write can be found there. A thorough search of our website of all I’ve written will not serve your purposes however.
I was purposely general about what those “ministry opportunities” were to protect him at that time. Shannon stood up to some significant folks in TEC when he skipped the VTS board meeting to attend “an HTB conference with the Rector of Truro”. And I am grateful to him for it. I was later very clear about what those ministries were. It’s very easy to verify with the leaders of HTB what “ministries I opened to Shannon”. They are all HTB related and they are not unaware of Shannon and my significant differences, as Archbishop Welby has repeatedly stated.
But all this has been explained before.
One last thing. There is no faithfulness to Jesus or his Great Commission without peacemaking. There is no compassion for the lost sheep, no long term or faithful evangelism to the least, last and lost without it. So Matt is as profoundly mistaken of my motives as he is the facts. I’ll let others judge the fruit of Truro’s evangelistic efforts to those of SF allied congregations anytime. I am deeply grateful for the fruit of our labors. After 20 years of long term, systemic decline (and multiple contributing and unspeakable factors) we are growing through conversion growth….and it’s directly related to our peacemaking.
This is my last comment on this post about our record. It’s easily verifiable and I really do welcome the scrutiny. Let us all walk in the light as He is in the light….
Peace to you Jackie
I learned that I could not express my beliefs or experience on SF without provoking hostile comments. Many times the response was an indirect attack on me but was veiled as an attack on other Christians who differ from the pure Anglicanism of the blog. I live in DGA but attend church in DSC. There should have been room for me under the tent. I gave SF up for Lent and have not reacquired the habit.
The above comments between Tory and Matt speak for themselves, and loudly.
Thanks Tory for chiming in. You earned my high respect when you were nominated for bishop of Albany and I was interested in hearing your point of view rather than just rely upon the fire bombing at StandFirm. I for one, not being privy to many of the details of your interactions the Bp. Johnston, preferred to withhold judgment. I take you at your word. Call me crazy. Besides, I figured you had a godly bishop to answer to (if at all necessary). Bp. Guernsey is one of the best.
Catholic Mom, I recall suddenly being threatened with banishment at SF too and on more than one occasion, though I don’t recall the details.
Unfortunately, when you self-appoint as the heresy police as they have at SF, rather than serving in the role of simply bringing matters to light which I think was the original intent, it becomes a self-poisoning position — as the uncharitable nature of things at SF have sadly and clearly demonstrated. I doubt the effects of this have played a small role in Greg Griffith’s decision making. Too bad SF wasn’t titled “StandFirm and Set Your Mind on Things Above.” It may have helped.
For your assistance, I just found the email with the exact offense named. It was “comment implying commenter violence” and it was on 2/2/10.
I just went to SF to check out their commenting policy. It says:
“We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence.”
Now that I’m thinking about it, it’s starting to dawn on me that I must have said something like “If *I* go to the mall and shoot 20 people…” (I thought I had said something like “if *you* go to the mall and shoot 20 people..” ) and Matt was saying that *I* was implying physical violence? So *I* was the “commentator” who was threatening violence?? OMG, if this turns out to be the right interpretation (and it’s the first time this interpretation has ever occurred to me) it’s even MORE bizarre than what I thought for the last 3.5 years. So I was actually kicked off of Stand Firm for threatening to shoot people!!!!
Oh Lord — this would be hilarious if it weren’t so pathetic.
episcoanglican -All blogs have rules and when they are violated there are consequences. I am sorry if this upsets you but you may rest assured opinions are always welcome at Stand Firm even when they disagree. As this article points out, even we bloggers do not always share the same opinion.
Mr. Baucum – Your original statement is quite different than what you now wish us to believe. While I realize you no longer wish to engage, the problem you created remains. If your differences with Shannon Johnston are “more about anthropology than Christology,” would you kindly explain how the Christology can stand if the Authority of Scripture has been removed?
Peace to you also, Mr. Baucum. I offer you the peace of Jesus and not the compromise the world often confuses for peace.
Mr. Baucum – Before I also sign off, I would kindly ask for clarification on these two comments, if you don’t mind.
Would you explain this comment for us? What apostolic warning or brotherly exhortation have you offered? I did not see them in your post unless it was when you called Matt a liar while offering no examples of such?
Also
Is this a threat or something about which you were “purposely general”?
Make that 4 1/4 years. Times flies when you’re not arguing against guns as I used to do on SF. LOL
Hi Jackie, thanks for addressing me. But no, I am not upset. Though you might want to review the records of your rule “enforcement” to see that they haven’t been more than a bit capriciously enforced. But that is incidental. It’s the lack of godliness in this role of accountability for things Anglican that you have set for yourselves that is so distasteful and downright corrosive, like the lack of inquiry behind judgments expressed against Tory above. These days StandFirm makes David Virtue sound endearing and winsome by comparison. I decided a while ago to just stay away and get my Anglican news elsewhere. I was never banned by you, only threatened. Though no doubt, the comments I have made here would have earned my excommunication if I had made them on your site.
I see that I’m not alone in my impression of the …um… temperament at SF. Sadly it seems to have been imported above.
+1
– Whoa. You are suggesting we should not comment on public statements unless we first obtain the permission of the individual making the public pronouncement? I assume you want this standard upheld by parties on both sides of the divide? And unless you are working for NSA I suggest you keep your judgments to yourself as you have no idea to whom we have spoken or not spoken. While you are making your sweeping declarations, I would appreciate it if you would command those people making public statements to consult me before hand. It would certainly help when statements are being made “purposefully general.”
You might recall this is the attitude that brought ECUSA to her knees. Is that the fate you wish for the new Anglican identity?
A fascinating thread.
I’m pleased that the exchange has occurred between Tory and Matt, yet again. And fascinated that this time, Tory Baucum makes his threats clear and public. I’m glad that they are, at last, out in public.
Tory Baucum’s *written* assertions back when he did the ill-judged reconciliation — “I have opened up relationships and ministry opportunities to him in the CofE” — with Shannon Johnston were very very clear. It was only after the fact — after the outcry by far more and more impressive people than merely StandFirm — that he tried to step back and substitute “peacemaking” rhetoric for reconciliation.
Baucum clearly and publicly equated his actions towards Johnston with “reconciliation.â€
http://americananglican.org/interview-of-the-revd-tory-baucum-and-bishop-shannon-johnston/
His supporters and enablers clearly and publicly equated his actions towards Johnston with “reconciliation.â€
http://tbaucum.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-meaning-of-celebrate-truro-sunday.html
The Archbishop of Canterbury clearly and publicly equated his actions towards Johnston with “reconciliation.â€
http://www.durham.anglican.org/userfiles/file/Durham Website/News and Events/From the Bishops/Bishop Justin/PENTECOST SERMON 2012.pdf
Finally, it has been made crystal clear by Archbishop Welby that his definition of “reconciliation†is not at all what Scripture speaks of—and he finds such “reconciliation†acceptable behavior to take towards notorious false teachers and leaders masquerading as Gospel-believers within a church.
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/5023/faith-in-conflict-conference-at-coventry-cathedral#Address
http://centeraisle.net/2012/07/09/from-todays-issue-the-answer-to-division-in-the-anglican-communion-is-mission/
Nothing could be spelled out more clearly than Welby’s notions of what he deems to be “reconciliation†both by his clearly written descriptions of his theology towards same and by his appointment of Baucum as a Canterbury preacher, modelling precisely what Welby deems to be “reconciliation†and which Baucum and his supporters promoted as such . . . [before it started looking so very very awkward].
Matt bore no false witness above. Matt offered zero “falsehoods,” as the documents with Tory’s own words are out there for all the world to see. Matt has not reviled. Matt has told the truth about a “reconciliation” attempt with a notorious and scandalous false teacher who should rather be repudiated.
And in response Tory Baucum continued his defense of his actions — and attempted reconstruction of history — and then threatened Matt.
That is what this has come to.
As for the statement — the thing this T19 post was at one time about — certainly different people will disagree with different assertions made in the statement and will themselves make their own statement in these comments. Some don’t think conversion to Roman Catholicism is all that awkward and think the Protestants should have been more gracious. Others think that conversion to Roman Catholicism means Greg should no longer be at StandFirm and the Protestants should ditch him. Others think that nobody should make assertions about ACNA and Greg’s avoidance of ACNA.
All well and good — people believe different things and we’ve gone on the record with what we believe and are pleased to have done so. We are refreshed and heartened by the conclusion of months of thinking and discussion and debate. I’m excited and reinvigorated and there’s not a blogger that isn’t happy to blog these days.
But, you know, whenever a group says something public and clear, there’s always going to be public and clear assertions otherwise by others. I’m comfortable with that.
StandFirm has never been for everyone — no blog is — and I’m confident that won’t change. Some respect what we’ve done and said, and have been very kind to us, and others don’t respect it. I don’t see that changing any time soon either.
There is one thing, however, in the statement, that no one yet has clearly asserted otherwise. We await anxiously for somebody’s denunciation of our gross and outrageously cruel negative clause against Duncan Gray, bishop of the Diocese of Mississippi. ; > )
RE: “It’s the lack of godliness in this role of accountability for things Anglican that you have set for yourselves that is so distasteful and downright corrosive, like the lack of inquiry behind judgments expressed against Tory above.”
There has been no “lack of inquiry” — all the evidence for what Tory did is on the written and public record — he was, at one time, quite proud of his reconciliation work with a false teacher — and that written and public record was commented on in writing and publicly. The only problem with our commenting on it — and assessing it negatively — is that it embarrassed some people and they didn’t like it.
There’s no question that we make assessment of Anglican things. Back when we made assessments only of TEC bishops and TEC clergy and TEC actions and TEC parishes and TEC general conventions and TEC diocesan conventions . . . oddly . . . conservative Episcopalians and Anglicans loved it and urged us on.
But it became clear that there was a small minority of conservative Anglicans who could not bear critical assessment of *their* Anglican thing, whatever that was [and there have been dozens].
We are blessed at StandFirm — the commenters there, for the vast majority, are pleased with critical assessment and information and come there just for that. There are many ACNA people there and they are hungry for commentary and analysis and assessment and information, whether positive or negative. There are many TEC people there, and they come for the fellowship and the commentary on TEC. And of course there are a lot of political conservatives and people of other denominations there now, since our expansion of commentary and focus that was announced March 14, 2012.
I understand other people not wanting to come to SF for a wide variety of reasons — for instance the four political liberals on this thread — and there are plenty of politically conservative blogs and Anglican blogs and other types of religious blogs at which I don’t read or comment or even drop by. As I suspect is so with everybody else, I have about 8 blogs I frequent and check out almost every day [the blessed T19 is one of those], and a few more blogs that I view perhaps two or three times a month. That’s all I can read, since I have other stuff to do. And those blogs don’t need me reading or commenting either — I’m just not the right audience or reader for their goals and perspectives.
There’s no harm in that and nobody over at SF takes that personally either. We’re focused on serving the readers who are there — and eager to engage and discuss and read — and boy, that is a great mission and a real blessing and calling for all 8 of the SF bloggers.
The good news is that there are so many blogs now where everybody can get great and interesting commentary and analysis and information in keeping with their preferences and worldviews. We have a cornucopia of blessings and resources, and I’m thrilled to be a part of the cyberspace world.
I know my little inquiry about a ridiculous event of 4 years ago is kind of lost on a thread where the heavy hitters are hitting, but I would still like to know if I was really banned from SF because Matt thought I was implying I was going to shoot somebody. And if Matt remembers that I tried to tell him in a PM that I had never even seen his one-time-only “warning” which, even had I seen it, I would never have understood because I didn’t have the slightest idea what it meant. (Especially since I think I just figured it out two hours ago.) There are so many other bigger things I have wondered about over the years that I am going to my grave not knowing and this is just one little thing that maybe I can find out that will serve to compensate me for all the rest. 🙂
BTW, I just drove to the store for a quick run before everybody has to go to bed early tonight (we have to be out of the house at 6:30 tomorrow to help with Special Olympics in our area) and I was thinking about the whole thing in light of my recent insight and I was laughing so hard the tears started to pour down my face. I have had a very bad year this year and I really haven’t had a good solid laugh in a very, very long time, so SF I thank you for that. 🙂
in all the fuss let’s just remember the key issue:
Shannon Johnston is either a false teacher or he is not. If he is a false teacher then the call of the NT is to have nothing to do with him.
If he’s not a false teacher than why does Baucum comtinue to lead Truro in schism against a proper bishop in the church of God? Indeed, what right does any church from the former TEC Diocese of Virginia have to secede from a lawful believing bishop?
Ms Sarah
The de-coupling refers to the “coupling” I referenced in post #11, where Paul says “revilers” ALONG with “sodomizers” will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Cor 6.). No threat implied other than what St Paul is warning you and Matt of.
St. Paul is — fortunately — doing no such thing, nor is my posting the links where you say just what we say you said any form of “reviling” though I can understand why you wouldn’t like that.
*You* are issuing the threat, not St. Paul, and it is obvious.
#26 – you are absolutely right. I apologize for participating, such as it was, in this ugly acrimony and helping to bring it here. It won’t happen from me again.
#28 “You are suggesting we should not comment on public statements unless we first obtain the permission of the individual making the public pronouncement?” Uh, no. And no to your second and very hypothetical question too. Clearly, communication is not really happening here. And I don’t need to add any more fuel to the fire (in keeping with #34). Peace.
Interesting…SFIF editors clearly and aggressively confirm here on T19 the negative comments of those who have commented here.
There is a distinct air of arrogance from all of the SFIF Editors who have come over here to do what they so often do, and that’s circle the wagons and assault any and all who dare take issue with any of them about anything.
And Matt, your memory is quite poor for a young man. I really don’t want to go back into my banning from SFIF because I really didn’t care then and I don’t care now. But, I’m going to.
I’ve probably been back to SFIF less than 10 times in the five+ years since I was banned. It just didn’t/doesn’t count for very much for me any more.
Did I deserve to be banned because I accused SFIF of stoning Bishop Orombi after SFIF moved too fast with a story that Orambi wanted gays put to death. Was I wrong to call you on it. Was SFIF right or wrong.
As it turned out, the story was fictitious and SFIF had to retract. Sadly, SFIF had used good judgment in earlier similar situations when fake stories had been planted, withholding publication for confirmation. This time they did not. They were wrong but the regular SFIF commenters jumped in with a vengeance, essentially verbally stoning the African bishop based on the fake story.
In that case, it was not I who got angry; it was Greg who angrily accused me of attacking him personally. I did not attack him personally because one person is not very effective at stoning. I attacked SFIF as a whole for it’s mass attack on an innocent Orambi. And, for that I was banned.
But SFIF compounded their arrogant defensiveness by also banning a young catholic priest, Truth Unites and Divides, who did nothing more than support me. But that’s how SFIF has always operated. You stifle the speech of any who disagree for whatever reason and I often think you do it gleefully, simply because you can.
I practically begged Greg to restore TU&D to SFIF because he had done nothing more than agree with me. Greg was adamant that there is no restoration from banning on SFIF…it’s for life.
So be it. But it seems to me that the chickens are roosting on SFIF right now and they’re roosting on top of your and Ms. Hey’s heads. And you can flail and babble all you want but you cannot deny that there ain’t a lot of love on this thread for SFIF or its top bloggers.
SFIF is a shadow of what it was five years ago mostly because of the heavy handed arrogance of its senior editors and the departure of a significant number of valuable, knowledgeable and theologically adept commenters who were smarter and more articulate than the SFIF crew together. You people have essentially closed debate on SFIF and the debate was what made it great.
I think, Matt and Sarah, that you guys need to find a big fat mirror…one that’s big enough to match the size of your heads…and take a good, hard look into it.
When you do, if you have any brains at all, you will see that people you’re looking at is what has been wrong with SFIF for quite some time now…maybe always. It’s not the people you mistreat so smugly and arrogantly at SFIF; it’s the people in the mirror. It’s YOU.
It’s certainly true that about six or so grieved and angry people have gathered here to air their anger and grief. Not uncommon when blogs actually uphold their commenting rules. People get upset and, as I pointed out above, they go to other blogs to, as you say, “flail”. This But there is nothing else in your above post been there that even remotely resembles what happened in the event your describe. As to your banning, well it Does seem to be a mystery. I mean I can’t imagine why any serious blog would ban a commenter accusing the bloggers of verbal murder ;).
Matt — pleased note that I have done nothing more but politely ask you to explain why I was banned for life after years of commenting without once violating the rules, which you have promised to do when you have time to look into it. I have made no statements about the editorial policy of SF or the editors. I have said that I was banned for life on the basis of a single warning that I never saw that I did not understand even when I (too late) read it. And I still don’t understand why and I’m asking you to keep your word to explain it to me.
Umm…my incredibly innocuous comments of last night were removed but a comment that Matt and Sarah need to find a fat mirror that matches the size of their heads was retained? OK, well, it’s not my blog and I’m not a moderator. But please, please do let Matt Kennedy tell me why I was banned. I won’t even respond. I just want to know.
We do encourage commenters to stay on topic – thanks – Elf
Elves — please, please do let Matt Kennedy answer my question as to why I was banned. I know it’s not on topic — but it is never going to be on topic anywhere and it’s my one and only chance in 4 years to find out and he said he would look into it. Please.
Ugly.
I rest my case.
Delete this, elves, if it is off-topic. Honestly, I’m not sure what the topic is, but I wanted to respond to a couple of a couple of comments above:
Br. Michael wrote:
Scripture is clear the grace comes from God, but it is also clear that a human response is required…. when we are struggling with out response .
Capn. Father Warren responded with:
we struggle to understand the relationship of those two
My comment is that this is a stuggle we all share, if we are serious about discipleship under the Lord Jesus. Many years ago, I heard the Francis Shaeffer family (including Frankie!) present their video program “How Shall We Then Live”, interspersed with live commentary. I mention that because the Christian Life is a life, with all the struggles of living in a fallen world.
So I salute you as we all struggle to find what He will so mercifully give us: the consummation of all joy, peace, love, and knowledge. We see through a glass darkly, but then we will see Him face to face.
Madam Elf…I do apologize. I really did think I was on topic and responding to Matt’s #9, P. 2. I must admit that it is quite difficult to discern exactly what the topic is since the SFIF people seem to be attacking and defending multiple issues. I promise I’ll try to do better once I figure out what I did wrong.
1. Blessings to Greg and his family.
2. Stand Firm did utterly stunning work detailing the collapse of TEC, and continues to be a place of vivid discussion. I very often disagree, very infrequently comment, but the Matt, Sarah, Greg, Jackie, David have my deepest respect. I do recall they got more or less the same kind of exasperated “you know nothing, Jon Snow” responses from TEC leaders back in the day.
3. If you think Stand Firm is polemical, try reading theological arguments from the early church.
I have been a SF reader and commenter for about seven years and have several disagreements over the years with Greg, Matt and Sarah. I still have the deserved bruises to show for it. I respect what they do. They have sharpened my skills as a contributor. I have enjoyed participating in some threads that were as instructive as any seminary class. Some threads had over 300 posts. I began as a lay person commenting and eventually was ordained a priest. It didn’t change the blog but I hope it made my comments more gracious and irenic.
“If you think Stand Firm is polemical, try reading theological arguments from the early church.”
I laughed for several minutes after reading this. Very good point!
#38,
I got the image of Jolly Old St. Nick taking a swipe at Arius.