“The emphasis is totally on this one ethical dimension of our faith. … That’s important…”
Note carefully the quote above from yours truly in the article cited, in which I agree about the importance of stewardship of the environment with the Presiding Bishop. But the analysis of the Anglican Scotist cites me as saying something I did not say. This typifies the pattern of talking by one another which continues apace in far too many instances in the current TEC.
I continute to insist that there needs to be far more self-criticism in the current environment, and when criticism of those who differ with us is attempted, it needs to reflect the arguments which it is seeking to refute accurately and fairly–KSH.
“But ask yourself, why are cow farts a problem?” —Scotist
Let’s assume that they are a problem. That doesn’t mean you need to mention them—or lecture about their larger moral significance—on all occasions. At your loved one’s funeral, for example. Or in a message purportedly centered on Easter.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I wonder whether Scotist realizes how grim these days are for orthodox Anglicans in TEC. KJS has time to pontificate about sporks but not to reflect on the lawless cruelty of her efforts to depose Bp. MacBurney.
Sometimes laughter about bovine flatulence (and sporks) eases the pain a bit.
Be comforted that Anglican Scotist included a link to the article with the actual remark. Not everyone gives a reference to prove that he is a sloppy scholar who places rhetoric above accuracy.
In fairness to AS his summary is applied to a long list of comments. It clearly is inaccurate as to KH, but maybe it is a fair comment as to most. But it is somewhat sloppy.
Kendall, you need to grow a thicker skin, if for no other reason than a pragmatic one: You’ve probably directed far more attention to TAS’s blogged comments than they would have attracted on their own. Besides, after reading both your quoted comment and TAS’s sound-bite summary criticizing several reasserter comments including yours, I don’t think we can say his characterization was unfair. (Disclosure: TAS is an on-line friend.)
RE: “Kendall, you need to grow a thicker skin . . . ”
I dunno — pointing out that someone is “ineffective” doesn’t seem to demonstrate at all that Kendall had any particular negative feelings about the ineffective critique.
Surely one can point out the irrationality or incoherence of a worldview without being personally emotional over it.
RE: “You’ve probably directed far more attention to TAS’s blogged comments than they would have attracted on their own.”
Oh, I don’t think Kendall minded that piece getting traffic and attention. I can’t read his mind, but linking to something and pointing out its ineffectiveness doesn’t imply special sensitivity.