Ah, time to get out the old Tin Foil Hats. The Episcopal Diocese of New York has resurrected old resolutions, dust them off suddenly, and refashioned them once again for distribution and the question is why? And why suddenly now? Why pull out the scary IRD card once again for such late fall silliness? In fact, the Chicago Consultation is also engaged in activities of moving the Episcopal Church into a politically progressive organization. Anyone care to investigate them? No? Last time we checked - despite the Guardian's protestations to the contrary - this is still a free country (thank you Thomas Jefferson). It's so interesting though that IRD is suddenly being targeted yet again. What's up with that? True, things didn't go so financially well at the last meeting of the Executive Council for certain pet progressive projects - is IRD a convenient way for the Chicago Consultation and its allies on the Executive Council to raise funds? Note that this is coming from the Diocese of New York where 815 is located. Are funds running rather low? One does wonder.
In the meantime, it's been a while since we've run this - but it seems the time is at hand:
8 comments:
Wilf
said...
The Christian Century, often considered the flagship publication of liberal denominations, deals with the IRD in a review of "Hard Ball on Holy Ground: The Religious Right v. the Mainline for the Church's Soul" - here.
It's currently behind a paywall, so that link is to an archived copy.
Yes Pewster, it's probably an attempt to revive interest in the old writings of Jim Naughton and other documents like this one attacking the IRD. A nice quote from the review:
"Swecker complains that the IRD supports "enforcement of a fifth-century form of church doctrine, which it calls Orthodoxy. This extends to insisting on adherence to specific ancient creeds."
Imagine that, commending to belief such ancient stuff, CREEDS no less, how creepy is that!
The last paragraph is also very good: "The two sides are allied rather than opposed in another key way: both assume that the conservative and liberal fault lines in American politics and culture coincide with the divisions between conservative and liberal theology. This is a mistake in description, and insofar as it is accurate, it is not something to be encouraged."
Does anyone deny that IRD is intent on making mainline Protestant denominations more conservative? I fin it interesting that IRD, with a large percentage of Roman Catholics on its board, doesn't have a Roman Catholic desk.
Perhaps DioNY is trying to convince the other two denominations they should kick in $$ to help TEC pursue litigation that would further establish precedent.
Or perhaps there is a move to build a case for litigation against IRD: "3) Ascertain the cost to the three denominations to date of litigation to prevent the alienation of church property and other assets."
Okay, so let me play DioNY little game and let's say they pass this resolution with wide margins ...
So what?!
Are they so self-deceived that they think it means anything? What happens if it's shot down? What happens if it passes? Maybe they should have one that strikes at more targeted blogs than IRD, like T19, SFIF & BB ... but they have exercised a power beyond their jurisdiction.
It reminds me of when some of the neighborhood children formed "Kids Against Kevin" club, sure it's no fun being target of animosity, but their jurisdiction was not so great either. I got new friends, interestingly, per Daniel's innuendo, the hero of that story was a Roman Catholic.
I find the whole thing about as juvenile as that event in my past. When a governing ecclesiastical board wants to officially say others exercise of free speech is a threat to their exercise of government non-interference.
This would be very funny if it were not so pathetic.
What do TEC's close ties to Political Research Associates (http://www.publiceye.org) say about this? Doesn't it sort of seem to be complaining that "conservatives are conservative?" Have any "conservative" churches passed resolutions demanding an ecumenical investigation of PRA?
What's also revealing, I find, is a comparison of the rhetoric found in articles by the IRD and PRA.
I think TEC should spend lots more of its money looking into such nefarious activities. Other suggestions include 9/11 as an inside job by Israel and the CIA (suggested by a TEC Exec Committee member some time back on the HoBD listserv), Hillary Clinton as a Manchurian Candidate on behalf of shadowy Christian Dominionists bent on taking over the world (I think that was mainstreamed by Barbara Ehrenreich, but often pops up in these anti-IRD screeds that seem to always "follow the money" back to the National Prayer Breakfast and Rushdoony), or various Larouchite theories (the former national spokesperson for Lyndon L, now a writer, having a particular bee in his bonnet about CANA). It is about as good as what they have been spending it on.
8 comments:
The Christian Century, often considered the flagship publication of liberal denominations, deals with the IRD in a review of "Hard Ball on Holy Ground: The Religious Right v. the Mainline for the Church's Soul" - here.
It's currently behind a paywall, so that link is to an archived copy.
This just might be an attempt to "gin up" the base, or the IRD is just getting under somebody's skin.
The attack strategy is a sure sign that you have lost the argument.
Yes Pewster, it's probably an attempt to revive interest in the old writings of Jim Naughton and other documents like this one attacking the IRD. A nice quote from the review:
"Swecker complains that the IRD supports "enforcement of a fifth-century form of church doctrine, which it calls Orthodoxy. This extends to insisting on adherence to specific ancient creeds."
Imagine that, commending to belief such ancient stuff, CREEDS no less, how creepy is that!
The last paragraph is also very good:
"The two sides are allied rather than opposed in another key way: both assume that the conservative and liberal fault lines in American politics and culture coincide with the divisions between conservative and liberal theology. This is a mistake in description, and insofar as it is accurate, it is not something to be encouraged."
Does anyone deny that IRD is intent on making mainline Protestant denominations more conservative? I fin it interesting that IRD, with a large percentage of Roman Catholics on its board, doesn't have a Roman Catholic desk.
Perhaps DioNY is trying to convince the other two denominations they should kick in $$ to help TEC pursue litigation that would further establish precedent.
Or perhaps there is a move to build a case for litigation against IRD:
"3) Ascertain the cost to the three denominations to date of litigation to prevent the alienation of church property and other assets."
RalphM
Okay, so let me play DioNY little game and let's say they pass this resolution with wide margins ...
So what?!
Are they so self-deceived that they think it means anything? What happens if it's shot down? What happens if it passes? Maybe they should have one that strikes at more targeted blogs than IRD, like T19, SFIF & BB ... but they have exercised a power beyond their jurisdiction.
It reminds me of when some of the neighborhood children formed "Kids Against Kevin" club, sure it's no fun being target of animosity, but their jurisdiction was not so great either. I got new friends, interestingly, per Daniel's innuendo, the hero of that story was a Roman Catholic.
I find the whole thing about as juvenile as that event in my past. When a governing ecclesiastical board wants to officially say others exercise of free speech is a threat to their exercise of government non-interference.
This would be very funny if it were not so pathetic.
An interesting question:
What do TEC's close ties to Political Research Associates (http://www.publiceye.org) say about this? Doesn't it sort of seem to be complaining that "conservatives are conservative?" Have any "conservative" churches passed resolutions demanding an ecumenical investigation of PRA?
What's also revealing, I find, is a comparison of the rhetoric found in articles by the IRD and PRA.
I think TEC should spend lots more of its money looking into such nefarious activities. Other suggestions include 9/11 as an inside job by Israel and the CIA (suggested by a TEC Exec Committee member some time back on the HoBD listserv), Hillary Clinton as a Manchurian Candidate on behalf of shadowy Christian Dominionists bent on taking over the world (I think that was mainstreamed by Barbara Ehrenreich, but often pops up in these anti-IRD screeds that seem to always "follow the money" back to the National Prayer Breakfast and Rushdoony), or various Larouchite theories (the former national spokesperson for Lyndon L, now a writer, having a particular bee in his bonnet about CANA). It is about as good as what they have been spending it on.
Post a Comment