Methodist Madness

Recently, the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) in Alabama wisely decided they would not broadcast the children's cartoon "Arthur" and its episode, “Mr. Ratburn and the Special Someone”, which depicted a homosexual wedding.

The decision by Alabama PBS outraged the LGBTQ crowd, but never fear, First United Methodist Church - Birmingham is here and will put on a special show for the kiddies.

From their Facebook events page,

Join The Sidewalk Film Festival, Shout LGBTQ Film Festival & First Church Of Birmingham on Saturday, June 15th at 10am for a FREE celebration & screening of the Arthur episode "Mr. Ratburn and the Special Someone" followed by two additional surprise cartoon episodes. There will be wedding cake, sparkling apple juice and surprises. This all ages screening and celebration is free and open to all. Please let us know if you plan to attend via this event. 

Event Run Time: Approximately 90 minutes 

Thank you to WGBH Boston for granting permission to screen the episode! 

First Church is located in downtown Birmingham at 518 19th Street North, BHM, AL 35203 

Kid Friendly

With friends like First United Methodist Church - Birmingham, who needs enemies.

Their Connections newsletter for June 2019 is ironically titled, "Celebrating Our Children", and another way they celebrate children is by exposing them to those often offensive and sexually explicit "Pride" parades.

As they proudly announced in the newsletter,

"This year will mark First Church’s third appearance in the Pride Parade and we want to go all out. We’ll be marching with all of the Reconciling congregations in Birmingham to show our love and support for the full inclusion of our LGBTQ community. The Parade will take place on Saturday, June 8 at 8:00pm and track along 7th Avenue South beginning at 32nd and continuing to Our Place just after 22nd Street South. We will meet a few hours before the parade begins to getorganized and decorate our float! Everyone must be checked in by 7:00pm..."

"...In addition to participating in the Parade, we will have a booth at Pridefest on Sunday, June 9which begins at 11:00am at Sloss Furnaces."

Instead of participating in such events, First United Methodist should be teaching their children and adults that at the center of "pride' is "I", and pride is one of the deadly sins.

Woe be it to the leaders of the congregation,

"But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to fall away--it would be better for him if a heavy millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned in the depths of the sea." -Matthew 18:6

Not all Methodist congregations are deviant, but there are enough in the United States to cause schism (see reports here). Unlike what happened to Episcopalians where conservative congregations were blamed for breaking up 815's Anglican monopoly, the Methodists who will be labelled schismatics may be the radical ones like First United of Birmingham.

Communion talks between the Episcopalians and the Methodists are likely to be put on hold because Episcopalians would not want to be in full communion with the conservative fraction of the Methodists.

Traditional Marriage Apologetics

Since this Sunday's readings included God's creation on woman from Adam's rib and Jesus' words in Mark 10,

"But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

I thought it was a good time to revisit the whole marriage debate even though it seems (at present) to have been settled in the U.S. this issue is still ongoing in the U.K.

The following is excerpted from an article posted at the Gospel Coalition a couple of months ago. It provides a concise defense of marriage against revisionist arguments for same-sex marriage in the church. It was written by Darrell L. Bock who is senior research professor of New Testament and executive director for cultural engagement at Dallas Theological Seminary.


He refutes six common claims which we have all heard and sometimes felt ill prepared to challenge,

• Claim 1: Jesus didn’t speak about same-sex marriage, so he’s at least neutral if not open to it. What Jesus doesn’t condemn, we shouldn’t condemn.
• Claim 2: The Old Testament (OT) allows all sorts of “prohibited” marriage, including polygamy and what would today qualify as incest. If those were permitted, surely monogamous same-sex relationships should be allowed.
• Claim 3: The move to prohibit recognition of same-sex marriage is like the church’s past blindness on slavery, women’s rights, and a geocentric universe—where what was “clearly” taught in Scripture is now seen as wrong.
• Claim 4: We don’t follow all sorts of OT laws today (try laws on having sex while a woman is menstruating, or eating certain types of food), so why should we accept what the OT says about same-sex relationships?
• Claim 5: Same-sex marriage doesn’t harm anyone, so it’s morally acceptable and people should have the right to choose what to do.
• Claim 6: The ancient world didn’t understand genuine same-sex love, so this is a new category to consider.

I will give you two of his takedowns,

Claim 1:

"This is an argument from silence, but the silence doesn’t take place in a vacuum. Jesus addresses and defines marriage in Matthew 19:4–6 and Mark 10:6–9 using both Genesis 1:26–27 and Genesis 2:24 to parse it out. Here Jesus defines and affirms marriage as between a man and a woman, a reflection of the fact that God made us male and female to care for creation together. With this definition, same-sex marriage is excluded. Had Jesus wished to extend the right of marriage beyond this definition, here was his opportunity. But he didn’t take it."

That is called answering an argument from silence with an argument from silence; what Jesus did not affirm, we should not affirm. I am not sure that works, but the following might,

"Jesus never discussed same-sex marriage because the way he defined marriage already excluded it. He was not as silent on the topic as some claim."

Claim 6:

"Apparently neither Jesus nor Paul nor even God the Father—who inspired Scripture—recognized this potential category. But this claim ignores how widespread same-sex relationships were in the ancient world. Not all of them were abusive or exercises of raw social power. This is a classic example of 'chronological snobbery,' which C. S. Lewis described as 'the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited' (Surprised by Joy, 206), and which his friend Owen Barfield explained as the belief that, intellectually, humanity 'languished for countless generations in the most childish errors on all sorts of crucial subjects until it was redeemed by some simple scientific dictum of the last century' (History in English Words, 154)."

Readers might want to get some references from Robert Gagnon on same-sex relationships in the ancient world in order to better defend this argument. See also this Facebook page of his.


In conclusion, Bock writes,

"Divine revelation gives us every indication there is something sacred about God’s image being male and female, and something profound about marriage between a man and a woman (Eph. 5:32)—something that makes marriage unique among all human relationships."

Read the whole thing here.

It's Not Fair! Bless Their Hearts.

Like our Diocese of Upper South Carolina, the Church of England appears to be well on its way to allowing some sort of same sex blessing to take place in its temples (see T19 post about the Pilling Report). One argument you are likely to hear in favor of same sex blessings is exactly what a non-Anglican friend, bless her heart, suggested would come next when she read about our church performing a "Blessing of the animals".

“Would you rather bless a sheep and a tree but not them?" Archbishop John Sentamu in House of Lords Debate on Same Sex Marriage June 2013 

We often chafe at God's commandments. Why should He bless heterosexual marriage and procreation and not same-sex marriage? It appears to us to be a case for that childhood lament we used when our brother or sister got special treatment, "It's not fair!" I have been laboring through the Old Testament prophets this month and Ezekiel turns that argument on its head and reminds us of the need for repentance.

“Yet the children of your people say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ But it is their way which is not fair! When the righteous turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, he shall die because of it. But when the wicked turns from his wickedness and does what is lawful and right, he shall live because of it. Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, I will judge every one of you according to his own ways.” Ezekiel 33:17-20

For more from Ezekiel 33 click here. I think he might issue a similar warning to today's Church... or maybe he already did. 

"We Don't Care Who's on Top"

Or so the billboard said a couple of months ago.

"An Auckland church has erected a billboard in support of a bill to legalise same-sex marriages.

The billboard, outside St Matthew-in-the-City, shows two model brides kissing atop a wedding cake, with the text 'We don't care who's on top'.

It comes as Labour MP Louisa Wall's bill on marriage equality is expected to pass its first reading in Parliament later today." (read it all at the NZHerald)

St Matthew-in-the-City is the infamous "church" in N.Z. that put up some outrageous Christmas billboards a couple of times in the past. Archdeacon Glynn Cardy was the instigator then, and I guess he is still at it (judging by the title of one of his recent sermons "Jesus Did NOT Die for Our Sins").

Folks, this is the picture of the progressive church that you have all been clamoring for.

A church where you can have your cake and... er....um... eat it two.

How Not to Prepare the Way

I thought Advent was about preparing the way for Christ to enter the world, and today in church we did read about the Annunciation in Luke 1:26-38.

 One important Standing Commission of the Episcopal church however, believes Advent is about preparing for same sex blessings. This is what they wrote,

"In this season of Advent when we are to be preparing for Christ’s coming, we invite you to reflect upon your own experience of 'being prepared.' How were you prepared for a marriage or for a blessing? What preparation or counseling did you receive? What do you remember, whether it was 1 month ago or 25 years ago – what sticks with you? Or if you are someone who prepares couples, what is most important to you? What works or does not work, so to speak?
Later this spring the full SCLM report will be published for General Convention and the recommended resources will be part of that report. However, we invite you to engage now with your own experiences preparing for either same- or different-gender life-long relationships."

Over at T-19, the following picture was shown and reported as having made the rounds in TEc circles (although not to this corner of the circle) ,

This is sick folks. A plague has come upon this house.

"And he that owneth the house shall come and tell the priest, saying, It seemeth to me there is as it were a plague in the house:" Leviticus 14:35

The priest will come and judge this house. If the signs of plague have not gone away, this house shall be torn down and its blocks scattered.

 ‘Why have you not built me a house of cedar?’ 2 Samuel 7:7

 We are building a house with walls of flesh upon a foundation of human desire. Such a house makes us feel good, but such a house cannot stand.

The House Call

   I have often heard it argued that since Jesus was "radically inclusive" and gave us the example of "radical hospitality," that we should therefore be welcoming of non-celibate homosexuals into ordained ministry and accepting of same sex unions as a blessed event. These are combined into the more general term, "inclusiveness." Not considering the logical basis of this conclusion, most discussions either end at this point or devolve into name calling, personal attacks, and the inevitable proof of Godwin's law.

 Matthew 9:10 (today's Gospel reading is Matthew 9:9-17) is frequently referred to in these arguments. Read it again,

9 As Jesus was walking along, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth; and he said to him, ‘Follow me.’ And he got up and followed him. 10 And as he sat at dinner in the house, many tax-collectors and sinners came and were sitting with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, ‘Why does your teacher eat with tax-collectors and sinners?’ 12 But when he heard this, he said, ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13 Go and learn what this means, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” For I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.’

Jesus' words in verses 12 and 13 are usually conveniently left out of any discussion of "inclusiveness."

We can all be thankful that the Great Physician deigns to dine with the likes of us. He even makes house calls! What a surprise to come to a banquet only to told by the guest of honor that you are "sick." What should be my response as His patient? Should I deny that an illness exists in me? Dare I tell the Physican that he is wrong and demand He explain to the world that there was no sickness in me to begin with? After all, it is the world that has the problem, not me. I am a good tax collector. Everyone else is a taxcollectorophobe.

The risk of being "radically included" by Jesus is the risk of being called out to be healed of your sickness and sin.  This is the main risk to those who use the argument of "radicaI hospitality" to further their agenda: they may be given a prescription that involves a change in themselves rather than the change in others that they seek.

I see nothing here to suggest that the result of Jesus' house call is the redefinition of "sin" to mean "blessing."

We are the ones who want to see sin redefined.

Life would be so much easier if only God would do as I desire.

We Need to Talk, You Must Listen

A hypothetical conversation between Bishop Waldo and a simple pewsitter.

"Such truths are ‘non-negotiable'"

"What truths?" you ask (unless you are an Episcopalian in which case the question should be, "Who are you to define truth for me?).

This article from 2009 at LifeSiteNews came to mind when I was pondering the different conclusions reached by the Episcopal church and the Catholic Church regarding same sex relationships.

"Long Island’s Bishop William Murphy has come out swinging at Nassau County Executive Thomas Suozzi, after the New York politician publicly stated he was a 'practicing Catholic' who now supports same-sex 'marriage,' a position that Murphy said is incompatible with being Catholic."

But would be perfectly compatible with a practicing Episcopalian.

"Suozzi, the DeCounty Executive for Nassau County, expressed his support for same-sex “marriage” in a June 13 op-ed for the New York Times. Suozzi described himself as a “practicing Catholic,” who had abandoned his previous support for civil unions, saying now anything less than civil same-sex “marriage” would create “a separate and unequal system."

And same sex marriage is somehow equal?

"Bishop Murphy penned a forceful response in that week’s edition of the Long Island Catholic, the newspaper for the Rockville Center diocese, stating he felt compelled to respond publicly to Suozzi, “because [Suozzi] publicly identifies himself as a practicing Catholic.” Murphy stated that Suozzi was “contradicting some basic moral teachings of his own faith” that no Catholics are free to deny.

“The logic of Mr. Suozzi’s argument is difficult to discern,” wrote Murphy. “It seems that he has become convinced that because he has met homosexual persons who have suffered discrimination, they now have a ‘right’ to insist that the state redefine their private sexual relationships and give such the term of marriage.”

Bishop Murphy made clear that Suozzi’s disregard for the Church’s teaching on same-sex “marriage” and “abortion” do not qualify him to be a practicing Catholic, because these teachings are “unambiguous, faithful to the Lord and binding on all Catholics.”

“In saying this, I am not singling out Mr. Suozzi. I am speaking to all Catholics in our diocese and beyond, reminding them that what we bishops teach is not “another opinion” among many that Catholics may choose or not choose.”

“Instead, such truths are ‘non-negotiable,’ binding on all of us who claim to be ‘practicing Catholics,’” reiterated Murphy. “Otherwise we are not faithful to our Lord, to His Church and to the ultimate truths about the human person which alone can bring us freedom, justice, joy and peace.”

I agree that there are ultimate truths about the human person which can bring us freedom, justice, joy, and peace. They can be found in the Bible. As an Episcopalian however, I lack a bishop who can render a statement about human sexuality as anything other than "another opinion." If I have a question, where am I to turn?

Ever since they started printing the Bible for the masses, problems of authoritative interpretation have been multiplying as fast as authors of controversial books. At the present time, some denominations have come to the point where all interpretations are acceptable as long as we can still hug each other during the passing of the peace.

The passing of the peace...requiem aeternam. Yes that is where our freedom can lead us, to the injustice of biblical revisionism, to the misery of the soul made slave to the flesh, to the loss of peace.

Bishop Murphy's solution to issues such as those concerning sexuality is to rely on the teachings of the bishops. The Episcopal protestant way was the way intended in the Articles of Religion,

XX. Of the Authority of the Church.
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation. (1801)

but as evidenced by the actions of recent general conventions and by the actions of the bishops of the church in ordaining whosoever they please and teaching highly individualized new gospels, the Episcopal approach has devolved into a "do as you so desire" non-solution that openly parades its contrariness to God's Word written.

We should learn from the failures of both approaches.

Catholics, follow your bishops, Episcopalians, please open your Bible and turn to...

Romans 1:16-28 (NAB)
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel. It is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: for Jew first, and then Greek.
For in it is revealed the righteousness of God from faith to faith; as it is written, 'The one who is righteous by faith will live.'
The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness.
For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them.
Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.
While claiming to be wise, they became fools
and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.
Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies.
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper."

P.S. Nassau County Executive Thomas Suozzi lost his re-election bid and conceded defeat on Dec. 1, 2009.

Echoes from GC 2009 Heard in the 2011 Diocesan Budget

In March 2010, the Episcopal Bishop of Washington D.C. gave permission for priests in his diocese to preside at civil marriages according to this report from Episcopal Pravda Online. In July 2010 the Living Church announced that the Diocese of San Diego joins Massachusetts, Southeast Florida, and Southern Ohio in allowing same-sex blessings to "move beyond" where we were.

On May 15, 2010 we were presented with the "joyous" consecration of Mary Glasspool.

Does anyone remember this statement from one of Upper South Carolina's deputies to last year's General Convention of the Episcopal church? (Posted July 14, 2009)

Please remain calm!


Once again, as in 2003, we are dismayed by sensational headlines written, in some cases, by folks who have no understanding of Episcopal polity, our Constitution and Canons, or our Baptismal Covenant. Before you let anyone send you into a panic over the passage of DO25, pull out a copy of our Constitution and Canons and refer to sections on elections, ordinations, etc. While the fear is that passage of DO25 will further antagonize our Anglican family (and, no, it will not be received well), the reality is that the resolution did not actually change anything. What it does, in essence, is to say that these are our canons, the ordination PROCESS is open to anyone, but there are no guarantees that someone who goes through the process will be ordained. Our bishop feels that this resolution does not negate BO33, which asks us to exercise restraint in the ORDINATION of anyone whose manner of life presents a challenge to the Anglican Communion and to restrain from the blessing of same-sex unions (but, stay tuned – that resolution will be coming to us soon).

I can hear the echoes now... Please...Please...Remain...Remain...Calm...Calm...

I know that she was just echoing the Bishop's party line, but do we really need echoing deputies? Maybe so, if you are really desperate like the Sheriff was in this cartoon clip:



While our diocesean deputy was playing echo in 2009, the T.E.C. rats were in the hen house planning for their dastardly ordinations and same-sex liturgies to occur 2010.

The effects of GC 2009 are still being heard.

Although the powers that be in the Diocese of Upper South Carolina say, "blame the economy" (I recently wanted to stand up and shout, "It ain't the economy stupid!" when I heard that from the mouth of an Upper South Carolina clergyman), I think the reverberations from GC 2009 are one possible cause for the continued decline in the diocese's budget projections ($300,000 less income predicted for 2011) (Track the progress of the budget here). Falling Sunday attendance is another reason. It is getting increasingly difficult to ask people to come visit your church once you mention the brand name, "Episcopal." In addition, once visitors come and are exposed to the heretical views of many of our clergy, they take their Bibles and flee for their soul's sake, never to return. As a result, people just aren't giving to the Episcopal church like they used to. Why should they? Why give money to an organization that has chosen to walk away from your first love, the Good News as presented in the Gospels, as handed down by the Apostles. T.E.C. has taken on new lovers. For one, Biblical revisionism has, like the adulteress, lured the church astray. Pimps and prostitutes now run the show in the Episcopal church.

Woe to the church that does not hear the echoes from the past.

Woe to the shepherds who blame the sheep for a lack of wool.

I think for the next General Convention in 2012 we should send that same old cotton pickin deputy back, along with our new Sheriff, Andy, to represent us so we can hear all the echoes...echoes...echoes... from... from... from... 2009...2009...2009... again...again...again...

Of course, we might not have enough money to pay for their trip!

Way, Way East of Eden

From Edith Tucker at the Berlin (NH) Reporter:

h/t Greg Griffith at StandFirm in Faith

"BERLIN — An historic first took place on Saturday, Jan. 2, in the 'City that Trees Built.'

Elizabeth 'Betsy' Hess and the Rev. Eleanor 'Ellie' McLaughlin, both of Randolph, were wed in a civil ceremony near the entrance to St. Barnabas Episcopal Church on High Street.

The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, the ninth Bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire, blessed their rings and their Christian marriage at the altar. The blessing ceremony followed the civil marriage ceremony, which was jointly performed by Randolph Town Clerk Anne Kenison and Justice of the Peace Anne Jackson of Lancaster."

Don't worry, this was just a "generous pastoral response (GC2009 CO56)" by a simple country bishop.

"Ms. Hess, who holds a Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the University of Montana at Missoula, maintains a private practice in Berlin, and the Rev. McLaughlin, who earned a Ph.D. in medieval history at Harvard University, is the retired rector of St. Barnabas and a parishioner at St. Paul's, Lancaster.

They described his role as an 'unspeakable honor — a thrill.'"

And that is after they listened to his dimwitted sermon.

"Bishop Robinson said he understands that having both a gay bishop and a gay priest means that some in Berlin call St. Barnabas the gay church.

'Yes, we're gay,' he said. 'We welcome people of color, people in wheelchairs, the mentally disabled — all of God's children.' Elaborating on its inclusivity, he also noted that the Rev. Fran Gardner, the rector who succeeded the Rev. McLaughlin, is also gay.

He reminded everyone of Christ's eighth beatitude: 'Blessed are they who are persecuted.'"

Drop the persecution thing already, you've won! Go ahead and say what you really think about marriage, and give us some solid Biblical exegesis while you are at it.

"In his homily, Bishop Robinson explained that when God created 'the human thing' in the Garden of Eden, which He called 'A-dam' — (which the bishop pronounced with a long 'A' and 'dame') — He wanted to make him happy, so He provided him with a helper, a partner, a soul mate.'

'It was not right that A-dam should be alone,' Bishop Robinson said, noting that this is nothing new."

Oh, I get it. Bishop Robinson is saying that God created a dame for a dame in Eden. Stop the presses! Did it really say that in Genesis? Doesn't the passage read,

The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,'
for she was taken out of man."
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh

Genesis 2:18-24

I think Bishop Robinson is putting a little 'Broad'way (excuse me) into his Bible with that "A-Dame" wisecrack.



I had never heard of anyone making the leap from Adam to "A Dame." To do so in order to alter God's natural order as established in Genesis goes beyond revisionism and into creating a new religion.

One could argue that Bishop Robinson is merely hijacking a pre-existing sinking denomination to advance a personal obsession, but statements such as this show that he is not satisfied with the Bible and is working on a new one. "Unspeakable" indeed. Oh, there was more including this,

"'Marriage is also crazy,' he said. 'It's hard to live up to when the institution of marriage is in such trouble,' Bishop Robinson said."

Particularly when one's own choices create more trouble. Someone ought to tell the Bishop to stop knocking an institution when it is down.

Is it any wonder that Sunday attendance in the Diocese of New Hampshire has dropped by almost 20% in the past decade?

As bad as the Bishop's homily was, the town clerk reminds us that the focus is on the new secular worldview:

"Randolph Town Clerk Kenison read an historical account, written by the Rev. McLaughlin that is informed by the work of the 'boundary-breaking interdisciplinary work' of Professor Nancy Cott of Harvard University, on the changes that have taken place from the days when the State and the Established Church were one. 'In colonial society, the State established and defined both moral and economic boundaries of the marriage contract, by which the husband was provider and unitary authority and the woman, mother and wife, was the dependent and obedient subject in law to her husband.' These gendered and hierarchical arrangements of the human family have ceased to be normative. Civil Marriage has been 'disestablished'…. The Marriage here solemnized is grounded upon current values and interests determined and enforced by the State, supported and respected by Civil society."

Excuse me Ms. Kenison, but did you just say that the State created bad standards of marriage in the past, but the current the State's values are okay? Do you trust the current State as our moral agent when earlier States got it wrong?

Arrghh...

I Love... (fill in the blank)

From Nova Scotia Scott via Transfigurations comes this article from Discover Magazine The lead title says "The End of Divorce, Growing numbers of people marrying inanimate objects." The article then describes two happy marriages, one between a woman and the Berlin Wall and another between a woman and the Eiffel tower. The article goes on to explain this attraction (Objectum sexuality),

"Objectum sexuality affects mostly women, who develop affection for objects ranging from computers to national monuments to model space ships. The cause of OS—or the psychology behind it—is not understood: Some medical experts believe it is a type of paraphilia, or unusual sexual interest or disorder; others believe it may be indicative of a history of sexual abuse.

According to certified sexologist Amy Marsh, however, it could be a new sexual orientation. Marsh has surveyed a community of people with OS and said, 'What I’m finding is not much history of sexual abuse, and actually not much in the way of psychiatric diagnoses either. I’m finding they’re very happy, and they don’t want to change. I am also finding out that quite a few of them have a diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome or autism, but not everybody.'"

Hey, they even have a web site that I love, "Objectum-Sexuality Internationale." This site contains some helpful information such as,

What is OS?

NOTE: There is little known about OS other than data our community has gathered from our personal relationships with objects. So we are not claiming to have any clinical basis, only the practical knowledge gained from each other. We welcome and currently seek professional input and study in regards to OS. We are not looking for a cure but more comprehension into our make-up as an emerging part of society.

Objectùm-Sexuality is an orientation to love objects.

Sexual orientation is defined as the nature of sexual preference while the prolific definition stands as: the direction of someone's sexual desire toward people of the opposite gender, people of the same gender, or people of both. This does not include objects.

However, orientation itself is defined as: a complex mental state involving beliefs and feelings and values and dispositions to act in certain ways. This does include objects as we see it.

We love objects and many of us in an intimate way and this feeling is innate. Objectùm-sexual love comes for most in a similar awakening as other sexualities at the start of puberty. This is often followed by an acute awareness that we do not relate to peers due to the source of the projected feelings. Often objectùm-sexual people feel outcast or pressured by mainstream sexuality with a helpless feeling that we cannot change what comes so naturally.

What is the natural feeling of OS?

Just as mainstream are attracted to certain types of people, physical/intellectual, objectùm-sexuals feel a strong attraction towards objects possessing, in particular, certain geometry/function. Often this attraction is regarded as an obsession to a degree that provokes criticism.

What makes OS different from an obsession?

Truly there is not much difference. Love is a feeling that preoccupies one's thoughts. This in its own right describes a degree of obsession where all focus is on the one desired. An obsession is based on an extreme keenness for an object and that defines the significance. However, the difference for objectùm-sexuals is our love and attraction for the object is what devotes our interest to a level that appears merely obsessive.

"How can one love an inanimate object?

Indeed, the meaning of love comes into question. However, there is no single definition because this feeling has many levels and crosses every part of the spectrum. Virtually every one and every thing can be loved. Love does not have any rules that requisite to whom or to what we express this multifaceted emotion, as long as it causes no violation or harm to the subjected.

The spectrum of love is so vast; one may relate it to a bell curve. In the middle will certainly appear the majority of those whose relationships can be characterized by the similarities to whom and how they love. And at one end of this curve, that is where Objectùm-sexuality finds its place. While we have no firm numerical data, we are clearly a minority which facilitates the criticism of our way of love and life. But none-the-less, we still fall under the curve of the enigmatic emotion known as love.

OK, so the question isn't answered for those who strongly believe that love must be reciprocated to be in and have a relevant relationship. Naturally, if one sees objects as inanimate, then objectùm-sexual love and our relationships would undeniably be scrutinized. Indeed, there are cases of love being one-sided as with any orientation, but in general we do feel love in return."

The natural question for this blog is, "When will the O.S. people be brought into "full inclusion" in the Episcopal Church?

And, "How is this supposed to end divorce?"

Judge Not

In a recent announcement, President Obama has appointed Emily Hewitt to be the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The announcement from 03/23/2009 reads,

"Judge Hewitt has served on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims since her confirmation by the Senate in 1998. At the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Judge Hewitt has handled cases in all areas of the Court’s jurisdiction, chaired the court’s Rules and Building and Space Committees and served on its Management Committee. In 2006, she was appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States to serve on the Financial Disclosure Committee of the United States Judicial Conference. Prior to her appointment to the Court of Claims, Judge Hewitt was appointed general counsel to the General Services Administration during the Clinton Administration. Judge Hewitt, born May 26, 1944, in Baltimore, is a graduate of Cornell University (A.B. 1966), Union Theological Seminary (M. Phil 1975) and Harvard Law School (J.D. 1978). Before entering government service, Judge Hewitt practiced from 1978 to 1993 with the Boston law firm Hill & Barlow, where she chaired the firm’s real estate department from 1987-1993. A leader of the effort to open Episcopal ordination to women, Judge Hewitt was one of the first eleven women ordained to the Episcopal priesthood on July 29, 1974."

An earlier post on this blog briefly referenced the "Philadelphia 11" as being held up by today's Church as a shining example of how the Episcopal Church allows culture to lead the Church and settles disputes by breaking rules rather than by taking the path of humility and patience required to change rules. That path would have wound through careful study of scripture and tradition and led to true discourse and resolution, a path that may have wandered in the desert for forty years. No one wants to keep hearing that the promised land is just over the horizon. It is far easier to revolt, and that is what happened on July 29, 1974.

What was the big deal back in 1974.

("Suzanne Hiatt was the chief architect of the Episcopal women's ordination movement.")...

"Hiatt says that the Philadelphia ordination was intended to make it more trouble not to ordain women than to ordain them. 'In retrospect, to have been ordained 'irregularly' is the only way for women to have done it,' reflects Hiatt. 'Our ordination was on our terms, not the church's terms, it was not accepted as a gift from the church but taken as a right from God.'"

(Taken as a right from God!!!)

The Philadelphia eleven's ordination was not authorized by the Episcopal Church. Two years later, the General Convention accepted it as a "fait accompli" and moved on.

Now this is not the only rule that the Hon. Rev Hewitt chose to break because she is reportedly,

"...married to attorney Eleanor Dean Acheson."

And where did her ordination lead her? Not to a lifetime of ministry. Straight to law school it seems as she graduated from Harvard Law School in 1978. And, according to The Living Church,

"She is canonically resident in the Diocese of New York, but served in parochial ministry for only a few years as an assistant at St. Mary’s Church, Manhattanville, after ordination."

It sounds like she was really serious about the W.O. thing.



All right, this is all just ancient history isn't it?

I wonder, how can a nefarious rule breaker such as the Hon. Rev. Emily Hewitt make judgements against rule breakers brought into her court? Will she be consistent in her modus operandi and tend to rule in favor of the unlawful?

Recently we have seen rulings in favor of the "hierarchical church" in "property disputes" of churches pulling out of T.E.C. see the Anglican Curmudgeon's pages coming out of several courts. Oh, but that one of those cases could go to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. What a tortured decision for the Hon. Rev. Hewitt. I mean, would she recuse herself because she disdains the Church's authority and might side with the departing church, or would she recuse herself because she is an ordained Episcopal priest in which case she might be biased and favor her Presiding Bishop? Applying the Anglican Curmudgeon's principle of the use of fuzzy logic to the religious left, the Hon. Rev. Hewitt would simply stick with her M.O. and let the end justify the means.

Decisions, decisions...

Can't Stop Talkin About Em.

Who can't stop talking about sex in the T.E.C.? We have heard that the problem with the Episcopal Church is that those rwascally conserwatives won't stop talking about it. A commenter read through all the proposed resolutions for the 2009 General Convention of T.E.C. and had the following revelation.

Ralinda wrote on T19 on 03/27/2009,

"To save you from having to tally them up: of the 46 resolutions filed, 19 advance the agenda of homosexual activists in the church. One resolution adds gender identity or the expression of gender identity to “protected categories” for ordination (C001). Nine resolutions conform the marriage canons to the language of civil laws permitting same sex unions (C019, C025, C028, C041, C042) or remove restrictions and/or authorize the development of liturgies for same sex blessings (C004, C009, C017, C031). Seven resolutions (C007, C010, C015, C024, C033, C036, C039) repudiate and reverse Resolution B033 from GC ‘06, which asked TEC to observe the Communion moratorium on any further consecrations of non-celibate homosexuals as bishops in the Church. In response to the 2008 elections in states where the traditional definition of marriage was affirmed, one resolution (C023) calls for Episcopalians to reject and work against Defense of Marriage statutes, and another (C014) authorizes a new Theological Study (i.e. revision) of Christian Marriage. There are no resolutions filed to support the consideration of the Anglican Covenant."

Thank you Ralinda.

I bet they won't stop talking about Anaheim 09, and it hasn't even happened yet!


(Betty Hutton and Fred Astaire)...enjoy!

Fight For Your Children

How a story is worded and presented by the author has a profound influence upon the reader.

This particular story hit the blog waves Jan. 28, 2009 and caused a minor flap. It was the story of two children in the U.K. being raised by their grandparents. In a remarkable example of age discrimination, and after two years legal wrangling, the children were taken from their family and put up for adoption.

So how old were these decrepit people? 59 and 46 according to the report.

Maybe there are other reasons that these grandparents were unfit.



Perhaps it was because the grandfather was a "farmhand." In that case this is class discrimination.

Maybe it was because the grandmother has "diabetes" and the grandfather has "angina." In that case it is health discrimination.



The article only mentions the age of the grandparents as the reason. They were "too old."

There must be more to the story. Did the writer present all the facts, or just selected facts to gin up our emotions?

You can imagine the outrage racing across the www.



I don't think the outrage has anything to do with the fact that the children are to be adopted by... read it here...