Reverend Ref +

WARNING: RANT POST

Enough is enough. Or is it? That's the question/dilemma I'm personally facing right now. One of the things I like about Anglicanism is that it attempts to house both ends of the spectrum, in any field: high church/low church; conservative/liberal; organ/guitar; traditional/unconventional. To that end, I have tried to link to blogs that span that spectrum. I don't agree with all of them, but I find, usually, that they all have something worthwhile to read.

But now, I find myself of playing with the thought of removing a link. The link in question is Orthodox Anglicanism. This blog is written by a seminarian from the Diocese of Fort Worth while attending Nashotah House.

The final straw came after he posted about the annual SWTS-NH flag football game. Granted, SWTS lost, 21-20. Am I upset about that? Kind of. But not as upset as I'm going to be this weekend when my beloved 'Cougs get trounced by #1 USC, or after the 'Hawks lose their fourth straight. Rather, it was the tone of that particular post. And not only that post, but the one that followed it.

To begin with, he made a point of not participating in the pre-game Eucharist because the celebrant was a woman. Now, that's his choice and his theological bent. Fine. But he made reference to this as a "black mass." Regarding the blessing of the field, he appeared to be overjoyed that the thurible broke, thereby confirming that "God would not accept their strange fire." Finally, he wrote about make a "spiritual communion" because they were prevented from participating in the Eucharist in an effort to rally the troups.

In his next post, he linked to a picture from St. Gregory's of Nyssa in San Francisco. Granted, they do some bizarre things down there that I don't agree with either. But to use the picture of a woman priest (I'm assuming she was a priest) and to subtitle it "Abomination of Desolation" is totally uncalled for. Unfortunately, my posting of this rant earlier this week was eaten by the computer, and when I could finally get back to it the posts have disappeared from his page.

Now, to disagree is one thing, and so is debating the issues over which you disagree. But Taylor has a habit of actively searching out things with which he doesn't agree and belittle or attack them. I can deal with disagreement, but I can't deal with derogatory comments and ad hominem attacks.

Especially after last week's gospel (the parable of the Pharisee and tax collector) and this week's gospel (people murmuring about Jesus visiting Zacchaeus, a sinner). It seems that Jesus is telling us, "Don't be pointing fingers. Just because you think you know what the rules are, doesn't mean you actually do." The funny thing about creating a tightly defined set of rules that clearly explain what Christians can and can't do, is that you also create a tightly defined set of rules that tells God what he can and can't do.

So tell me Taylor, after hearing last week's gospel about the righteous Pharisee and the justified tax collector, and this week's gospel about Jesus intentionally staying with a known sinner, how is it that you can claim to know the mind of God and decide who God can and can't visit his mercy and grace on? It's one thing to disagree, it's quite another to claim a special gnosis and exclude the "other."

I value Anglicanism because of its diversity of opinions. I value the theological debates it creates. But I don't value people who know they're right and engage in spiteful attacks against those who are "wrong." So, after all that, I have decided that it's still important to have the link; afterall, people should see both sides. But I'm placing the link under the Small God heading. Am I right? I don't know. I'm just doing the best I can.

God have mercy on me, a sinner.