Thursday, February 01, 2007

Demonstrating What They Really Care About

I can’t help but remember a line from the Broadway show “Pippin”: “The church isn’t interested in saving souls; it’s investing in real estate.”

In an amazing display of candor, the remaining leaders of the newly fag-friendly Episcopal Diocese of Virginia demonstrate what they really care about, by suing those rambunctious Episcopalians who dare to believe that God really meant what He said when He condemned homosexuality.

As noted in the Washington Times article:

The diocese filed 11 separate suits against the clergy and lay leaders of Truro Church in Fairfax, the Falls Church in Falls Church, Christ the Redeemer in Centreville, Church of the Apostles in Fairfax, Church of the Epiphany in Herndon, Church of Our Saviour near Leesburg, Church of the Word in Gainesville, Potomac Falls Church in Sterling, St. Margaret’s in Woodbridge, St. Paul’s in Haymarket and St. Stephen’s in the Northern Neck.

But what it's really about follows:
At stake is millions of dollars in real estate, including an estimated $27 million to $37 million at Truro and the Falls Church, two of Virginia’s largest and most historic churches.
At least the parishioners in these diocese are still interested in eternal salvation. And EDV leaders are demonstrating that in which they are interested.

H/T to VJP


NoVA Scout said...

"fag friendly" probably is at a level you choose to live on, James. But it's a bit more more complicated than that. The hell of it is that this is a wrenching experience for the Church. The diocese has an obligation to protect the structures and physical plant of the Church for those who elected to stay within the diocese. Those who voted to leave need to leave. I am an active congregant of one of the departing parishes. but if we vote to leave, we vote to leave, and I would consider it a breach of faith for Bishop Lee to just cede possession of these historic properties to departing dissidents. It may be that a plan can be reached where possessory rights to the properties are negotiated, but we won't get an equitable settlement for all sides if one side just capitulates in its duties. That the press tends to note the temporal value of these properties should not send you into one of your homophobic tizzies. This is tough stuff for Christians of good will on both sides. I'm not sure "fag friendly" gets us very far. But I have Good News for you, James. You can climb out of that gutter and come to appreciate these issues on a higher level through the liberating message of the Gospels. It must be very dark there for you. But there is a Way Out.

James Young said...

And fag friendly is apparently the level upon which you would prefer to life, "NoVA Scout," or C. Jonathan Benner, or whatever your name is. It is hardly surprising that you would try to maintain your anonymity in light of the fact that you use the word "homophobic" as if it were (a) accurate, or (b) insulting. You only reveal your sad, pathetic, belittling (make you feel better?) tactics when you do so.

It's too bad that you managed to miss the part where Christ's message is supposed to transform us poor sinners, and instead, buy into the notion that the message is supposed to transform to conform to current fashion. But --- hey! --- maintain your pretensions if you must.

As for Bishop Lee and his "duties," he would be more intellectually honest, in my never-to-be humble opinion, if he were to recognize that it is the Diocese which has left the Church, not vice versa.

NoVA Scout said...

I'm sorry, Fred (or whatever your name is), I thought "fag Friendly" was your term, not mine. Perhaps I was confused. But the Church has been "friendly" to sinners for two millenia now, and it seems a road we should keep going down. The Church does not treat some sinners more harshly than others, it loves us all and welcomes us all. We are all redeemable. Christianity has its points, Fred. I highly recommend it to you. You'll find it makes a huge difference in your life.

In the meantime, don't let the secular press get you all hyperventilated. This is much bigger than that.

James Young said...

Well, Jonny, I go by my real name. You choose to use a pseudonym, though I think I know who you are, and --- with that information --- that you've never made a significant contribution to getting Republicans elected to office. And no, I don't include your blogging activities. Perhaps I'm wrong. But then again, I note that you never denied the assertion when given the opportunity to do so.

Of course, the Church "has been 'friendly' to sinners for two millenia now." Sadly, you seem incapable of making a distinction between being "'friendly' to sinners" and celebrating sin/abomination. Equally sadly, the Episcopal "Church" in the United States has determined to embrace the latter.

Steven P. Barrett said...

James, I hope you're as bad an attorney for the union-busting firm you work for, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, as you are a commentator on religious matters.

Let me guess, you're a member of one of the secesh churches that bolted TEC.

But you've also betrayed your bigotry towards homosexuals. I'm straight as you are, but not so narrow as to use "fag-friendly" to describe the Episcopal Church.

I really can't believe that I saw a conservative lawyer using such a term in a public forum. After all, aren't conservatives supposed to stand for comity and keeping the public discourse clean? Or, are you like so many shock jocks on the airwaves?

God help you if you can live with using "fag-friendly" in any public forum for whatever reason. You're going to regret your choice of words; especially if you run for office. Which I hope you do and get clobbered.

Ever eat crow pie? You're going to.

James Young said...

"Union-busting"? Only if not permitting unions to collect dues from people who don't want to have anything to do with them is "union-busting." Of course, if unions can be "busted" by prohibiting them from collecting dues from people who don't want to have anything to do with them is "busting" them, then they don't deserve to exist.

And BTW, I've been doing it for 17 years. So your hope is unfulfilled.

And it's not "bigotry" to judge people by their behavior. And if you'll read another of my posts, that is the level of discourse that partisans for the radical homosexual agenda have chosen, with use of terms like "homophobic," and yes, "bigots," to describe those who make moral judgments based on their behavior.

And I have run for public office. And will never do so again. That's one reason why I say what I mean.

But thanks for visiting!

James Young said...

And, Steven, I'm delighted that you feel that way about me. One is frequently judged by the enemies one keeps, and the far Left ideology that you apparently espouse makes me glad to have you as one.