For the context of this comment, see the article posted just below. Btw, I sent this to An Inch at a Time, the blog of the President of Integrity. It has yet to appear. My experience with liberals is that they don't really like any dissonant voices on their blogs. This is especially true of Terry Martin (aka Fr. Jake) and Elizabeth Kaeton; it has been less true of Susan Russell to this point. We'll see if she consents to post a dissenting view on her blog. ed.
“Bruno then cited a book he has been reading, 'A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix,' by Edwin H. Friedman. Bruno said Friedman's description of characteristics encountered in a 'chronically anxious' family seems to reflect recent events and attitudes within the [Anglican] Communion.”
This is a good example of why it is counter-productive for people with serious mental health issues to read about psychology and sociology – it just gives them more tools for manipulating other people, which makes their behavior worse and more difficult to treat. If he were still alive, Rabbi Friedman would be horrified to find someone like Bruno abusing his ideas. TEc and the AC are indeed like dysfunctional families and systems theory is definitely applicable, but Bruno is using it to blame the orthodox for being “reactive” family members instead of recognizing that they are just setting boundaries in their relationships with the revisionists, which is what people who are psychologically healthy do when they have to deal with tyrants such as Bruno (removing oneself from the relationship is the preferred behavior but, if that's not possible, one must set boundaries).
Bruno doesn't want to admit why the family is “chronically anxious”: control of the family has been usurped by a band of narcissistic tyrants, who are enabled by a regressive middle management (bishops and priests) primarily motivated by safety (protecting their salaries and pensions) instead of leadership (taking risks), which is a reflection of what Friedman calls our “seatbelt” society. Like those who plot and scheme to seize control of families, the tyrants who run TEc are insecure (they know they got where they are by aggression and manipulation, not competency) and, thus, intolerant of anyone (eg, the orthodox) and any ideas (eg, Scripture) that challenge their authority (eg, asking for alternative episcopal oversight) or the agenda (eg, homosex isn't a sin) of those who brought them to power (eg, the GLBT lobby). Like typical family tyrants, they project their own faults (eg, intolerance and aggression) onto those who set boundaries (the “scape goats”) in order to manipulate the rest of the family – falsely accusing opponents (eg, the orthodox) of their own sins (eg, intolerance and being “reactive,” like in this latest Bruno blast), while at the same time intimidating middle management into keeping silent (eg, by prosecuting orthodox clergy with trumped up presentments) and exerting control over other family members (eg, tightening the “seatbelts” that keep parishioners in their pews by filing suits based on the “Dennis Canon” against any parishes that leave).
Friedman's incomplete (he died before he could finish it) “A Failure of Nerve” is based on the pioneering family systems counseling that he first described in “Generation to Generation.” If Bruno really understood family systems theory and applied it to TEc, he would recognize himself as one of the protagonists in an addictive family. Alcoholics, druggies, and other addicts – including homosexuals – are very self-centered family members for whom engaging in their addictive behavior becomes the most important thing in life – even if it is detrimental to the welfare of the rest of the family. Therefore, addicts become highly skilled at manipulating other family members to support their habit – they will lie, steal, etc. As their addiction grows, addicts become tyrants who get their way by threatening and bullying other family members, who become enablers. Their tirades sound exactly like David Virtue's excellent description of TEc's narcissistic cabal of revisionist tyrants: “I'm-a-sodomite-and-God-loves-me-just-the-way-I-am-and-what-I-do-with-my-body-is-none-of-your-damn-business.” Family members who reject their addictive behavior incur their wrath because addicts become so closely identified with their addiction that they respond as if rejection of their behavior were a rejection of themselves and threatened their survival, making that family member into an enemy – someone who must be driven off if they can't be converted into an enabler, which is what TEc's revisionists are now doing to the orthodox. Addicts are masters at making others angry at them so that others look and/or feel guilty – this is a “win-win” for the addict because it drives off those who won't go along with their addiction and at the same time sucks in new enablers, which is why TEc's revisionists are trying to provoke the orthodox and at the same time are playing victim.
The heart of the problem with addiction is the problem of sin – any behavior is a sin if it becomes so important that one is willing to compromise everything and everyone else (including God) to continue engaging in the behavior. But treatment cannot begin until the addict admits that he or she is an addict and that the addictive behavior is harming themselves and everyone close to them – confess that it is a sin and repent of it. Effective treatment requires that the addict acknowledge that he or she is incapable of overcoming the behavior on their own – that they need the Grace of God to overcome sin. Effective treatment requires that the addict stop the behavior – practicing addicts can't be treated. This brings us to the Feast we celebrate today.
Today we celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Who suffered and died on the Cross and was resurrected that we might have eternal life – a newness of life in Him, Who is without sin. The Scriptures clearly condemn homosexual behavior as a sin. There is no serious doubt about that – the only argument is whether the Scriptural condemnation still applies. The argument of the homosexuals and their advocates is that it isn't a sin because God loves them. Does that mean God didn't love homosexuals when the Scriptures were written, but He changed His mind? Does society's acceptance of a behavior determine whether or not God loves them and, thus, whether or not that behavior is a sin? But, if homosexual behavior wasn't a sin when the Scriptures were written, why do they condemn it – do the Scriptures have errors in them, so that they aren't authoritative? Using that argument, nothing would be a sin – God loves alcoholics, thieves, liars, and even murderers. If there is no more sin, then why did Jesus Christ voluntarily suffer and die on the Cross? And, if His death were unnecessary, His Resurrection would also be unnecessary. Indeed, the admitted practicing homosexual Dean of St Albans, Jeffrey John, recently stated that Jesus Christ was crucified to “share in the worst of grief and suffering that life can throw at us,” not for our Salvation. TEC's Presiding Bishopette has publicly denied the uniqueness of Salvation through Jesus Christ. So why do TEc's homosexual revisionists and their apologists celebrate Easter? Why do they want to be called Christians? Why do they want to be members of the Church? Is it just an opportunity to dress up and put on a show?
But Jesus Christ did die on the Cross and He did rise again – which exposes the revisionists' arguments as a pack of lies.
Mchiha aka!
Christos anesti!
Christus resurrectus est!
Hristos vosskresse!
Christ is risen!
No comments:
Post a Comment