Shuck and Jive

Friday, April 30, 2010

Bumbling Florida Fusspots

This is funny. The LayMAN reports that the Florida Fusspots have decided to pile on John Knox.

The Presbytery of
John Knox approved for ordination Scott Anderson a couple of months ago via the scruple. The BFTSs decided to file a complaint.

Since the Florida Fusspots have nothing better to do, they called a special meeting to vote in favor of the complainers.

As if this action would accomplish anything. It's a judicial question, ya bumblers.


  1. Do they think the PJC will rule based on a show of hands?

    Weird. I've said it before and I'll say it again.... If the BFTSs want me to believe they actually respect the BoO, they should demonstrate they've actually read it first.

    One thing I've never understood about our polity is why we allow random strangers to file accusations against people they've never met who live half-way across the country. Doesn't seem particularly in line with Matthew 18 to me.

    I wonder if there's a good reason for this policy, other than giving the BFTSs who have nothing better to do with their time something to do that will make them feel important?

  2. I think the ease of filing a complaint was to help victims of sexual misconduct start an investigation. I suppose that a victim of misconduct could be outside the presbytery of the accused. The BFTSs took advantage of this in order to bully people in regards to matters of conscience--and like you say, make them feel important.

  3. Given how many of them pile onto these charges, you'd think at least one of them would have time to file charges against us other heretics.

  4. You'd think, especially as some of us are leading people into the very pits of hell.

  5. John

    I think I see what you mean. A pastor commits sexual abuse/misconduct and then moves to a new congregation in a new presbytery. The accuser then has to bring allegations in the new presbytery.

    What I don't see the point of is filing allegations after allegations have already been filed. If you want to help give money to the folks in the process. It's EXPENSIVE to do an investigation, to say nothing of time consuming and heart rending.

  6. What I don't get is that why the presbytery of Disney World would hold some Mickey Mouse meeting for the sole purpose of proclaiming its prejudice and ignorance.

    They attack one individual they don't even know.

    That is sick.

    What it proves is that the right wing of the church is obsessed with the genitalia more than even its warped understanding of the gospel.

    Scott Anderson is true blue Presbyterian. From what I know his theology is more square than mine.

    The LayMAN calls me a heretic and an apostate. Isn't that worse? But, hey, at least I am not queer.

  7. I'm pretty sure that's the only thing that keeps them from filing charges on you, John!

  8. John

    My point exactly. But notice the charges aren't against Scott. It is a remedial case against John Knox Presbytery.

  9. By the way - "Seth Deathmancer" is Neb's log-on name. He was using my Mac and forgot to log off. No need to be concerned about who you're attracting NOW.


  10. Who is Neb?

    @Bob, yes, but they are about Scott.

  11. And my point was that people tend to file remedial cases against the presbytery rather than disciplinary cases against individuals. Curious, yes? I wonder why.

    Of course if Scott is not ordained the disciplinary case would have to be filed with his session.

  12. Well in this case, I'd guess they didn't file charges against Scott Anderson because they know he didn't do anything wrong.

    But that's just a guess, because the random targets of the various charges people have filed against people rarely make any kind of sense to the rational mind. For example, the BFTSs regularly file disciplinary cases against ministers who participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies rather than the elders who actually *got* married. Or they file charges against ministers who participated in the ordination of LGBT people instead of filing charges against the elder or deacon themselves.

    But in those cases I suppose it is more about screwing with someone's livelihood than actually standing up for what they think the BoO has to say.

  13. But in those cases I suppose it is more about screwing with someone's livelihood than actually standing up for what they think the BoO has to say.

    And in my best Edith Ann:

    "And that's the truth. ppffssth"

  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

  15. So I suppose I should know this, but if someone files false charges against someone else in the PCUSA, according to the BoO, is that enough of a reason to counter-file charges against them for bearing false witness?

    Has that ever been done?

    BTW, speaking of filing charges, did y'all which of the PCUSA's favorite ambulance chasers has apparently taken up the case of an army Lt. Col. who refused to deploy to Afghanistan until President Obama produced a birth certificate? LOL

  16. If someone is a member of a congregation, unlike a minister who is the member of a presbytery, charges have to be filed with the Session. And it is highly unlikely that a Session that approves of its pastor doing weddings for homosexuals is going to find the elder, deacon or church member guilty.

    Of course someone could appeal. Sigh. I've been on an Investigating Committee for far too long.

  17. John - check this out. A prominent anti-gay activist making the news again.

  18. So, Bob, you're saying that it's just too much effort for them to "uphold" their understanding of Scripture?

    Is it any wonder those of us on the other side think so little of their so-called "beliefs" when they obviously think so little of them themselves?

    Aric: Ah gotta love schadenfreude. Can't wait to see the Exodus or One-By-Oners try to spin this one.

  19. No Alan. I am sick to my teeth of the process and am not sure that the process brings justice or good.