Sunday, February 19, 2012

Finally... a woman features on the Sydney Anglican Church League website

It takes a certain kind of woman to feature on the Sydney Anglican Church League website... Jane Tooher is that special kind of woman. A woman who devotes her time, to encouraging women to remain submissive to men. She sits at the head of the women's pecking order, teaching women about modesty and humility, so feminism doesn't rare it's ugly head within the Sydney Diocese. As David Ould explains in his article on a gay priest in the Gippsland region; the way to maintain control is by expelling all threats to solidarity. Jane's brief is to ensure women at Moore College don't ask about the discriminative standards that apply in ministry. However, Jane has dabbled in other areas as well, when she revamped the Sydney Diocese' LCMI's oppressive LGBTI agenda, prior to Haydn Sennitt being deputised.
Sydney Anglican Complementarian woman like Jane, concern themselves with issues like women's submission, humility and modesty but ignore the sexist history of this diocese, the role the current upper management played in that history, and it's current sexual politics. Sexual politics that parallels black sexual politics that is seen as the "new racism". Sexual politics that...places extreme value on limiting views of the role of the male and the role of the female, and also on the role of appropriate and socially acceptable sexual behavior works to deny LGBT people their agency, and prevents honest dialogue people, but also of heterosexual women and men, oppressed by views of sexuality about different types of sexual lifestyles. This can work to the oppression of LGBT which limit their sexual expression, and thus limit the space for them to talk about their lifestyles in a way that breeds honesty, self affirmation and prevents the spread of disease.

Dear Jane,
I know Sydney Anglicans have groups to oppress women and gays, but do you have a group that might help me? You see, I didn't learn humility and modesty from you because I learnt it from my husband. I find it really hard to meet his standards of submission...
1. I can't keep the cupboards to his liking; clean and ordered after the children have been in them.
2. I can't dress in a way that is acceptable to him, so he doesn't call me a slut, and accuse me of having an affair.
3. I can't speak to him in a manner that doesn't make him angry and hit me because it's my fault
4. I can't talk to anyone because he likes to keep me isolated, and if I tell another evangelical why I have a black eye, it might get back to him.
Jane, I won't give you my identity incase he finds out that I've spoken with you because he might have to ruin your reputation to protect himself...and Jane I can't leave him because I have no friends outside evangelicals, and evangelicals and my family think he is a good husband.


What... is he one of those delusional evangelicals who uses that linear trinity theory to demand subordination?

22 comments:

  1. I hope Jane wears LOVABLE knickers.
    http://www.complementarityandculture.com/2010/09/not-so-loveable-sisters-aint-doin-it_16.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't see the point of the bit in bold, unless you're suggesting that this is the kind of submission Sydney Anglicans are proposing and supporting. If that's so, I think that says far more about your unwillingness to properly describe your opponents' beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anon. A practical application of how headship can attract personality types who have a need for power and control, and how the relationship eventually relies solely on the womans's ability to remain submissive until she is totally shattered psychologically. A classic case of abuse and often the woman is too scared or ashamed to tell anyone, particularly in certain circles. And don't tell me that this does not happen with Sydney Anglican relationships or aren't Sydney Anglicans human? God's headship is a little different to that of a human's because God does not present with behaviours. I suggest that relationships are supposed to teach us mutual love and respect, not dominance and subordination.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And don't tell me that this does not happen with Sydney Anglican relationships or aren't Sydney Anglicans human?

    It happens in all circles. But you're arguing that Sydney Anglicans PROMOTE the behaviour. Which you simply cannot substantiate. But then it appears that actually having a basis for your claims is not important to you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anglican Priest in SydneyFebruary 20, 2012 at 5:25 PM

    By promoting a view of both God and society which is intrinsically discriminatory (e.g. women, GLBT etc are deemed incapable of serving God in the high-status roles open to heterosexual tertiary-educated males) the Archbishop/Dean/Matthias Media and their followers are perpetuating the culture in which abuse and violence occur. They might not be advocating the crime, but they actively promote the framework in which it is fostered and flourishes.
    That this anonymous apologist is able to blithely state "It happens in all circles" while displaying an apparent ignorance of any of the research into "why" it occurs is in itself substantiation of your well-founded criticism, Calamity. That they continue by offensively asserting "having a basis for your claims is not important to you" - when the basis for the claims made by many here has obviously been written in the lives and deeply hurt hearts of those struggling with the harm caused by Sydney fundamentalists over a period of what often amounts to many decades - is just one more tragic proof of how far these teachers of the law have strayed from the Christ on whose behalf they profess to speak.

    ReplyDelete
  6. wow. talk about jumping the gun. Someone affirms what Jane says, that this abuse can happen anywhere, and you leap in to condemn them.

    How do you know it was said "blithely"? The prejudice is jarring.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anglican Priest in SydneyFebruary 20, 2012 at 9:53 PM

    No. You were dismissive and rude. Your response was patronising to the point of being objectionable, and your ignorance of this is a sad testament to the environment provoking the original post. Then compounding this by claiming your offensive allegation "affirms what Jane says" when you clearly stated your belief that she considers having a basis for her claims to be unimportant was just nasty. Nothing more, nothing less; no gun jumped: you were simply being nasty. Not clever, not intellectual, and certainly in no way Christlike. Just nasty.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh NO! Not Dobby again!

    ReplyDelete
  9. A new website has been written by a fundamentalist:

    http://davidould.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  10. and a fascinating link on that site. Interesting reading.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dobby you funny little fundie!!!
    I settle down to read the blogs at lunchtime after a faithful morning's duty in my parish (Do you remember what a parish is? It's that place in which you promised to serve when not stalking people who mock you on the internet.) only to find you upsetting Beloved Sinners foolish enough to believe that upholding systemic injustices actually promotes evil.

    And then, would you believe, someone has the nerve to call a fine upstanding young Pharisee like David Ould (name inserted purely for Google's benefit) "nasty" just because you were being nasty? Although I personally found your attempt to assert you were really affirming the person you were belittling delightful. Dishonest (but since you're a Jensenist I wouldn't expect anything else), but delightful.

    As for the Beloved Sinner from the land of Mordor daring to challenge you, I recommend you take immediate action to stop their dangerous criticism, especially if you'd like to someday be more than just a disreputable Deacon. I've heard blackmail is a tactic sometimes deployed against Anglican Christians - perhaps you have some experience of this?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Nah, it's involuntary delusion. He keeps imagining Dobby behind every email, comment and blog. Quite tragic really.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Perhaps, my house-elf, perhaps. Although in this case accurate.

    And if I'm wrong why have you never tried calling my bluff at GAFCON?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Tell you what, you give us your contact details and I'll phone you up whilst I'm posting a comment. Can't say fairer then that.

    ReplyDelete
  15. No Dobby. I asked you first, and dishonest deacons in failing dioceses don't tell me how to play.

    And as for obsessive, I'm not the one reading my own comments before breakfast.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Apart from the fact it's approaching late afternoon here, you're spot on.

    You're so up yourself, it's unbelievable.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Saying the Revd Dr Fr Troll is "up himself" is extremely rude, Dobby. You are being ungodly.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Miss Prude
    May I remind you that David Ould is Sydney Diocese's self-appointed moral watchdog. He tries to have clergy of whom he disapproves in Gippsland sacked. He writes to Bishop Graham Kings to set him against his boss, the Bishop of Salisbury, over the question of gay marriage. He writes on the immorality of scanty underwear. He is highly qualified to make moral pronouncements on other people's lives - and is annoyed when his readers don't obey him. David Ould is NOT TO BE CONTRADICTED!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Careful Father Troll. First David Ould was trying to hit on you by asking for your number. Now he's wanting to discuss getting up you. Next he will be lifting your luggage and sharing his brother Peter's wisdom in the ways of the prostate.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dobby my ugly little imp! Please forgive my delay in replying - things have been a hectic on account of a revisionist innovation called "Ash Wednesday" (which I realize you won't have heard of on account of it being a Christian occasion - think of it as something traditionally accorded the same respect by Anglicans as the members of your cult devote to conferences and Trinitarian heresy).

    Still, knowing how much you crave the attention of a reply to your nicely typed lies, I feel it's only charitable to indulge you - albeit belatedly so.

    Since one as Righteous and Doctrinally Orthodox as myself could never possibly irritate you, I can only concur with with Mr. Rekers above that your alluring anal allusion ("You're so up yourself, it's unbelievable.") was amorous in intent. However - and I know how much this will disappoint you - the beady-eyed dishonest look has never appealed to me, and you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that your longings will remain forever unrequited.

    Perhaps a little Sydney-sanctioned deliverance might help you overcome the heartache? After all, your good friend and colleague Hayden Sennitt is promulgating the values, theology, and practice of your Reformed Bible-based sect, isn't he?

    Isn't he?

    ReplyDelete
  21. I like older men. I have always found you immensely attractive, Mr Troll.

    ReplyDelete