Wednesday, 21 October 2009

Why would anyone think them arrogant & patronising?

Courtesy of David Ould:

“One interesting factor will be to see how much noise the small number of Liberal Catholic attendees will make. They are normally vocal in all forms of opposition. Personally, I think that would be a bad move, much like the boy who cried wolf too many times. However, if they were to simply sit silently and let the evangelicals make the noise I suspect they would be able to mount a more substantial argument that unhappiness in the Diocese is spread amongst a larger constituency that (sic) the usual perception of a small group of malcontents.”
Right. So those of us opposed to incompetence, dishonesty, and a complete disregard for the Jesus of Scripture should just shut up and let the bullies speak on our behalf. Without ever presuming to question those who know better.

Just like women should behave in church, hey David?

Incidentally, many of those “Liberal Catholic” (most of whom are in reality neither – but Sydney apologists aren’t renowned for letting facts get in the way when calling people names) attendees come from some of the most successful parishes in the diocese. Churches which have easily achieved the targets for growth set by the Archbishop a few years back; targets rarely mentioned now that the majority of Jensen-sanctioned congregations have spectacularly failed to meet them. Nor are these growing parishes facing the loss of clergy and programs as a result of diocesan irresponsibility, since they were never deemed worthy of receiving handouts in the first place.

42 comments:

Anonymous said...

I note that your first paragraph bears no relation to the argument you cite from Mr Ould.

Might be better to read him first.

Lapinbizarre said...

Could we be witnessing the hubris, atë, nemesis progression?

Why does Mr Ould persist in posting as "Anonymous"?

Anonymous said...

Is David Ould Peter Jensen's love child?

Alcibiades said...

Oh really, Anonymous #1? And that's the best comment you can make? You guys (why can I guarantee you're male?) must be more rattled than I'd thought if that's all you're able to come back with.

Meanwhile, Anonymous #2, I'm not sure "love" plays much part in that particular equation ;-)

Anonymous said...

well there's irony. I (#1) am a woman who regularly worships at Christ Church St Laurence.

I was just struck by the bitterness in your post and how your comment didn't actually match up to what Mr (is it Rev?) Ould wrote.

I'm now trying to understand why you linked to him when you didn't interact with what he had to say.

We have a hard enough time in this diocese without shooting ourselves in the foot by posting this sort of bitter horrible stuff.

If you want to have a good whine then go ahead, but don't pretend that you represent all of us who don't agree with ArchBishop Jensen - I don't want to be associated with this sort of nastyness.

Alcibiades said...

Sorry "madam" - but I've got serious problems believing you're who you claim to be. Feel free to contact me privately and prove otherwise... but nobody's going to be holding their breath and waiting.

In the meantime how about you answer just two simple questions:

(1)What's "bitter and horrible" about saying it's time to speak out - as opposed to continuing in silence - when confronted by the blasphemy of dishonesty and injustice being perpetuated in the name of Christ?

(2)How many hurt and rejected gay kids have you buried?

Anonymous said...

I have noticed that the name Ould elicits 2 reponses in people. One is that it creates great agnst, animosity and hurt, and the other causes a whole heap of people to jump in and defend the name. I'm beginning to think that the word Ould polarises the Anglican community. What is it about this name that produces such a dischord?
I've noticed this on many occasions and over a long period of time. It seems like the word Ould has been linked with betrayal and manipulation. Like something out of a Shakespear. Does the Sydney Diocese utilise the word Ould to create such a divide? Divide and rule that is? Jensen doesn't even evoke the same response.
Anonymous 2

Robert said...

Great to hear your voice speaking out again. Anonymous people must just be ashamed of what they have to say.

Alcibiades said...

Thanks for that Robert - the support of people like you from the world beyond here is very much appreciated.

Sadly in this diocese anonymity is sometimes neccesary if you'd like to keep your job, or keep attending the church in which you grew up, or which your friends attend.

On a funnier note, I've just been looking at the stats and noticed someone's been visiting here via an anonymizer service: I wonder how they're going to explain "hidemyass.com" when it shows up on their Covenant Eyes report... "oh - that was just when I was hiding my identy so as to rebuke the guy who says it's wrong to stupidly waste church funds?"

Revd Ivan Ackeroff said...

It isn't possible to interact sensibly with an Ould. They will tolerate dissent for so long and then threaten you with a libel writ in every jurisdiction on earth. It's a Jensenite tactic. Lapinbizarre is quite correct. Dobby Ould calls himself "anon" when it suits him.

Alcibiades said...

FWIW the anonymized visits didn't occur until after Lapin's comment...

Although I've got to admit: impersonating a female Anglo-Catholic who's a fan of the Sydney leadership (yeah right: Christ Church is simply packed with those. Not.) would stand as a pretty interesting development in the world of conservative spin.

Revd Ivan Ackeroff said...

The FIRST anonymous comment precedes the one from Lapin. It's presumably from Dobby Ould. It's what he does.

Anonymous said...

Sadly in this diocese anonymity is sometimes neccesary if you'd like to keep your job, or keep attending the church in which you grew up, or which your friends attend.

Or if you are wary of the people who write these kind of blogs, complain about others, but are pretty nasty themselves.

Good reason to remain anonymous, I would have thought.

Revd Ivan Ackeroff said...

See. There goes Dobby, again!

Alcibiades said...

Didn't think you'd try answering my questions "Ms." Anonymous #1. So as what well may be an exercise in futility, I’ll ask you one more: How ‘nice’ was Jesus when it came to the Pharisees?

***

Meanwhile I think your & Lapin's case just got a whole lot stronger, Fr. Ackeroff. By way of clarification, after Lapin's comment someone started coming here via hidemyass.com - presumably so their IP adress wouldn't be seen. And yes, they just arrived again through that route - at the same time "Ms." Anonymous #1 sent "her" last biting riposte. Which was undoubtedly purely coincidence...

The Rev. Dr. Christian Troll said...

I wonder if Dobby often impersonates women when online?

The other evening I was chatting to a delightful young lady from his part of the world on hotbibletalk.com when it suddenly occurred to me she sounded eerily familiar...

Anonymous said...

I have to confess it was me, Dr Troll. Ever since I saw your picture on the GAFCON site I got the 'hots' for you. I am a married woman, but I still adore you. My twin sister is a post-lesbian. She, too, longs to hold you in her bosom.
Love, Dobbietta

Lapinbizarre said...

Your sleuthing seems to have put a damper on "Anonymous". Has Fr Ackeroff done any back-checking on the IP address from which this multifaceted individual made posts to his blog?

Alcibiades said...

Yes Lapin - I've also noticed (with some amusement) Anonymous #1's sudden disappearance.

Even more amusing has been the notion of a woman from one of Sydney's most Anglo-Catholic and famously inclusive parishes taking the trouble to complain, not because of what I'd said about our Archbishop (whom I still maintain has been irresponsible and dishonest), but because I refuse to engage into a syllogistic debate with someone who claims the best thing those of us who disagree with the regime can do is "simply sit silently".

Mind you, as I've already said, she's welcome to identify herself and I'll be only to happy to repent of doubts concerning 'her' identity. Or, since we'll be attending Christ Church in the coming week, she can as a "regular worshipper" there come up and say hello, whereupon I'll profusely apologise in person. After which she can still try answering my 3 questions...

Lapinbizarre said...

Something almost endearing about the total cluelessness, isn't there?

Lapinbizarre said...

Ould's now playing the paranoia "persecuting Jensen" card for all it's worth over at Stand Firm.

Anonymous said...

David Ould, isn't it possible that Archbishop Jensen's decision making could have been poor in hindsight? Isn't the loss of $160 million a concern and more importantly isn't Jensen's decision, to align the Sydney Diocese with extremism which directly affects the lives of GLBT people in Uganda, a cause for concern? David Ould, do you write evangelical resources and are you talking from your hip pocket because I cannot understand your thinking. David Ould if you are reading this, please realise that I, like many others are genuinely concerned about human beings being persecuted because people like Peter Jensen say that they know how to read the Bible and everyone else doesn't. You can read the Bible however you want. No one is asking you to be involved in a same - sex relationship, however your personal belief system and that of your fellow calvinists in my opinion, should not be forced onto others and particularly political regimes. David, people's lives are at stake. David why can God judge GLBT people through the bigotry of Christians yet the Sydney Diocese's can discount the loss of money as being God's wrath.
Are you living under a regime like those in Uganda and Nigeria?
I would have hoped that the Archbishop would have reflected upon his decisions and perhaps considered that he may be fallible. Otherwise the Sydney Diocese has a very dangerous man at it's helm (instead of his right hand man).
Anonymous 2

Alcibiades said...

Anonymous #2: Well said, and thank you for saying it here.

He'll read your words, but I doubt he'll be able to respond in any meaningful way for a few years. When the system spits him out - and it will; those as outspoken and ambitious as he is rarely survive without extensive family connections - he might well then be in a position to consider them more carefully.

Lapinbizarre: Positions for Assistant Ministers ("Curate" is considered too unreformed a term here) are going to be in exceedingly short supply with the collapse of funding, so I predict he'll be pulling out all stops in an effort to ensure he remains employed.

Ever since reading his blatant lie that Anglo-Catholic parishes (not forgetting that here that term is frequently applied to those parishes who robe for all - or even just most - services, and who insist upon using such unreformed liturgies as those of the BCP: places which would hardly be considered Catholic anywhere else in the world) "have little problem getting Rectors licensed" a few weeks ago I began bracing myself for a torrent of personality-cult posts in defence of the Jensen family.

I predict they'll get progressively funnier as things become more desperate.

Brian R said...

It is almost impossible now for a "high church" parish to appoint a rector who has not spent at least one year in training at Moore College. St Mark's Granville has been vacant for a year. St James, King Street will be vacant by the end of November. Let us see what happens.

stubborn facts said...

on the contrary. Both St Peter's Cremorne and St Luke's Mosman got exactly the rectors they wanted in the past 12 months.

Brian R, your allegation is refuted by the facts on the ground.

Alcibiades said...

"exactly the rectors they wanted in the past 12 months"??

What - you're now claiming their first choice was excepted on both occasions? And that the Rector of St. Peter's is a woman?

You may indeed be "stubborn", but I'm not so sure about the "facts" part of your new nom-de-web. Or is this just more spin?

stubborn facts said...

wow, you people really don't like Ould, do you? What happened to "love your enemies"? Shouldn't you be investing your time on slightly bigger targets?

Sorry to disappoint on Cremorne. I know one of the wardens who told me a while ago they were delighted with the choice. They gave no indication of any problems from the diocese whatsoever. Obviously that's not what you want to hear.

Alcibiades said...

I didn't say they weren't delighted with the person who was ultimately appointed. I suggested that person wasn't their first choice - and if you really do know one of the wardens at St. Peter's I would have expected you to know that.

Nor have I ever said I don't like David Ould. In person he's a warm and hospitable man (providing, I dare say, you're not a gay couple) who sincerely wants to serve God (why do I find something wierd about having this conversation in the third person? ;-) and when he moves beyond his current fascination with the Sydney machine and its powerbrokers he'll one day be a very fine Priest). But I don't like people telling lies in an effort to defend the indefensible, and pretending to believe his spin isn't going to help him anymore than it helps anybody else.

For somone so concerned about people not reading what others say you're not very good at practicing what you preach, are you?

stubborn facts said...

well, if they were upset with not having a woman they gave no indication at all of it. Perhaps you are more concerned about that issue than they are?

I don't know David myself, but I have read his website which you link to. I don't see any anger there or, to be honest, any reason to believe he'd treat a gay couple any differently to anyone else. Nor do I understand why you tie his "fascination with the Sydney machine and its powerbrokers" with his ability to carry out his role as priest. Obviously, having met him, you've seen something in his character that the rest of us can't see in his writing. What was it, exactly?

I ask because this thread just looks like an exercise in beating up on him. There must be a reason. He doesn't write about you on his website so I'm assuming that he must have done something to you privately.

Alcibiades said...

And you've suddenly felt the need to introduce the subject of gender because??

Nor does it appear you've read David's site too closely, or I doubt you'd be claiming you can't see "any reason to believe he'd treat a gay couple any differently to anyone else". Or are you next going to suggest that he'd be happy to bless same-sex relationships as he would heterosexual ones? Given you're apparent lack of a problem with any other of the mistruths currently being spouted in defence of Sydney that wouldn't be surprising...

As for the rest of your comment - read what I've already said: he's a warm and hospitable man with the potential to one day be a great Priest, but at present he's prone to making some very silly remarks about those whom he admires and wants to impress. I'm not sure I understand why do keep feeling the urge to think I'm say something I'm not.

Why don't you simply get in touch with him and form your own opinion? And why is what I think about him so important to you?

stubborn facts said...

I was directed here by a friend from Melbourne. They suggested I might be interested in the conversation because I have an interest in this kind of thing being in Sydney Anglican churches myself.

It like you have an unhealthy obsession with this one individual.

As the first comment says, your initial post bore no relationship to the argument the Ould made and from there it just turned into a mudslinging competition.

Perhaps some might say about you, "he's nice, providing, I dare say, you're not a Sydney evangelical". You seem to have it in for Ould in particular and I struggle to understand why. You say he's a nice man and then you stick the knife in. You disagree with him - I understand that. I just don't understand the unpleasant tone.

Perhaps it makes sense to you.

Anonymous said...

Dear Stubborn Facts
I don't know about Alcibiades but I have real problems with David Ould providing surveillance for certain members of the Anglican Church League, for the sole purpose of empowering extreme right wing US evangelicals and their world wide connections. He is entitled to interpret the Bible however he wants but to ridicule fellow Anglicans for daring to CARE about others who interpret the Bible in a social context, is very damaging to those people who need advocacy. If a Christian can't advocate for the oppressed then what's the good of Christianity?
Australia does not need this type of Christian fundamentalism, nor does it need to align itself with the same. This rigid thinking destroys people. The joke is that it will inevitability destroy Christianity because it's this type of Christian thinking that is causing Atheism to rise. People are looking at the hypocrisy of Evangelical fundamentalism and blaming it on Jesus, instead of misguided Christians. Even the US Republican party wants to separate itself from the Religious Right. Australia in part has not experienced the damage of having the Religious Right divide the community by spreading hatred and bigotry (with the exception of some individuals like Fred Nile and Phillip Jensen)and Sydney needs to remain diligent. David Ould presents as the person who is used by the Sydney Diocese management, to check up on fellow Anglicans. Of course, behaviour like this will cause dissention but I think The Sydney Diocese management wants dissention because that's their way of maintaining control.It's how cults work. Just my opinion.
Anonymous 2

stubborn facts said...

thanks for writing, anon2.

You say "He (David) is entitled to interpret the Bible however he wants but to ridicule fellow Anglicans for daring to CARE about others who interpret the Bible in a social context"

As I said to Alcibiades, I have been to Ould's website but I don't see him ridiculing anyone. I see him disagree but what have I missed? Can you provide a link to him ridiculing fellow Anglicans?

Alcibiades said...

You're very elusive when it comes to answering questions, aren't you "stubborn facts"?

In fact your style and mannerisms can't help but remind me of some of the other folk who've recently posted here - both anonymously and otherwise. All of whom by some strange coincidence just happen to be obsessed with convincing themselves I’m running some kind of vendetta against a person whom I've mentioned in about three posts out of the almost 200 here. Hmmmmmmm…

Even more astonishingly, all of you just happen to share the same ISP (free anonymizers block IP addresses, but not the ISP through which the request has been transmitted – something Anonymous #1 didn’t seem to realise). But the strangest coincidence of all is this: you’re all using the same ISP David Ould was using back in June of this year, when he last began compulsively commenting here.

Isn’t the world an amazing place?

stubborn facts said...

I use people telecom. I picked up the hidemyass anonymiser from your recommendation earlier in the thread. I haven't made any attempt to pretend otherwise although I appreciate your excitement about a conspiracy. Apparently a lot of people in this discussion want to keep their identity hidden.

Lapinbizarre said...

"...you just happen to share the same ISP". Turning the other cheek, in action. You've certainly caught someone's attention - wonder whose? FWIW Stand Firm is not much interested in Ould's latest Jensen whine. Just nine responses. Not exactly red meat.

Revd Ivan Ackeroff said...

It is a tactic often used by right-wing extremists to accuse those with whom they disagree of being "nasty". Dobby Ould, as an extremist, British Tory Boy is essentially a figure of fun to many in the blogosphere. As a self-appointed spokesman for the Australian and US Christian Right, his writings are often reproduced on the American "Stand Firm in Faith" website, which spends much of its time "ridiculing" its opponents. e.g. Dobby has called for the resignation of the archbishop of Canterbury, and once wrote to the archbishop of Melbourne to demand the Dean of Perth be sacked! Many of us prefer not to engage in 'debate' with Dobby, as that would confer upon his extreme views a credibility they don't merit. Essentially, he is a young curate who has an over-blown sense of his own importance. That is what many Anglicans find incredibly funny.

Alcibiades said...

Riiiiiiggggghhhhhhhtttttt “stubborn facts”…. it’s all just a very funny coincidence. But one which you were certainly very quick to try and redress, isn’t i?

You're welcome to be anonymous here, anyone is. I've lived in Sydney Diocese a lot longer than you, so that doesn't faze me. You're even welcome to pretend you're an Anglo-Catholic woman if that's what you're into, although you've got to understand that if you also use that persona to justify a very silly argument others will call your bluff.

What really interests me is why you’re so interested by my few references to someone whom you claim to have never met. You’ve ignored everything that’s been said to you here except in so far as it pertains to what you think has been said about one man; despite him being mentioned in only a tiny percentage of the things I’ve written. You’ve ignored everything Anonymous #2 said except in so far as it relates to that same person, and ignoring Brian’s reference to St. Mark’s Granville you responded by misleadingly citing two parishes which just happen to adjoin that of the same person with whom you’re clearly more than a little fascinated. And you share that person’s ISP. Ok… what conclusions do you think might be drawn from that?

Since you’ve admitted to being the person to whom I originally addressed three questions how about you now try answering them? Doing so might help you understand why some of us found the quote I originally cited so deeply offensive.

The Rev. Dr. Christian Troll said...

Personally I find Dobby at his most arousing when he's impersonating a woman, preferably while simultaneously miming something by Barbra Streisand. Although his lycra Boy Scout uniform is also enchanting, and the video I have of him performing in a tutu on figure skates is one I'll cherish forever.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Fr Ackeroff. You outlined my concerns re David Ould's comments on "Stand Firm" Is pedantic bantering a form of ridicule or just an inability to comprehend the total meaning of a piece of writing?
I always thought that compassion and empathy were integral parts of Christianity; both of which have no moral absolutes. That is why I'm amazed when the Bible is reduced to a literial word study.
Anonomyous 2

Wormwood's Doxy said...

Alcibiades---It's nice to see my decision to ban anonymous commenters from my blog confirmed.

IMNSHO, if you can't sign SOME kind of name and give a contact e-mail, then you really have no integrity and ought to keep your mouth shut.

And I really don't care if your job is at risk. That just confirms that you value your position more than you value the Gospel or justice. Cue Martin Niemoller...

Doxy

Alcibiades said...

["Brad Evans" comment deleted on grounds of boredom, narcissism and objectionable innuendo]

Ever thought you might really need to get out more Brad? Or at least become a little more perceptive before launching into your usual rant?