J. Arthur Bloom · @j_arthur_bloom
26th Aug 2014 from TwitLonger
Since Ed Sebesta won't let me comment on his blog
(For background: http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2014/06/daily-caller-jordan-bloom-opinion.html)
Hi Ed,
Don't know how I missed this.
For the benefit of your handful of readers, my original remark, which you, were you an honest man, would have posted, stated that you are a "church-bullying piece of shit."
I stand by the characterization, and the pearl-clutching, schoolmarmish title of this blog post suggests to me that in your heart you know your actions -- asking denominations to intervene in congregational decisions about what groups have the right to meet on church property -- are wrong.
If the so-called neoconfederate movement is so beaten that its foes have taken to asking churches to deny the Sons of Confederate Veterans space to meet, a saner watchdog than yourself might be tempted to hang up his hat. But alas, your campaign against octogenarian Southern nostalgists remains undeterred!
What provoked my remark was your letter asking apostate bishop Jefferts-Schori of the Episcopal Church, which is by any reasonable estimation an adjunct of the Democratic Party, to usurp what is properly a congregational decision about what groups are allowed to meet in church spaces. Your letter comes on the heels of a largely successful campaign on behalf of the bishop, costing tens of millions of dollars, aimed at confiscating the property of congregations that have opted to leave the Episcopal Church rather than obey its slate of progressive priorities.
You are perfectly free to take issue with an individual church's decision to host one of these groups. But that is not what you have called for in your letter, which asks the Episcopal Church, writ large, to put a stop to this practice. This reflects a misunderstanding of what the Episcopal Church is -- or at least once was -- a misunderstanding sadly shared by the courts that have deprived congregations of their buildings.
You are stepping into a conflict related to the governance and spiritual direction of the church that is tearing it asunder, and asking the hierarchy to push its progressive agenda even further, with heretofore unforeseen centralization of power. Pursuing the course you suggest will only damage it further. I understand that does not matter to you, because you only care about the neoconfederate bogeymen you can scare up from under the bed, but many of us have different priorities.
I don't expect you to answer this, but if you for some reason deigned to do so, I should like you to address why you think these gatherings merit the sort of usurpation you propose. At any rate, please understand the debate you are self-righteously inserting yourself into.
You have criticized me for simply characterizing you and your campaign rather than offering an argument, so here is my attempt to give you one. But I do find your demand somewhat ironic, because tattletaling is also not an argument, merely an appeal to authority. And that is what you have done.
I am open to believing that you are neither a bullier of churches nor a piece of shit, but given the evidence at this time, I stand by my words. Persuade me otherwise.
Best regards,
J. Arthur Bloom