See here:
http://www.sevenwholedays.org/2010/02/06/church-militant/

Please tell me in what way it is inaccurate to say that Duncan has consigned me and every other Episcopalian to hell.

Peace,
Scott

But Duncan has never said anything close to that. In fact, you take what he did say about the ABC losing his office, meaning losing the centrality and gravitas of it among the Communion b/c he has not been clear and strong enough . . .you take that to be about eternal damnation and print a very misleading headline, along with the simply flat out inaccuracy of what you say Duncan said in your post to me.

As for Duncan, I think it’s neither gentle nor temperate to declare without reservation that a large number of people are consigned to eternal damnation. If you think it’s an ad hominem attack for me to point this out, then I’m not sure what else to say to you.

My general aim here is to write with a lightness because I think most of us take ourselves too seriously in the Church. I try to take it as I dish it out. My proverbial pen looks at progressives and conservatives alike. Lately I’ve been scrutinizing ACNA because they have perpetuated a false narrative to the world, especially to the Church of England on the eve of its vote re: the ACNA issue.

Pax,
Scott

And, of course, when the Primates warned ECUSA not to proceed in 2003 b/c such an action would ‘tear the sacramental unity of the church at a fundamental level’ which is a darn good working definition of schism, how is it that you persist in calling others schismatic?

And why do you blog? I would love for you to look closely at Duncan and see that he has never, to my knowledge, slammed anyone else, but has been temperate and gentle in a way, well, in a way others, on the other side of the aisle, and on his own side, have not.

From another blog:

“Our standards….are simple: We expect you to comment with Christian charity toward your fellow readers and to those whose causes are mentioned in the blog. This means that we will not permit comments which advocate physical or spiritual harm to an individual (i.e., wishing someone would soon “meet his maker” or burn in hell). Comments that include slanderous or abusive name-calling will be edited or deleted. You can disagree with someone’s point of view, but you cannot — to give one recent, extreme submission that got cut — call someone “a disobedient, self-willed sociopath.” Even milder forms of name-calling, such as questioning someone’s intelligence, likely will be excised.

And it goes without saying that foul language will not be permitted. Also, hyperlinks to outside Internet sites within a comment will only be allowed when judged to be crucial to the commenter’s point. Fine to call Duncan and others seccessionists

How can you meet these standards? Just stick to the issue being discussed and leave out the personalities. Back up your argument, telling why you disagree instead of saying that someone’s suggestion is stupid. Remember, Jesus had strong views, but he didn’t tear us down to illustrate his points or bring us salvation.”

Scott Gunn has posted a series of blog articles recently commenting on various matters relating to ACNA. Some examples: Putting the shoe on your foot “Church Militant” gets new meaning Duncan says Canterbury is “lost”……