Ah, you beat me to it. Yes, the blog is a complete 404 now.
Don't suppose anybody snagged any of the text of the article(s) before it went poof?
I did:
In Sylvia's Defense...
The only blog whose sole purpose is to defend the mission, message, and practices of a well-intentioned spiritual teacher, psychic Sylvia Browne. Because we're all allowed a fair trial.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Browne Lied, Delaware Died...
The whiners over at
www.stopsylviabrowne.com have started a war of complete partiality. I’ll be the first to admit it—it’s their right—but it is, at least in this country, also the right of the party of defense to, well, defend itself.
Hence, and welcome to, this blog. The only home on the web dedicated to the blogosphere-defense of psychic-medium Sylvia Browne.
I must also admit that I’m quite stunned by the near silence from the SBC (Sylvia Browne Corp.) crew, especially in light of the recent scathing—but poorly-reasoned—articles from the Stop Sylvia site; but one never knows what they’re really paying attention to—like actually helping their church congregation, instead of spending their free and valuable time justifying their religious beliefs, which, by the way, no other governmentally-recognized religion has to do.
To begin, we’ll take issue with the latest article posted by the Stop Sylvia site, about the closing of the Delaware church. You can find that posting here, and I encourage you to read this laughable example of church “corruption.” I’m assuming—benefiting my doubt of the IQ average for the contributors at SSB—that it was a slow day and that, due to the near dearth of articles going up in May over there, they had to post something before their readership disappeared.
Moving on.
What we know is that Reverend Nancy Williams, who headed the fine Delaware Gnostic community, resigned in April 2007. The reverend even composed a moving letter to the board and clergy of the organization, outlining her reasons for resigning—none of which chided Novus Spiritus (the religious institution founded by Sylvia). In fact, Williams’ epistle was so complimentary that she even bent over backwards to show her gratitude to Sylvia—the person allegedly at the forefront of the “controlling” organization.
Williams’ panegyric for Sylvia included the following:
Sylvia, I will forever cherish what I have learned through your teachings as well as your kindness on those occasions when we’ve had personal conversations. You brought closure to me in 1987 when I finally understood the meaning for my husband’s sudden death. And I will be forever grateful for your support as well as your words to me about my grandson TJ and his health as he is the most precious person in my life.
This doesn’t sound like someone disenfranchised or under strict control; and it certainly doesn’t sound like someone embittered by Novus or its board—who, for God’s sake, actually attempt to maintain some type of order in the church. In this same vein comes one of my favorite lines in the article, which cites this example as one of the autocratic “demands” of the church:
“The board chastised Williams for preaching a sermon based on a book written by someone other than Sylvia Browne.”
Okay, let’s get something straight SSB: Novus is a religion; religions have rules, beliefs, creeds—and especially scripture. Which I don’t understand. I mean, why not let your clergy run around teaching tenets from the Bhagavadgita or the Qur’an, without proper authorization. Who cares, really, what gets spewed from the pulpit, right? I can definitely see the Pope allowing bishops to preach from the King James Bible whenever they want.
Maybe Williams’ intentions were good, and maybe there was nothing out of line with what she taught that day, but as a member of clergy, she must work within the canon of Novus Spiritus. And if her congregation—or more likely the folks over at SSB—can’t get that, maybe they should consider laying down the pen and going back to school.
If Novus didn’t authorize certain texts and require authorization before preaching on other pieces of literature, then what would separate their Gnostic organization from Roman Catholicism or Buddhism, or Paganism, or—well, you get the picture.
This is nothing but pure, demagogic whingeing from the opposition, who, I’ll assume, is just one good atheist short of a smart society of their own.
Regarding the other unreasonable examples of Lancaster’s fine reasoning are the following: that (1) Novus required 10% of the “Sunday collections [be sent] back to headquarters, despite the fact that those donations barely covered the cost of renting the hall where the services were held (and sometimes didn’t cover that….)” and (2) “[t]he board chastised Williams for having preached a sermon without wearing her official SNS robes.”
Let’s take these dense arguments one at a time so we don’t lose ourselves in their convoluted and tortuous logic: regarding the presumptive allegation that Novus would require such a small amount of tithes (if that’s really what you want to call it—Novus has always had as its policy the “give what you can; take what you need” approach, so that those in financial hardship can obtain some provisions in emergency situations), 10% is an infinitely small amount to ask of a satellite, and, in even greater “evidence,” from someone claiming to be so scientifically- and evidentiary-grounded, Lancaster got his information admittedly from “one member of the Delaware church,” using as his preface the trusting words, “I have been told…”
So let’s put this one together: “I have been told…by one member of the Delaware church…[X,Y,Z]….” Not from Reverend Nancy Williams; not from a financial statement that would offer up proof—but by somebody, somewhere in “Delaware.” I’ll just leave this one to your imagination and offer you the best advice of the night: at SSB, “Delaware” is likely code for “I made this up.”
And regarding number two, which states that Williams was chided for preaching without her clerical robes, all I have to say is that I’m surprised she was allowed to continue preaching after that. Oh yes, I can easily imagine a bishop in the Catholic Church being allowed to preside over Mass while in his Levi 401s with matching Mickey Mouse t-shirt to boot. In most cases, not only would she have been suspended from serving her honorary function as minister, she may have even been dismissed outright.
But Novus is unreasonable and controlling.
Right….
In closing, I’ll just iterate (while performing cartwheels, if that’ll help you remember this) that any organization—not least religious organizations—have dissension as part of their makeup. We didn’t get the Catholic empire or tranquil Islam (whose dissenters are prone to blowing themselves up and flying into buildings to prove their point, with which Mohammed would almost certainly disagree) without differences of opinion.
So let’s pull up our pants and be okay with a little tussle now and then. It’s good for the sturdiness of the church and, dare I say it, reason.
We’ll tackle the other nonsensical articles at SSB as we go, but this is a good start.
Posted by Equal Apologist at 12:44 AM Links to this post
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom) About Me
Equal Apologist
View my complete profile
Blog Archive
? 2007 (1)
? June (1)
Browne Lied, Delaware Died...
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Canada Leaves—Whew! I Thought They Never Would.
Here we go again at the Stop Sylvia site: the Canadian branch of Novus Spiritus decides to go indie, and, much like the Delaware congregation, they claim they had “drastic concerns” with the direction of Novus. Funny how they never specifically state what these “drastic concerns” are. They throw around phrases like “philosophical and operational differences” and “inconsistencies between the Novus mission as…originally brought forth by Francine and Raheim,” but they don’t inform the reader of just what those differences and inconsistencies are. They do, however, come across like new-age halfwits. So much the better, in this case, that they go.
Of course, the most priceless piece in this article, which can be found here, is the shocking agreement of the former SNS ministers with Cardinal Darren English—and then their complete contradiction to it. The authors of the letter cite the Cardinal’s following, perceptive sentiments as their outgoing battle cry:
We agree with Cardinal Darren English when he says in this month’s newsletter, “Seeking after truth is wonderful—but what do we do with the information and knowledge once we’ve gained it? We’re not just seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Collecting facts and information and not doing anything with it is useless.”
And then they did just that—collected all the information and knowledge of Novus after years of painstaking study and, now departed in “everlasting separation,” (spare me the drama, please) they’re doing nothing with it. Great thinking, and way to score big on your logic test, quislings! You’re supposed to put your knowledge to use, not quit when it gets tough. Remember? You just argued that.
According to the five traitors who signed the letter, they “considered many important questions in [their] efforts to satisfy [their] fiduciary, ministerial, and spiritual duties,” while three “particularly pertinent questions” were considered. They are, in no hierarchically intellectual order (since, of course, there is no intelligence offered up by these five have-beens), the following:
Should a “people’s church” allow flexibility in order to adapt to each local congregation’s dynamics?
Before I can answer this twaddly question, I have to ask what does “people’s church” mean? What does the former congregation mean by “flexibility”? And what do they mean by the “dynamics” of each local congregation?
Since we can’t possibly conclude what any of these means, as these vague terms have been left conveniently undefined, we can’t answer the question. And why? Because there is no question, really. It’s just fluff that is supposed to appeal to the common parishioners and crybaby anti-Sylvia buffs around the planet.
But I’ll give it my best shot, anyway, to humor them: Novus is not a people’s church; it is a church of God for the people. This does not mean that the people run it. Like all other churches who have any solid organization about them, Novus is run by its officials. This would be the board and the head, Sylvia. And no, Novus should not adapt to each local congregation’s dynamics if their dynamics stray too far from the tenets of the church. Let me give you an example, in case you’re hard of understanding: A Lutheran church set up in a heavily Mormon area of, oh, let’s say Utah, should not allow its congregants to practice polygamy just because some among the extremists think it’s okay. Got it? Good.
Next question.
Should a “people’s church” maintain a dogmatic hierarchy that perpetuates a separation between it’s Ministry and it’s congregations?
(And yes, I left the contractional “it’s” in the question—both times. I only hope it was a punctuation error when Lancaster copied the letter’s contents. Oy vey.)
I won’t waste your time about the people’s church thing, as I’m sure you already understand its meaninglessness, but to suggest that Novus has a “dogmatic hierarchy” that perpetuates a separation between the ministry and the congregation is nothing but complimentary. And I thank you. God help us when the laity runs any church—when it would cease to be a church (which, somber intellectuals, is run by God if it’s worth its salt). And now I hear the opposition again: “Well, Sylvia and the board aren’t God!” Too true! But they are the ones directly responsible to Him if things go wrong with the conduct of the church. I’d hate for that burden to fall to the yellow Canadians now lighting incense, holding hands and writing world peace songs together in their dirty little Canadian apartments. “Kumbaya, my Lord, Kumbaya….”
And on we go.
Should the Ministry and the congregations of Novus Spiritus be restricted to the exclusive use of Sylvia Browne’s material at church? Is this really any different from other churches that prohibit sources other than their particular Bible?
God in heaven, give me something difficult to work with tonight. YES you should be restricted! While it’s true that Novus has attempted in many ways to be different from other, more conservative religious institutions (and they’ve succeeded—they’re pro-gay marriage and pro-choice, for example. Find me another Christian church that progressive.), they never formally decided to part ways with common sense. I covered this in the article titled “Browne Lied, Delaware Died…”; a church must have its scripture. Any other material not within the official canonical writings of the institution should be sanctioned, and permission sought after, before it is preached on (alright, I’m done ending my prepositional phrases with prepositions). I’m not touching this obvious one again. If you don’t get this, please—please—leave the church forthwith!
Regarding the various money concerns these ministers had with Novus, please alert me to who, in the entire organizations of Sylvia Browne Corp. and Novus Spiritus—besides Sylvia—is earning any money. Um…time’s up. Nobody. And this is how you treat your chairwoman? Please, contribute something—anything! Maybe Sylvia—who’s now 70 and works harder than she ever has—could retire if you did.
While you considered “many important questions” in your efforts to satisfy your “fiduciary, ministerial, and spiritual duties,” you forgot one: to minister to your congregation! Instead, when things got tough, you threw in the towel and departed. Imagine if Sylvia and the rest of the fine ministers had done the same during times of difficulty.
What creates a strong institution is order, hierarchy, and commitment. What maintains a strong institution is getting rid of the moles who lurk there in the night. In this case, the Canada branch goes. And because of this, Novus goes on.
Posted by Equal Apologist at 1:47 AM Links to this post
Preaching to the choir, then. Shouldn't it be the skeptics he's targeting?