March 23, 2017

September 4, 2013


It’s a girl!

Remember the vibrant lapel buttons, the thrilling cry as The Episcopal Church elected its first female Presiding Bishop?

The one whose inner circle just grabbed the United Thank Offering away from The Episcopal Church Women after 125 years of effective fund raising and grants for church work?

 

 


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

36 comments

The “whoosh” that you hear is the sound of Schori’s vacuum cleaner sucking up the UTO’s money.  Nice going, Kate!  You must be desperate.

[1] Posted by cennydd13 on 9-4-2013 at 10:47 PM · [top]

Tim Fountain. 

This is just one of the meanest things I’ve seen from you.

It’s just awful.  And divisive.

You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself!

:envy:

[2] Posted by Sarah on 9-4-2013 at 11:35 PM · [top]

There’s a lesson here for all of us.  One of my job responsibilities is to work on legal contracts between our IT department and vendors.

If the vendor is untrustworthy, YOU DON’T DO A CONTRACT WITH THEM!  EVER!

Why?  Because no legal agreement can really save you from a lawless vendor…and no amount of Canons or Bylaws or whatever can save the folks in TEC from a lawless, cheating, no-good, evil band of Un-Christian leaders. 

Or POTUS for that matter…

[3] Posted by B. Hunter on 9-5-2013 at 03:26 AM · [top]

She’s done in 2015, right?  I can’t see anyone possibly being worse, but, of course, since I left TEo I haven’t kept up on the banality of evil roster that populates the purple shirts these days.

[4] Posted by Bill2 on 9-5-2013 at 07:04 AM · [top]

Tim+,
I think this article will move you up on the “I’m going to get you, and your little dog, too” list that is maintained in the penthouse at 815.  You are now right behind Ephriam Radner+ and Chris Seitz+.  Remember, melts with water.  I recommend Diocese of Quincy holy water.

You need to get hold of some of the defenses of this action being offered by TEC leadership.  This will increase transparency?  Well, in the sense that where there used to be a stack of money, it will no longer be blocking the view, I suppose it will.

Bill2- KJS can succeed herself- there is no canonical impediment.  I checked that out with the Curmudgeon, so I am sure.  In any case, would you really prefer Ian Douglas, or Mary Glasspool?

[5] Posted by tjmcmahon on 9-5-2013 at 07:19 AM · [top]

Bill2, Ian Douglas fancies himself An Intellect.

So we’ll have to put up with the same dreadful theology, only full of all sorts of pedantry and academic name-dropping.

At least with KJS we don’t have to put up with “as I was saying to my dear friend NT Wright the other day, St. Paul’s Freudian envy of the giftedness of that spirit-led child is surely displayed by God-self’s indication in the . . . and of course, NT heartily agreed . . .”

[6] Posted by Sarah on 9-5-2013 at 07:37 AM · [top]

What a girl!

The United Offering (now the United Thank Offering) began at the General Convention of 1889 and when UTO celebrated its Centennial Anniversary, the funds available for granting topped three million dollars.

And she handed the newborn baby over to +Stacy Sauls to be its wet nurse!

You’ve come a long way baby!

[7] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 9-5-2013 at 08:14 AM · [top]

Tsk, #5. Some years ago, when I suggested that only minimal Photoshopping (green face, pointy black hat) would make the PB look like Margaret Hamilton in the Wizard of Oz, I got severely taken to task by the bloggers.

Then, when I started making references to pre-WWII Germany, I really got it.

[gloat] I hate it when I’m right. [/gloat]

Remember, Follow the Money Trail.™

The lawyers must be fed. They have to keep up payments on their Bentleys. Though, by now, they should be able to pay cash.

[8] Posted by Ralph on 9-5-2013 at 08:54 AM · [top]

Sarah, that Ian Douglas impersonation is positively breathtaking! You’re the highlight of my Thursday!

[9] Posted by polycarp on 9-5-2013 at 09:00 AM · [top]

Upset that it looks like she will lose in South Carolina, and still stinging from the decision of the Supreme Court in Texas, she needed to take something from someone.

(Was that too mean for the Comment Policy?)

[10] Posted by observer145 on 9-5-2013 at 09:09 AM · [top]

No, it isn’t.  It tells the truth.

[11] Posted by cennydd13 on 9-5-2013 at 09:19 AM · [top]

Sarah, the nice thing about academics as bishops is that they never really like to decide anything.  If a decision is reached they cannot continue to discuss the issue from an intellectual standpoint.  Had a true academic been the presiding bishop for the last 7 years, we would have a number of groups to study the possibility of lawsuits against departing congregations and dioceses.  We would have study groups on SSBs, but nothing so decisive as a trial liturgy.  We might have ten or more liturgies proposed for study and discussion.  The new Title 4 would never have passed.  We might be studying other possible disciplinary canons for the Episcopal Church.  We would, of course commission reports, and commend them to be studied and discussed in every parish, but that would be the sum total of any action taken by an academic presiding bishop.  I would gladly take the name dropping if it meant that no more decisions would ever be made by General Convention, 815 leadership etc.  I can ignore academics.  I ignored Rowan Williams for years.

[12] Posted by observer145 on 9-5-2013 at 09:27 AM · [top]

Polycarp, thank you.

People have always hated KJS but I’ve always thought her a breath of fresh air, personally, and never believed that she was the source of the problems with TEC.  The problems with TEC are deeply embedded in its leadership spread all around the entire church, from GC deputies to bishops to clergy.

KJS was ham-handed, but honest.  She is brutal and jack-booted, but I much prefer that to the smoother rhetoric of a Frank Griswold who was just as pagan and heretical, and far craftier.

KJS has been simply, blunt, and bludgeoningly crude, and I appreciate that about her.  Ian Douglas will be insufferable, engaging in all sorts of purportedly-academic tripe that says pretty much the same twaddle as KJS anyway, but we’ll have to endure all the oily pedantry and scholar-names and smugness along with it.  Not to mention that the actually conservative/traditional scholars with have to “engage” on the faux academic level as well with the result that whole new blogs of “academic prose” and foppery will be spawned as a result, while they all turgidly process and analyze his tripe.

KJS will look like heaven this time five years from now.

[13] Posted by Sarah on 9-5-2013 at 09:30 AM · [top]

Now see, observer145, you’re assuming that an Ian Douglas isn’t bubbling over with the same rage and malevolence as KJS.

I don’t.

I just think he can choose a different mask to cover it, while KJS never had that luxury.

There’s no reason why a purported-faux-academic type can’t take spiteful action, while at the same time issuing lengthy tomes filled with “scholarly engagement” and name-dropping too.

[14] Posted by Sarah on 9-5-2013 at 09:33 AM · [top]

I’m sure we’d all prefer it if Ian Douglas would confine himself to writing his rousing space marine books. As far as predicting who will be the next Presiding Bishop, I like Cris Johnson’s suggestion of having an empty coke bottle. It would satisfy all of the modern requirements for the position.

[15] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 9-5-2013 at 11:48 AM · [top]

Does anyone know the back story?  This action will certainly dry up the UTO income, so TEC must have had a strong motivation.  Some possibilities (strawman suggestions, as I have no insight into this part of TEC):
  - was it just a desire to bring more income into TEC, money that is currently “wasted” by going into true church initiatives such as missions?  But: if they wanted to maintain the income and redirect it into general coffers, wouldn’t they have been more careful to not offend the fundraisers?
  - is UTO sitting on a big bag of cash?  If so, this action might suggest a financial crisis at TEC that warrants eating the seed corn.  Though if the crisis was so bad, surely they have valuable assets in Manhattan that they could sell (or have they done that already?).  Why choose UTO?
  - were they worried that the UTO could split off from TEC with their bag of cash?  Could this be related to the Denis Canon being overturned in Texas?
  - perhaps the litigation loss in Texas has moved some “assets” off the TEC balance sheet which, combined with massive legal debt, could make TEC look bankrupt?  Do they need to bring UTO onto the balance sheet to forestall creditors?

[16] Posted by Michael D on 9-5-2013 at 12:07 PM · [top]

Is it time for someone to sprinkle salt under the chairs when all the TEC bishops meet again?

[17] Posted by Goughdonna on 9-5-2013 at 02:49 PM · [top]

Considering how many purpleshirts may be there, it might take a couple of tons.

[18] Posted by cennydd13 on 9-5-2013 at 06:37 PM · [top]

I don’t see any link above to a source for this information, but I did find an article in The Living Church that might shed some more light on this.

Excerpt:

In the proposed draft revision, the current board is superseded by a new election process that totally removes the United Thank Offering from its historic relationship with Episcopal Church Women.

Any decision making from board is removed; it will be only an advisory body. It appears The United Thank Offering Board will no longer be responsible for its granting process, budget and approval of expenditures, communications, meeting planning, education and training events, and public appearances. The Chief Operating Officer of The Episcopal Church, also known as DFMS (the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society), becomes fully responsible for the administration and management of the United Thank Offering.

[19] Posted by The Little Myrmidon on 9-6-2013 at 04:57 PM · [top]

Ooops, apparently there were links in a previous article.

[20] Posted by The Little Myrmidon on 9-6-2013 at 04:59 PM · [top]

Thanks Maineiac—I would recommend people read the statement, including the comments. Even Rev. Kaeton is comcerned, and I’m sure she’s a friend of the PB.

[22] Posted by DavidSh on 9-9-2013 at 09:32 AM · [top]

Just for clarity, the Chief Operating Officer of the DFMS is none other than Bishop Stacy Sauls. It is he, and his successors, who will manage where the money goes, undoubtedly under the guidance of the lawless Margaret Hamilton impersonatrix, or the latter’s successor.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[23] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 9-12-2013 at 04:01 PM · [top]

Late responding to #23 but that is a big, big point.  A big chunk of the UTO board is now unelected, unaccountable people in the 815 bureaucracy.

[24] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 9-24-2013 at 11:25 AM · [top]

Timothy Fountain,

Yes, which description (unelected and unaccountable) also includes Stacy Sauls. My suspicion as to what we see unfolding in the UTO disruption is precisely what cennydd13 suggests in his comment [1] on this thread: organizational legerdemain for the purpose of draining an available pot of cash to perpetuate the property litigation. The net result of that, if it continues, will be the eventual reduction of TEC to a virtual non-entity, at least in any practically effective Christian and spiritual sense.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[25] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 9-24-2013 at 12:57 PM · [top]

Militaris Artifex, “draining an available pot” implies no future,  so from TEC’s cynical position, it’s a no lose situation.  They control the board and thus control any future UTO donations; but even if an effective boycott of UTO were mounted in protest of the takeover, they simply spend down the plenty that’s already there and move on.

[26] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 9-24-2013 at 01:27 PM · [top]

It would appear to me that you and I are in essential agreement on the future of TEC.

Keith Töpfer

[27] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 9-24-2013 at 02:13 PM · [top]

So the only way forward for the ECW is to get whatever cog in the TEC machine ratifies the new by-laws to say “NO” and reinstate a board of all ECW elected members and officers.

No other solution denies the PB and Sauls money for whatever they’ve decided to do.

[28] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 9-24-2013 at 05:21 PM · [top]

I wonder, Fr. Tim, if it is not already to late.  The revisions to the board (officers gone and replaced by a convener) as well as the illegal (from the point of view of the bylaws as they were approved) appointments of many new board members, and the inclusion of a bunch of TEC staff,  would render it unlikely that the new board will relinquish its position.  The fait is already accompli, so to speak.  It is quite rare in the case of a coup for the new power to hand the government back to the original holders of the office.

No idea who was SUPPOSED to ratify any new bylaws, but clearly, the new bylaws are already in use.  Or perhaps no bylaws are in use, and it is just an exercise of raw power.  Either way, hard to see the Executive Committee actually doing much, other than perhaps allowing a few people to express their concern, and offer a resolution at GC that perhaps in the future the PB be more circumspect and make it look better when she seizes assets.

[29] Posted by tjmcmahon on 9-24-2013 at 05:49 PM · [top]

Heh tjmcmahon.  And siggghhh.

[30] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 9-24-2013 at 06:08 PM · [top]

Not to rub it in, nor to say “I told you so,” but anyone who was reading here in 2008 was alerted to the nature of the current persecutrix of orthodox American Episcopalians in early October of 2008 on this very website. Had I not then been confident in my assessment of her character, I would not have stated my opinion with such blunt and unflattering directness. My having done that was not necessarily a call to others to depart for another jurisdiction. But it was unquestionably an announcement of what lay ahead in time for those who remained. God gave me the insight to recognize the message. All I did was relay it.

מנא, מנא, תקל, ופרסין

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[31] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 9-24-2013 at 06:36 PM · [top]

“What can one make of an organization that is so zealous of arriving at a desired result that it is willing to ride roughshod over its own rules, yet pretend that its misapplication of those rules is actually the correct understanding? There are only a small number of conclusions to which one can come, and not one of them flatters the offender.”  from the SF article linked in #31

Yes, the writing was upon the wall.

[32] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 9-24-2013 at 07:01 PM · [top]

I think the best and perhaps the most descriptive thing that could be said about this entire affair is that somebody left the door to the henhouse open, and the fox got in among the chickens…...or words to that effect.

[33] Posted by cennydd13 on 9-24-2013 at 11:08 PM · [top]

Or a skunk stealing the eggs…..which is what skunks do.

[34] Posted by cennydd13 on 9-24-2013 at 11:10 PM · [top]

[35] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 9-25-2013 at 12:07 AM · [top]

#35, the Richard Harris version? Have you no shame sir, have you no shame?

On a more serious note, I’m morbidly curious as to how blatant 815 will be. Will they simply appropriate the funds or will they do the lottery shuffle?

For those unfamiliar with the term, when a state does the lottery shuffle they reduce funds previously allocated in the general budget for education and replace them with the new lottery money. In that way the state gets more money from the general budget for worthy causes such as graft and corruption.

If 815 goes the shuffle route look for UTO money to be used for grants and budget items formerly funded by the General Convention. Mission work for example.

[36] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 9-25-2013 at 10:07 AM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.