August 22, 2014

Advertise with Stand Firm

November 16, 2007


Washington Times: “Bishop says she made diocese sue 11 churches”

Wow.

Just wow.

Julia Duin of the Washington Times has this report on the Virginia lawsuits.

“According to prior testimony, Virginia Bishop Peter J. Lee was ready to accept buyouts from the 11 departing churches, several of which sat on historic pieces of property in Fairfax and Falls Church. That changed after he met with the new presiding bishop soon after her Nov. 4, 2006, installation.

“I told Bishop Lee I could not support negotiations for sale if the congregations intended to set up as other parts of the Anglican Communion,” Bishop Jefferts Schori said, referring to the 77 million-member worldwide body of which the Episcopal Church is a part.

What particularly angered her, she said, was the presence of the Nigerian-controlled Convocation of Anglicans in North America, then headquartered in Fairfax. An American bishop for CANA, the Rt. Rev. Martyn Minns, had been consecrated that August.

CANA’s presence “violates the ancient principle of the church that two bishops do not have jurisdiction in the same area,” said the presiding bishop, whose face appeared on three screens positioned around the courtroom.

Under further questioning by attorneys for CANA, she said that had the property been sold to a Methodist or Baptist congregation, she would not have objected.

But, “the Episcopal Church, for matters of its own integrity, cannot encourage other parts of the Anglican Communion to set up shop within its jurisdiction,” she said in her deposition.”

But wait.

I thought that the Presiding Bishop had no authority over her fellow bishops! 

And that is why nobody needs “alternative Primatial oversight”.  Because . . . she is only a bishop with no oversight or power over dioceses.


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

Facebook comments are closed.

117 comments

(silent and stunned by the open vindictiveness)

[1] Posted by Saint Dumb Ox on 11-16-2007 at 09:06 AM · [top]

That woman is a helluva Deacon!

[2] Posted by hookemhooker on 11-16-2007 at 09:06 AM · [top]

I believe the whole (ridiculous) contention of the TEC case is that there is no division, hence the 1867 Virginia law on property resolution in the case of church division does not apply. A reader of BB’s found this quote from ENS, the mouthpiece of the TEC corp:

Jefferts Schori called on the rest of the Episcopal Church to “remember to pray for everybody involved – those who feel a need to leave and those who remain – to pray that those people and their families can find some peace and remember that communities can reach beyond this kind of division

Sort of shoots their case in the foot, I would think. Case dismissed!

[3] Posted by robroy on 11-16-2007 at 09:11 AM · [top]

What’s fascinating is that it would be OK to leave for another denomination, just not those nasty African Anglicans… She says it’s to preserve the integrity of TEC.  Let me see; how do congregations leaving for say the Baptist Church preserve the integrity of TEC ?  Wouldn’t that take away assets that were “entrusted to Episcopalians for generations to come”, as she said somewhere else ?  Either congregations can leave or they cannot, but it can’t be that they can only leave to go to people I don’t have a personal grudge against (because they want to stick with apostolic teaching, of all things)!

[4] Posted by Veronique on 11-16-2007 at 09:16 AM · [top]

A tiny, insignificant number of congregations leaving ECUSA?????????

[5] Posted by Bill C on 11-16-2007 at 09:19 AM · [top]

“the Episcopal Church, for matters of its own integrity, cannot encourage other parts of the Anglican Communion to set up shop within its jurisdiction,” she said in her deposition.”

But wouldn’t this be an ideal circumstance to demonstrate living into the tension of pluriform truth?

Bishop Jefferts Schori defended her actions “as a means to <u>preserve assets</u> of the Episcopal Church for ministry and the mission of the Episcopal Church.

Oh, wait.  We are talking about money here, aren’t we.  I forgot.
carl

[6] Posted by carl on 11-16-2007 at 09:20 AM · [top]

Mrs. Schori’s vindictiveness doesn’t surprise me, or particularly irritate me - it’s what I expected from day one.  OTOH, I am sick and tired of hearing this heretic whose views make Marcion look Orthodox go on, yet again, about the “ancient principle of the church that two bishops do not have jurisdiction in the same area.”

Hey, Mrs. Schori: YOU ARE IMPINGING ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC AND ORTHODOX CHURCHES.  If you’re serious about your “ancient principle,” RESIGN.

[7] Posted by Phil on 11-16-2007 at 09:23 AM · [top]

CANA’s presence “violates the ancient principle of the church that two bishops do not have jurisdiction in the same area”

How selective the Presiding Bishop (sic) is in her advocacy of “ancient principle.”

[8] Posted by Regressive Neanderthal on 11-16-2007 at 09:23 AM · [top]

...“violates the ancient principle of the church that two bishops do not have jurisdiction in the same area”...had the property been sold to a Methodist or Baptist congregation, she would not have objected…

Perhaps she doesn’t know that Methodists have bishops.

[9] Posted by James Manley on 11-16-2007 at 09:23 AM · [top]

And the clarity just keeps on coming….........

the snarkster

[10] Posted by the snarkster on 11-16-2007 at 09:27 AM · [top]

One does wonder if she ever read the cannons of Nicea or Emphasis, there much that a two edge sword and cuts her points to the ground about jurisdictions (Not to mention defining the episcopate that disqualifies her). She does make a odd appeal.

[11] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 11-16-2007 at 09:29 AM · [top]

Under further questioning by attorneys for CANA, she said that had the property been sold to a Methodist or Baptist congregation, she would not have objected.

This is not accurate.  The negotiations were to have settled the issue of who actually owned the property including but not limited to the real property.  This was not an issue of negotiation over the sale of real property.  The negotiations would have addressed all of the personal property of the parishes as well.

[12] Posted by Piedmont on 11-16-2007 at 09:31 AM · [top]

Absolutely unbelievable - KJS says “Division” - Lee states that she made me do it (lawyer up.) It seems to be a battle of wits - but, then again, I could be half right. - Denis

[13] Posted by Denis on 11-16-2007 at 09:31 AM · [top]

“violates the ancient principle of the church that two bishops do not have jurisdiction in the same area,”

Then what are we doing in Europe?  And what about the Arian controversy which really applies today.  It is the duty of orthodox Christians to set up shop in places where the Gospel is not being preached.

[14] Posted by deanreed on 11-16-2007 at 09:32 AM · [top]

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
Intercessor

[15] Posted by Intercessor on 11-16-2007 at 09:33 AM · [top]

This is the same presiding bishop who said she couldn’t understand requests for primatial oversight because she didn’t *have* any primatial oversight, right? Yet she makes bishops sue their parishes.

[16] Posted by oscewicee on 11-16-2007 at 09:35 AM · [top]

Seems like the folks in Nevada told the truth about the PB’s “reconciliation techniques” in that Diocese before her proxy Bruno elevation to unempowered first among equals, “I’m not a pope” current position as das Leader.  THE LAITY in these churches have spoken but Kate’s not “listening”.  See, inclusivism is fascism under a new cloak.  Humboldt squid behavio, too: yep, she’s got it all!!!  Viva la TECECUSA/TEC is dead!  Viva la TEC!

[17] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 11-16-2007 at 09:38 AM · [top]

From the desk of the PB TEC….

From: +KJS
To:    ALL

Subject: Those trying to leave TEC

Do you people just not get it, this is all about ME.  These parishes must not be allowed to leave a church that I head.  It is an insult to ME, and I will not have it.

I don’t care where you are in the process, drop it.  I order you to sue these people.  This is about ME and My position in the Church.

Did I mention that this is about ME, that it is an insult to ME, and that I will not let this stand.

Peace
+Kate

RSB

[18] Posted by R S Bunker on 11-16-2007 at 09:39 AM · [top]

Shalom indeed.

[19] Posted by Reason and Revelation on 11-16-2007 at 09:44 AM · [top]

All to do with property and ‘integrity’ of diocesan boundaries.  Nothing to do with people and their spiritual needs.  Furthering a desperate attempt to maintain the semblance of THE only representative of membership in the AC.  (sorry about the fragments)

[20] Posted by Bill C on 11-16-2007 at 09:46 AM · [top]

For TEC it seems that Christology is subservient to Ecclesiology.  PB determines Ecclesiology by selecting a few prominent ideas from history, says what the Body is, and on the basis of that a Christology can be made to fit.  Reminds me of Alasdair McIntyre & the notion of the Manager.

[21] Posted by j.m.c. on 11-16-2007 at 09:47 AM · [top]

Bishop Jefferts Schori defended her actions “as a means to preserve assets of the Episcopal Church for ministry and the mission of the Episcopal Church.

So, she is asserting, for the record, that TEC (a branch of the Anglican Communion) and the Church of Nigeria (a branch of the Anglican Communion) have not merely different, but contrary missions???  Gee… that sounds like “division”, doesn’t it?

[22] Posted by Connecticutian on 11-16-2007 at 09:48 AM · [top]

RSB, you’ve stated it perfectly! It’s clear as day that the whole thing is about ego and power and empire. But I do think there’s a lot of what I’ve heard called “flop sweat” mixed in - the sweat of fear when things are looking really bad. TEC can see the handwriting on the wall. The empire is crumbling around them. Where does an unemployed ex-bishop and former squid-studier go? What does she do? Maybe she can go back to studying the ocean where she should feel right at home with the slimy, slippery creatures of the deep.

[23] Posted by Nellie on 11-16-2007 at 09:48 AM · [top]

Serious question:

When is +Lee expected to take the stand?

Prayers for ALL.

Blessings,

[24] Posted by miserable sinner on 11-16-2007 at 09:55 AM · [top]

And the LORD God called unto Bishop Lee and said unto him, “Where art thou?” 
    And he said, “I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was legally vulnerable, and I hired myself an attorney.”
    And he said, “who told thee that thou wast legally vulnerable? Hast thou not complied with the Dar Es Salaam communique, whereof the Primates commanded thee that thou shouldest not sue?
    And Bishop Lee said, “The woman whom thou gavest to be Presiding Bishop over me, she gave me leave, and I did sue.”

[25] Posted by DaveW on 11-16-2007 at 09:58 AM · [top]

On second thought there also seems to be a serious contradiction in argumentation here - motions to deny the Windsor report and other AC documents since the Anglican Communion “doesn’t really exist” (so we have from Baby Blue’s account of day two), and here a defense of TEC against dangerous incursions of other churches made dangerous only because they are a part of this non-existent Anglican Communion?

[26] Posted by j.m.c. on 11-16-2007 at 09:59 AM · [top]

Isn’t today motions day in Fairfax Circuit Court?  I guess they’ll start again Monday.

[27] Posted by Paul B on 11-16-2007 at 10:00 AM · [top]

There’s a new sheriff in town.

The new sheriff wears a star!

[28] Posted by Piedmont on 11-16-2007 at 10:03 AM · [top]

I just had a hilarious vision of +Lee in blackface and miter doing a Flip Wilson impersonation: The devil (Presiding Bishop) made me do it!

Face it people, Schori may have been a decent Marine Biologist (I don’t know, just a guess) but she has as much business being Presiding Bishop as I would have running Microsoft. If she flew an airplane the way she runs TECusaCorp, there would be pieces of airplane scattered all over Nevada.

the snarkster

[29] Posted by the snarkster on 11-16-2007 at 10:08 AM · [top]

DaveW - Brilliant!!!

[30] Posted by Connie Sandlin on 11-16-2007 at 10:08 AM · [top]

So, she is asserting, for the record, that TEC (a branch of the Anglican Communion) and the Church of Nigeria (a branch of the Anglican Communion) have not merely different, but contrary missions???  Gee… that sounds like “division”, doesn’t it?

I do hope the judge is duly noting the contradictions in TEC’s claims.

[31] Posted by oscewicee on 11-16-2007 at 10:10 AM · [top]

I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!

The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?  Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.

I Corinthians 6:5-8

[32] Posted by Maria Lytle on 11-16-2007 at 10:15 AM · [top]

oscewicee:

The Diocese/ECUSA argument is not as self-contradictory as you want it to be.  See my post above.  Analogizing the Dioces/ECUSA argument, it might help to think of it as a difference between the Congress (ECUSA/Gen Con) and the UN General Assembly (AC Primates).

Peace,

Peace,

[33] Posted by miserable sinner on 11-16-2007 at 10:16 AM · [top]

How about the ancient principle that men marry women and vice versa?  It seems that principles matter where property is concerned but not standards.   Can somebody explain how selling a church to a Baptist or a Methodist congregation rather than to Anglicans helps the mission of the Episcopal church?  To my way of thinking, it seems that selling to another member of the Anglican Communion would be the most likely to way to further the mission of the AC.  TEC is still part of the AC, isn’t it?

[34] Posted by terrafirma on 11-16-2007 at 10:22 AM · [top]

Dave W is funny today.

oscewicee wrote:

This is the same presiding bishop who said she couldn’t understand requests for primatial oversight because she didn’t *have* any primatial oversight, right? Yet she makes bishops sue their parishes.

I think in order to count the contradictions in TEC, I would need an abacus.

[35] Posted by selah on 11-16-2007 at 10:27 AM · [top]

I believe the whole (ridiculous) contention of the TEC case is that there is no division, hence the 1867 Virginia law on property resolution in the case of church division does not apply.

An alternative approach, which they should possibly consider, is to argue that TEC is not a church, in at least some sense of the word, and that therefore the law on church division does not apply. They probably have a better chance of convincing the judge of that than that there is no division.

[36] Posted by Boring Bloke on 11-16-2007 at 10:27 AM · [top]

I think in order to count the contradictions in TEC, I would need an abacus.

This (Cray supercomputer) would be needed to count TEC’s contradictions, Selah.

[37] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 11-16-2007 at 10:38 AM · [top]

Boring Bloke,
You’re brilliant!

[38] Posted by Saint Dumb Ox on 11-16-2007 at 10:39 AM · [top]

I would like to send my compliments to Sarah Hey, who, on a thread on T19, I think, just the other day, said that TEC would act to protect its Anglican “brand” name, since that is its most important asset.  Sarah was exactly right; KJS confirms it here.

[39] Posted by Katherine on 11-16-2007 at 10:39 AM · [top]

My question is WWFD - “What would Frank do?” I hold no brief for Katherine Schori, but I sense that the War Room strategy has been in place for quite some time at 815. So my thought is Frank would have acted in exactly the same way. Maybe this was an item waiting in her in-basket that he had not attended to.

[40] Posted by Stephen Noll on 11-16-2007 at 10:44 AM · [top]

Now let’s see, it is NOT ok for a diocese to sell its churches to the AC, but it IS ok to sell them to the Methodist or Baptist Church, which could then sell the property to a Buddist or Janist congregation - or even sell it to (gasp) an AC church!

Does this lady even think through her proclamations before she utters them?

[41] Posted by MasterServer on 11-16-2007 at 10:45 AM · [top]

Yes to the “brand” name. TEC/815 are marketing “church.” It’s a competitive market so they have chosen a little niche and don’t want there to be any confusion about who they are. Since they’re “Episcopal” and the rest of us would now prefer to identify as Anglican, I don’t see the problem. Especially if they deny the existence of the Anglican Communion. (How’s that for making a problem go away?)

[42] Posted by oscewicee on 11-16-2007 at 10:48 AM · [top]

Hmmmmmm -
Calling all constitional scholars:
Does CANA/ADV represent a ‘protected class’ (religion) when it comes to the disposition of property?  Does this apply to disposition of church buildings?  What are the triggers?  e.g., what if the Diocese/ECUSA said it wouldn’t sell to a synagogue or mosque? Is the sale by a religious instiution exempt?  Under what circumstances would the exemptions apply? e.g. OK to baptists but not to X?

Peace,

P.S. Methodists?  Any historian know whether they or some baptists even claimed some diocesan property back in the day?

[43] Posted by miserable sinner on 11-16-2007 at 10:49 AM · [top]

It seems to be a battle of wits - but, then again, I could be half right. - Denis

One free pass to the Laffin’ Place for Denis.

...on leave from the Briar Patch,

[44] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 11-16-2007 at 10:55 AM · [top]

No doubt Beers has given her the same legal advice as he gave to FTG - note the difference in her response.  Interesting.  One thing this demonstrates is that she is not in the position of an official having little choice in the matter because of the requirements of laws or fiduciary obligations - FTG demonstrates that she had the discretion to permit such issues to be resolved on a diocesan level.  Yet she rejected that approach as a matter of choice. 

As an aside, it may very well be that in the event things develop poorly in this case for TEC, then they may reach a point of decision - whether to appeal and attempt to wear down the opposition, or to negotiate a settlement (for this case) from a point of relative strength. 

Given her choice to sue in this context, and her words - she may be the sort of litigation client who desires something that civil litigation can never provide for her.  She may very well be a lucrative client for Beers, but she is destined to be unsatisfied and troublesome client in the long run.

[45] Posted by tired on 11-16-2007 at 10:56 AM · [top]

Stephen Noll,

I think that model that Frank Griswold set up was to let the diocese take care fo teh situation. +Griswold openly said that he would not interfere with the proceedings of the diocese.

My understanding is that these lawsuits by +KJS are an invention of +KJS.  If the idea (that the national church should sue) existed before she came to office, I do not think that the idea was supported by Griswold himself, but by another party within TEC.

[46] Posted by selah on 11-16-2007 at 10:58 AM · [top]

Note how this effectively changes this lawsuit from one between a Virginia bishop and Virginia churches in a Virginia state court into one between Virginia churches and a national church based in New York City.  This is probably one of the reasons Schori’s testimony was put into the record not by her counsel but by the other side, the CANA churches.  It is interesting and anomalous to say the least when the lead spokesman for one side becomes the star witness for the other side.

[47] Posted by wildfire on 11-16-2007 at 10:59 AM · [top]

Has division, sex, and “is” been defined yet?

To this point, I don’t think the brand name “Anglican” has been tarnished, but certainly “Episcopal” opens eyes in polite company. If TEC walks separately from the Anglican Communion, TEC will be greatly weakened in the state legislatures and halls of Congress. IMHO, if it weren’t for the perceived weight of the Anglican Communion behind the “progressives” for their political agenda, TEC would have been out of the AC long ago.

[48] Posted by Dr. N. on 11-16-2007 at 11:06 AM · [top]

CANA’s presence ‘violates the ancient principle of the church that two bishops do not have jurisdiction in the same area,’ said the presiding bishop, whose face appeared on three screens positioned around the courtroom.”

How about the ancient principle of the Church that says Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no one comes to the Father but by Him? 

Go, Kate!!

“I certainly don’t disagree with that statement that Jesus is the way and the truth and the life. But the way it’s used is as a truth serum, or a touchstone: If you cannot repeat this statement, then you’re not a faithful Christian or person of faith. I think Jesus as way – that’s certainly what it means to be on a spiritual journey. It means to be in search of relationship with God. We understand Jesus as truth in the sense of being the wholeness of human expression. What does it mean to be wholly and fully and completely a human being? Jesus as life, again, an example of abundant life. We understand him as bringer of abundant life but also as exemplar. What does it mean to be both fully human and fully divine? Here we have the evidence in human form. So I’m impatient with the narrow understanding, but certainly welcoming of the broader understanding.”

Keep on goin’ with that Unitarian blather: 

“Asked about the rest of Christ’s declaration: ‘No man cometh unto to the father but by me,’ Jefferts Schori continued.

‘Again in its narrow construction, it tends to eliminate other possibilities. In its broader construction, yes, human beings come to relationship with God largely through their experience of holiness in other human beings. Through seeing God at work in other people’s lives. In that sense, yes, I will affirm that statement. But not in the narrow sense, that people can only come to relationship with God through consciously believing in Jesus,’ she said”.

You know, when I stare at the Cross, I see tons of holiness there. I see more holiness than I could ever imagine in that Atoning Sacrifice. 

I DON’T see a whole lot of “holiness in other human beings” most of the time, especially when they’re busy perjuring themselves in court and trying real hard to crush others just for the sake of money, property, and power. 

FYI, folks, the quotes above were excerpted from the following: 

http://www2.arkansasonline.com/blogs/bible-blog/2007/jan/10/presiding-bishop-chu/

[49] Posted by Passing By on 11-16-2007 at 11:06 AM · [top]

Wow.  I had always suspected that Peter Lee’s hand was forced by KJS, since his intransigence is 100 percent the opposite of the way Peter Lee has handled these sorts of issues in his entire career.  She really is a thoroughly odious woman.

[50] Posted by Violent Papist on 11-16-2007 at 11:21 AM · [top]

Hey folks. Check out this lectionary item for today.  Just replace King with ++KJS.

[51] Posted by Dr. N. on 11-16-2007 at 11:29 AM · [top]

Oooops.  The Lectionary reading is: 1 Maccabees 1:41-63

[52] Posted by Dr. N. on 11-16-2007 at 11:29 AM · [top]

The Eastern Orthodox Churches in the States have several overlapping jurisdictions based on the origin of the immigrants who came to the USA. For example, The Greek Orthodox Church, The Romanian Orthodox Church, The Serbian Orthodox Church.  These are the descendant Churches of the Council of Nicaea, who have congregations side-by-side, but in different Dioceses,yet they understand themselves as one Church. If it can work for them it should be able to work for us.

[53] Posted by Forever Anglican on 11-16-2007 at 11:30 AM · [top]

Ah, Maccabees isn’t in the hyperlinks: 1 Maccabees 1:41-63

41 Then the king wrote to his whole kingdom that all should be one people, 42and that all should give up their particular customs. 43All the Gentiles accepted the command of the king. Many even from Israel gladly adopted his religion; they sacrificed to idols and profaned the sabbath. 44And the king sent letters by messengers to Jerusalem and the towns of Judah; he directed them to follow customs strange to the land, 45to forbid burnt-offerings and sacrifices and drink-offerings in the sanctuary, to profane sabbaths and festivals, 46to defile the sanctuary and the priests, 47to build altars and sacred precincts and shrines for idols, to sacrifice swine and other unclean animals, 48and to leave their sons uncircumcised. They were to make themselves abominable by everything unclean and profane, 49so that they would forget the law and change all the ordinances. 50He added,* ‘And whoever does not obey the command of the king shall die.’
51 In such words he wrote to his whole kingdom. He appointed inspectors over all the people and commanded the towns of Judah to offer sacrifice, town by town. 52Many of the people, everyone who forsook the law, joined them, and they did evil in the land; 53they drove Israel into hiding in every place of refuge they had.
54 Now on the fifteenth day of Chislev, in the one hundred and forty-fifth year,* they erected a desolating sacrilege on the altar of burnt-offering. They also built altars in the surrounding towns of Judah, 55and offered incense at the doors of the houses and in the streets. 56The books of the law that they found they tore to pieces and burned with fire. 57Anyone found possessing the book of the covenant, or anyone who adhered to the law, was condemned to death by decree of the king. 58They kept using violence against Israel, against those who were found month after month in the towns. 59On the twenty-fifth day of the month they offered sacrifice on the altar that was on top of the altar of burnt-offering. 60In accordance with the decree, they put to death the women who had their children circumcised, 61and their families and those who circumcised them; and they hung the infants from their mothers’ necks.
62 But many in Israel stood firm and were resolved in their hearts not to eat unclean food. 63They chose to die rather than to be defiled by food or to profane the holy covenant; and they did die.

[54] Posted by Dr. N. on 11-16-2007 at 11:31 AM · [top]

“So much for you precious ministry of reconciliation, Peter Lee. Next time remember to ask Our permission. Talk the talk all you like, as We do Ourselves. But remember that you walk the walk only at Our primatial pleasure. Is that clear, little man?”—-KJS

Off-stage postscript:
“Hey, Beers, get your butt in here! Remind me how we answer the argument that Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, and Uniate bishops also operate in Virginia.

[55] Posted by Irenaeus on 11-16-2007 at 11:32 AM · [top]

If I were Bp. Lee, I would (even with his theological convictions) have gone forward with the property settlements as long as my lawyers told me the diocese had a reasonable chance of prevailing if sued by ECUSA.

[56] Posted by Irenaeus on 11-16-2007 at 11:34 AM · [top]

Hats off to DaveW!

[57] Posted by HeartAfire on 11-16-2007 at 11:34 AM · [top]

Doublepluslove

(always eradicate Goldsteinism at any cost)

[58] Posted by young joe from old oc on 11-16-2007 at 11:40 AM · [top]

“Reminds me of Alasdair McIntyre & the notion of the Manager”—-JMC

Yes, the Manager: Dilbert’s Boss. Or Dogbert. Or Catbert.

[59] Posted by Irenaeus on 11-16-2007 at 11:42 AM · [top]

Maria Lytle, the passage you cite (1 Cor. 6:5-8) was read in Evening Prayer ten feet in front of the Presiding Bishop at Rio Grande’s Clergy Conference. It appears that it was not received as authoritative.

[60] Posted by Dan Tuton+ on 11-16-2007 at 11:42 AM · [top]

” the Episcopal Church, for matters of its own integrity….....”

Did she mean “integrity” (which it has none) or Integrity? I strongly suspect the latter, don’t you?

[61] Posted by irishanglican on 11-16-2007 at 11:45 AM · [top]

This is a perfect example of how things have gone and the strategy of the PB and the gang at 815.  All along we have be asking and praying for 3 things; PEACE, CLARITY, AND UNITY. Those are the 3 things that ALL TRUE Christians ask for when praying to our Lord and Father. KJS and her cohorts instead are attempting to spread these three ideals: TURMOIL, CONFUSSION, AND DIVISION.(my emphasis added). Her deposition and +Lee’s statement only work to confirm just how far from the true faith, as handed down by the saints, that they moved. This reminds me of Paul’s letter to the Phillipians when he states he is crying over the lost. Because he saw it then, and we see it now, these people know the truth, have rejected it and have turned thier backs on Christ. Sadly there is no salvation for them, and they will be destroyed in the pits of Hell.  I just pray that we can keep more of the body from falling into the abyss that 815 has created.

[62] Posted by episcopalindian on 11-16-2007 at 11:46 AM · [top]

“The Episcopal Church, for matters of its own integrity, cannot encourage other parts of the Anglican Communion to set up shop within its jurisdiction”—-KJS

Objection! Your Honor, this statement assumes a fact not in evidence.

[63] Posted by Irenaeus on 11-16-2007 at 11:51 AM · [top]

For all his faults, Griswold as PB was more like a traditional CEO who views the lawyers as servants, albeit important ones, and kept the chancellor in a subservient role.  Schori seems to be dominated by the chancellor.  He seems to be the power behind the throne.  All the more strange we know so little about him and his agenda.

[64] Posted by pendennis88 on 11-16-2007 at 11:55 AM · [top]

RE: “I would like to send my compliments to Sarah Hey, who, on a thread on T19, I think, just the other day, said that TEC would act to protect its Anglican “brand” name, since that is its most important asset.  Sarah was exactly right; KJS confirms it here.”

Katherine—thank you for the kind words!

I went back and found the quote and I think it is applicable here as it helps explain what the leaders at the national level are thinking.

I agree with Stephen Noll.  Not gonna happen.

The reason is actually not for the “property” but because the Episcopal church rightly recognizes that a part of its marketing “brand” are the actual historic properties—and they cannot afford a competitor actually having their brand, particularly when they cannot afford real competition at all.

[By real competition, I mean competition that offers a superior product, is well-positioned in the marketplace, and has a delivery channel capable of delivering the product to an interested target market.]

Now that there is growing such a competitor, the very last thing the Episcopal church needs is a part of its image being attached to another competitive entity.

The leaders at the national level of the Episcopal church are literally fighting for their corporation’s life, and for this reason—regardless of the dollar value of the property—will never stop coming for those brand images.

[65] Posted by Sarah on 11-16-2007 at 12:00 PM · [top]

said the presiding bishop, whose face appeared on three screens positioned around the courtroom.  Oh my. Scary stuff indeed.

[66] Posted by via orthodoxy on 11-16-2007 at 12:01 PM · [top]

“And the LORD God called unto Bishop Lee and said unto him, “Where art thou?”  And he said, “I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was legally vulnerable” etc etc.

Ok, the above is really funny.  Twisted, but funny.

Hello, all.  I’ve lived in the Diocese of Fort Worth for 23 years now and do not want to leave the TEC.  My husband and I were born and raised Episcopalian, in neighboring dioceses, and we do not want to leave the family, dysfunctional as it is.  Pray for our Diocesan Convention.

Peace.

[67] Posted by sisterinChrist on 11-16-2007 at 12:01 PM · [top]

My husband and I were born and raised Episcopalian, in neighboring dioceses, and we do not want to leave the family, dysfunctional as it is.

Even the “head” of the family who is in the driver’s seat of the bus operates the “vehicle to the divine” in a reckless manner endangering all of the occupants?  It’s time to get yourself off of the bus.

[68] Posted by Piedmont on 11-16-2007 at 12:18 PM · [top]

Don’t see any of our worthy opponents voices rising in defence.  Her testimony needs to get to the pew potatoes.  Perhaps the beloved moderate Bishops need to band together to at least encourage 815 to make peace - this war thing is not healthy for them.

[69] Posted by chips on 11-16-2007 at 12:18 PM · [top]

I hope that the CANA churches are sending a copy of the transcript to +++Rowan, the other Primates, and the CofE Church Times.  I think their can come a moment in a conflict where the ick factor steps in and people quietly disassociate themselves from said conflict (ie “we had to destroy the village to save it”) - +KJS may have jumped the shark.

[70] Posted by chips on 11-16-2007 at 12:26 PM · [top]

” the Episcopal Church, for matters of its own integrity..”

“You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means”

[71] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 11-16-2007 at 12:38 PM · [top]

My husband and I were born and raised Episcopalian, in neighboring dioceses, and we do not want to leave the family, dysfunctional as it is.

Truly, in the end, our duty is to be faithful members of The Church, not a church.  For some, that will mean staying in TEC until the bitter end, for others, it may mean planting a CANA or AMIA church, for others, it may mean fighting tooth and nail to preserve a diocese as it breaks away from TEC.  What is most important is that we do not loose sight of the goal, and that we pray for one another as we move toward the goal of one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

[72] Posted by tjmcmahon on 11-16-2007 at 12:48 PM · [top]

Don’t see any of our worthy opponents voices rising in defence.

I wouldn’t read anything into that.  Progressives are going to say “Good for her.  It’s about time!”  They see themselves as having been patient in the face of extreme provocation beyond the dictates of common sense.  So now they are looking for someone to swing a hammer, and they want it swung hard.  Repeatedly.  They want punishment to be visited upon their adversaries and they want to see it.  So I wouldn’t go looking for any guilty feelings on the left in reaction to this story.  There won’t be any.

carl

[73] Posted by carl on 11-16-2007 at 12:52 PM · [top]

Carl is right.  “Their Katherine” is playing Robespierre, and he stayed popular as long as he kept throwing the right victims to the mob.  The Kaetons and Russells are bringing their knitting and grabbing the best seats around the scaffold.

[74] Posted by Dr. Mabuse on 11-16-2007 at 12:59 PM · [top]

Nellie, and a few others on this thread:

The PB does not need to “go” anywhere. She is being paid in excess of $1000,000.00 per year. The various members of HOB do not need to go anywhere. Have you seen the salaries some of these bishops are getting? If you are paid $1000,000.00 per year, and the company that you work for goes out of business, you do NOT go looking for a new job. You simply retire on your earnings. These people are NOT worried about their own—persoanl—hides… Their worries, at this stage of the conflict, are a bit more abstract.

All of those on the orthodox side of this battle need to understand clearly what the actual stakes are—from a personal point of view—on the other side. It would be nice if the folks in the driver’s seat at TEC were living paycheck to paycheck. But i can assure you, they are NOT… SOMETHING ELSE is motivating them to fight so hard. I have my own ideas about what that something else really is. But those who want to offer EFFECTIVE OPPOSITION to the leadership of TEC are going to have to realistically determine this for themselves, BEFORE they can devise an effective strategy to thwart the plans coming out of 815.

I liked the discussion of TEC as a corporation fighting for it’s “brand.” In the case of the northern Virginia churches—which are among the OLDEST and MOST BEAUTIFUL in the country; and which are resonant with a multiplicity of historical and theological meanings—they are also fighting, in a very real sense, for one of their TRADEMARKS; the specific PACKAGING that consumers identify with the brand…

[75] Posted by bluenarrative on 11-16-2007 at 01:05 PM · [top]

“Even the “head” of the family who is in the driver’s seat of the bus operates the “vehicle to the divine” in a reckless manner endangering all of the occupants?  It’s time to get yourself off of the bus.”

You know what?  I’ve never yet seen a PB show up at Sunday Service at any Episcopal Church I’ve ever attended.  I have yet to see one show up at a Diocesan Convention.  I’ve never seen one at a Provincial meeting of any kind.  Quite frankly, to most Episcopalians in the pews, while what goes on sometimes at 815 and at General Convention might be frustrating, it is largely irrelevant to what happens on a day-to-day basis in our parishes. 

Quite frankly, I’m not worried about who’s driving whatever bus you’re describing, because right now I’m walking with my brothers and sisters who remain in the TEC - all of them, liberal and conservative. 

My eternal salvation is not dependent on my leaving the TEC.  My salvation is in Christ Jesus, and I don’t think he’s leaving the building.

[76] Posted by sisterinChrist on 11-16-2007 at 01:06 PM · [top]

She doesn’t like it when ancient principles are violated? That’s hot.

[77] Posted by Enough on 11-16-2007 at 01:27 PM · [top]

Re Sarah Hey’s idea that this is about Brand and Brand Management, remember the ad in the Op Ed section of the New York Times on Saturday May 12th? They put a lot of their brand identity into the historic buildings.
Oh dear, in re-reading it now, I notice they do mention the “worldwide Anglican Communion that unites nearly 80 million people in 164 countries”.

The Episcopal Church Marking a Milestone, Moving Forward

Somewhere near you, there’s a blue-and-white sign bearing the familiar slogan: The Episcopal Church Welcomes You .. It represents some 7,400 congregations that trace their beginnings in North America to a small but hopeful group of English Christians who arrived May 14, 1607 at a place they called Jamestown - the first permanent English settlement in the New World.

You may know us as Washington’s monumental National Cathedral, site of historic services and ceremonies, or the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York, still unfinished, but already the largest cathedral in the world.

But the Episcopal Church is also Boston’s Old North Church, founded in 1723 and made famous by serving as the beacon for Paul Revere’s revolution-spurring “midnight ride.” And Philadelphia’s Christ Church, home parish of 15 signers of the Declaration of Independence, host to the first General Convention of the Episcopal Church in 1785.

It’s Trinity Parish on Wall Street in New York, formed in 1698, and St. Paul’s Chapel just down the street, frequented by George Washington and the spiritual healing center of Ground Zero since September 11, 2001.

It’s also Epiphany Church in Los Angeles, where Cesar Chavez rallied the United Farm workers. And Emmanuel Episcopal Church in Cumberland, Maryland, whose basement was a major stop on the Underground Railroad to freedom for enslaved African-Americans. And St. John’s Church in Greenwich Village, a meeting place for gay and lesbian action following the 1969 Stonewall uprising.

It’s a parish in Iowa. A campus ministry in Georgia. A mission in Dinetah - the Navajo Reservation. A cathedral in Utah. Even a house church in Vermont.

Wherever you find us, you’ll find the Book of Common Prayer and a Christian faith that honors and engages the Bible, the tradition of the Church, and God-given human reason.

Joined in prayer, you’ll find people with many points of view - Christians who are progressive, moderate, and conservative - yet who value the diversity of their faith community.

That’s a heritage drawn from our deep roots in nearly 2,000 years of English Christianity, and shared by a worldwide Anglican Communion that unites nearly 80 million people in 164 countries through prayer and ministries committed to caring for “the least of these,” as Jesus commanded, by reducing poverty, disease, and oppression.

Episcopalians struggle with the same issues that trouble all people of faith: how to interpret an ancient faith for today ... how to maintain the integrity of tradition while reaching out to a hurting world ... how to disagree and yet love and respect one another.

Occasionally those struggles make the news. People find they can no longer walk with us on their journey, and may be called to a different spiritual home. Some later make their way back, and find they are welcomed with open arms.

Despite the headlines, the Episcopal Church keeps moving forward in mission - in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, as well as congregations in Belgium, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Germany, Guam, Haiti, Honduras, Italy, Micronesia, Puerto Rico, Switzerland, Taiwan, Venezuela, and the Virgin Islands. We’re committed to a transformed world, as Jesus taught: a world of justice, peace, wholeness, and holy living.

We’ve grown a lot in 400 years, since that 1607 worship service from the Book of Common Prayer was held in Jamestown-inside and out. Come see for yourself. Come and visit. .. come and explore ... come and grow.

[78] Posted by Deja Vu on 11-16-2007 at 01:37 PM · [top]

On the AC…. +++Rowan let a little light through the crack in the door that he considers ‘communion’ to be at the diocese level - w/the bishops,  & that the national Org. is just for administration expediency. TEC even sidewise admits that Lambeth is a sign of, and results in, communion with other Anglican entities. (Note protestations of who was and was not invited)

After all it’s +++Cantaur who invites, dis-invites, controls, Lambeth. It’s not a ‘top-down’ issue like a corporation… He didn’t issue an invitation to +KJS and told her to bring some friends.  No, invites were direct to Bishops…. Another sign that the national TEC org. is redundant. I hope something like these facts can be used and crafted in this trial. +KJS has no other role or authority in the communion other than being a Bishop, just like and equal to, many others, and only has a personal judgment - not any ‘corporate’ comment on the communion.  AND per ‘bluenarrative on 11-16-2007 at 12:05 PM’ what is it then that +KJS and TEC National have over the bishops?

[79] Posted by DaveB in VT on 11-16-2007 at 01:42 PM · [top]

Nice Christian sentiments Carl.  Apparently, progressives haven’t been able to escape Stalinist tactics over the last 70 years . Good luck with your utopia Comrade - I sure it will be a real feel good place.

[80] Posted by chips on 11-16-2007 at 01:45 PM · [top]

blue narrative explains that TEC as a corporation fighting for it’s “brand.”: 

In the case of the northern Virginia churches—which are among the OLDEST and MOST BEAUTIFUL in the country; and which are resonant with a multiplicity of historical and theological meanings—they are also fighting, in a very real sense, for one of their TRADEMARKS; the specific PACKAGING that consumers identify with the brand…

So, blue narrative, you said you had your own ideas about what is motivating them to fight so hard for this Brand Identity. Please tell.
My hypothesis is the Brand Identity gives them powerful credibility to espouse their political agenda.

[81] Posted by Deja Vu on 11-16-2007 at 01:46 PM · [top]

“the Episcopal Church, for matters of its own integrity,...” Of course, its quite apparent that the church of the new thing no longer has any integrity-well, I mean they have “Integrity”, they just dont have “integrity”....heck, you know what I mean…

[82] Posted by Bob K. on 11-16-2007 at 01:48 PM · [top]

Yes Carl is right about the loony left in TEC - but I think that they are heavily weighted among clergy and delegates to conventions - far fewer in the pews.  This kind of war talk might not sit to well with the remaining scotch and soda Episcopalian bankers, doctors, lawyers, ceo’s that write the big checks.  It also does not play well with all the Bishops’ flocks in rural America and those like SisterinChrist that wish this unpleasntness would just go awy. Like the DNC TEC cannot survive with just the crazies and the homosexuals- TEC needs its beloved moderates, the soft left, and those who are asleep to stay reasonably happy. 1968-esq street theatre usually fails (though for the participants (like perhaps Carl) it is a rush).  Overreach by +KJS can be a gift if properly exploited.

[83] Posted by chips on 11-16-2007 at 01:52 PM · [top]

chips
I’m on your side.  smile  Heck, David Ould even called me an an über-Puritan (whatever that is) which I assume is a good thing.  I was just being descriptive of reality. 
Seriously, if you have read the comments on the liberal blogs, you would see they have been screaming for this kind of action for months.  I have noticed a rather marked drop-off in interaction between the two sides over the last 12 months, and I think this is why.

carl, the ever-so-optimistic dolphin-like Calvinist über-Puritan or is ‘dolphin-like’ also trademarked?

[84] Posted by carl on 11-16-2007 at 01:59 PM · [top]

Sorry Carl - you lost me on the “extreme provocation” - seemed like that whine about “violence” (as in when one says that “homosexuality is opposed by the Church” vareity of violence) please accept my humble appologies.  Don’t shoot your friends is a motto we all should live by.

[85] Posted by chips on 11-16-2007 at 02:04 PM · [top]

Apparently the video made quite a impression.  Comparing this now with Julia Duin’s article from yesterday, “Former Episcopal leaders reminded of vows,” http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071115/NATION/111150045 , her article of today (one referenced here) seems to me quite different in tone - daring to interpret Schori’s “could not support” as “forced ... to sue” - which indeed is what “could not support” amounted to.

[86] Posted by j.m.c. on 11-16-2007 at 02:27 PM · [top]

CANA’s presence ‘violates the ancient principle of the church that two bishops do not have jurisdiction in the same area,’ said the presiding bishop, whose face appeared on three screens positioned around the courtroom.”

  Oh?  How about the diocese of Navajoland?  Or that fact that in Rome there are a TEC parish and a CofE parish within a ten minute walk of one another?  She is grasping at straws.

[87] Posted by Brize on 11-16-2007 at 02:52 PM · [top]

KJS:  would you like some cheese with that whine?

[88] Posted by no longer NH Episcopalian on 11-16-2007 at 02:59 PM · [top]

“Sniff!”  “Sniff!”  I smell BeerKat, not just Kat in all of this.

Let’s see….ancient traditions…ancient rules…..Ancient…Hmmmm….

Like no same-sex sex?  How far does that one go?
Or no suing a brother?  At least 1900 years on that one.
Or perhaps not bearing false witness?  We might have 5,000 years on that one!
And let’s not forget that old bugaboo adultery…Another 3,500 years at least!

Maybe to a Marine Biologist, that’s not really ancient.  I don’t know.

Seriously, everyone who said we have to spread the word about her bigotry towards the Nigerian Church is dead on.  She’s so secular, this is just a proxy fight to her, and she has no idea that the shareholders are ready to jump ship and/or vote her out. 

Wake up Kat! (BeerKat!), Both of you looked bad in court.

KTF!...mrb

[89] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 11-16-2007 at 03:06 PM · [top]

Is not this first trial to address the issue about whether there is a legitimate split in the Episcopal Church?  And isn’t TEC supposed to be trying to argue that there has not, in fact, been a split?  And doesn’t KJS’s deposition testimony basically prove that there actually has been a split, and what’s more that KJS is especially concerned BECAUSE of the split?

If there was no split, then there would have been no special concern over TEC’s integrity that distinguished between Methodists and Anglicans.  Basically what KJS said is “yes, there is a split, and I am very concerned about this split.  For this reason, we must take a hard line against these congregations.”  And that sort of attitude would seem to me to be exactly why the Virginia statute was passed in the first place.

[90] Posted by jamesw on 11-16-2007 at 03:13 PM · [top]

Ironic isn’t it,how heavyhandedness comes back to bite one in the bum,or is it the ‘integrity’ of the institution?
By her own words yet,Psalm 59:12.

[91] Posted by paddy on 11-16-2007 at 03:21 PM · [top]

As regards why TEC is suing, etc.  I, too, think “brand Name” is a huge factor.  However, I am repeatedly made aware of the narcissism of many of these “players” i.e. KJS, VGR and DBB.  They entered the fray, as it were, thinking they were going to foist their “new thing” onto the “pew potatoes” as someone referred to them.  I am 99% sure they totally miscalculated the level of resistance that would occur.  My guess is they anticipated a temporary dust storm and then everyone would assume their usual places in TEC.  They assumed that their “new thing” would secure them a place in history.  They didn’t factor that that particular place in history would be presiding over the death of TEC.  Imagine what a blow that would be, even to an ordinary ego!

[92] Posted by no longer NH Episcopalian on 11-16-2007 at 03:23 PM · [top]

jamesw, I believe TEC’s line is that there is not a ‘division’, just a whole bunch of organized groups trying to leave and steal their property.

[93] Posted by Paul B on 11-16-2007 at 03:25 PM · [top]

jamesw:
See my posts here and at T19 earlier in the week on the earlier WashTimes story (Monday).  The diocese/ECUSA in its briefs argues as a matter of law 57-9 requires a hierarchical denomination to recognize the split through the actions of its canonical processes e.g. GenCon.  On the other hand, CANA/ADV is arguing a “plain meaning” interpretation of “division”.

The judge is allowing testimony on the 57-9 issue to make a determination on the law matter of what 57-9 requires.  FYI, I excerpted his questions that are to be guiding the present proceeding in two of my T19 posts on Monday.

Peace,

[94] Posted by miserable sinner on 11-16-2007 at 03:27 PM · [top]

Yes, miserble sinner and james w: Basically TEC’s argument is that there is no division unless THEY SAY there has been a division.

Hence CANA’s testimony this week regarding ‘impaired communion’ between Nigeria and TEC.

[95] Posted by selah on 11-16-2007 at 03:46 PM · [top]

So, wha

[96] Posted by miserable sinner on 11-16-2007 at 04:31 PM · [top]

Hiccup - retry -
selah:
Thanks.  You too might want to visit the posts from Monday over at T19.  A bunch of us carried on for 90 some posts regarding the tactics of the case & related issues. http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/7553/#comments

I’d love to get your take.

Peace,

[97] Posted by miserable sinner on 11-16-2007 at 04:46 PM · [top]

Putting PB Schori on the stand at the end of the defense testimony via a video tape was shear genius by the legal defense team.
LDT: Your Honor, We call Presiding Bishop Schori to the stand.
Is there division in the church?
PB: Yes. 
LDT: Who stopped negotiations between Bishop Lee and the congregations?
PBS: Me.
LDT: We rest our case, your Honor.

[98] Posted by bradhutt on 11-16-2007 at 05:39 PM · [top]

Yet even much MORE Evidence that the Episcopal Church is Apostate!

Man alive… she makes me ... SO happy I’m under Bishop Guernsey!

Yipee!  Allelu!  Thanks be to God - and Kathy we call ourselves ANGLICAN… oh yeah!

[99] Posted by Eclipse on 11-16-2007 at 06:29 PM · [top]

This Sunday folks:  ‘But before all this occurs, they will arrest you and persecute you; they will hand you over to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors because of my name. This will give you an opportunity to testify.”

[100] Posted by Enlightened on 11-16-2007 at 07:25 PM · [top]

I find the appeal to ancient episcopacy boundaries unbelievable.  To appeal to Nicene jurisdictional ecclesiology is completely ridiculous on this side of the Reformation.  The Reformation argued that departure from apostolic faith legitimated an alternative jurisdiction from the Roman Church.  If you want to appeal to Nicene ecclesiology, Mrs. Schori, you must go submit yourself to the local Roman Catholic bishop in New York; or if you prefer, go submit yourself to the Orthodox bishop.  In either case, you are no longer a bishop, effective immediately.  Surely even the post-modern secularist, who is oblivious of his or her own irony, can still see the blatant, oblivious, asinine, looney-toons nature of the Episcopal Church’s latest circular illogic.

And that is my considered, post-Episcopal-seminary-educational-engineered opinion.  Would someone please hire adult supervision for 815?  Beers and Schori are unbelievable.  Who do they think they are appealing to?  Their mission is unsustainable: liberals propagate the species at a negative rate, their gospel is not one even they encourage conversion to because of all the other Jesuses out there, their sermons can be listened to through commentators on NPR without the hassle of going to church and suffering the awkwardness of bad-high-school-play equivalency, their target market of currently most-victimized are biologically incapable of species propagation, etc.  Even Dick Morris could predict the outcome of this strategy, and to top it off, they are suggesting that they should be able to monopolize Anglicanism’s brand-name while changing the secret formula to New Coke?  AAAAAAAAAAAGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! 

(10 deep breaths….)

Another thing… Peter Lee was about to lead his Diocese into temporary financial solvency in advance of the serious funding issues coming nation-wide in Episcopal Churches.

I am so glad to be in the AMiA and considering all of these things from the minimum safe distance of an inter-faith dialog with these crazy people.  They’re insane.  And that is not an ad hominem attack…. I engaged them in the listening process, went to their seminaries, and really tried hard not to laugh or cry for nearly a decade.  Its too sad…. my evangelical Episcopal forebears literally built the cathedral in this state, and they are turning it into an absolute parade of naked empresses.  I can’t handle it….

[101] Posted by Christoferos on 11-16-2007 at 07:27 PM · [top]

Perhaps KJS can trademark her role as QUEEN OF MEAN.
Which rhymes with “marine.”

[102] Posted by Irenaeus on 11-16-2007 at 08:28 PM · [top]

I thought that the Presiding Bishop had no authority over her fellow bishops!

And that is why nobody needs “alternative Primatial oversight”. Because . . . she is only a bishop with no oversight or power over dioceses.

Die?  I did die. 
And the people came.
And the worms came.
And I laughed.
I laughed so hard.
I laughed so hard, that I died.

Die?  I did die…

- ???

[103] Posted by J Eppinga on 11-16-2007 at 08:32 PM · [top]

I think that one reason Bp Schori and other revisionists desperately do not want to let the orthodox go is that they would not only lose a lot of property and people, but even worse, they would have to admit that they are teaching a new “gospel.”  They want to say that they are really teaching the ancient gospel, one that was unfortunately expressed in restrictive language but when properly understood can be expressed in all its glory by their deeper understanding and expression.

In this way, they can believe what they like—and do what they like—and still be covered as being godly and good.  They want to sin and call it holy, and the only way to do that is to keep us, or at least the property.  I suppose they may fool some human judges—but not the final Judge.

[104] Posted by AnglicanXn on 11-16-2007 at 08:43 PM · [top]

Christoferos,

You just made my day with your comments. I have a big smile on my face right now. Thank you!

Yes, these people ARE insane and/or very, very, very stupid—IN ADDITION to being explicitly sub-Christian.

Like you, I am SO HAPPY to be in the AMiA now… It is a breath of fresh air after years of inhaling the stench coming from the decaying corpse of TEC.

[105] Posted by bluenarrative on 11-16-2007 at 09:39 PM · [top]

Brother Sinner writes,

Calling all constitional scholars:
Does CANA/ADV represent a ‘protected class’ (religion) when it comes to the disposition of property?  Does this apply to disposition of church buildings?  What are the triggers?  e.g., what if the Diocese/ECUSA said it wouldn’t sell to a synagogue or mosque? Is the sale by a religious instiution exempt?  Under what circumstances would the exemptions apply? e.g. OK to baptists but not to X?

In other words, are you asking if TEC is engaging in unlawful discrimination when it says it will sell to Methodists or Baptists, but not to African Anglicans?

Interesting question.  I don’t know.

[106] Posted by William P. Sulik on 11-16-2007 at 09:55 PM · [top]

Why is the call to “all constituional scholars” and not to the LAWYERS representing the CANA churches? The question strikes me as being a LOT more than an interesting bit of theoretical speculation—it seems to me that a very pragmatic and pertinent legal issue has been raised here. I know that it is late in the game for the CANA side to shift tactics and to add yet another nuance to their case. But this is a GOOD point to be raised. One that is bound to impress the judge. Seriously, does ANYBODY know if the CANA legal team has considered this angle? Does anybody have the means of directly communicating with them? There is a LOT MORE at stake in northern Virginia than some real estate.

[107] Posted by bluenarrative on 11-16-2007 at 10:33 PM · [top]

Blue Narrative,

I’ll go post Brother Sinner’s question on Baby Blue’s site. She’ll know.

[108] Posted by selah on 11-16-2007 at 11:11 PM · [top]

“Would someone please hire adult supervision for 815?”  ROFL!  Would someone please get this inscribed on the TEC tombstone????

[109] Posted by no longer NH Episcopalian on 11-16-2007 at 11:58 PM · [top]

++ABC seems to have been silenced.

At the time of GC2006 I believed TEC was acting as disobedient teenagers, pushing the limits and watching for their parents response. The failure to act has resulted in the kids taking over.

When things are getting out of control, it is a good time to announce some global initiative to deflect attention, and here it is:

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2007/10/18/ACNS4329

Also, watch for large capital programs or mission initiatives in your dioceses. It’s a way to show “All-is-well” and we are moving forward with big programs - of course, these expect commitment with calls for money. Better watch that money very carefully.

Notice in the initiative to North Korea that ++ABC is in the background and ++KJS is up front. Isn’t it interesting that this effort is with an “Axis of Evil” Country, while the recent PRC initiative of Global South is with a country where trade is expanding. Folks the AC needs to split; or, should I say, it already has.

[110] Posted by Dr. N. on 11-17-2007 at 05:55 AM · [top]

With regard to the discrimination issue, usually there’s exemptions for religious organizations and I’m not familiar with the intricacies of the law here.  However the Fair Housing Act does have the following exemption:

Fair Housing Act and didn’t see anything quite on point.

There’s an exemption in the FHA but it allows a religous organization to limit sales to within the same religion:

42 U.S.C. 3607 (a) Nothing in this subchapter shall prohibit a religious organization, association, or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association, or society, from limiting the sale, rental or occupancy of dwellings which it owns or operates for other than a commercial purpose to persons of the same religion, or from giving preference to such persons, unless membership in such religion is restricted on account of race, color, or national origin. Nor shall anything in this subchapter prohibit a private club not in fact open to the public, which as an incident to its primary purpose or purposes provides lodgings which it owns or operates for other than a commercial purpose, from limiting the rental or occupancy of such lodgings to its members or from giving preference to its members.

[111] Posted by William P. Sulik on 11-17-2007 at 10:14 AM · [top]

“...a national church based in New York City.”

Noo Yawk City!!

(from a popular salsa ad.)

[112] Posted by loonpond on 11-17-2007 at 10:38 AM · [top]

Ah, yes, based in NOO YAWK CITY rather than Christ!  And for that we have the word of Bishop Epting: http://ecubishop.wordpress.com/2007/09/24/house-of-bishops-day-four-sunday/#comments

[113] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 11-17-2007 at 10:54 AM · [top]

Along the lines noted by William P. Sulik, there are several situations I can think of where discrimination of this general type is illegal (not claiming this is an exhaustive list by any means):

1.  Whenever there’s a state actor involved (Section 1983 civil rights action);
2.  Whenever there’s discrimination in housing (Fair Housing Act);
3.  Whenever there’s discrimination on the basis of disability by owners/operators of a place of public accommodation (Americans w/ Disabilities Act).

I don’t see how any would apply here except maybe as to the respective rectories, but then the religious exception noted above would seem to apply.

[114] Posted by Jeff in VA on 11-17-2007 at 11:20 AM · [top]

“Also, watch for large capital programs or mission initiatives in your dioceses.”  It really is just about “follow the money” isn’t it?

[115] Posted by no longer NH Episcopalian on 11-17-2007 at 12:02 PM · [top]

Re: William Sulik’s post above—-the FHA exemption seems to cover only the exact opposite of what’s going on here.  That is, TEC could insist that the buildings be sold only to other Anglicans, but they can’t insist that the building be sold to anyone but other Anglicans.

[116] Posted by In Newark on 11-17-2007 at 12:15 PM · [top]

BlueNarrative:  I’d be shocked if my question has any impact on anyone’s strategy or tactics on either side. 

Peace & blessings,

[117] Posted by miserable sinner on 11-17-2007 at 02:25 PM · [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.