At Last: One Bishop Speaks Out About the Attempted “Deposition” Vote at the HOB Meeting

Props to +Howe. This shows serious guts.

First of all someone should remind bishop Howe that sarcasm is not becoming an apostle.

Was he at the HOB meeting and did he vote?  If not then this is more of the spineless action that has marked the “Windsor Bishops” over the past year.

It also occurs to me how craven and useless it makes the rest of the HoB seem in comparison.

Its called damage control.

God bless Bishop Howe.

What post is he referring to?
Did he put something on the HOB listserve?

Jill Woodliff, Post 5, I am also thankful that Bishop Howe has spoken the truth and pray that God will bless him.

I did not notice any sarcasm, frrreed.

And he compared his fellow bishops to Pilate.

Sorry, but if somebody is going to write a letter decrying this action—and frankly, it’s not like the blogosphere has been overrun by bishops decrying this action—then this letter pretty much cuts the mustard, it seems to me.

Granted he did not challenge anyone to pistols at 10 paces as the dew is yet wet on the grass . . . but as letters go this is pretty much the cat’s meow in my opinion.

not one of you has even acknowledged my post

It would really be nice to know to whom that post was sent.  Note that this is addressed to “My Dear Brothers”, not “brothers and sisters”.  And he hopes the lawyer-bishops will take on an issue that “that you [apparently excluding the lawyer-bishops] are obviously not willing to confront.”  This doesn’t sound like it was sent to all bishops.  Was it sent to the Windsor bishops?

Good for Bp. Howe!

Hmm, kudos for trying, +Howe.  This is the group for whom you wish to strengthen the hand of the PB ... but that was BEFORE the recent HOB abandonment of canons wasn’t it? 

Dollars to donuts this is an august body of Camp Allen bishops blowin’ in the wind, sir. 

I’m thinking someone’s feelin’ a bit like the hand-over-er post facto, but maybe it’s just the Maundy Thursday liturgy resonating in this time.

God Bless you Bishop +Howe! It takes a brave man to stand up against the masses that seem hell bent on destroying a faith/church/canons and everything else that goes them. You will be in our constant prayers!

May this stance froma courageuos Bishop inspire others to do the same. If you want your leader(s) above you, the Archbishops/Primates, to have a spine and do what is necessary, then you too must do as you expect of others. So what say all of the rest of you!??????

UPDATE: It appears that at the top of the email [above the communication] Bishop Howe indicates this was sent to the three senior bishops of The Episcopal Church.

Sarah - who are these three senior bishops?

About time!  Thanks Bishop Howe.  Pax Christi!

May God use this moment of commitment on Bishop Howe’s part and grant him joy and divine light in these troubling days. I also pray that this may open the way for good changes in the overall situation surrounding this church.

Branford, it’s Bps Frade, Lee, and Wimberly.  See this ENS article.

While I applaud Bishop Howe taking on the issue, I do find it hard to understand the comments talking about this as “courageous” action.  It should be routine for bishops of the church to insist on truth, on fairness, on good order in the church.  I guess the comments about courage reflect how far TEC has fallen when we see courage in simple acts of faithfulness.  Is there so much fear of retribution by KJS and Beers that it now takes “courage” to speak the truth?

This letter, and the original post to which it refers, was sent to the three senior bishops.  In other words, Bishop Howe appealed to them to investigate the irregularities.  When they ignored him he issued the same request to those bishops in the HOB who also happen to be lawyers.

John Liebler

I imagine Bishop Howe has just made a mess for himself.  There seems to be an deafening silence from the HOB about their inability to follow the canons.  Thank you for speaking the truth Bishop Howe.  The reference to Pilate was right on.

Dean Reed

I think it is good that the TEO (The Episcopal Organization) has apparently decided to ignore cries of protest and hope it moves on. RomeAnglican gives many reasons for them not to do this. It has been widely reported in the Anglican world. I do not think that Rowan Williams can possibly withdraw the invitation of Bp Schofield with this tainted deposition. The issue will arise when the presiding litigator has to give a deposition:

Lawyer: “You mean to say that you want the state of California to defer to your church canons when you disregard them at a whim?

f.reed -#2:  Sir, you said, “more of the spineless action”.  Now I agree with you that the response by the ‘Windsor bishops’ at NO, and perhaps at the HoB was depressingly discouraging.  However, I certainly would not characterize this as ‘spineless action’. 
However disappointing his actions or non-actions over the last year or two have been, there is no way of describing this letter as being anything other than a courageous stand against immense hostility by the majority of bishops.

John Liebler—This is Jim Workman, formerly of C.Fla. Would you please write more. Was Bishop Howe present at the HOB meeting? Did he raise any parliamentary questions? You explained this letter; what was the “post”? That sounds like something to a listserve (maybe one for bishops only). Has Bishop Howe told clergy what he will do about the obvious violation of the canons?

P.S. I regularly refer to your testimony about the resurrection—“Preach like you believe it” and you came to believe it.

+John was my pastor for many years at Truro.  Sometime I will make a larger post on “what I thonk makes John Howe tick”.  But for now, you all need to know that +John is procedurally driven.  He believes in TEC but wants TEC to “follow the rules”.

I think many will agree that if TEC had followed it’s own procedures many untoward things would not have happened.  One example:  WO was “pushed” illegally by rouge Bishops and did not get the necessary “2 general conventions” approval in advance.  On that basis, +John resisted WO until it received the proper approval regardless of his personal feelings (he’s pro).  Same for the Gay/Lesbian consecration issue which was short-circuited by the +Robinson HOB vote, etc.

If +John is protesting these actions (against +Schofield etal) he is protesting initially on a procedural basis and not necessairly on how he feels about the merits or lack thereof regarding separation.  If he is asked to vote on separation he will do so on a strictly legal basis, and would probably vote to separate inasmuch as +Schofield has resigned anyways.

Just my opinion, but this might serve to quell frustration on behalf of many on this board.

I didn’t think you were allowed to speak this bluntly and still be an anglican.  Howe’s letter is further evidence of M. McCall’s observation that the HOB is in meltdown mode.  If the HOB loses any of the property litigation cases then the meltdown will have reached critical mass.  If the Saul’s litigation strategy fails the Episcopal church is DOA.

#24 - yes - but remember, +John is making a procedural objection.  It is not clear whether he regards the OUTCOME (separation) of the vote to be despicable or whether he regards the procedures that were followed to be despicable.

My guess, he wants a proper recorded vote to be taken.  If must be a majority of all Bishops eligible to vote, as discussed ad-nauseum on this board.  If a majority is gotten, he will probably agree with the outcome, even though perhaps personally objecting.

+John is a firm believer in the basics of TEC and the Elizabethian Settlement (Anglicanism).  He believes that things can be worked out and that people of differing opinions can work together (Anglo-Catholic, High Church, Low Church Evangelican, and Middle Church stand-for-nothing).  Look at the separations in his our diocese - so far no bitter words and no lawsuits.  They all still talk.

Rocks brings up a salient point. Is there any chatter at all going on at the HOB/D Listserve about this violation of the canons?

The Rabbit.

That this good bishop, who in the past I think most of us would refer to as “mild mannered” or at times “timid”, comes out and uses the words “disgusted” and “despicable” to describe the unresponsiveness and actions, respectively, of his fellow bishops, gives us some glimpse of just how viscious and vindictive the HoB meeting must have been. 

So, let us all say a prayer for Bishop Howe, that he may continue to stand firm in the faith.  And remember, whatever we think of his past actions, that this is often the way the Lord works- He allows us a moment of grace in which we clearly understand Him, and the path He wishes us to take. 

And in a more immediate and practical sense, let us remember that Bishop Howe has ++Rowan’s personal email address.  So, I think we might speculate without too much risk, the Archbishop of Canterbury is hearing another side to this story in addition to the fable being spun by 815.

On this day, let us also remember that whatever our travails, they are insignificant in comparison to the agony our Lord suffered for us.

TJ

Just to fill some gaps -

Yes, Bishop Howe was at the meeting.  He voted against the depositions.  He shared 2 emails with the DCF clergy that night, one informing us with sadness of the vote and the other affirming his objections to & vote against it.  His initial inquiry about procedure does not anticipate a different result (neither Schofield or Cox wants to be in TEC or recognizes their authority anyway.)  But following George Conger’s excellent reports, the implications of the legalities of the process are huge.

I feel a major (not the only) problem in TEC is failure to follow our own rules, failure to believe what we say we believe, failure to be who we say we are, failure to submit to our ordination vows as they are written in plain language.  There is anarchy bred in the name of “conscience.”  People break our own rules and standards for conscience sake, forcing people to respond in conscience. 

One of my dearest retired priest-friends observes, “Too many people are worried about what other people think instead of what Jesus thinks.” 

And reflecting on this in the shadow of the cross this morning would be unbearable if not for Christ’s grace.  We honor and serve Him here, and will continue to do so as long as he calls us to this mission field.  God have mercy on us, and Christ sustain us.

Tim Nunez+ (DCF)

THANK YOU Bishop Howe!

But Star-Ace, procedure is a large part of the problem.  As long as the Administration of the denomination is allowed to set their own rules at whim the cause is lost.  I’m glad he spoke up, no matter what motivates him.  No one else did.

I am glad to hear that Bishop Howe stayed and voted on the depositions.  Perhaps that does explain the tone of his email.

I cannot bring myself to see this as a bold or heroic statement.  Calling for TEC to abide by the canons falls short.  Unless by those canons there are bishops who will call for charges to be brought against KJS and Co. for false teaching, and abandonment of the communion. 

The reactionary mode of response has failed.  They take a step away from the faith and then statements/threats are made.  Then they take another step followed by more statements. 

Perhaps our Windsor bishops could summon up true courage to actively seek deposition of KJS.  That would go along way to reforming the church from within.  It might even keep Duncan, Iker and others from leaving.  Who knows, it might even re-establish TEC as a part of the church catholic.

Pray that as the HOB, in washing their hands, has condemned TEC to a certain death, that the Father will, by His Spirit, inspire her bishops with wisdom and courage that she might be raised to a new and glorious life.

To answer another question, there have been multiple posts on HOB/D this week following Conger’s article and more today after +Howe’s letter became public.  They boil down to one side pointing out that the rules weren’t followed and that it is critical for TEC to follow its own canons in the depositions, and one side saying “they wanted to leave anyway, so who cares? Can’t we focus on Easter?”

The abominable deposition route is bad enough, but I’d agree that the procedural and canonical questions are vital even if one doesn’t hope for a diferent outcome.

When the Title IV review committee announced that there may have been canonical violations in the Dio of CT, but they weren’t that big a deal and they were done with good intentions and the bishop didn’t really personally carry them out anyway… that was the beginning of the end for me.  I had been a CommCon at heart (I suppose I still am) but that was when I began to question whether there was any point in trying to fight the good fight in an organization that couldn’t be disciplined from within or without.  I’m happy to be a provisional Kenyan now.  There were other circumstances at play as well, but the failure of discipline was significant.  And it’s even more offensive when the same leadership accuses others of breaching that discipline.

(I won’t disparage those who decide to remain in TEC, and I am sorry to see it when other so disparage.  Just my own witness.)

Scoot K,
Your observation about the comments on the HoB Listserv is pretty correct on a whole but, I would add since sitting here with my coffe reading all that is in inbox that there are more tha a few who are batting back and forth how “The last two depositions were done and no one complained then. The precedent was set over a decade ago.”
And I might add one good voice stating something that no one has asked yet here on SF or there on the HoB Listserv nor has anyone touched on….  ”+John Howe’s had his opportunity to object from the floor of the HoB, but he passed.”

It does seem to me that the time for objection or to call a point of order was at that HoB meeting before voting or allowing a vote to take place until it was understood that they were misreading the canons or that they were not able to take the vote due to lack of voting members eligible and the lack of three consenting bishops to depose Bishop Cox.

Interesting - Prayers for Bishop Howe.

One Day Closer, the depositions are a nullity because there was no vote as required by Canon IV.9.  So this is not a case where failure to object is relevant.  If there wasn’t a vote by a majority of the whole number of bishops eligible to vote—there was no depsition.  Period.

hanks,
You need not tell me this. The persons whom seem to not agree are the PB and her Chanchellor and those that are of the opinion that all is well and things were done correctly!

I know they were not…so why are you pointing this out at me as if I hold the same inccorect opinions as KJS & DBB and the majority of the HoB’s? I simply stated a fact from the HoB Listserv of a few that are pointing out that no one, including Bishop Howe, objected or called apoint of order at the time of the meeting before taking the vote and that the last two depositions done were done much in the same way and that no one complained about them. If you look at my post above you will see the bolded quotations…those are not my words they are someone elses that are being voiced on the HoB listserv. Hence the quotation marks.

Sorry, ODC, I thought you were arguing that the time for +Howe to object was at the HOB meeting, and to bring up the matter now is too late.  Glad we’re in agreement that these depositions are a nullity.  The evil, the lies, the “ends justifies the means” conniving all lay at the feet of the PB and Beers.

IMHO there needs to be a separate procedure for those who WANT to leave and those who don’t.  +Schofield WANTS to leave - for heavens sake, he has resigned from TEC.  Just accept the resignation and “hail fellow - well met”.  +Chambers wanted to leave 25+/- years ago.  In fact, he was already retired.  +Duncan wants to leave now.  Tere are more.

While the proper procedures were not followed, were not the assembled bishops just doing what the subjects wanted them to do.  Or is it “please beg me ‘enuf and I’ll stay.”  Lets get real about these current separations.

There are a lot of folks dissatisfied with TEC.  If these folks (Bishops, Priests, Deacons, laypersons) want to leave, why not grease the skids (like +John did in Central Florida).  Give ‘em a golden parachute (they do retain benefits in the Pension Fund) and hold open the airplane door.

When we left, I didn’t want anyone attempting to deter me.  I’m a big boy and came make my own decisions (and live with them) !

star-ace, I think the procedure is, GCC lets people leave without show trials and it doesn’t try to steal the parish’s or diocese’s property on the way out.  I’ve taken your comments in the past to be less than charitable to that idea, but perhaps I’ve misread.

star-ace
You want the proper procedure for a bishop who wants to leave?

All the PB and the HOB need to do is say:  “Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.” 

No need to try stripping them of their God ordained holy orders.

Actually, a majority of the Dio of SJ wanted to keep their cathedral, which is vested in the office currently held by +JDS.

#2 frreed

First of all someone should remind bishop Howe that sarcasm is not becoming an apostle.

The only evidence we have for letters from Apostles is the Epistles. Paul is either being sarcastic, or suggesting surgery:

Gal 5:12 “I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!”

There are other examples from the writings of the early church fathers that express sarcasm - as reported by Irenaeus about John’s behavior toward the heretic Cerinthus:

Irenaeus in his writing against heresy (Adv. Haer. 3.3.4) wrote that Polycarp said ‘that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, “Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.”’

I have not been enthusiastic about +Howe’s acquiescence toward the path TEO has been heading, but this strong letter is to be commended, including its highly emotive and perhaps even sarcastic tone.

The litigation is driving the “abandoning the communion” charge.  Schori and Beer maintained in the Virginia litigation that the Episcopal Church is the communion.  Bishop Lee has used that phrase publicly in correspondence - that the “communion” is the Episcopal Church.  So if an Episcopal bishop resigns and goes ANYWHERE outside the Episcopal Church he is “abandoning the communion.”  They want to maintain that the Anglican Communion is just a loose federation of churches that share a common ancestory, but they totally reject that there is anything “catholic” about our shared orders.  In fact, I think they are trying to forget the fact that the ordained orders of the church are recognized as “Anglican.” 

That’s why Schori could not accept Schofield’s resignation from the TEC House of Bishops.  When Victoria (I’m sorry, I’ve forgotten her last name) was elected to the House of Bishops in New Zealand, she must (or has) resigned from the Canadian House of Bishops.  That will be accepted because she’s just going to go and join another House, she’s not leaving the denomination.

But since litigation is driving the decisions of the Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor, Schori could not accept Schofield’s resignation to go to the Southern Cone House of Bishops because then she would show that the Episcopal Church belongs to a denomination not unto itself.  So she did not accept it and so he cannot resign the TEC House of Bishops. Instead, she choose to charge him with abandoning the communion, to make the case for her litigation.

Since the litigation is driving the process - rather than the heart-felt prayerful process that the canons spell out - the same sort of situational expediency that got us into this mess in the first place is now being used to expel Schori’s opponents.  John Howe is right to be outraged.  He has been trying so hard to stand by the canonical process, even when many of us thought it was too late - still, he stood for that process as a way of holding back the chaos.  But when the presiding bishop herself chucks that process out the window, send out her lawyer to explain things and the three senior bishops sink into denial and ignore a nearly as senior-ranking bishop (do we realize how close John Howe is to becoming one of the senior bishops of The Episcopal Church - think about it) illustrates what a sorry state the House of Bishops is sinking to.

If a majority of quorum is now all that is needed to depose a bishop, perhaps Schori should be very careful about where quorums of bishops might be meeting one day.  Those canons are there not only to protect her opponents - but to protect her as well.

God bless, John Howe, who brought me into the Episcopal Church.

bb

44-See my post #31.  I get it.  Bp. Howe is the one who talked of strengthening KJS’ hand recently.  Perhaps my cynicism let me see only sarcasm.

Whatever else you can say about +Howe and what he has done or not done in the past, he is, so far, the only one who has had the cojones to go public and by doing so has painted a big target on his back. I wish him luck.

the snarkster

Oh one who is snarky, amen to that.  Again, I pray that God would instill such strength in many more.

#40 - perhaps you have not read me carefully.  I have always said that first-generation churches belong to the folks who paid for them and if the folks leave, then the church buildings should go with them.

But, it’s more of a problem for the historic parishes like Truro, Pohick and The Falls Church.  These plants ar 250+ years old.  The current occupants DID NOT pay for them.  All past members (yours truly) who supported a building program (not ongoing expenses) paid for them.  I have a lot of difficulty in giving them to the current occupants, many who have been there less that 5 years.

Is that so unreasonable ???

Well, Truro’s buildings are not that old (though the parish itself is very old).  We’ve had a few wars go through our parts over the years, as you might have read about some where, wreaking havoc.

The Yankees destroyed the original building for Truro Parish, but not of course until after it had all ready been decided by the former-Anglican Virginians who chucked the whole idea of bishops and went Baptist after the American Revolution.  They got to keep the building and there was no Episcopal church building for quite a while until the Falls Church helped organize a new congregation, but that took quite a while and for a while the parish met in homes and at the Old Fairfax Courthouse. The next building, the original Zion Church built on the current location for Truro Parish, was destroyed by those Yankees as well.  The next Zion was destroyed by fire in the 1940s.  The first Truro Church was built in 1933 (now the Chapel) as a replica of the original church that went Baptist after the Revolution.  The second - and current - Truro Church main building was built it in the late 1950s.  It was signficantly expanded in the 1980s.  There is just no way that the Diocese of Virginia - unless it wants to spend lots and lots more from its endowments - is going to keep the Truro operation going if we head off to the corn fields.  It takes a whole lot of dough just to keep the lights turned on.  Let’s get real.

We were following the protocol which called for votes following both the canons and the Commonwealth of Virginia’s statues and following that was to be the property negotiations, as All Saints Dale City had all ready done.  We were at the table - it was the Diocese that left after Schori had her little chat with Bishop Lee, and sued everybody and their cat. 

Star-Ace, how about ringing up Bishop Lee and see if you can get him back to the negotiating table.  The clock is ticking.

bb

“We were at the table - it was the Diocese that left after Schori had her little chat with Bishop Lee, and sued everybody and their cat.

Star-Ace, how about ringing up Bishop Lee and see if you can get him back to the negotiating table.  The clock is ticking”.

And boy, wouldn’t we all like to know the nature of “the little chat”.  Extortion/blackmail, anyone?  Must be something pretty explosive, too, to successfully bully a man who is staring retirement in the face, anyway. 

Maybe along with those funny Hillary Clinton nutcrackers that internet vendors are selling they should add the Episcopal version. 

Revolting…

star-ace #49, in some ways it’s not so unreasonable.  On the other hand, the key question to ask is whether pretty much every single one of those people over 250 years would have considered it anything other than a desolating sacrilege for their church to be “marrying” men to each other.  And, as the DioVa showed very quickly after the CANA parishes departed, that’s exactly what the future holds.  In the GCC, you submit, or you’re extinguished.  The life cycle in the case of women’s ordination (that is, you do it, or we crush you) was about thirty years; in the case of gay “marriages,” I predict it will be much, much shorter.  Sometimes, you have to get out while the gettin’s good, if you catch my drift.

May the Lord continue to bless this faithful bishop and former rector of Truro.

Peace and Lenten blessings to all,

#40 - perhaps you have not read me carefully.  I have always said that first-generation churches belong to the folks who paid for them and if the folks leave, then the church buildings should go with them.

But, it’s more of a problem for the historic parishes like Truro, Pohick and The Falls Church.  These plants ar 250+ years old.  The current occupants DID NOT pay for them.  All past members (yours truly) who supported a building program (not ongoing expenses) paid for them.  I have a lot of difficulty in giving them to the current occupants, many who have been there less that 5 years.

Is that so unreasonable ???

Totally unreasonable. When you give a gift (money, talent, time) you can’t just ask for it back when you get disgusted and leave. And how do you figure out who owns how much of which building? I know what our new church cost, how much I gave over and above my tithe. If I left should I be able to go in and knock off some bricks? Take some BCPs? Maybe some linens? I know! The baptismal font!! You gave and its over. So you don’t like it…tough.  The essence of generosity is in self sacrifice.

#50 - bb - well, the All Saints situation is not a very good example because All Saints and indeed Dale City is pretty much a first generation thing - at least back when they left.

The best evidence I can state is probably the stance of the TFC and Truro negiotiators before ++Schori (and +Lee) queered the deal.  I believe the offer was for $30 million combined.  If the current occupants really feel that they own the property they should have offered zero.

Yes, there were several buildling programs.  The initial, which built the (now) Chapel.  Raymond Davis built the present church and John Howe expanded sideways (and moved the choir to behind the altair (opps - I mean Table, sorry +John).

While we attended, there were 10-20 “old fairfax” families (Blankenship, Yates, Pritchard, etal) but most of the folks were government on 3 year tours of duty.  Very few of the existing families were there for the latest (+John Howe) expansion.

I contributed to the +John Howe expansion.  I want my share of the bricks and 1/2 of one of the Altar (opps sorry again - Table) candles.

This could get pretty silly - - -

You left - I know by you comments you feel devastated - say goodbye and move on.  (If you would like to private e-mail me I can give you some of the Raymond Davis and early John Howe details (1968-leaving).)

I am willing to start from right here with Bishop Howe. He has finally reached some critical point that has moved him to write with shockingly strong words for him (I thought it was an early April 1st parody at first) .  May he be valiant in the weeks ahead as KJS and her lawyer try all their tricks to get Bishop Duncan. I will be praying that Bishop Howe gets some excellent parliamentary help and uses all possible steps to ensure canonical fairness.

star-ace, 55, “the offer” was $30 million?  Please.  There was no such thing.  Just ask BB—she’ll give you the standard rant about how the Diocese reneged before negotiations even got started…

bb, 50, the world does not revolve around the Virginia litigation.  Notably and like most conspiracy theories, there’s no evidence for yours.  TEC’s inhibitions and depositions began before the Virginia litigation and will continue after it.  The various inhibitions and depositions that occurred in Virginia weren’t even mentioned at the trial or in the briefs.  TEC does not have to and did not try to demonstrate that it has no relationship with other Anglicans.  All it has to and did demonstrate is that it is autonomous.  In fact, that was uncontested—even the Church of Nigeria guy the CANA folks hauled over for the trial testified to that.  But what do facts matter…

Anyway, how about a friendly wager (proceeds to an Anglican charity that you name) on the Virginia outcome?

Each church was required to have its Vestry elect two representatives to Bishop Lee’s Property Committee.  We had just elected those representatives and informed Bishop Lee when David Booth Beers met the next day with Bishop Lee and I recall that by Wednesday of that same week the Bishop called off his Property Committee, told us not to bother to send our representatives any more, did not renew the Standstill Agreement as planned, and then sued everybody.  We never even got to negotiate anything.  So that $30 million number is wishful thinking, perhaps. One idea was that we would put the money in escrow for twenty years and then after twenty years we could either pay for the property or decide to remain in Diocese of Virginia and get our money back.  There were lots of interesting ideas - and that one can from the Suffragan Bishop. So there you are.

Well, we’re waiting to hear from Judge Bellows who should rule at any time.  Looks like he did decide to not interfere with Easter.  God bless him.  He’s a good man.  How ever he rules, I believe he will do his best to do what is right, whatever that may be - even if it means I will have to go and worship in a cornfield.

God bless you, Star-Ace.
bb

“...even if it means I will have to go and worship in a cornfield”. 

Our prayers are with all of you, bb; but, in my view, better a cornfield than a corrupt, two-faced coven. 

GiD

You know what’s the best part of Howe’s letter?  That last line:

“Warmest best wishes for a glorious Easter”

Oh, SNAP!!

I am a TFC member and a large chunk of the existing facility was bought within the last 20 years, as you probably know.  My wife and sacrificed when we were newly married to help pay for those buildings.  I was born and raised Episcopalian.  I sympathize but I have to agree with many of the above that the Diocese of Virginia and TEC never let a “just settlement” be attempted.  They were the ones who chose the “all or nothing” gambit of going to court.  Would I have been happy with paying x-million dollars, no but I could be persuaded of the fairness of it. 

As for members of the church who arrived “in the last five years”, would you deny the right to vote to persons who’ve only been citizens “the last five years”.  TFC, as you know, is evangelical…if bringing people to Christ upsets the balance of power then I guess we have to make our choices.  In this case, however, it would make the “progressives” the “reactionaries”.