Total visitors right now: 104

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Why It’s A Great Day To Be A Traditional Anglican

Friday, September 19, 2008 • 8:55 am

No, there are two other reasons why an Episcopal bishop would not want to support the deposition of Bishop Duncan. First, some bishops—obviously 30% of the House—care about following the canons, not convenience or political advantage. And second . . . and make no mistake about this . . . some bishops know just how very bad this looks to the rest of the Communion: to the bishops that they sat in indaba with, to fair-minded liberals, to Rowan Williams, and to moderates everywhere who have tried to be fair-minded with TEC.  Katherine Jefferts Schori and her advisors had two choices. They could violate the canons flagrantly and hang ‘em high now, further shattering TEC’s global reputation . . . or they could attempt to follow the canons scrupulously. They chose the former—and I think they knew the cost within the Communion.  The cost is TEC’s further distancing from the rest of the Communion. And Bishop Jefferts Schori was willing to pay that cost.

Let us set aside, for the purposes of this article, the fact that so many of the traditional Episcopal bishops apparently coordinated, communicated, and acted together within their powers to resist and protest and place on the record the fact that the attempts by the House of Bishops and its chair to depose Bishop Duncan were non-canonical and lawless.  The striking contrast in their behavior between yesterday’s meeting and the meeting of six months ago should warm all of our hearts—I feel like I have champagne bubbles in my blood.  Effervescent is, I believe, the appropriate word.

But what I’m going to concentrate on is what this does to The Episcopal Church as a whole.

All around TEC right now, there are many moderates waking up to forwarded emails and phone calls from their conservative friends detailing what happened yesterday—the frank lawlessness and violation of the canons, the enactment of an Episcopal Bush Doctrine and penalties for thought and speech crimes, and the violation, once again, of the progressive Episcopalians much-vaunted and loudly trumpeted values of “justice” and “inclusion.”  Try as they might, moderates simply aren’t going to be able to defend that behavior, particularly with the well-armed conservative friends having memorized so much of the applicable canons and with the excellent work of Mark McCall and A S Haley pointing out the violations.

Beyond that is the international scene.  Barely two months after lots of indabaing with 617 fellow Anglican Communion bishops . . . The Episcopal Church looks like nothing more than the Wild West, with the progressive bishops and the Presiding Bishop serving in the role of the feared and loathed gunslinging criminals who have taken over a town, prior to the deputized sherriff’s men restoring order. 

A better metaphor than that for the 88 bishops who voted to attempt to depose is that of a pack of hyenas circling an older, weaker hyena—in essence, mob rule, animal style.

And folks . . . all over the world, the message that bishops will receive is that The Episcopal Church—in its zeal to topple another bishop—violated its own canons, not even being able to wait until it could tie up the loose ends of actually having Bishop Duncan depart “the Communion of this Church” . . . . or, as I’ve pointed out before “the Church of this Church,” which is how the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church is choosing to amusingly interpret that canon.

All over the world, moderate bishops—the ones that came to Lambeth and went away further disturbed over the rank vacuity and pushiness of the progressive Episcopal bishops and their progressive activist friends that were shoving newspapers into their hands and protesting . . . the ones that came in with an open mind and left thinking “wow—I knew scripture was kinda clear . . . and now I know why!” . . . they’re going to see The Episcopal Church’s Pack of Hyenas.

And they’re going to see a frenzied haste too. 

Just think, had Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori followed the advice of cooler heads, she could have had two fewer canonical violations, and the support of more of her own bishops . . . because as it is over 30% of the attending bishops did not support the deposition.

She could have had the prior canonically required inhibition of the three senior bishops.

She could have had it scheduled on the agenda in advance.

She could have actually had the abandonment of Bishop Duncan from “the Church of this Church”  . . .

But because she wished to gain what she fancied would be a short-term strategic advantage—one that will look even more short-term three months from now—she chose to go ahead and violate even more canons than she might have six months from now.

And the bishops in other Provinces—the ones that have been in the middle—they’ll see it.  And it will merely add another straw on the back of the camel. 

Three months ago at Lambeth, progressive bishops marvelled over why so many other bishops of the Communion thought that TEC was so anti-gospel and supported same-sex blessings.  Three months from now, if they have the opportunity they’ll marvel over why so many other bishops of the Communion think that TEC is so lawless and so uncivilized.

And make no mistake.  The 39 bishops who did not vote to support the deposition of Bishop Duncan didn’t all do so because they are “theological conservatives.”  Some of them aren’t by any stretch of the imagination.

No, there are two other reasons why an Episcopal bishop would not want to support the deposition of Bishop Duncan.  First, some bishops—obviously 30% of the House—care about following the canons, not convenience or political advantage.  And second . . . and make no mistake about this . . . some bishops know just how very bad this looks to the rest of the Communion: to the bishops that they sat in indaba with, to fair-minded liberals, to Rowan Williams, and to moderates everywhere who have tried to be fair-minded with TEC.

Katherine Jefferts Schori and her advisors had two choices.  They could violate the canons flagrantly and hang ‘em high now, further shattering TEC’s global reputation . . . or they could attempt to follow the canons scrupulously.  They chose the former—and I think they knew the cost within the Communion.

The cost is TEC’s further distancing from the rest of the Communion.  And Bishop Jefferts Schori was willing to pay that cost.

Oh, I’m sure there’s a certain level of arrogance there.  TEC has money, and TEC didn’t experience formal consequences at Lambeth.  Sometimes, some of the rich think that there’s always a way to buy back a reputation.

But I think there’s also a level of realism for the Presiding Bishop.  I think she knows that this establishes another wedge—and I think she’s okay with that, as long as she gets what she wants locally.  All of us should ponder that interesting angle as well.

But let me put it this way.

Were I a conservative—and non-Christian—mole, planted in 815, and established as an advisor to the Presiding Bishop—I couldn’t have scripted this better

I would have been on pins and needles lest she suddenly grow integrity and a conscience—and changed her mind about hurtling headlong towards yesterday’s events. 

I would have flattered her, urged her, appealed to her pride: “Are you going to let them push you around like that—you’re the PB, for goodness sakes.  Get out there and act like it.  Go ahead and cut him off at the knees—go for the jugular, PB—show ‘em what a strong woman you are.  They’re never going to be satisfied with your keeping some of the canons—so why not have it all!  We can explain ourselves to our allies later.  Right now let’s go take care of business and crack a few heads.”

Thankfully, none of us had to engage in such unChristian poor advice to the PB.  Others did that for us. 

And the result is that the progressive-controlled national structures of TEC—the HOB, the Executive Council, 815—have constructed another wedge between them and TEC moderates, between them and the rest of the Anglican Communion.  The division and the stark contrast between the ruling party of national TEC and the rest of the Anglican world has grown deeper and broader, overnight. 

Sometimes the council of the progressive side of TEC is confused, and the understanding is darkened.  Sometimes we ourselves bumble into doing the right thing accidentally or gain a little courage.  Sometimes, the difference of six months is a huge huge difference.

Today, the sky is blue.  The sun is shining and the air is crispy.  I’m going to go out running soon with my trusty dog. 

It’s a great day to be a traditional Episcopalian and a traditional Anglican.

49 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook

I know!  I can’t believe they thought this was a good idea.  And from Duncan’s perspective, this is so much better than being deposed after the Diocese of Pittsburgh left TEC.  He was going to be deposed anyway; they were idiots for forcing it through now, with so many votes against, and so many allegations of canonical violations. 

TEC’s hands will be forever unclean.  But they couldn’t stop themselves from bloodying them.

[1] Posted by Nasty, Brutish & Short on 09-19-2008 at 10:28 AM • top

Interesting analysis, Sarah, on what happened yesterday.  My internal reactions run along two tracks:

1.  Perhaps a signficant block of Bishops finally woke up to the fact that the PB is amassing power at her level under the auspices of “emergency” and have remembered their history (Hitler, or perhaps Star Wars smile) and the inherent dangers therein.  Perhaps this was their way of saying “This has gone far enough.”

2.  There also remains the possibility that these votes, ostensibly concerning canonical issues, have jammed pro-new thang and anti-new thang Bishops (as such there are left in TEC) into the same camp under threat of deposition themselves for anything else that might torque the ire of BeerKat et. al.  Like a herd of threatened water buffaloes, they formed a ring all facing out for a change.

I am not exactly “effervescent” (did I spell that right?) about these events, because BeerKat Et. Al. got their way and still managed to drag 88 “princes of the church” with them into perdition.  I must admit, though, I’m suprised the Pittsburgh Standing Committee hasn’t been removed yet.  It’s already 11:30 in the mornig there, I figured BeerKat et Al and their BrownShirts would already be knocking down their doors and breaking their windows by now. 

So, I will pray for Christianity to break out among the Christian leadership of TEC, and hope for the best.


[2] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 09-19-2008 at 10:40 AM • top

It’s also a good day for traditional Anglicans because TEC (the institution) has in a way disciplined itself, by separating heretics (i.e., themselves) from the rest of the Church.  The fact that it intended to harm +Duncan is as irrelevant as Babylon’s intentions towards Ancient Israel, weighed against God’s. 

Say… now that I think of it, whatever became of Babylon?

[3] Posted by J Eppinga on 09-19-2008 at 11:13 AM • top

#3 Moot ...whatever became of Babylon? 

Didn’t Saddam Hussein build a castle on it?

[4] Posted by Long Gone Anglo Catholic on 09-19-2008 at 11:20 AM • top

Sarah, there may have been a third of her bishops willing to stand up and say “no,” but that 88 probably included some (admittedly spineless) who deeply regretted that they had been put in such a spot, and who had to wonder if this was all truly necessary.  And to have Peter Lee and his fellow Diocese of Virginia bishops vote “no,” must have been quite the eye-opener.  And then there were reportedly four abstentions, which could be read as abstaining from supporting the PB and her lawlessness (even if they were unwilling to vote and stop it).  All that said, one thing was clear from this vote: the institutional liberals do not have the ability any longer (or yet again) to stop the madness of the radicals in the church.  But the numbers are undoubtedly much closer than KJS would have guessed.  Whether continued self-destruction of the church will shift this balance isn’t clear, and the departure of still more orthodox bishops (voluntarily or by faux deposition) will change the numbers in the radicals’ favor.  But perhaps some buyer’s remorse is setting in, and, God willing, perhaps it will bring about some change.

[5] Posted by RomeAnglican on 09-19-2008 at 12:01 PM • top

The saying is “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  Earlier on, the PB violated the canons in the case of the Diocese of San Joaquin.  Some squeals, but she got her way.  Then she took it a step farther and dismissed the DSJ Standing Committee despite having no canonical warrant for doing so.  Some more squeals, but she got her way.  Then she took it yet one step farther and installed a puppet bishop of a new Diocese of San Joaquin, again in flagrant violation of the canons.  Some squeals again, but she got her way.  And now, she has engaged in her most egregious violation of the canons yet.  An increasing number of squeals, but she still got her way.

If anyone thinks that KJS isn’t learning a pattern here - one that can turn against liberal or conservative alike who gets in her way - isn’t paying attention.  The PB has now, quite openly, declared that her view of the canons is that any “ambiguity” (that is, any canon which stands in her way) will be “resolved” in the way that allows her to achieve her stated objective.

Folks, that is the very definition of tyranny.  It is my prediction, that over time, it will not only be the orthod-Ox that is being gored, soon the moderate/institutional liberal ox will be gored also.

Furthermore, I think that even amongst a number of the 88 voting to depose, there will be a number of them who went along because they are sheep, and who will be deeply uncomfortable with what they did.  The PB is definitely expanding her power, but in doing so is leading TEC down the road to complete chaos.  Chaos is not a good state of affairs for those in power.  Accordingly, I would have to agree with Sarah that, even though what she did to Duncan is reprehensible, this scenario is not that bad for the the orthodox.

[6] Posted by jamesw on 09-19-2008 at 12:14 PM • top

I think fudge is coming off of most Anglicans’ menus. It’s probably healthier for us anyway. Collegiality continues to dissipate and the leaders are being forced to make uncomfortable choices.

It is all really unnecessary, but the non-Christians in our church will not heed the call of their Lord. If they would acknowledge their sin, repent and follow Him, then there would be no division.

As it is, either the Episcopal Church will become Christian, which I believe unlikely, or it will become uniformly apostate. The bonds between the two groups are snapping and those in the middle are having to choose.

I serve the God of Truth. Who do you serve?

[7] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 09-19-2008 at 12:15 PM • top

It is my prediction, that over time, it will not only be the orthod-Ox that is being gored, soon the moderate/institutional liberal ox will be gored also.

I think, too, that everytime she gets away with something she feels the urge to do something even more outrageous. She’s accelerating, not consolidating her “successes.”

[8] Posted by oscewicee on 09-19-2008 at 12:24 PM • top

I’m glad I’m not the only one who feels the majority of TEC bishops and leaders EARNED damnation yesterday.

[9] Posted by Goughdonna on 09-19-2008 at 12:40 PM • top

Well Goughdonna, we’ve all earned our damnation, for sure.

Praise God, Jesus Christ rescued us from that damnation through His atoning death on the cross and resurrection.

[10] Posted by Sarah on 09-19-2008 at 12:47 PM • top

KJS? Think Lady MacBeth.
Dumb Sheep.

[11] Posted by dumb sheep on 09-19-2008 at 12:49 PM • top

#10 - Sarah Hey…. That is absolutely true, thanks be to God.  But it takes REPENTANCE.  See any in TEC?

[12] Posted by Goughdonna on 09-19-2008 at 12:54 PM • top

Pray against the Spirit of Jezebel - this woman seems to have no fear of God ... or man.

[13] Posted by Theodora on 09-19-2008 at 12:56 PM • top

#13, I think it entirely possible that some of those who voted against the deposition may have repented. It’s also possible that some in the majority will. Many excellent epistles were written by one who had formerly persecuted Christians.

I think we all need to pray for the softening of hearts, relaxing of necks and unstopping of ears amongst the Episcopal hierarchy.

Your bishop may be a fun guy, but I can’t spore a moment for him. We’re not cut from the same mold.

[14] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 09-19-2008 at 01:13 PM • top

How many voting bishops were retired?

[15] Posted by FrVan on 09-19-2008 at 01:18 PM • top

“Just think, had Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori followed the advice of cooler heads, she could have had two fewer canonical violations, and the support of more of her own bishops . . .”

We that would be impossible, you see the cooler heads were all so far up her A—that she couldn’t hear them speaking….

[16] Posted by FrVan on 09-19-2008 at 01:52 PM • top

“Some of the Bishops who are also lawyers argued that the case law of Pennsylvania would make it more difficult for The Episcopal Church to press its case if we delayed our action until after Pittsburgh’s Diocesan Convention.” +John Howe, pastoral letter, posted at T19.

Does anyone know more about this?

[17] Posted by Avin Fernando on 09-19-2008 at 02:45 PM • top

“Some of the Bishops who are also lawyers argued that the case law of Pennsylvania would make it more difficult for The Episcopal Church to press its case if we delayed our action until after Pittsburgh’s Diocesan Convention.” +John Howe, pastoral letter, posted at T19.

It seems to me that this argument would only work IF the PB also attempts a blitzkrieg strike against the Diocesan Standing Committee.  Otherwise, all she has done is substitute one authority committed to disaffiliation (BISHOP Duncan) for another (the Standing Committee).

In either case, the courts would have to decide in the diocesan convention has the authority to vote to disaffiliate with the General Convention (hence the panic in the liberal ranks in response to McCall’s heirarchy paper).  Now, if the PB could knock out the Diocesan Standing Committee prior to the Diocesan Convention, with a resultant dispute as to who the ecclesiastical authority in the Diocese is, then the courts will be focused on THAT issue (which might be an easier one for TEC to argue).

But I frankly can not see how the PB could make even a minimumly credible case to dismiss the Pittsburgh Standing Committee as there are no canons at all even addressing this.

[18] Posted by jamesw on 09-19-2008 at 04:22 PM • top

Note the following from Ruth Gledhill:

The conflict had threatened to move to the UK after the Dean of St Albans, Dr Jeffrey John, was one of the names nominated for the vacant see of Bangor at a preliminary meeting earlier this month. But sources in Wales told The Times that the Archbishop of Wales, Dr Barry Morgan, had made it clear to electors in Bangor that he would not be prepared to consecrate a bishop who is in a civil partnership out of concern for the unity of the Church.

This seems to be an “about face” for Barry Morgan, isn’t it?  Wonder what brought that about?

[19] Posted by jamesw on 09-19-2008 at 05:02 PM • top

I don’t see how violating the canons of the church will help TEc in the civil courts.  They have demonstrated that they don’t really honor the holy sacred canons themselves, so why should they expect any other jurisdiction to honor them?  They treat the canons as badly as they do Scripture.

[20] Posted by ann r on 09-19-2008 at 05:05 PM • top

It is amazing to me that any Bishop would vote so quickly to make it possible for the Presiding Bishop to depose a fellow Bishop so easily.  Surely they realize that they are setting a dangerous precedent. I have to admit that I was very relieved to see that my Bishop voted no.
I suspect that some of the Bishops who voted yes for this deposition may find themselves, at a later date, longing for a Christian church which holds to the clarity of Scripture and the Canons of the Church instead of a church based on the capricious reasoning of the current Presiding Bishop, whoever that may be at the time.

[21] Posted by Betty See on 09-19-2008 at 08:31 PM • top

Yes, it is a great day to be an Anglican, as has been every day since I became an Anglican.

As one who, after growing up a fundamentalist Southern Baptist, became an Episcopalian upon reaching the age of reason, I am now officially a former Episcopalian but still an Anglican.  Part of me is still Episcopalian, but all of me is Anglican.  I am still, I am sure, influenced by my fundamentalist Southern Baptist experience as a youth, for which I am grateful.  My Episcopalian/Anglican experience plays a major role in my spiritual life.

My feelings about the HOB meeting and the faux-deposition of Bishop Bob Duncan are ambivalent, painfully ambivalent.

Bishop Bob Duncan and Nara are going to be all right.  Christians, of whatever denomination, have been blessed by his personal testimony and his commitment to the faith once delivered.  I stand in awe of his Godly and Christian commitment.

I am, however, unable to take pleasure in demeaning, deriding and ridiculing Presiding Bishop Schori.  I emphatically disagree with what she appears to stand for and most of her hierarchical acts as presiding bishop.

I believe that she and many of her supporters and enablers are as convinced that what they are doing is right as I am convinced that what they are doing is wrong.  I grieve for her, the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church.  I also grieve for us, the orthodox, committed to the faith once delivered and the Anglican Communion.

Our job is to stand for the faith once delivered, not personal vilification of any of those with whom we so strongly disagree.  Our job, our charge, is to minister to them, testify to them, both by our words and our actions, and pray for them.

As I reflect upon the HOB actions, I say these words, mostly to myself, as anger swells within me, and I think thoughts of which I am ashamed.  Thank you for providing me the opportunity to lecture to myself.

God bless.

[22] Posted by Ol' Bob on 09-19-2008 at 09:30 PM • top

As I understand it, when the colonist broke from England and formed the Episcopal Church, they chose to have a Presiding Bishop rather than an Archbishop, just as Anglicans chose to have an Archbishop rather than a Pope.  So now KJS seems to be reversing this and it may have tiped off the moderates and even liberals that this is a bad trend.
  When Moses faced Pharoe, the leader of the Egyptians did on ten occasions ten very foolish things even in the face of escalating tragedy and loss.  This was because the Lord had hardened his heart in order to gain glory at Pharoe’s expense. 
  Yes, power does tend to corrupt and the Lord may just let power go to the head of leaders to bring about change.  Everyone in Germany liked Hitler in the beginning but by the end they could see that he had turned into a tyrant and was harmful to Germany.  In the end, the Antichrist will gather a great following everywhere enen among the Jews, but when he got so arrogant that he erected an idol to himself and demanded that it be worshiped, then the Jews were enlightenned and began to beg for the Messiah.  Whether it was a Hitler or king or religious leader or desciple like Judas, continued grasping for power ultimately leads to demon possession and fall and the Lord using it to enlighten His people and bring change for revival.
    Our church prayes regularly that for those leaders who are evil and harmful to the people, that He confuse their counsel and cause them to act foolishly which will alert the populace and lead to their fall.  We have seen this prayer answered all too many times.  KTF

[23] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 09-19-2008 at 10:31 PM • top

Look at it this way, Sarah.
2000 years ago another servant of God named Jesus
was put to death by his own people.  They are guilty of murder then.
Today 2000 years later, another set of people, this time a church, put to “death” another loyal servant of God, named Bishop Robert Duncan.  Again the instrument of God was MURDERED by his own people. 
Really sad to say it but The PB and the HOB of TECWW committed murder yesterday.
This time, they will get away with it.

[24] Posted by BishopOfSaintJames on 09-19-2008 at 11:15 PM • top

What will the PB do if the people in Pittsburg simply ignore her and proceed as planned?  She dare not resort to the civil courts to try to enforce canon law which she herself is not following. Pray for her to recognize the errors of her ways and repent, no matter how unlikely.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.”

[25] Posted by Sheep75002 on 09-20-2008 at 12:14 AM • top

Here’s how I am going to personally handle this situation for this ungodly act. I will no longer refer to these persons as bishops. They have allowed their personal views to control their emotions and their vote counter the common good of the church. They are not true leaders, they are followers,and Ihave lost respect for them for voting this injustice.

[26] Posted by bradhutt on 09-20-2008 at 04:33 AM • top

Dear +Stonewall:

Really sad to say it but The PB and the HOB of TECWW committed murder yesterday. This time, they will get away with it

Your grace, I have to disagree. For all the reasons that Sarah stated, they didn’t get away with it. The whole world stood by and watched an incredible unnecssary injustice done by a false prophet and those who either support her or are afraid to oppose her.

Although +Bob Duncan has suffered from this ignomality by his peers, and will no longer be able to contribute to the Church’s pension fund, he has in fact been freed. Like a person who has been suffering from cancer, the pain is now gone. He is still recognize as a Prince of the Church, seen now as a martyr for a just cause and has been welcomed into the Southern Cone’s HOB. He has been freed from a dying, now tryanical, institution which will now allow him to re-focus on mission and minstry. The battle is over, and in a strange way he has won.

[27] Posted by garyec on 09-20-2008 at 06:05 AM • top

There is nothing for the PB to repent of.  This is a policy set up by a Washington law firm for whom anything goes, law, canons, whatever you can get away with - provided the PB continues to allow them to gobble the treasure of the Episcopal Church.

Why is she allowing them to do that?  Well that is an interesting question.

[28] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 09-20-2008 at 06:12 AM • top

I have to say also that I was quite impressed by these 35 bishops who are prepared to stand up for the rule of law.  It is what I would expect Americans to do.

[29] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 09-20-2008 at 06:15 AM • top

REPENT? What the hell’s that? This is the epicopal sunday morning social club Son- we don’t do repent.

[30] Posted by bradhutt on 09-20-2008 at 07:01 AM • top

Does anyone yet know the “ful story” behind the changed vote by Henderson+?  Has he offered any explanation?  I guess I want to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.  I would rather believe that he didn’t understand the question being put or some such, rather than what would appear to be obvious- that he changed his vote after he was sure his vote would not be needed to convict- and thereby looking better to the conservatives back home.

[31] Posted by tjmcmahon on 09-20-2008 at 07:03 AM • top

BTW Sarah,
I know we are still awaiting the post-HoB letters from bishops, but how is the scoring going so far?  I know +Bill Love had the early lead, but it appears a fair number of bishops scored some points.

[32] Posted by tjmcmahon on 09-20-2008 at 07:06 AM • top

It’s full steam ahead for TEC and the Presiding Heretic.  They are following the old Cold War saying:  “Run toward the blast”.

[33] Posted by midwestnorwegian on 09-20-2008 at 10:03 AM • top

“Everyone in Germany liked Hitler in the beginning but by the end they could see that he had turned into a tyrant and was harmful to Germany.” - PROPHET MICAIAH (25)

Actually, not the case.  Most Germans had faith in Hitler right up to (virtually) the end.  Read “The Goebbels Diaries 1941-1943” and you’ll see in accounts of post-air raid behavior how even “Red Berlin” rallied behind The Man and His Movement, right into the abyss.  And the hierarchy, those who could see far more of the big picture, was not immune either.  Witness Albert Speer’s decades of agonizing over exactly why he did what he did, his frantic efforts to keep the economic wheels turning until the very last moment (he KNEW that at the absolute latest Jan. 1, 1946 EVERYTHING would grind to a halt), and his criticism of the German generals’ post-war memoirs and their inaccurate portrayal of Hitler as a total and simple nut-job who ruined every opportunity to win the war.

If this can be applied as analogous to The Episcopal “Church” things do not look well at all.  The question is whether or not it is a valid comparison (and no, neither you nor I have violated the “Nazi Rule” - the contortions of the CPSU [Bolshevik] under every one of their Chairmen could just as easily be brought in).

[34] Posted by High Church Methodist on 09-20-2008 at 10:31 AM • top

HCM, I believe you are partially correct.  It would be difficult to know what was in the minds of all the German people.  After all, Hitler was legally elected to all his offices and did comply with the laws to get where he was—-in the beginning.  This is one of the arguments for things like bombing of Dresden—corporate guilt to those who permited a Hitler holocast.  A very good gook that looks into this is “Nuremberg Interviews” by Dr. Leon Goldensohn, the doctor who cared for the defendants at the Nuremberg trials.  Of course the obvious demon possessed leaders like Hitler, Himmmler, Bormann, etc. had already commited suicide.  General Rommel was one of the first to see the error of Hitler and was murdered for it.  The army knew the SS and Gestapo were evil but were powerless.  After all the officers in the military had taken an oath of allegiance to Hitler, himself, not the German government or state!  This is outside our thinking and hard to understand from our viewpoint, but they took it seriously and to be obeyed even after they knew it was a mistake.  I’m sure the average German was angry with the US in the end just because of the destruction, even if they also knew Hitler was wrong. George McGovern deals with this in his great book, “B-24” which details his job as a bomber pilot bombing innocent Germans.  Most of the Nuremberg defendants were dazzled by Hitler at the first, but felt in his last two years that he was insane/demonic.  All this teaches us that on a secular level, we are to follow truth, law, rightness and not blindly follow personalities.  We will be held personally responsible if we do wrong by following someone else.  This is why we must teach our kids to be willing to stand alone. Also, history is our most needed course in school. IMHO

[35] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 09-20-2008 at 11:12 AM • top

Even a thirty percent dissenting vote is a landslide for the Peeb and her minions.  And Sarah need not have been on pins and needles worrying that the PB would develop integrity and a conscience.  Granted, miracles can happen, but the odds against it are so long that the Vegas ‘books would have taken that play off boards.

[36] Posted by Cousin Vinnie on 09-20-2008 at 12:32 PM • top

There is an analogy to the media attacks on Sarah Palin:  The media would rather lose their credibility that to let their anointed candidate lose this election.  KJS would rather lose her credibility with the rest of the Communion than lose even a single battle in TEC.

[37] Posted by ToAllTheWorld on 09-20-2008 at 01:54 PM • top

The thing is, KJS, though she says she’s part of the Communion values autonomy over community far to much to be part of a body she isn’t in control of.  It is for that reason that she has taken TEC out of the Communion and truly sees herself as right in charging those who would preserve the Communion with abandoning it.  TEC abandoned the Communion long ago so that one cannot stand within the Communion and still remain in TEC anymore.  The irony hurts.

I blog here.

[38] Posted by Free Range Anglican on 09-20-2008 at 02:50 PM • top

Two of CANA’s Suffragan Bishop’s, Amos Fagbamiye and Nathan Kanu, have recently joined Forward in Faith, North America (FIFNA) while remaining in CANA.  This should make the conversations regarding CANA’s women’s ordination policy more lively.

[39] Posted by MidwestAnglican on 09-20-2008 at 03:21 PM • top

It’s all about integrity.  Superb analysis, Sarah.

When you act without integrity you demonstrate that you and your “values” are worth nothing.  Living the Christian life = living with integrity.

What happened in Salt Lake City at the HOB meeting was worthy of the councils of the worst demagogues in history—but not of a church that claims to be Christian.  Short term “success” is so enticing.  But ++Bob Duncan and the host of traditional Anglicans are the real winners.

[40] Posted by hanks on 09-20-2008 at 08:20 PM • top

Do we remember, “JUSTICE demands we make this alcoholic, divorced, practicing homosexual a bishop in our church!”?

One would think that the liberal revisionists who are so very concerned with JUSTICE wouldn’t toss it out on a whim for expediency’s sake.

Am I displeased? Hardly. The “deposition” merely solidifies the vote. Those who were sitting on the fence see how hypocritical, intolerant, and heavy handed the revisionists actually are.

What ultra maroons. What a blessing to the orthodox, Ms Schori is.

[41] Posted by robroy on 09-21-2008 at 03:35 AM • top

I believe Rome’s reaction from Cardinal Kasper on Bp. Duncan’s vote would prove more interesting than anything Rowan could ever say.

[42] Posted by Enlightened on 09-21-2008 at 06:56 AM • top

#28, Brad Hutt - these men are no longer bishops but not just for letting their personal views violating the common good of the Church, but for the fact that THEIR VIEWS AND ACTIONS VIOLATE SCRIPTURE and the Faith-once-delivered.

[43] Posted by Theodora on 09-21-2008 at 08:07 AM • top

either you know where you are going to vote when you go in or you don’t this is not an issue you change your mind regarding at the last minute

[44] Posted by ewart-touzot on 09-22-2008 at 08:29 AM • top

Even with these silly liberal bishops, there will be some wrestling with conscience in the night hours.  Pray for true conversion of hearts.

[45] Posted by monologistos on 09-22-2008 at 07:19 PM • top

The only hope of salvation from the delusions and the heresies, the innovations and the traps of wicked people and of the devil is prayer, repentance and humility. -Elder Joseph the Hesychast, From the 2008 Daily Lives, Miracles and Wisdom of the Saints and Fasting Calendar sitting on our desk, today’s (9/25) quote.
May God bless us all!

[46] Posted by Margaret on 09-25-2008 at 10:18 AM • top

About two weeks have now gone by since the last post on this thread, and you know, Sarah’s analysis looks as good as ever.  As time goes on, the article wears well and retains enduring value.

Personally, I think this splendid reflection on the foolish deposition of +Bob Duncan the Lion-Hearted is an example of Sarah at her best.  It’s brilliant.  Fantastic.  Right on.

And I wholeheartedly agree: This is indeed a great time to be a traditional Anglican.  And I’d like to add: it’s an even more thrilling time to be a New Reformation type Anglican.

David Handy+

[47] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 10-07-2008 at 05:06 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 about the crisis in our church. 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. 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 that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.