Total visitors right now: 97

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Dispatches from the HoB/D: Revisionist Plans in DioPGH

Monday, September 29, 2008 • 7:19 pm

The House of Bishops & Deputies listserv (the “HoB/D”), being populated as it is mainly by raving nutcases, is packed with a lot of posts that aren’t worth the effort to read. Some of the more… shall we say… “illuminating” posts come to me from various sources, and while the list owner (Louie Crew) would rather people didn’t distribute them, I’ve decided that Episcopalians are entitled to see what their bishops and deputies post to the official church forum that’s been set up for them. I realize this will rankle our Worthy Opponents, and perhaps even a few of our fellow Roistering Episcopal Adventurers.

To the former, I say: Tough.

To the latter, I say: I know priests and lay people who have been involved with the church for years, who have recently been elected as deputies to GenCon, soon afterward subscribe to the HoB/D, and are promptly appalled at what they read there. Every remotely orthodox Christian I know who sees what gets posted there says the same thing: “Do you think the average person in the pews has any idea what they’re talking about on that list?”

No, I don’t. I don’t even think the average Stand Firm reader knows the kind of 200-proof malarkey that gets posted there on a daily basis.

But they should.

So here we go.

Bishops and deputies are allowed to post directly to the list. All other subscribers - members of the list on a “read-only” basis, called “kibitzers” - who want their messages posted must know someone with posting privileges, and send their message through them.

Joan Gundersen is president of revisionist organization Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh. She chimes in via our old pal Tom Woodward on what her group is doing in the diocese:

I am posting this update on the status of things in the Diocese of Pittsburgh from kibitzer Joan Gundersen of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. She, as most know, has been very active in this process, working to honor the Constitution and Canons of TEC as well as upholding the responsibilities of her diocese under the Accession Clause in its C&C.
Tom Woodward, DRG c; CSW 09

Tom,  I’m afraid that those of us in Pittsburgh have been focused on the planning we need to do to get through convention, and have not been keeping people informed about the status of things in Pittsburgh.  Your response about what the TEC should do, prodded me to give an update.  You are welcome to share this with the whole HoB/D list.

1. Since his deposition,  Bishop Duncan has been acting as a paid “consultant” to the current standing committee and has been received into the Southern Cone as a bishop; Bishop Henry Scriven also has a consulting contract since his status as Assistant Bishop ended with Bishop Duncan’s deposition.  Bishop Scriven leaves for a new position with SAMS at the end of the year.  There will need be no negotiation with Bishop Duncan about leaving.  He has already left, and should the realignment vote pass, is expecting to be invited back by the realigned group as bishop.

2. While most of the standing committee favors realignment, we are sure that at least one member is voting against it.  We also have members of diocesan council and the board of trustees who are staying.  This means that we will have an unbroken chain of governance to go forward as a diocese within TEC should the realignment vote pass.  It will take a short time to confirm with each member of the various governing bodies whether they have realigned or remain Episcopalians, and then our remaining member(s) of standing committee will begin appointing people to essential vacant spots. We will be able to run our own reorganizing convention. Thanks to planning by the Across the Aisle group which has brought together EVERYONE we can find who is staying (liberal, conservative, or in-between), plans for a continuing presence of TEC are well in hand.  We will need to negotiate with the realigned group over access to office information and issues such as insurance.  We are putting plans in place for everything from office space and web site to lay reader training and the care and tending of parishes who are without clergy. It won’t be easy and we are sure to be short of funds at first. HOWEVER, passage of realignment is not a sure thing.  There is a strong core of congregations and individuals committed to staying.

3. Should the realignment vote fail, we will have a bishopless diocese that is internally divided and in need of healing.  We will also experience a rolling set of resignations as certain leaders and congregations individually withdraw.  Should the vote pass, we will have an externally divided diocese and a number of deeply wounded parishes. Either way we will need everyone’s prayers.

4. Those of us opposed to realignment have at EVERY convention tried to have the chair rule that the amendments concerning the accession clause are out of order, and have at EVERY convention reminded people of their fiduciary duties.  We are prepared to do so again.

5. Because of the law suit filed in 2003 by Calvary Episcopal Church (and others), a signed stipulation on property that resulted in 2005.  The return to court by Calvary in 2006 rulted this fall in a appointment by the court of a special master who is inventorying diocesan property and reporting to the judge supervising the case.  Thus the status of property issues in Pittsburgh is VERY different from San Joaquin or Fort Worth. The 2005 stipulation signed by Bishop Duncan states that all diocesan (not parish) property belongs to the “Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church, U.S.A.”  We believe that the meaning of this is clear and have every confidence that the judge will enforce this agreement.  On the other hand, institutions such as Calvary Sheldon Camp will not turn away a child from a realigned group, and so the camp will in that sense (but not in a governing) sense remain available to all in the region.  The stipulation also includes a process for negotiating property settlements with parishes leaving TEC.

6. Our Cathedral parish has announced a plan where they would be neutral, serve the entire region, and participate in both the realigned and continuing dioceses.  It is not clear whether this will be workable, but they are certainly going to give it a good try.

The best thing TEC can do for Pittsburgh should the realignment measures pass at convention is to recognize and support those who are going to ensure a continuing presence of TEC in this part of Pennsylvania.

Joan R. Gundersen
kibitzer, Church of the Redeemer

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

Ms Gundersen, kibitz all you want, but that’s not going to change things.  Regardless of which way the vote goes, your “replacement” diocese and your Church are on their death beds.  The faithful orthodox Anglican Christians of the Diocese of Pittsburgh will leave anyway, and your diocese will be the poorer for their having left on their continuing mission of serving Christ and His Church, and not the corporate entity known as The Episcopal Church, which in truth is now a functioning Secular Humanist organization.

[1] Posted by Cennydd on 09-29-2008 at 07:35 PM • top

Time will tell whether this is a planted “red-herring” post intended to distract attention away from 815’s actual plans. Call me stupid, call me cynical, but I can’t imagine that 815 won’t try a takeover of the SC (and thus the diocese) before convention.

[2] Posted by Ralph on 09-29-2008 at 07:44 PM • top

Greg, I agree with your assessment of what is said on the HOB/D listserve.  I kibbutzed on in for a few years and got off of it because it was the same 10 or so people and their comments were - unless it was Brad Drell posting - strident at best.  I didn’t recognize anything of the average pew sitters, orthodox or not, on the list.  I found it depressing to read, thinking that these were the people who populate the HOB/D and who “represent” the average Episcopalian.  I tried to take comfort in the fact that the HOB/D population is much larger than the small percentage that post to the listserve, but that these are the most vocal also means that they are the most organized.  Getting off the listserve and not looking back at it was healthier all around for me.  I’m sorry, but sadly not surprised, that it has not changed.

[3] Posted by Ann McCarthy on 09-29-2008 at 07:45 PM • top

Ditto to Ann McCarthy! Thge worst offenders on that list
1. Tom Woodward
2. Ann Fontaine
3. Walter Righter
4. Bart & Tony (Homosexual Couple now married) LAy Alternates from Alta Calif.
5. Elizabeth Kaeton
6. Michael Russell
7. Louie Crew
8. Tobias Haller
9. Nigel Renton
10. Paul Ambos
And there are many more but these seem to be frequent offenders!

[4] Posted by TLDillon on 09-29-2008 at 08:02 PM • top

There was a suggestion by one that posted about the vote in Pittsburgh:

“Have the police there to escort everyone who voted “yes” off TEC property and change all the locks.”

[5] Posted by TLDillon on 09-29-2008 at 08:06 PM • top

I kibbitzed for a while and quickly had the list automatically sent to my “delete” folder.

What a pleasure it is to simply click and delete.

[6] Posted by James Manley on 09-29-2008 at 09:14 PM • top

The sooner I am in a separate diocese from Joan Gunderson and her cohorts, the happier I will be.

[7] Posted by Ann Castro on 09-29-2008 at 09:18 PM • top


I do not agree.  When we are insisting that people follow the rules (Church rules, God’s rules) and not ignore them when it suits their pleasure, we should do the same.  The end should not justify their means - nor ours.
I was a “kibbitzer” on the HOB/D Listserv for a time.  Reading what I did there was what compelled me to begin to speak out.  But I left the Listserv for two reasons:  first, the postings were usually by the same 10-15 people, almost all on the hard Left, who would say the same things over and over to each other and flay anyone who dared to question their conclusions.  And second, by the rules I could not reveal directly (that is, copy or distribute) what I read there.  I agreed to those rules when I signed on.  So I left.

What you posted here from the HOB/D is not the most strident, mean, intolerant, or un-Christian scribbling to appear on the HOB/D.  Far from it.  (Drell will attest to that.)  And there is little in that post that we did not already know, or could not easily surmise.

Should the average pew-sitter know what the leadership of their church really thinks - of our Faith, our family, and our future?  Yes.  So we tell them about what is there.  If we do it in our own words, we do not violate their rules.  Or, we help our friends get set up as a “kibbitzer” so they can see for themselves.  (A few weeks with Tom Woodward, Ann Fontaine, and Walter Righter in their inbox should get most of ‘em asking for Bishop Duncan’s phone number!)

But having said that, I will say this about Louie Crew - in the times I saw him join the debates on the HOB/D, it was as often as not to remind the regulars that orthodox/traditional Episcopalians are still Christians, and to treat them as such.  No matter what my disagreements are with Mr. Crew - and theologically they are many - he showed a sense of decency and manners that few (if any) others on his side ever showed.

Your Brother In Christ

[8] Posted by cliffg on 09-29-2008 at 09:57 PM • top

I moved or have marked the Listserve entries to my SPAM file. [rest of comment removed]


[9] Posted by Intercessor on 09-29-2008 at 09:59 PM • top

I also ‘observed’ at the HoB/D list in 2003 and it was indeed disgusting.

[10] Posted by Theodora on 09-29-2008 at 10:04 PM • top

One Day Closer #5, that was said on the HOB/D listserv???!!!  Was that a bishop or clergy or layperson who said it?  Is anyone entertaining that idea?

[11] Posted by Modest Mystic on 09-29-2008 at 10:06 PM • top

BTW, I’m not asking for a name.  That would be gossip.  And, I probably wouldn’t recognize the name anyway.

[12] Posted by Modest Mystic on 09-29-2008 at 10:08 PM • top

Well, I must say it did benefit me in one way…I was completely cured, healed and delivered from fainting and inclining…that is, the faintest inclination to engage in Listening (TM) and Dialogue (TM).

[13] Posted by Theodora on 09-29-2008 at 10:11 PM • top

“Should the realignment vote fail, we will have a bishopless diocese that is internally divided and in need of healing. We will also experience a rolling set of resignations as certain leaders and congregations individually withdraw. Should the vote pass, we will have an externally divided diocese and a number of deeply wounded parishes. Either way we will need everyone’s prayers”.

Really?  Ok, I’ll offer up a prayer for healing the corruption of your soul. 

Here’s another prayer:  “May those who make their own bed enjoy laying in it”. 

What say you all?  Joan Gunderson for TEC Bishop of Pittsburgh!!!

[14] Posted by Passing By on 09-29-2008 at 10:25 PM • top


I respect your position, but I do respectfully disagree.


Can you raise the bar just a bit? Thank you.

[15] Posted by Greg Griffith on 09-29-2008 at 10:31 PM • top

Sorry Greg…Long day.

[16] Posted by Intercessor on 09-29-2008 at 10:45 PM • top

I’m not sure why this predictable response which contains no surprises is worth a post on Stand Firm.  But for the record Dr. Gunderson has given permission to a liberal blogger to post this on his blog so it seems fair game for Greg to place here.

[17] Posted by Nevin on 09-29-2008 at 10:59 PM • top

While most of the standing committee favors realignment, we are sure that at least one member is voting against it. We also have members of diocesan council and the board of trustees who are staying. This means that we will have an unbroken chain of governance to go forward as a diocese within TEC should the realignment vote pass.

As many have observed (including <a href= “”>the Curmudgeon</a>), logic is not the liberals’ strong suit.  Dr. Gundersen is a church historian, not a church attorney, so she should not be the one to describe the consequence of a vote to realign as leaving “an unbroken chain of governance to go forward as a diocese within TEC.” 

The consequence of such a vote will be that the unincorporated entity which is recognized under Pennsylvania law as “the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh” will have changed its governing document so that it can no longer canonically function as a diocese within TEC.  At that point, the unincorporated entity, together with all its committees (such as the Standing Committee, the Diocesan Council, and the Diocesan Board of Trustees), will no longer be part of The Episcopal Church.  What remains—-an individual member of the Standing Committee, and some members of the the diocesan council and its board of trustees, are of course free to reorganize under Pennsylvania law, but they will of necessity be a different legal entity than the one that seceded from TEC.  That new legal entity will have to adopt its own Constitution and Canons, and will have to (in due course) apply to GC 2009 to be admitted as a diocese within TEC.

Just because you claim you have “an unbroken chain of governance” does not mean that you are an (unincorporated) entity capable of being recognized under Pennsylvania law.  You first have to come together in a duly noticed meeting, and then you have to adopt your governing instruments, like a Constitution and Canons.  To go down the road that Dr. Gundersen is sketching means that those remaining would have to prove in a court of law that the ones departing did so in violation of the governing instruments of TEC and/or the Diocese of Pittsburgh, and that they cannot do—-no such language prohibiting withdrawal by a diocese exists.

[18] Posted by Chancellor on 09-30-2008 at 01:32 AM • top

I’m certainly not an expert in law, canon or civil, but do the constitution and bylaws of the Diocese of Pittsburgh specify that ONE member of the Standing Committee constitutes a quorum able to transact business?

[19] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 09-30-2008 at 05:18 AM • top

It is intersting to see what ms Gunderson is upholding and honoring. It certainly is NOT the historic faith once received. 

“She, as most know, has been very active in this process, working to honor the Constitution and Canons of TEC as well as upholding the responsibilities of her diocese under the Accession Clause in its C&C;.”

[20] Posted by Don Curran on 09-30-2008 at 05:20 AM • top

A legal question: are dioceses (for the most part) legally incorporated, or are they unincorporated?  I know that the Diocese of San Joaquin is/was a “corporation sole.”  I think that my own parish is an incorporated entity (I should check!) and I have assumed that dioceses were incorporated because I do not know enough about the law to know how a group owning property can function without being incorporated.  Apparently, however, there is a status called “unincorporated entity” that allows for ownership, recognition as a legally existing group, etc. 

Can anyone tell me where to find some basic info on such questions?

[21] Posted by AnglicanXn on 09-30-2008 at 05:21 AM • top

Dr. Louie Crew founded the House of Bishops and Deputies list but it is now run by Brian Reid in California. When Dr. Crew set up the list he included me because I was then working for the General Board of Examining Chaplains and I was permitted to post. When Dr. Reid took over the list he restricted posting to present and past bishops and General Convention deputies but allows others to read the notes posted to the list. Posters are restricted to three notes a day. A few conservatives continue to post there, and I am glad to read what they have to say.

[22] Posted by TomRightmyer on 09-30-2008 at 06:07 AM • top


Subject: Re: [HoB/D] The New Puritans
O wpuld urge the reading of Ronald Knox’s “Enthusiasm” - it remains to my mind, the best ocer-all view of hereesy. He was, in case the name is unfamiliar. the son fo an Anglican Bishop (suiffragan of Manchester?) and treanslated the Holy Scripture in a fascinating 20th ccentury peice of work.


[23] Posted by Sparky on 09-30-2008 at 06:43 AM • top

MOdest Mystic,
I believe it was a clegy. But, it make no difference as it was said!

[24] Posted by TLDillon on 09-30-2008 at 06:47 AM • top

Listen up Mad Potter!
Someone had to stand up and say ENOUGH! and go first to the Southern Cone and it was we .....we here in the San Joaquin stepped out in our faith and voted to go. Just like a new parent with their first child that doesn’t come with instructions. We didn’t have the road map, nor the instructions, nor anything else that told us how to do this in a“proper way”. We did the homework as we saw fit and the way in which we felt was best for us, but we did the best we could and we will continue to persevere and march forward in the Name of Jesus Christ the Risen Lord, boldly professing the Gospel. Isn’t it nice that other dioceses can learn from our stepping up and out? Just like the littel brother or sister of the older child who learns by watching and observing the olders failings and successes?

[25] Posted by TLDillon on 09-30-2008 at 07:16 AM • top

I’d be inclined to want to read more from this group (on this website) if it were an official HOB forum, but it sounds like a bunch of cranks who after killing TEC, are still whipping the corpse.  I’v met many folks like Mr. Crew, who really like, for some odd reason, bishops and all their trappings.

[26] Posted by GoodMissMurphy on 09-30-2008 at 07:25 AM • top

#7 Ann - I agree wholeheartedly !!!
#20 Don- A BIG Amen there !!!
  I was a kibitzer for about a half and hour and I quickly cancelled. The hate and venom spewed forth by the posters was, to say the least, disgusting and in no way, shape, or form even vaguely Christian.
  #26 ODC- From the Dio. of Pittsburgh a big “Thank You” to all of you in the Dio of SJ who had the courage, faith, and conviction to Stand Firm for the Truth. We’ll see younze in the Southern Cone come Saturday.

[27] Posted by Gordy on 09-30-2008 at 08:12 AM • top

A big Welcome Home! Gordy! A fews days ahead of time! smile

[28] Posted by TLDillon on 09-30-2008 at 08:25 AM • top

#21 AnglicanXn
The answer to your legal questions will vary by state. So ask a lawyer in your state what the rules are.

[29] Posted by Marie Blocher on 09-30-2008 at 09:07 AM • top

If a parish in Pittsburgh has not changed its by-laws, and the diocese votes to leave, it seems to me that the parish is still in TEC, at least until the by-laws are changed.  I think that is why the diocese has allowed for a two year buffer.

I think the priests may be able to leave TEC on Saturday, but not all the parishes.

[30] Posted by Eugene on 09-30-2008 at 10:06 AM • top

The House of Bishops & Deputies listserv sounds like a cabal. That Episcopal Christianity is reduced to an exclusive clique is rather sad. I guess it had to be that way for what they say and do cannot stand the light of day or the critique of others. Bishops used to be bright engaging people, leaders of men and women. Now, they are poor examples of the “Peter Principle”, promoted to positions beyond their abilities and understanding. This secret mess of deputies and bishops is what lead TEC astray. God has made a place for them for eternity. There is no sin greater than leading the faithful astray for ones own prurient interests.

[31] Posted by ctowles on 09-30-2008 at 10:36 AM • top

#18 -
I’ll bet my house that any group in Pittsburgh that claims to be the “continuing” group in TEC will not have to petition General Convention for re-admittance.
Remember, the constitution and canons mean what the PB and her advisors say they mean, no matter how illogical.  I’ll be quite surprised if Joan’s predictions are not correct.  In fact I’m a little surprised that the Standing Committee of Pittsburgh hasn’t already been dismissed by the PB, a la San Joaquin, and an ‘interim’ bishop put in place.  I’m guessing that will come after the convention.

Scott K
(a minority voice on the HOB/D listserve)

[32] Posted by Scott K on 09-30-2008 at 10:55 AM • top

I’m with you Greg.  I believe that Crew may be showing a “front” of charity (in refering to us as fellow Christians) simply to lend credibility to this vile environment he has maintained.  I changed email addresses a couple years ago to stop this poison from coming into my computer.  I ask….why should anyone honor a rule which plainly is meant to cover the tracks of these cockroaches while hiding the truth from the blindly TEC-faithful?  There is a reason why “whistle blower” protection exists in the rest of the world.  Turn the light on.

[33] Posted by midwestnorwegian on 09-30-2008 at 11:08 AM • top

Here is some Fresh Hell to chew upon from list serve showing that God has indeed been replaced:

Pam Chinnis in her book also warned us of a similar erosion of the influence of the House of Deputies. We need to treasure the special polity that is ours alone.  The Episcopal Church, while international, is what it is because of our American heritage.  I thank God for that special gift.

John Wood Goldsack
L1, Diocese of New Jersey

[34] Posted by Intercessor on 09-30-2008 at 11:52 AM • top

Some on the HoB/D Listserv are and will be rejoicing over this!

[35] Posted by TLDillon on 09-30-2008 at 01:46 PM • top

Hmmm, this thread presents me with quite the dilemma.

First, I gave my word, when I signed up as a kibbitzer on the HoD listserv not to reveal sources or directly quote from the list.  For the 2 years I was on the list I honored that promise.  When the temptation to violate my word became too strong, I resigned from it.  So I’m not comfortable with us addressing in this public forum the HoD material verbatim.

Second, I was frankly appalled at how the majority of the List abused the orthodox voices there, even when they came in and were reasonable.  They seemed to attack Kevin Martin especially hard (like his posts were lightning rods).  For that, the posters deserved no respect from me.

Third, it became clear to me very quickly how a GC could vote a divorced, partnered homosexual male Bishop when I saw the personalities, lifestyles, and “theologies” (I hate to grace their opinions and fluffy thoughts with that word at all) present on the list.  In fact, it brought me great sorrow to think of all the lost souls posting there who were unaware exactly how out of bounds they really were.  It was really sad.  Enough about the ListServ.

Pittsburgh-wise, let’s step back a minute and look at all the phenomenal pain, suffering, abuse, and disruption that the liberals in TEC leadership have caused simply to get their own way, in opposition to Scripture and Traditional Christianity.  I know few read here, but I have to ask:  Has it really been worth it?

PHIPS are running the show, and downward TEC goes.

Despite that, we must find a way to KTF!!!....mrb

[36] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 09-30-2008 at 02:54 PM • top

Tom Woodward’s revenge for being fired by Peter Lee and replaced by Bob Duncan!

[37] Posted by Violent Papist on 09-30-2008 at 03:32 PM • top

#7   One Day Closer, I know one retired Methodist minister who says this turns his stomach inside out.

[38] Posted by Cennydd on 09-30-2008 at 03:36 PM • top

One Day Closer #25, thank you for specifying.  It does make a difference to me what station that quote came from.  A bishop is to be a defender of the faith and a pastor to the pastors.  That quote hardly befits a bishop.  Any other clergy should know better.  Laity have more allowance in making statements like these.  It is inadvisable and uncharitable, but they are not held to the same standard as clergy of any rank.  Furthermore, something like that said by someone with no authority to carry it out is better than the altanative.  That said, I’m glad it wasn’t a bishop, but still disappointed in that clergy member.

[39] Posted by Modest Mystic on 09-30-2008 at 04:09 PM • top

It doesn’t do much for my stomach either Cennydd! Nor my heart!

[40] Posted by TLDillon on 09-30-2008 at 04:15 PM • top

Greg, Greg, Greg,

I am appalled at your comment that you

don’t even think the average Stand Firm reader knows the kind of 200-proof malarkey that gets posted there on a daily basis.

That comment is not only a most unChristian slander, it is also demonstrably false, at least in one detail. Allow me to expatiate on that assessment.

First, as to its being a slander, I feel the need to inform you that proof, when stated on a scale with a maximum value of 200, is, in most informed people’s minds, a measure of the strength of alcoholic content of distilled spirits.  And this understanding is not erroneous. To implicitly compare the malarkey that passes for Christian opinion on the HoB/D listserv with distilled spirits is invidious, if not actually sacrilegious. Especially if one has in mind either fine single malt Scotch whisky or pure pot still Irish whiskey. It is an unwarranted insult to those fine and noble variants of the water of life, which is the literal translation of its Scots Gaelic name uisge beatha, from the first word of which we derive the modern names whisky and whiskey. The makers of such fine spirits, not to mention those of us who number ourselves among the enthusiasts for the same, have every right to be offended by such a comparison.

Second, as to its falsity, 200 proof is virtually impossible to attain, at least without the use of particular organic solvents. Distillation is insufficient to go beyond about 194 proof. Having been a kibitzer, as they term it, on the HoB/D listserv for about 6 months, I can assure you and the readers on this thread who may not have personal experience of the listserv, that nothing posted there which you or I might consider malarkey, is anywhere near the purity available to spirits produced solely by distillation, let alone by the addition of a process of combination with a solvent of any description.

Finally, as a friendly parting observation, your use of the term malarkey is so grossly overgenerous to the contents of that listserv to which I am confident you refer as malarkey as to beggar the English language. wink

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist
(Scotch Malt Whisky Society, America, Member #6018; Friend of the Classic Malts; Friend of Laphroaig; Companion of Aberlour)

Nunc est bibendum.

[41] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 09-30-2008 at 04:20 PM • top

As far as I know, the C & C for San Joaquin and Pittsburgh are the same on the matter of the Standing Committee.  In any case, I speak from my own context, if any discrepancy is raised.
The Standing Committee has the authority to regenerate itself.  One person can appoint another person, or several all at once.  Without bringing question or challenge regarding any other decision making, that is one thing that a solitary remaining Standing Committee member can do without Canonical challenge (upheld).  So, as long as you have people to appoint, you (the solitary one) create your quorum by appointment.
Otherwise, there is nothing in the C & C which specifies a certain number for quorum.  Roberts will specify at least a simple majority of members.  So, if there is one member, and that one member schedules a meeting with him/herself, then all are in attendance, and there is no longer a question of quorum.  What parliamentary logic, eh?

[42] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 09-30-2008 at 04:47 PM • top

I also was a kibbitzer on the HoD listserv for a year or so.  Eye opening - these guys actually call themselves CHRISTIANS?  Hateful, vengeful, spiteful, arrogant, etc.  Scary to think these are some of the leaders of the TEC.

[43] Posted by B. Hunter on 10-01-2008 at 02:45 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.