Total visitors right now: 108

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Cyanide in the Tylenol: The Marketing Issues Confronting Traditional Episcopal Dioceses & Parishes

Monday, February 9, 2009 • 8:00 am

I’ve compared it in the past to the Tylenol/cyanide issue of so many years ago.  Had the company not done what it did—which was to take all the Tylenol off the shelves, take a huge hit financially, and institute cutting edge—at the time—safety efforts to prevent such a thing ever happening again—then the brand would have been absolutely demolished in the public eye, rather than merely taking a hard blow.  Had Tylenol said “hey—we think the problem is just a localized one in these few states, carry on everyone” and not dealt with the issue then each state of the union, indeed each pharmacy, would have had to institute the same draconian measures as the corporation ought to have done, verifying that their particular Tylenol in their particular store was “safe and not poisoned.” And each pharmacy would have had to explain loudly to its customers just how different its Tylenol was from the national brand corporation’s Tylenol.

I’ve been mulling over the most recent Primates Communique and the Windsor Continuation Group report, and am thoughtful about both documents.  We’ll see if I have the time to come to some conclusions and, if worthwhile, write them up for some discussion.

But in the meantime, I want to point to a comment I made over at T19 in January regarding some comments in response to a Communion Partners communication . . . as sort of a reminder, a little pre-Primates-meeting flashback, and a jumping-off place for further discussion in light of the documents released last week.

RE: “The money quote is the following:
...not ‘recruit’ from each others’ daily purpose, honoring the jurisdictional integrities of respective bishops.”

RobRoy—in all the muddle of the original statement, that’s the one I picked as well.  The rest is sort of window dressing to get to the real issue which is “we know that certain laypeople and clergy and parishes are very very unhappy in our dioceses—and we want you to commit to not allowing the unhappy people to form any ACNA churches in those dioceses, even though everyone who was going to leave has already left anyway.”

Then you couple that hope with “and you’re not cooperating or ‘honoring our commitments’ if you do allow it.”

The reverse has also been asserted by the “other side” which is: “everybody knows that we all need a new province constructed by us—that is the Grand Solution for which everyone is secretly longing—and if the Communion Partners doesn’t support the recognition of us in the Anglican Communion—that is, the thing we have brilliantly constructed—as the ‘new province’ then they’re not being charitable or ‘supporting us’”.

I hear it from both sides all the time.

Truth is—on the one side, people and clergy and parishes leave TEC in large part because they hate and detest being in an organization that is led by such corrupt heretical leaders at the national level.  So you’ve got orthodox bishops shocked and surprised when, despite a great diocese, people want to leave—those bishops and many clergy have never grasped the marketing challenge, which is that the brand has been so badly badly tainted for knowledgeable traditional laypeople and clergy that it’s incredibly difficult to get them to “look over here at the bright shiny red ball” when they can hardly keep their eyes off of the frankly Amazing Tawdry Spectacle of Gene Robinson and his turgid, florid prose at the non-open microphone.

I’ve compared it in the past to the Tylenol/cyanide issue of so many years ago.  Had the company not done what it did—which was to take all the Tylenol off the shelves, take a huge hit financially, and institute cutting edge—at the time—safety efforts to prevent such a thing ever happening again—then the brand would have been absolutely demolished in the public eye, rather than merely taking a hard blow.  Had Tylenol said “hey—we think the problem is just a localized one in these few states, carry on everyone” and not dealt with the issue then each state of the union, indeed each pharmacy, would have had to institute the same draconian measures as the corporation ought to have done, verifying that their particular Tylenol in their particular store was “safe and not poisoned.” And each pharmacy would have had to explain loudly to its customers just how different its Tylenol was from the national brand corporation’s Tylenol.

A diocese and parish have got to work especially and vigorously hard to construct a huge differentiation from that national church such that those in it will look out of the walls and say “wow—what a sick church we are in—thank God we are in this diocese led by this bishop and in my parish.”

The only diocese I can see out there that has done such a thing—and in a masterful way—is the Diocese of South Carolina.  And it’s just frightfully hard to do all around.

So—the fact is that most dioceses, even Communion/Former Network dioceses—just aren’t going to be able to construct the edifice necessary to make traditional people who are not congregationalists say “who cares about The Episcopal Church’s buffoonish and heretical leaders in the HOB, the HOD, the Executive Council, 815, and at other areas on the national level!”

And, that being the case, the only alternative is to try to convince other realities that are forming with alternate brands to commit to not allowing any unhappy laypeople, clergy, or parishes to form ACNA parishes.

I don’t think that commitment is going to happen, personally.  So the fallback position will be “you’re not cooperating, honoring our commitments, or offering charitable acceptance.”

To again note the opposing side’s challenge—it wants to be a recognized Anglican Communion province, although certainly it will go on forming and organizing without that.  But its leaders recognize full well that becoming recognized by the Anglican Communion as a whole as a province is a huge step towards establishing itself as a real viable long-term option.

On the other hand, it has finally dimly dawned on its leaders that many conservatives in TEC are not at all taken with the ACNA—its theology, its practices, its leaders, and numerous other issues—and that no matter what, the ACNA is not an option for those many conservatives, nor do those conservatives hope for acceptance of the ACNA as a new province since that would gum up the situation in the US even more than it already is, from an Anglican Communion perspective, leaving three different groupings.

Again, the cry goes up: “you’re not offering charitable acceptance and acknowledgement of our differing path if you don’t wish us to gain AC recognition!”

Both sides are defining “charitable acceptance” and “support of our differing path” as “you must help us accomplish what we want to accomplish in all respects and you must not do anything at all in your own path that might hinder ours.”

Both sides have for so long seemed to deny the oft-stated, nay even shouted, reality—on the one side that people are leaving because they are repelled by the national TEC leaders and the brand that they have created, and on the other that many conservatives will reject the CCP/ACNA wholeheartedly and completely as a non-option and do not wish under any circumstances to move into the “solution” that those who left have created—that it is frankly impossible for me to imagine at this point that either side will suddenly “see the light” and recognize reality.

Just two days ago I literally read a Fort Worth priest’s comments saying “we are going to create the thing that all of you secretly really want but don’t have the guts to lead or create—stand back everyone and watch the courageous ones work”—and just a month ago I heard about yet another priest—this time in TEC—claiming that the departure of a parish “had nothing to do with theology or TEC but was solely about the personal issues.”

On both occasions, I smile.

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

And, that being the case, the only alternative is to try to convince other realities that are forming with alternate brands to commit to not allowing any unhappy laypeople, clergy, or parishes to form ACNA parishes.

Sarah, could you be more specific about this?  (Sorry to be so dense!)  Do you mean that the CP should try to convince the orthodox parishes and dioceses who see things getting worse, to convince their people to stay?  From where I am, still in TEC, I don’t see many clergy or parishes wanting to do this.  Those that haven’t left already, feel called by God to stay in TEC.  However, there are many parishioners in the churches and dioceses who do not have that call.  How can one prevent laity from forming something else?  How can one defend that… as laity, aren’t they free to leave TEC and worship as they feel called?  Even if that is an Anglican fellowship of sorts (perhaps one that eventually connects to ACNA)?  Again, thanks for another well-written article!

[1] Posted by Virginia Anglican on 02-09-2009 at 10:11 AM • top

I am sure there are a few people, especially some frequent posters here, who actually feel “called by God” to remain in the TEC mess. I think the vast majority who remain in TEC are simply kept there by inertia, not some “call”.  They simply haven’t been sufficiently jolted yet to get moving, to get out, despite the disgusting behavior of TEC’s alleged leadership.

By remaining in TEC they are submitting to, and supporting by default with their names and money, the rebranding being done by the leftist hijackers.  The hijackers are counting on the inertia, as they have been for over 40 years.

[2] Posted by Long Gone Anglo Catholic on 02-09-2009 at 11:16 AM • top

This analysis and commentary, is the only track that will matter going forward. 

Option 1)  I stay in TEC= contrbuting to the moonbats.  Option 2)Go to services at an AlphabetSoup parish=I don’t know who all these people are, and if I go to their service, they might wave their hands in the air, shout amen, say something out loud to the priest as he delivers his sermon, and do other things I don’t like to do on Sun. morning.  Worst of all, they might play recorded music.

“Which brand am I?”, the confused orthodox Episcopalian asked.

[3] Posted by Looking for Leaders on 02-09-2009 at 11:17 AM • top

Hi Looking for Leaders—there are actually numerous other options.  The one I’ll choose should I believe that God is calling me out of TEC is that of an EPC or independent Protestant church.

[4] Posted by Sarah on 02-09-2009 at 11:21 AM • top

Sarah, I appreciate it.  I was writing (not too well I might add) in sort of a caricaturish way of what seems to be the options.  Have been attending a mainline Prot. church (Non Ep.) where I have friends.

[5] Posted by Looking for Leaders on 02-09-2009 at 11:36 AM • top

A coincidence that there was a call by the CP-ers to not infringe on their turf a few weeks ago and then the “no proselytization footnote” of the communique??? Gary Lillibridge is the common denominator being a CP bishop and on the WCG.

As Sarah, points out, the CP-ers, except for South Carolina, haven’t done the greatest job in differentiation. We have Ed Little of of Northern Indiana going on a begging trip for Gene Robinson to Canterbury. We have John Howe trying to “strengthen the hand” of Ms Schori (I still don’t get that one). The new bishop of Texas was the vicar of an Integrity approved parish. Other than +Mark Lawrence and +MacPherson, these guys need to have their feet continued to held to the fire.

There is debate as to whether the primates agreed to the “non-proselytization” clause or only mediated talks. George Conger says it was just mediated talks (see here). I was wondering whether Aspinall (who was in charge of the subcommittee that wrote the communique) snuck the footnote in at the end, and it wasn’t noticed. I get the faint smell of a Welsh rat in all of this. Rowan would love for the troublesome GAFCon-ners to opt out of the communion and only deal with the more pliable CP-ers.

[6] Posted by robroy on 02-09-2009 at 12:09 PM • top

I have a headache!  Think I need some Tylenol, er acetomenophin!  (Its all good!!! acttomenophin that is).
The analogy fails!  Acetomenophin which was not tainted was marketed under other brand names, and continues to be so marketed today.  The difference is that Tylenol did not want to lose market share and corrected the errors.  There is NO EVIDENCE that TEC wants to purify its product; in fact the overwhelming conclusion is that it does not, and will not.  Hence one must push the other brand in order to fully distinguish the product.
To jump to another visual aid, its like the old western wherein the bad guys have run all the decent folk out of town save a few hangers on.  Finally they too are bound, hands tied behind them, placed on their trusty steed with a noose loosely placed over thier necks.  They can recant and be freed from any restraint!  Or, they are told that knot won’t be pulled tight or the rope tied off if they just ride off, just don’t look back or let the door hit you on the butt as you leave.  But if you don’t do either…well then nice knowing you. At least the poor soul who leaves can go and rebuild to live a meaningful life in the next county.
That noose is ever so deliberately being tightened around the necks of all the CP’ers.  ( Just ask one and they will admit it!). So far I see a few of them recanting the error of their ways, and are being freed of any restraint.  I see some of the rest of them determined to hang on until the execution is final.  Does it really matter?  The poison will still be in that Tyelonol won’t it?

[7] Posted by aacswfl1 on 02-09-2009 at 02:39 PM • top


Isn’t the “product” Christ?  And therefore did in fact continue to be provided under other “brands” from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to any number of Protestant groups?

[8] Posted by Fidela on 02-09-2009 at 02:44 PM • top

GLBT Priests/Bishops: Buy our brand! Cyanide is good for you!  The people that reported the deaths of friends/family members are not nice people, and are just trying to twist things to their advantage.  Our cyanide is all natural, and we feel really good (I mean really good) making it for you.  Jesus was nice, so everyone needs to just say that even cyanide makers are nice.

KJS/Institutionalists: What Cyanide are you talking about?  It’s never been determined conclusively that cyanide killed anyone from our tablets.  If someone reports cyanide in our tablets, we have just budgeted a huge amount of money for lawsuits against those people.

Ortho/Alphabets:  Get your cyanide free tablets over here!  Look, we know we’re our stores don’t look like much, but we’ve got the purest pain killers in town.

Iker/Duncan, et al:  Look, we are building a new factory for pain killers.  We know how, cause we worked in the original factory, till they started putting cyanide in the pills.  We got the know-how!  Hang tough till we get this thing built.

[9] Posted by Looking for Leaders on 02-09-2009 at 03:17 PM • top

I’m still a little unclear as to who the Communion Partners are.  At one point I thought there was something put out to the effect that it was about 60 priests and bishops, but not their related parishes or diocese.  That sounds like a grouping of people who support the ACI, rather than rising to the level of a third grouping.

At any rate, whoever slipped in the “no proselytizing” provision into that footnote may have done so for the purpose of protecting the CP-led diocese, but if so, they did so with such insufficient consent and clarity, that it already seems to be of little meaning, lost among many contradictory details.  Perhaps as a matter of urgency, the question of whether it has any import should be put on the agenda for discussion with the learned professional mediator.

[10] Posted by pendennis88 on 02-09-2009 at 03:18 PM • top

The classic comparison is the Tylenol and the Perrier benzene scare.  I would submit that the Perrier history is the best comparison to what has happened with Anglicanism in the US.

Perrier was once the market leader of imported water products and practically owned the luxury beverage establishments.  It had created an image of both purity and good cultural taste.  You felt a little richer than you were when you ordered Perrier.

Then reports surfaced of that Benzene had been found in Perrier bottles. Perrier first responded by saying the incident was isolated and of no concern, but was simply an isolated incident involving a single maintenance employee (reminds me of being told in the eighties that I shouldn’t worry about isolated crazies like John Spong.).  Unfortunately, Benzene was soon found in Perrier water in all over the globe, which prompted Perrier’s marketing folks to then assert that the chemical was deliberately added to the water in as part of the carbonation process, but was sufficiently diluted later in the process so as not to be cause of alarm (reminds me of the arguments as to the wisdom of the “everyone at the table” dialogue and “processes” within the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion).

Very soon, no one believed Perrier, and the company had managed within a few months to almost completely devalue its “naturally bottled water” brand.  No one really cares about Perrier any more.

The Episcopal brand is lost as a symbol of Christian orthodoxy.  The orthodox churches remaining in TEC can work to obscure the TEC brand (such as how Lexus differentiates from Toyota, or Hyundai from Kia), but it is ultimately a losing task because they will not have the cooperation of the mother brand, TEC.

The ACNA churches have their own marketing issues, of course. What they need is clarity (in addition about 50 million dollars to build a new identity).  Confusion breeds distance among consumers, and if I was an outsider I would find the ACNA and its constituent churches very confusing.

[11] Posted by Going Home on 02-09-2009 at 03:55 PM • top

10   Pendennis, the members of the ACNA are the American Anglican Council, the Anglican Communion Network, the Anglican Mission in America, CANA, Forward in Faith North America, and the Reformed Episcopal Church.

[12] Posted by Cennydd on 02-09-2009 at 04:07 PM • top

This includes their people as well.

[13] Posted by Cennydd on 02-09-2009 at 04:09 PM • top

The Perrier story is a good reminder. I have said that the revisionists can defeat the orthodox by simply staying in the news. Gene Robinson has shown a true knack for this. If he wasn’t homosexual, no one notice this miserably failing as “shepherd of his flock.”

But the whining is apparently effective. And the impression in the American public that the Episcopal church is the gay church is further solidified. And the message of the orthodox still in the TEClub is further drowned out.

[14] Posted by robroy on 02-09-2009 at 04:35 PM • top

I have been watching the activities on Stand Firm for about two years.  I left the Episcopalian Church many years ago, so I do not really have a vested interest, but I am generally interested in how orthodox Christians are coping.  I also consider Episcopalians to be a “canary” ... an early warning sign, if you will.

I understood the hope for the “orthodox” until after Lambeth… and now, this meeting.  What exactly is the “hoped for” scenario?  What is GAFCON supposed to do and when?  How likely is it?

Just asking.  I think a feel a change in the tone of the blogs.  Might be my imagination.

[15] Posted by interested observer on 02-09-2009 at 06:24 PM • top

Interested Observer, it would be very interesting to me to map the blogs over the last five years. As I recall, in 2003 there were still substantial arguments in the blogs over whether it was indeed too late to effect change within TEC, and many were very critical of the First Promise signatories and the first big group to leave, AMIA.  Church mutinues that occurred at this time prompted lively blog debates, as to whether it was too soon.

Then the attention shifted to whether the Archbishop of Canterbury and/or the Primates would kick TEC out of the Communion or otherwise impose discipline. For a while, every word of the ABC was carefully parsed, and many thought they saw subliminal messages that Rowan Williams would indeed side with the GS in the end.

These debates seem to be over. There is little talk of TEC changing course; those orthodox remaining in TEC are doing so for other reasons.  Also, gone is any speculation that Williams is hiding a poker hand that he will ultimately play in favor of the orthodox.  The biggest point of contention seems to be between two orthodox groups, those insiders who subscribe to the ACI’s arguments that the ACNA is a bad thing, on the one hand, and those outsiders who wish to accelerate the de jure division of the Anglican Communion into a GAFCON like orthodox body, on the other.  Among the former, the covenant was once cited as a basis of internal reform, however, even its most ardent supporters now concede that it is unlikely to effect change.

Meanwhile as the dust of the initial battles has settled, the new Anglican churches are increasingly preoccupied with the real and difficult task of building congregations and buildings.

[16] Posted by Going Home on 02-09-2009 at 06:50 PM • top

With Tylenol we have a story of a company reacting to murder with their product.  With TEC you have a company bent on self destruction. If one was doing suicide intervention you would see that TEC:
Has a plan
Intends to act on it
Has a means
Has made previous attempts
Has resisted intervention
Is dangerous to others
Has alienated close friends
Suffers from Anomie
I personally believe an Organizational Psychologist would understand this better than I.

[17] Posted by Fr. Dale on 02-09-2009 at 08:17 PM • top

#16 Going Home

Your post was very was helpful ...  up until the events of this summer and what flowed from that. 

I am not at all clear about the two orthodox “camps” and what they expect or hope for.  Can you give me a little more explanation of the differences and why cooperation between them is likely or unlikely?

Whether or not you can add this extra info, thank you very much for your response.

[18] Posted by interested observer on 02-09-2009 at 08:24 PM • top

Speaking of “brands”, does the “catholic” label for ACNA hold if the communion in fact withholds recognition of the province?  If ACNA is quasi-schismatic and we have what may charitably termed innovative ecclesiology (if perhaps understandable in the present circumstances), how does this affect the claim to catholicity that many Anglicans find so important?

[19] Posted by Via Mead (Rob Kirby) on 02-09-2009 at 10:24 PM • top

Ron Kirby, the ecclesiology of the ACNA is no more innovative then the ecclesiology that Anglicans invented to provide ex-post-facto justification to seperating from Rome or the ecclesiology that Anglo-Catholics invented to justify staying in the Protestand Episcopal Church of England and Ireland and the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States.

[20] Posted by AndrewA on 02-09-2009 at 10:28 PM • top

On the question of “catholicity”

“If Anglican theory considers Canterbury an ‘apostolic’ see even after the split from Rome, wouldn’t an ‘apostolic’ bishop who split from Canterbury still be ‘apostolic?’  And wouldn’t sacraments administered by that ‘apostolic’ bishop be, therefore, entirely valid?”

“Well, uh…”

“Where does it say that you get one split but no more?”

“I, er, um…”

“If splitting from Rome did not affect the ‘apostolic’ status of the Archbishop of Canterbury, then why, according to Anglican theory, would splitting from Canterbury affect the ‘apostolic’ status of the Archbishops of Abuja, Kampala or North America?  And why would sacraments administered by any of these by invalid if they split?”

“Well, I don’t know that…”

“Seems to me that you can have one or the other but not both.  Either Canterbury is ‘apostolic,’ in which case those who split from it are still ‘apostolic,’ or Canterbury is not ‘apostolic’ at all and hasn’t been for five hundred years, in which case the ‘validity’ of Anglican sacraments ceases to be an issue.”

[21] Posted by AndrewA on 02-09-2009 at 10:33 PM • top

AndrewA, perhaps you’re right.

ACNA does, however, deviate from the monarchial bishop model in a way that the Anglican reformers did not, as I understand things.  They simply denied that there was a foreign bishop above the English bishops.  The idea of non-geographical dioceses based on whether our bishops can be in communion with priests ordained by other bishops (among other issues), while a noble attempt at maintaining unity where they would otherwise not be, is innovative.  Maybe it’s a good or necessary innovation in the present situation.  But it’s an innovation nonetheless.

My statement about catholicity was not, however to drudge up the history of Anglican ecclesiology (which many know better than I), but to point out that, to the “outside observer”, ACNA is at the present time a relatively small group with not fully fleshed-out pedigree with regards to a larger global body with a decent claim to catholicity.  Surely the orthodox in TEC suffer from “branding issues”, but we in ACNA may also suffer from our own branding issues as well.

[22] Posted by Via Mead (Rob Kirby) on 02-09-2009 at 10:59 PM • top

ACNA is at the present time a relatively small group with not fully fleshed-out pedigree with regards to a larger global body with a decent claim to catholicity.

Sounds a lot like the Episcopal Church in Seabury’s time when we needed Scottish (i.e., “foreign”) bishops to maintain catholicity, doesn’t it?

[23] Posted by robroy on 02-10-2009 at 07:12 AM • top

The Diocese of South Carolina has had, and now has, a strong orthodox Bishop who was willing to stand up to heresy and who educated his flock to recognize it.  I became an Episcopalian when I was 16.  My grandfather, great grandfather and uncle were all Presbyterian ministers, so when I choose to change there was great family opposition. I married an Episcopalian and raised 2 cradle Episcopalians ; one also married an Episcopalian and the other still attends an Episcopalian church.  All of my grandchildren are Episcopalians….and so what is the problem?  Sarah stated it so well…I detest belonging to a church which I believe has gone so far astray. ...but if I leave, what right do I have to to voice opposition, to perhaps be able to somehow turn back the clock?  I have gone to several “breakaway” Anglican Churches and I can’t help noticing how content they seem to be carrying on the great commission ...then I go back into “my” church and see the bickering unhappiness that all but the most die hard revisionists must feel; and I wonder..what am I doing here…these people don’t believe or stand for anything that I believe is important..and yet when a child insists through ignorance or stubbornness to play in the street does a caring person just walk away or does he keep trying to educate the child to understand that what he is doing will eventually lead to death or injury?...what to do, save myself or try for a return to sanity ....this is one reason why many stay, this is why many who stay are still not happy with their lone struggling church…we are supposed to be “united in faith” and it is so very obvious that we are not.

[24] Posted by ewart-touzot on 02-10-2009 at 08:08 AM • top

#12 - that is Common Cause.  Communion Partners is the group that Howe, McPherson and some others belong to that wish to remain in TEC no matter what TEC may do.  It is closely associated with the ACI.  But it has not been clear to me whether it constitutes an actual group of parishes or diocese in TEC, or rather just a group of a few score individuals.

[25] Posted by pendennis88 on 02-10-2009 at 08:52 AM • top

A year from now you all will still be talking about the same issues.

[26] Posted by Sarah Hey has a hidden agenda on 02-11-2009 at 09:03 PM • top

Should I Stay or Should I Go
The Clash

Darling you got to let me know
Should I stay or should I go?
If you say that you are mine
I’ll be here ’til the end of time
So you got to let me know
Should I stay or should I go?

Always tease tease tease
You’re happy when I’m on my knees
One day is fine, next day is black
So if you want me off your back
Well come on and let me know
Should I stay or should I go?

Should I stay or should I go now?
Should I stay or should I go now?
If I go there will be trouble
An’ if I stay it will be double
So come on and let me know!

This indecision’s bugging me
Esta indecision me molesta
If you don’t want me, set me free
Si no me quieres, librame
Exactly who’m I’m supposed to be
Dime que tengo que ser
Don’t you know which clothes even fit me?
¿sabes que ropas me quedan?
Come on and let me know
Me tienes que decir
Should I cool it or should I blow?
¿me debo ir o quedarme?

[27] Posted by Sarah Hey has a hidden agenda on 02-11-2009 at 09:12 PM • top

RE: “A year from now you all will still be talking about the same issues.”

I hope so—for I certainly intend to still be in TEC

I have no “indecision” whatsoever about “should I stay or should I go.”

[28] Posted by Sarah on 02-11-2009 at 09:33 PM • top

RE: #24 As good intentioned as you may be in telling the child/adult to get out of the street to avoid death, you cannot, and never will be able to, stop the child going back into the street unless they decide not to. Likewise, telling Episcopalians to leave TEC for 30 years, and their refusing to do it, will ultimately result in death, as they both simply refused to learn the lesson.

[29] Posted by IBelieve on 02-14-2009 at 12:56 PM • top

#25   Thanks for the correction Pendennis!  My bad!

[30] Posted by Cennydd on 02-14-2009 at 01:16 PM • top

If you click on my blog posting:
you will read something of the dilemma of
an orthodox Anglican trying to help an
Episcopal parish to survive.  Why do it,
you may ask?  One, because my love is there, and two, because I feel called.
A reorientation of my beloved Episcopal
Church is not impossible, if God wills it.  If so, it will certainly be well past my lifetime.  But small voices can be heard,and eventually turn the tide.

[31] Posted by profpk on 02-17-2009 at 10:37 AM • top

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

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere 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.