Welcome to Stand Firm!

The Anglican Communion’s ‘Bishop Pike’ Moment

Saturday, February 17, 2007 • 2:11 pm

If it fails to enforce discipline at this time, and in the face of this challenge, its future will be Pike writ large, and we all know where that leads.


Two observations on the developments surrounding the sub-group’s report, and neither is very pleasant:

First, the Archbishop of Canterbury has shown his hand, and it is a willingness to embrace a deception on behalf of the Episcopal Church. Until he admits the falsehoods in the report and repents of his embrace of them, he should not be considered an honest broker by conservatives.

Second, a group of communion conservatives is attempting to spin the sub-group report as a victory for conservatives. They may mean well, but the effect is still spin, and it’s no more palatable coming from conservatives than it is coming from liberals.

Let me begin with the archbishop. No matter what happens at the meeting in Tanzania from here on - no matter how far Rowan Williams distances himself from the sub-group report, no matter how high his iron-to-velvet ratio, no matter, even, if he helps effect what we all agree amounts to severe discipline for TEC - the Archbishop of Canterbury will have shown himself willing to endorse a list of claims that aren’t just false, but which he knows to be false. This is a statement on his leadership, certainly, but more than that, it’s a statement on his character.

That a committee of Anglicans could come up with something so ridiculously wrong is not surprising in the least. What is surprising - shocking, actually - is that Rowan Williams, a man (we’re continually being told) of towering intellect, would present it to the primates with a straight face. Did he remove his name from it? Present it with a caveat - “The report you’re about to hear has been made obsolete by events that have transpired since its creation”? No. He delivered the report to the primates fully intending, it would seem, to present it as the truth about the Episcopal Church’s response to Windsor.

Orthodox Anglicans, then, if they want to proceed through this crisis with a minimum of false hopes and as clear a picture as possible of what they might expect from their leaders, have little choice but to come to terms with the fact that Rowan Williams is not on our side. Yes, I know that sounds simplistic - we’ll hear that he’s ‘on the side of communion’ and other platitudes, but let’s dispense with that right now: He is on the side of accommodating heresy in the form of TEC’s “innovations,” and on the side of coddling those who have treated this communion with appalling contempt.

Now on to that group of communion conservatives. Many are pointing out that the report is months old, as though its time spent sitting on the shelf necessarily makes it less relevant to the proceedings in Tanzania. By extension, they imply, ++Rowan’s presentation of it to the primates should be seen as nothing more than a hollow bureaucratic gesture, something we should wink at in order to move on to the next phase, whatever that is, during which we will - surely - get the substantive action we’ve all been insisting we must get. To get there from here, though, they have no choice but to admit that Williams must be untruthful now in order for our side to emerge victorious later. I reject that completely. No victory for the truth can be built on an untruth.

The report isn’t false because it has been overtaken by events - because what it contains was once true, and things that have transpired since its creation have now made it false. It is not like a pre-World War I map, with different lines and names all over Europe and the Middle East. The report is false because it was a lie to begin with. Look no further than any of the debates surrounding the Windsor Report for proof that the Episcopal Church never wanted to endorse Windsor, and in fact went out of its way to excise Windsor language from the resolutions it finally managed to pass. Rather, it is like a map of the world that shows Italy bordering Alaska. It never correctly depicted reality, and it never will; and attempts to turn it into something the orthodox can find hope in only lend conservative credence to its assertions. To the extent conservatives say, “yes, the report is a blatant lie… but we think we’ve found some things in it we can work with,” they serve our Worthy Opponents’ goal of getting this “fact on the ground.” It certainly dilutes Windsor to the point of irrelevance. Their efforts threaten to turn the sub-group report not into the laughable charade it is, but into a reference document. As has been pointed out, it’s too clever by half on the part of conservatives to think they can one day box the Episcopal Church into being legitimately Windsor-compliant by endorsing the illegitimate claims of compliance in the sub-group’s report. I’ll thank Messrs. Uffman, Harding, Wells and Martin to stop trying to put lipstick on this pig.

Ever since GC06, the operating assumption has been that Rowan Williams and the other primates would have to decide what to do with an Episcopal Church that rejected the terms of the Windsor Report at its General Convention. Remember that this assumption was not just something on which the right had hung its hat - it was also the operating assumption of moderates, and even of much of the left.

That is the question we all - conservatives, moderates, and liberals alike - thought the primates would be wrestling with in Tanzania. The conservatives (correctly) said that non-compliance with Windsor must mean discipline for TEC, or else the moment was lost, and the communion would have no hope of creating or enforcing a meaningful covenant. Liberals (correctly) said that Windsor never prescribed ejection or diminishment in the event of non-compliance. Which side would win out, or whether a compromise could be reached - was what we were headed to Tanzania to decide.

Instead, what we’ve gotten is the assertion - made by no less a figure than Rowan Williams - that compliance is, except for a minor quibble about same-sex blessings, not the question at all. While he hasn’t (and will never) say what the question now really is, it is in fact, “What do conservative Anglicans do now that the Archbishop of Canterbury has backed an outrageous falsehood?”

The Anglican Church of Nigeria announced just days before the primates’ meeting began that it intended to adhere to “The Road to Lambeth”. Rowan Williams’ support of the sub-group’s report is nothing less than a gauntlet thrown down to Akinola. If Akinola, and the Global South primates who have up to now supported the position of discipline against an apostate TEC, emerge from Tanzania without that discipline in place, then The Road to Lambeth was a bluff, and the Anglican Communion will never be able to enforce limits on what is done in the name of Canterbury-led Anglicanism. This is the communion’s Bishop Pike moment, and if it fails to enforce discipline at this time, and in the face of this challenge, its future will be Pike writ large, and we all know where that leads.


65 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

I hereby award Greg a whole bushel basket full of “attaboys”. He says it so much better than I can.

the snarkster

[1] Posted by the snarkster on 02-17-2007 at 03:19 PM • top

Great article, Greg.

As a “communion conservative” who is desperate for a Canterbury-based Communion to survive stronger and with integrity, I can nevertheless not accept this report as truthful.

It was a sad day when this was presented by our leader.

I would like to point out something.  It looks as if we know, now, one reason why the Archbishop of Wales was not present at the meeting.  Had he been present he would most likely have presented the report.

[2] Posted by Sarah on 02-17-2007 at 04:40 PM • top

Agree completely.  This has felt to us as the “same old, same old” tactics of the TEC over the last 40 years.  We’ve said before that if the primates don’t stop it here and now, what’s happened in TEC is the roadmap for the Anglican Communion.  And we aren’t travelling that road again.

[3] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 02-17-2007 at 04:46 PM • top

I said this on another thread—before we condemn +++Williams, let’s remember +++Cranmer, whose betrayal of the Church was just as awful, and whose final stand for the Truth and joyful martyrdom are still an inspiration for this church.  We don’t know what the ABC is saying to the primates now.  All we do know, from the press conferences, is that there are “frank and free” discussions, and “tension” about the Episcopal Church.  You know perfectly well what that means—there are vigorous arguments going on, the report is being rejected by at least some—and maybe most—primates, and that what emerges from this meeting is not going to be identical to what we now have. (it could still be bad of course, but it won’t be the same smile )

We want our leaders to always be strong as lions, never wavering. They are not lions, they are humans.  Peter betrayed our Lord three times, yet Jesus forgave him.  It is right to be wary of what +++Williams does, but not to write him off forever-not until we know more.

[4] Posted by In Newark on 02-17-2007 at 04:59 PM • top

Greg,

When Tony Blair gave us RW as the ABC, I was convinced that this was a moment of sheer disaster.  Since then, I’ve gone back and forth between the good Rowan and the evil Rowan, trying to decide which one was the genuine article.

The good Rowan was the one who warned Frank Griswold about the consequences of consecrating Gene Robinson, and who appointed the Windsor Commission, and whom Canon Kearon complained about so loudly several weeks ago.  The evil Rowan was the one who appointed Archbishop Carnley as head of the POR, and who did nothing and I mean absolutely nothing about the continued persecution of the orthodox in North America, and who sent Kearon to broker some kind of agreement between KJS and the APO dioceses in NYC.

As of the subreport, it is now evident to me which one is the real Rowan.  There is no future for orthodox Anglicanism with this man.  I pray that the Global South will remain true to their words at Kigali.

[5] Posted by William Witt on 02-17-2007 at 05:06 PM • top

Come Tuesday, 2/20, I realize I may have to eat these words. But, for now, I prefer to think in terms of strategy rather than ultimate absolutes.  We shall see…

I reiterate again, the SubCommittee report is NOT the Communique. 

Blessings,

J.

[6] Posted by Orthoducky on 02-17-2007 at 05:17 PM • top

I would be glad if Sarah Hey could elaborate on the reason for saying that Archbishop Barry Morgan’s absence from DES is now explicable.
I heard his address to the last Governing Body of the Church in Wales (Sept 06), and his comments on TEC’s Windsor compliance uncannily presaged what the sub-group has now reported. His words (according to the Province’s official newsletter - my own notes agree pretty well with this) were:

“He commended what the Episcopal Church of the United States did at its convention in July, when:

•It re-affirmed its abiding commitment to the fellowship of churches that constitute the Anglican Communion and sought to live into the highest degree of communion possible.
•It reaffirmed that it was in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer.
•It made a commitment to the vision of inter-dependent life in Christ, characterised by forbearance, trust, and respect, and commended the Windsor Report and process as a means of deepening understanding of that commitment.”

I recall thinking at the time that I hadn’t read such a positive view of CG06 anywhere else - but now that the sub-group has reported, I have!

[7] Posted by William S on 02-17-2007 at 05:25 PM • top

Great report Greg.  If it looks like a pig, smells like a pig, ...

[8] Posted by Philip Bowers on 02-17-2007 at 05:30 PM • top

If TEC isn’t disciplined in some form or fashion as a result of Tanzania, Greg, and the Primates don’t make clear their understanding that TEC’s response to the WR means A-no more Gene Robinsons and B-no more SSB’s, I’m right there with you, pal.  My family and I have already gone AMiA, and if +++Kolini and the GS Primates cannot make this happen, they had better tell Lambeth they’re no longer in the club.  I’m inclined to Constantinople otherwise.

But, and this is a big but, if they are able to apply significant sanctions on TEC and put TEC in a box from which it cannot escape, then I’ll say that enough has been done this time and will await TEC’s inevitable primal scream and descent into further apostasy.

[9] Posted by Jeffersonian on 02-17-2007 at 05:32 PM • top

No, the sub-group report is not the communique, but as I write in the beginning of this post, nothing that can happen from this point on that changes the fact that Rowan Williams is willing to look us in the eyes and claim that a lie is the truth.

If the communion fractures because Williams endorsed this malarkey, history will judge him with exactly none of the grace that God will. The facts are there for everyone to see.

[10] Posted by Greg Griffith on 02-17-2007 at 05:34 PM • top

It’s a shame that Archbishop Williams and the majority of Primates didn’t have the courage of their forebears who wrote Articles 29 and 33 of the 39 Articles when dealing with PB Schori and TEC nor of Paul when he wrote ‘nor take part in the sins of others,keep yourselves pure’(1 Tim.5:22).
I sure would enjoy eating those words come Monday or Tuesday.

[11] Posted by paddy on 02-17-2007 at 05:46 PM • top

When I first read the sub-group report I was shocked that “Christians” would try to deceive other Christians with such a sham.  But I was most of all shocked that the Archbishop of Canterbury’s signature was on it as well.  In one moment I became a convert to the concept that one need not go through Canterbury to reach Jesus.  I have delayed jumping ship these past few years waiting to see what “group” would have Canterbury’s blessings before I joined it.  Now all I want to find is a community faithful to the Anglican understanding of the fatih and worship.  Nigeria, get ready for another knock on the door!  I will wait juust long enough to hear from all parties to the Dar es Saloom meeting first before making such a move in order to confirm or dispell my discernment.

[12] Posted by David+ on 02-17-2007 at 05:50 PM • top

I had opportunity to chat privately with a retired TEC bishop several years ago.  He agreed that the HOB was dishonest in dodging the responsibility for liturgies conducted in their home dioceses… more importantly, he said something a lot like this (close but accurate paraphrase):

“We have such fundamental differences with the Africans… vastly different beliefs and contexts.  Do I really care about the AC?  No… What does it mean to me here?  It really is time for them to go their way and us ours… but it is easy for me to say that in my old age and retirement…”

It was the most honest statement I had heard to date… tho’ again, in private.

Agree that NOW is the time to either force that same admission from TEC leadership (a reality already wafting like smoke everywhere, while we all cough and stream tears and pretend we’re OK)

... OR set in concrete the final/definable/end game process to solicit same… real steps, and real soon.

No more lies.  A small bit of time, perhaps, to coordinate, follow thru, whatever you wish to call it… but no more bald-face lies.

They do not care about the AC and are willing to trade fellowship with 2/3 of 78M people to keep their agenda.

We will have to give up some property and pensions and the comfort of larger (ie, “diverse and moderate”) parishes to preach and live freely.

I’m willing to live with a somewhat extended solution… because an instant fix is *not* possible… but not indefinite delay or symbolic “feeling your pain” while the smoke chokes the life out of all of us.

Will there be nourishment (ie, genuine support) for a sustainable US Anglican remnant willing to work and sacrifice—or not? 

The world waits…

[13] Posted by hoping against hope on 02-17-2007 at 05:52 PM • top

If it fails to enforce discipline at this time, and in the face of this challenge, its future will be Pike writ large, and we all know where that leads.

Yes… we know where it leads. The failure to discipline Pike in the 60s was the clear sign that PECUSA had abandoned any enforcement of its theological or ethical teaching—it opened the doors to all the subsequent revisionism in morality, practice, ordinations, and theology.

And guess what—for everyone now in PECUSA, that “Bishop Pike” moment of 40 years ago didn’t mean it was worth leaving the Episcopal church: save for those who have left for the Continuing church, and more recently the AMiA and other GS jurisdictions, everyone has been willing to stay put (even if discontentedly) as the revisionism mounts and the church rots and crumbles.

So, yes, perhaps Tanzania will be a “Bishop Pike” moment for the whole communion.

But if the reaction to this “Bishop Pike” moment is like the reaction to the last “Bishop Pike” moment, then we do know where it will lead… i.e. most people really not doing very much after all, and putting their heads firmly back in the sand.

pax,
LP

[14] Posted by LP on 02-17-2007 at 05:56 PM • top

Greg, I join others in thanking you for this article that speaks to the heart and mind of so many, particularly the Federal Conservatives.  And you have said it far more graciously.

(Sidebar:  could we make a slight switch and start using the terms “Communion Orthodox” and “Federal Orthodox”.  While I have no problem being called a conservative in almost any setting, I believe the term orthodox to be more appropriate for our struggles.)

Second, a group of communion conservatives is attempting to spin the sub-group report as a victory for conservatives. They may mean well, but the effect is still spin, and it’s no more palatable coming from conservatives than it is coming from liberals.

I would put forward that it is less palatable coming from allies than coming from revisionists/w.o.  Having read much of what has been written to turn this sow’s ear of a report into a silk purse, feels like a repeat of the very betrayal visited upon the orthodox by Rowan Williams.  If we, who say will believe in the truth of Holy Scripture, cannot agree on the truth on what that reports means and says, then we have become our own lost cause.

You have no idea how many comments have been written in the air both here at StandFirm and at T19, that I deleted without posting.  Believe when I tell others that whatever harshness or temper has been in my posts of the past few days have been exceeding watered down from what I had wanted to say. 

Their efforts threaten to turn the sub-group report not into the laughable charade it is, but into a reference document. As has been pointed out, it’s too clever by half on the part of conservatives to think they can one day box the Episcopal Church into being legitimately Windsor-compliant by endorsing the illegitimate claims of compliance in the sub-group’s report. I’ll thank Messrs. Uffman, Harding, Wells and Martin to stop trying to put lipstick on this pig.

Thank you so much, Greg, for saying this.  And I’ll stop there.
I would like to say more, but I need to write some more of those “air” comments.

[15] Posted by Gayle on 02-17-2007 at 06:00 PM • top

I can’t say that I’m too happy that TEC hasn’t been read the Riot Act in Tanzania and made to stand in the corner for the remainder of the conference myself.  If I’d had my druthers, that’s what would have happened.

That said, how do we proceed from here?  Throw in the towel because our guy got socked in the eye?  I’m sorry, but I think it’s premature to do that.

[16] Posted by Jeffersonian on 02-17-2007 at 06:01 PM • top

How is any of this surprising? The man has been soft on homosexuality from the get go. And the COE itself is shot through with heresy and state-imposed sexual abomination in the form of same sex blessings. Why did anyone trust him or think that something good would come from him? The “communion” is dead. The theology of Cranmer and the founders remains, and it is up to us to rebuild from the ground floor.

You’re wasting your time if you expect something good from this lot.

Joel
All Souls Anglican Mission, Stafford, VA
http://www.allsoulsanglicanmission.org/

[17] Posted by Joel on 02-17-2007 at 06:03 PM • top

Second, a group of communion conservatives is attempting to spin the sub-group report as a victory for conservatives. They may mean well, but the effect is still spin, and it’s no more palatable coming from conservatives than it is coming from liberals.

I think this is a mischaracterization.  I don’t see the report as a victory, I see it as a disgrace and I’ve said so many times, here and elsewhere.  TEC clearly failed to meet even the most rudimentary requirements of the WR, and to say so is an outright lie.  But…

There is also an opportunity to be had here.

[18] Posted by Jeffersonian on 02-17-2007 at 06:06 PM • top

The bottom line is: this was the moment - and the Primates choked.  There will not be another moment.  It won’t be Lambeth, and it won’t be some covenant conference, because ECUSA will lie like it always does.  Short of a covenant that openly reaffirms the 2,000 year Christian teaching on marriage and sexuality, which we’ve already been told it doesn’t and won’t contain, ECUSA will sign whatever is put in front of it, and everything will be fine - except for the few thousand orthodox Anglicans left in the institution.  After what’s happened in Tanzania, Schori could sign the covenant and spit in Rowan’s face as she handed back, and he’d do nothing more than laugh gamely and buy her a drink.

[19] Posted by Phil on 02-17-2007 at 06:14 PM • top

I presume if the Global South Primates accept the sub-group report, Greg will have the same contempt for them as he has for Rowan.  Furthermore, having no respect for Rowan, I guess there is no need to continue any ties with the See of Canterbury.  In fact, the question will be, having faced Pike’s moment for a second time, will you stay or should we expect you to start marching on Monday?

[20] Posted by richardc on 02-17-2007 at 06:33 PM • top

Excellent analysis, Greg. Some years ago, when Lord Carey retired, I was in the discernment process in a “Windsor” diocese. I was praying for clarity in what I should do; and was at the point of deciding whether I should leave my career of the past twelve years and go to seminary, or pursue diaconal ministry.

Upon his retirement, I remember sitting with my wife at the kitchen table while our kids peacefully played on the floor, and discussing the appointment that PM Blair had just announced. My thoughts at the time were that I was concerned, as the positions taken by then then-archbishop of Wales were very much aligned with things that greatly disturbed me. I told my wife that I couldn’t imagine being ordained in a church that headed down the path that +Williams seemed to endorse.

I was spared the need to make that decision, as the clarity I prayed for was granted. I was promoted and moved to another state, which although nominally conservative had only one small parish served by an extremely liberal rector. When I discussed my concerns with him shortly after arriving, he told me that the Episcopal Church was on the right track; although some people weren’t as far along as the rest of them in understanding the “new thing” God was leading us toward.

I left then and haven’t looked back. I still feel I am called to ordained ministry; but I don’t know what form that will take or where. God is in charge of this process, and He’ll let me know.

In an interesting aside, the liberal rector left and ended up in the Diocese of Southern Ohio. I guess we all end up in the place we’re supposed to be, despite our best efforts, eventually.

Those who have been of constant help to me in the last four years have mostly been people I’ve never met - Greg, Matt+, Sarah, and the posters here on StandFirm. I certainly hope I’m wrong, and that something good comes out of Tanzania. But my first impressions of ++Williams are solidifying before my eyes - I guess first impressions are right at least some of the time.

God’s blessings to all here - continue to pray for the primates.

Tom S.

[21] Posted by Tom S. on 02-17-2007 at 06:37 PM • top

Jeffersonian, you and I have a different view as to what it means by throwing in the towel in this battle.  I view it as adapting to changing conditions on the battlefield, and moving away from a strategy that is dependent on winning the fight within the Anglican Communion for the disclipline, and ultimate replacement, of TEC as the party in communion with Canterbury. Ain’t going to happen, and its time to move one. But that doesnt mean throwing in the towel, just that WE arent going to get out way. 

A relationship with Canterbury verses living out a faithful witness through my denominational affiliation?  The choice should be an easy one.

[22] Posted by Going Home on 02-17-2007 at 06:59 PM • top

I was dismayed when I first heard of ++Rowan’s appointment. I then felt that he was too liberal and that it didn’t bode well for the communion. As I watch what is coming out of Tazania I cannot help but feel that I have been right all along.

I truly had hoped that an orthodox Anglican Church would be formed here in America but alas I’m now afraid that it won’t happen. TEC will continue down the road to becoming a totally liturgical Unitarian Universalist Church, or as someone else has but it “a nice Universalist Church in drag.”

I now hold out little hope for anything good coming out of Tazania. My real hope for orthodox Anglicanism in the US is that the Continuing Churches will begin to come together and for one Traditional, Orthodox Anglican Church in North America.

[23] Posted by FrRick on 02-17-2007 at 07:04 PM • top

Timothy, I can’t find any fault in your thinking other than timing.  If there is a milquetoast, empty communique that comes out of Tanzania, I think you’re probably spot-on.  If TEC finds itself in the pillory with a short leash after, I think you’re jumping the gun.

Let’s see what comes out first.

[24] Posted by Jeffersonian on 02-17-2007 at 07:11 PM • top

Jeffersonian—agreed. 

Although I expect there will be enough confusing language in the communique and subsequent Primate statements that folks will still argue over whether TEC is on a leash, and if so, its length!

[25] Posted by Going Home on 02-17-2007 at 07:17 PM • top

Today my bishop sent out an email to all the clergy in our diocese.  Let me state that I have the utmost love and respect for my bishop.  He told us that there is a great deal of spin and opinion coming out of the Tanzania, interpretations of reports, etc. He said that although there is cause for concern, we must not jump to conclusions and we me not cease praying for the Primates.

As I said, I hold my bishop in the highest possible regard.  However, it looks to me now that we will be hearing nearly the exact same words a year from now, two years from now, three, four, five, ten, 15, 20 years from now and forever.  After Tanzania, billed as the “Big Meeting” where decisive action would take place, and the Realignment would begin in earnest, we’ll be told we have to wait until next year for Lambeth 2008.  And from there we’ll told that we’ll have to wait until GC2009 for TEC’s response to the Lambeth 2008 report and requests.  And then there will be another “Big Meeting” of the Primates, this time in say, Bora Bora.  And then we’ll be told we have to wait until GC2012.  And round and round it goes.  We all know the chorus by heart.

Here is an epiphany on the eve of Last Epiphany:  this thing we hoped for—an orthodox Anglicanism in North America, some kind of separate province-thing where the Network, APO dioceses and parishes and individuals, along with the Continuum, FIFNA, CANA, and all the others could join up and get back to being Anglican Catholics—it isn’t coming, is it? 

Here’s an idea for a slogan on a T-shirt:

“Anglicanism:  It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time!”

[26] Posted by DaveW on 02-17-2007 at 07:35 PM • top

richardc,

Yes, if the GS primates endorse this report, I will have just as much contempt for them as I do for ++Rowan. What will I do on Monday? Let’s wait for the final communique.

[27] Posted by Greg Griffith on 02-17-2007 at 07:40 PM • top

Greg, excellent analysis.

Messers Uffman, Harding, Wells and Martin are “overaccepting” indeed. They are, in fact, true disciples of “Mater Pangloss”, the esteemed professor of “mettaphysico-theologo-cosmolonigolongy” - as are all who, for whatever reason, refuse to acknowledge that the report is a blatant lie.  The ABC is a flaming liberal and is a true product of the moribund CoE., which is a dead man walking.  How could we - except in a delusional state - trust that +++ Williams would stand for right and truth.  Although I was not looking to him for leadership, I never thought that he would actively, positively demonstrably, lie to provide cover and protection for the TEC.  I knew that he would fudge, which is bad enough.  It is clear that there is not a dime’s worth of difference between +++Williams and KJS, et al.

It is time, in the words of Charlie Pride, a great country and western songman, to bid “Adios, Sayonara, Good Night” to the TEC and the AC.  There is no hope for the TEC, and, while I pray that I am wrong, it appears that there is no hope for an AC, unless, the GC Primates are strong enough and persuasive enough to turn events, but, realistically, the odds on that are: “Slim and None”, and Slim just left town.

[28] Posted by EastTexAnglican on 02-17-2007 at 07:46 PM • top

Thanks Greg,
I suspect you have reason to believe their response will differ from the ABC;)

richardc
http://www.thinkingreasserters.blogspot.com

[29] Posted by richardc on 02-17-2007 at 07:47 PM • top

This is off topic, but I would dearly love to know what N.T. Wright thinks of this report after going to bat for Williams last summer.  Would he agree that this is what the GC accomplished?

[30] Posted by Rom 1:16 on 02-17-2007 at 08:04 PM • top

Forget last Summer.  Wright went to bat for Williams just last week, saying that Williams was “head and shoulders” above everyone else when it came to understanding the Communion.  That either means that Wright knows something we don’t, or Wright got blindsided too.

[31] Posted by Nyssa on 02-17-2007 at 08:10 PM • top

Gayle (or, more aptly, Master of this blogsite),

For those of us new to this blog, could there be added to your software a recognition of the phrases “Communion Orthodox” and “Federal Orthodox” that result in the broken underscore and the “pop-up” text box with a definition?

I have no clear idea what express distinctions are implied by the Communion/Federal dichotomy, and I suspect that there may be others, also new to this forum, who share my ignorance. (What I am thinking of in this context is the behavior that occurs when someone includes the literal string “ABC” or “Windsor” or “Dromantine” in a post. Because some posts and comments (I’m thinking here of one of Sarah Hey’s posts of today here) are using slightly different terminology, this should probably be done for “Communion Conservative” and “Federal Conservative” also, because I assume the “Conservative” appellation is (more or less) synonymous with “Orthodox” in these usages.

Thanks,

[32] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 02-17-2007 at 08:41 PM • top

WOW Greg!  You Rock!  Your criticism of the ABC is harsh, just fully justified!

I recently posted that I had lost all respect for ++Williams after the sub-committee report was released and you have verbalized exactly why I have lost all respect for him.

I still hold out hope that the GS primates will hold firm and ++Williams may be persuaded to relent to avoid global schism.  Even if so, I would now put ++Williams firmly with the opposition.  In my mind he is just as bad as Griswold!  If ++Williams could say what he said after GC06 and then produce this report with a straight face then he is just as bad as the Griz walking out of the primates meeting saying he is going ahead with the consecration or VGR!

[33] Posted by Spencer on 02-17-2007 at 09:06 PM • top

The Episcopal Church has missed numerous opportunities to remain orthodox and apostolic.  Action wasn’t taken against Pike, but he died alone in the Judean desert (may God grant him mercy).  No action was taken against Bishop Paul Moore for unilaterally breaking Tradition and ecumenical bonds when he ordained the first woman priest, and that action, more than Pike’s apostasy, opened the Pandora’s box.  Consider this missed opportunity, celebrated by Louie Crew in his history, titled “Changing the Church”:

The “1976 General Convention changed the canons to permit the ordination of women [and] ‘regularized’ the earlier ordinations in Philadelphia and Washington. The 1976 Convention passed (and reaffirmed in 1979, 1983, and 1994) resolutions supporting the civil rights of lesbians and gays.

In January of 1977, the first month women could be ‘legally’ ordained, the Rt. Rev. Paul Moore, Jr., Bishop of New York, ordained to the priesthood Ellen Marie Barrett, who had served as Integrity’s first co-president. Other lesbians had been among the Philadelphia Eleven…

Reaction was swift and volatile. For months, Episcopal newspapers and magazines fulminated. Meeting in Port St. Lucie nine months later, the House of Bishops said ordinations of lesbians and gays should not happen. They passed a strong resolution condemning homosexuality as unbiblical. They asserted the church “is right to confine its nuptial blessing exclusively to heterosexual marriage. Yet at Port St. Lucie, the Bishops tabled a measure to censure Bishop Moore. With glorious irony, some of the bishops most annoyed by the ordination of Ellen Barrett still needed to protect dissent, namely their own. Since the canon law now made it legal to ordain women, bishops who felt women should not be priests did not want to be forced to ordain them. At Port St. Lucie, the House of Bishops adopted a “conscience clause” permitting bishops to refuse to ordain women. During the 1980’s, at first a few, then a few more bishops began quietly to ordain lesbians and gays who were out to them, protected by that same notion of ‘conscience.’”

See what happens when Christians allow innovation that deviates from Church Tradition? These innovations carry their own seeds of self-destruction.  The Church survives the Pikes, Moores and Crews of this world.

[34] Posted by Alice Linsley on 02-17-2007 at 09:16 PM • top

Joel,  That’s the plain truth.
It could not have been said better.

[35] Posted by Theodora on 02-17-2007 at 09:23 PM • top

In RE:

1. Sarah. “It looks as if we know, now, one reason why the Archbishop of Wales was not present at the meeting.  Had he been present he would most likely have presented the report.

That quote shows a great misunderstanding of personalities. I daresay Barry Morgan would have relished the task of presenting the report.


2. Dave W. “After Tanzania, billed as the “Big Meeting” where decisive action would take place, and the Realignment would begin in earnest…”

That was the billing here on StandFrim and among many other conservative/traditionalist bloggers and commentors who were having Curia Romanum fantasies.

3. Further and more to the point from Dave W. “...this thing we hoped for - an orthodox Anglicanism in North America, some kind of separate province - thing where the Network, APO dioceses and parishes and individuals, along with the Continuum, FIFNA, CANA, and all the others could join up and get back to being Anglican Catholics—it isn’t coming, is it?

Dave, that intuition of yours is correct, I’m afraid. Peter Akinola, Bob Duncan and Martyn Minns got the shock of their lives on Thursday and Friday when they saw the handwriting on the wall. One would assume that they still have not recovered from the implications. They are, like so many others complaining here, victims of their own desires and aspirations which do not match the somewhat harsh realities of their playing field.

Since these Anglican gentlemen in search of a new set up for the communion have raised the stakes to this level, I assumed that it would be just a matter of time before some of the best minds of the English Church - the focus Anglican unity - revealed the truth of the situation. Nicholas Thomas Wright and Michael Scott-Joynt know Rowan Williams all to well. Now you will understand why they were reduced to somewhat shrill and frustrated commentary before the fact. That leads me to

4. From Nyssa. “Forget last Summer.  Wright went to bat for Williams just last week, saying that Williams was “head and shoulders” above everyone else when it came to understanding the Communion.  That either means that Wright knows something we don’t, or Wright got blindsided too.”

Hardly “going to bat.” More like the God’s honest truth from someone who should know about Rowan and be fearful. That was a warning to the colonials, not a set up. Rowan’s empassioned presentation revealed his hand after he had all of his archepiscopal brothers locked down at the White Sands Hotel & Conference Centre. There was a dawning realization among the primates that had been hinted at in Paul Marshall’s famous open letter. The bond of the Atlantic Alliance is personified in Rowan who by the sheerest of cooincidences was present on site on 9/11 at the bombing of the World Trade Center. He will never forget the fearful hours spent with his American Episcopalian cousins at that time. You might say it was the hand of God at work. You might say it was the Devil at work. Nevertheless, ignore those facts at your peril.

[36] Posted by Robert Zacher on 02-17-2007 at 09:42 PM • top

Robert, I still don’t know how you make sense of Wright’s comments.  Wright’s interview with Gledhill show that his perception of TEC’s response is much different than that presented by Rowan’s assessment.  You may be correct that Wright’s interview with Gledhill was shrill precisely because he knew his perception of events was not the one winning the day, but that doesn’t explain why he would lionize the ABC’s intellect.  If Wright saw this coming and wanted to have us hear his two cents, he’d say his piece and either take a shot at the ABC, or just be silent about the ABC.  However, he didn’t.  Wright said his piece and complimented the ABC.  Why?  Unless he was hoodwinked too?  Or maybe he knows something we don’t, like the end game in which his perspective is upheld.  Thus a statement about the ABC being “head and shoulders” above the rest may have been a signal to conservatives to give Williams the benefit of the doubt because in the end it will work out as they want it to.  I don’t know which scenario is accurate, but I hardly see how the Gledhill article could have been a “warning” as you suppose.

[37] Posted by Nyssa on 02-17-2007 at 10:05 PM • top

Sorry, I’ll use the late hour as my defense.  Is the proper colloquial phrase: “say his piece” or “say his peace”?  Anyone?

[38] Posted by Nyssa on 02-17-2007 at 10:07 PM • top
[39] Posted by Greg Griffith on 02-17-2007 at 10:17 PM • top

Lots of anguish being expressed here,  and lots of folks getting wrapped around the axle about things they have no control over. O ye of little faith. I think we are forgetting who is really in charge here.  My grandfather always warned against “borrowing trouble”, and he would quote Matthew 6:33-34: “33But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. 34Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”

[40] Posted by El Jefe on 02-17-2007 at 10:35 PM • top

Thanks for the link Gregg.  Looks like I got the usage right (not because I’m so smart….50/50 shot really).  For other inquiring minds, the following sentence illustrates the difference:  “Wright ‘said his piece,’ but if he’d held his tongue and not given the interview he would have ‘held his peace.’”  You’ll learn something new everyday if you’re not careful.

[41] Posted by Nyssa on 02-17-2007 at 10:42 PM • top

Alice: great post.  All too true; sadly, not heeded by ECUSA.

[42] Posted by Phil on 02-17-2007 at 10:45 PM • top

Of course there is a third scenario which I shudder to even mention.  What if Wright was in on this conspiracy with Williams?  Wouldn’t that just be a kick in the pants?

[43] Posted by Nyssa on 02-17-2007 at 10:52 PM • top

Greg, thank you for thinking and writing so clearly.  And, for the most part, the commentary in response shows you (we) are not alone.  You know, I’ve recently rekindled the thought that a good see city for a church be Alexandria.  But I’d settle for Abuja or Kaduna.  On second thought, I’ll keep my powder dry till the fat lady sings.

[44] Posted by Andy Figueroa on 02-17-2007 at 11:17 PM • top

What is the proper response?

Many of us will want to engage in recrimination and gnashing of teeth. That is not only a poor stewardship of our time, but fails to acknowledge that God allowed this to happen, and can use this failed effort to win a larger victory if we learn from this experience and surrender to His will.  It also fails to demonstrate the love we are supposed to show to our co-laborers.

Others may have too much invested in their own position in this fight to readily acknowledge that their hopes and plans didnt work out. They will seek to spin the subcommittee report, and the AOC’s endorsement, as something other than it clearly is.  They will put the best light on whatever comes out of a final communique, and place much hope in a future covenant, or the next Lambeth.  They will desperately want to maintain interest in a continued fight for a Canterbury based solution and will feel lost and disoriented if the fight moves to a different battlefield.

I am not smart enough to understand all of the ramifications of what has occurred. But I do know that the ultimate well being of our new Anglican parishes does not depend on winning in Tanzania. In fact, God may very well be TELLING US SOMETHING if we are willing to listen.  As I said once before in a response to one of Ms. Hiiiieey’s posts, most of the largest US churches, and some of the fastest growing denominations, weren’t even around forty years ago.  Has anyone considered that it may be the Lord’s plan for the rebirth of an Anglican church in the United States that is not yoked to Canterbury?  Could it be that he wants the faithful in the US, joined with some in the GS, to be the new wineskins through which a faithful church is grown?

What is the right resopnse?

[45] Posted by Going Home on 02-17-2007 at 11:39 PM • top

RE: “I would be glad if Sarah Hey could elaborate on the reason for saying that Archbishop Barry Morgan’s absence from DES is now explicable. “

Hi William S, sorry to take so long to respond. 

I think that Rowan—knowing the report’s import and that it would be highly resisted—wished to present the report himself before the Primates, which in fact he did, in order to put the full weight of his office behind it.  It was the linchpin of the strategy to not act to discipline ECUSA and it was vital that the 13 new Primates, for instance, saw that he was fully behind the report and supported it.

It would have been strange for him to do so, I think, had Barry Morgan been there, who was one of the “Gang of Four”.

[46] Posted by Sarah on 02-17-2007 at 11:51 PM • top

RE: “That quote shows a great misunderstanding of personalities. I daresay Barry Morgan would have relished the task of presenting the report.”

Er, no.  I have no doubt that Barry Morgan would have relished the task of presenting the report—please read comment above explaining what I said.

RE: “That was the billing here on StandFrim . . . “

And no again.  We predicted—if you care to read all of our predictions articles—very little action and a fierce bloodbath.  Appears we were correct.  Do you actually read our articles . . . or just pop in to say wild things on a thread and then pop out again?

RE: “Peter Akinola, Bob Duncan and Martyn Minns got the shock of their lives on Thursday and Friday when they saw the handwriting on the wall.”

And no again.  Even I was not shocked and I can assure you that there was no shock from any real leaders.

We all expected the usual apparatchiks moves, Robert.  After all—we all experienced them at General Convention.

Believe me, we all know that there are no depths to which revisionists in ECUSA will not seek.

Hope that helps splain things to you . . . ; > )

[47] Posted by Sarah on 02-18-2007 at 12:00 AM • top

Greg,
Great and I agree with you about what is facing the GS Primates.
But if:

Present it with a caveat - “The report you’re about
to hear has been made obsolete by events that have transpired since its creation”? No.

is true how do you explain him inviting Duncan, et al? He had to know there would be some one who could refute this report right after he gave it.

[48] Posted by Rocks on 02-18-2007 at 12:57 AM • top

PB KJS is still fully participating in the deliberations right?  Didn’t AB Aikiola say he would not sit down at table with her as a fellow primate? 
Instead of debating what type of discipline to take against TEC, they are debating whether TEC is in compliance with Windsor right? 
So its liberals 2 orthodox 0 and the liberals are doing a great job running out the clock by debating something that should be a foregone conclusion.  There are how many days left?  Will the referee add time to the match?  Is there a referee?

[49] Posted by closet catholic on 02-18-2007 at 12:59 AM • top

Hi Closet Catholic, you may have missed this story:

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2193/

[50] Posted by Sarah on 02-18-2007 at 01:59 AM • top

“Do you actually read our articles . . . or just pop in to say wild things on a thread and then pop out again?”

Sarah, I do not have the time or the energy to plumb the the archives of StandFirm to the extent you suggest. When I am notified of a new post or issue addressed here I read the material posted and the comments. Then if so moved, I occasionally respond. Let me emphasize the word occasionally. Within the last calendar year I have posted a grand total of eleven comments on StandFirm. This comment will make an even dozen.

There is a great deal with which I take issue in many postings and comments on StandFirm, this post by Greg Griffith among them. However, as I say, I am usually silent. When I do comment I hope it is from a standpoint attuned to the issues and events of General Convention2006, and that I have observed thereafter. I think I can speak reasonably well from such experience and my education to such statements of Greg’s as

“Ever since GC06, the operating assumption has been that Rowan Williams and the other primates would have to decide what to do with an Episcopal Church that rejected (emphasis mine) the terms of the Windsor Report at its General Convention. Remember that this assumption was not just something on which the right had hung its hat - it was also the operating assumption of moderates, and even of much of the left…

What…?

I have never spoken with any responisble person who thought there could be a reply to the Windsor Report from The Episcopal Church in the form of an outright rejection.   A great deal of energy was, in fact, put into the achievement of a reply according to what was available within the constitutional constraints of General convention machinery and in from energized constituencies within the shared communal life of The Episcopal Church.

’...Instead, what we’ve gotten is the assertion - made by no less a figure than Rowan Williams - that compliance is, except for a minor quibble about same-sex blessings, not the question at all.”

Ummm, not true. What we have gotten is an evaluation of the response of The Episcopal Church to Windsor put in a decent and reasonable context that is adequate for the time and season in which most of the Anglican Communion will live.

I find that a lot of what is posted here in the comments is driven by paranoia and theories of “revisionist conspiracy.” My observation comes from things like this, Sarah

“Believe me, we all know that there are no depths to which revisionists in ECUSA will not seek.

‘We predicted—if you care to read all of our predictions articles—very little action and a fierce bloodbath.”

and from Greg and others the use of the words

”...heresy…

‘...apostate TEC

‘...untruthful Rowan Williams…

‘...the Archbishop of Canterbury will have shown himself willing to endorse a list of claims that aren’t just false, but which he knows to be false. This is a statement on his leadership, certainly, but more than that, it’s a statement on his character…” (That means liar, bubba.)

Ick, enough! I’ll come back to commenting on such stuff on StandFirm when there is a change of management, thank you.  zipper

[51] Posted by Robert Zacher on 02-18-2007 at 02:06 AM • top

Robert:
Please don’t wait until there is a change of management here to comment; that’s not going to happen.  It’s a pity the tenor this blog has taken recently, apparently some of those who would consider themselves leaders in our battle to salvage a remnant of Episcopalian orthodoxy have taken leave of their senses and better judgement.  We would do well to realize that remarks here are disseminated broadly and criticized from all points of view…and they will be archived forever.  For those, like Mlle. who must have thought they’d found a career in this controversy, we’ll have to have patience until they get over themselves.

[52] Posted by Texican on 02-18-2007 at 02:56 AM • top

Texican: Please don’t wait until there is a change of management here to comment; that’s not going to happen.  It’s a pity the tenor this blog has taken recently, apparently some of those who would consider themselves leaders in our battle to salvage a remnant of Episcopalian orthodoxy have taken leave of their senses and better judgement.

I’d be interested to know what particular statements that have been made here by “those who would consider themselves leaders” lead you to the conclusion that they “have taken leave of their senses and better judgement”.

[53] Posted by David Ould on 02-18-2007 at 06:49 AM • top

Timothy,
Perhaps you are right.  Much has been made of the exodus analogy and of the exile analogy.  I am not sure which one fits best (perhaps exile), but I think it might be revealed that the whole is under judgment and God is calling out (consecrating) His children as a remnant among the people so that they may be purified and glorified and made into a new people for His glory.  While this certainly remains to be seen, it certainly would explain certain events.  We shall just have to wait and see.

[54] Posted by Spencer on 02-18-2007 at 08:34 AM • top

Sarah,
Thanks for the link to the article about 7 primates not taking communion.  I was aware of that.  Not taking communion together is a very significant act.  I interpreted their statement that they would not sit a table more broadly than refusing Commuinon together.  I don’t think it is perfectly clear that their words mean only Communion.  It is debatable.  But in any event, no swift discipline of KJS occurred and she is in the game.  Willams is doing a masterful job running out the clock. 
I am now not at 50-50 whether those 7 will stand firm and cause a split or will acquiese to the fudge that is coming soon.  I had predicted that some small number of Primates led by Aikiola would stand firm and cause a split.  I am sticking with the prediction that it is either fudge or a split.  These are the only options within the Protestant world-view, in my humble opinion that is. 
Thanks for your efforts and your keen insight.  I hope that if you are involved in politics you are on the good guys team.

[55] Posted by closet catholic on 02-18-2007 at 09:14 AM • top

RE: “I interpreted their statement that they would not sit a table more broadly than refusing Commuinon together.  I don’t think it is perfectly clear that their words mean only Communion.  It is debatable.”

I agree.  I had though that their words “not sit at table” probably meant Eucharist, but I couldn’t be sure.  I did know that it probably did not mean that they would not sit at an actual table in a room together talking . . . ; > )

But it was hard to discern what the practical effects of their words “at table” meant . . .

It may be that we will get fudge—although anything regarding meaningful discipline or alternate structures I would probably not classify as fudge.

[56] Posted by Sarah on 02-18-2007 at 09:29 AM • top

Since the evidence is before us that the AC is as diseased and dysfunctional at the global level as the TEC, CoE, Western provinces are at the national level, one must hope the 7 Archbishops mean business, are willing to walk away and save Anglicanism from the Western plague. 

This is the only hope for what Peter Toon calls the Anglican way.

[57] Posted by Theodora on 02-18-2007 at 09:51 AM • top

It seems that some of us did have our Bishop Pike moment and left TEC for CANA/AMIE/Global South oversight well aware of the risks and difficulties faced in the future by this action. As a dissenting vestry member at the time the leavetaking decision was made, I was very uncomfortable with the apparent ease that alternative AC oversight could be achieved…some conversations, an exchange of emails and that appeared to be it.  It felt to me at least like getting false teeth in the Honduras (although I know nothing about Honduras denistry, just like I know nothing about the ecclesiastical politics of African Anglicanism).  I fear that the week’s developments in Tanzania has not only put more at risk small, (but admittedly brave) former TEC parishes like ourselves, but certainly has taken the gild off the AB and greatly diminished whatever alliances we felt we may have had with foreign bishops who only a few days ago seemed so willing to offer a temporary refuge from the storm.  We are alone in the hurricane and the insurance policy seems really writ in really small print.  In this respect, I am really curious if there are others out there in the same boat—as it were—that feel the same way about right now.

[58] Posted by rudydog on 02-18-2007 at 09:53 AM • top

Floridian,
Perhaps so!  We will soon see.  Schism is not the worst thing to have happen!

[59] Posted by Spencer on 02-18-2007 at 01:50 PM • top

Rudydog,

Those Primates that have sponsored and supported US churches like your own, Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda are solid as a rock.  You can count on them.  While others may waiver, they have never have been at the forefront of the effort to shelter American congregations.  For example, I am not aware of any US parishes under the protection and authority of Malango, the Archbishop of Central Africa.  His own situation is also uniquely complicated by his leadership of the Anglican Church in Zimbabwe. 

You are correct in that there is no question that it appears less likely of a Canterbury led Anglican restructuring that excludes TEC.  But I doubt your church based its decision on the likelihood of winning Canterbury’s favor.  I would suggest that the fundamentals behind your decision are stronger than ever, since after Tanzania it more certain than ever that TEC will continue unabated in its revisionist ways and it is much harder to argue that time is on the side of those that wait.  While some will certainly be called to remain in TEC, it will be because they ascertain a peculiar and specific call to be a remnant in a dying denomination. 

I speak from experience. Having left TEC, the winds against your parish will eventually diminish.  I predict that in the aftermath of Tanzania the new Anglican churches will find their real voice, one that is no longer tempered by provincial politics within the Anglican Communion as we know it today.  America is hungry for that voice.

[60] Posted by Going Home on 02-18-2007 at 04:46 PM • top

Wise words Timothy.  Moreover, our GS friends have also shown incredible support and courage for us.  There are times I wonder how much true support we have given them.  They will be solid and help us help ourselves.  If events keep unfolding as they have it may be North America’s time to step up to the plate.

[61] Posted by Lee Parker on 02-18-2007 at 06:42 PM • top

Deja vu. . . I am turning to our Lord as my cleft in the Rock.

Forty years ago my bishop was to busy preparing for the Wheeling HoB meeting where he was to serve as Bp. Pike’s legal adviser to get the steps completed so I could transfer to an Episcopal seminary.

Since being ordained I’ve had the great privilege of serving under eight orthodox bishops in various capacities as a priest in the one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. And now another such moment.
 
Are some of you feeling the same deja vu this weekend and turning to our Lord as your cleft in the Rock?

[62] Posted by Bob Maxwell+ on 02-18-2007 at 11:34 PM • top

Of Pike, Paint, and Pigs—Greg’s article is right on target, and it is interesting to note that today begins the Chinese Year of the Pig (not just any pig but a “golden boar,” as it coincides with their year of that particular heavy {and heavily US} metal.) We can’t undo a Pike or a Tanzania, but I’d like to see us of the orthodox persuasion turn (as Bob Maxwell+ says above) our hands to work to make this the Year of the Lord as our cleft in the Rock.  The opportunity is golden, not the pig.

[63] Posted by Luke 18:13 on 02-19-2007 at 01:41 AM • top

Thank God for at least 7 faithful Archbishops in Tanzania, for the 7 + faithful Bishops of the US Dioceses who asked for new oversight.  Thank God!
Thanks and Praise to our God, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, for He alone is our strength, our Rock, high tower, our chief Joy!
Who clothes us with Salvation,
Feeds us the Bread of Life,
To Him alone be Glory in the Church.

Read Psalm 73 particularly,
“24Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory.
25Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee.
26My flesh and my heart faileth: but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever.
27For, lo, they that are far from thee shall perish: thou hast destroyed all them that go a whoring from thee.
28But it is good for me to draw near to God: I have put my trust in the Lord GOD, that I may declare all thy works.”

[64] Posted by Theodora on 02-19-2007 at 07:19 AM • top

Greg,

Whatever else your article may say (and I am in agreement with it), I most heartily thank you for using the correct word—LIE. Since the release of this LIE of a sub-group report, I have read nothing but Orwellian NewSpeak terms, such as falsehood, erroneous and other patronizing words. It is TEC who has forged a LIE of a church by using Politically Correct words and terms, meaning something wholly different than what they say.

I do not advocate ranting and whining, but I strongly urge those who have access to the bully pulpit, such as yourselves here on Stand Firm, to use the proper words and not hold back. Say what it is. Lie, manipulation, fraud, self-indulgence and other such terms do in fact have a proper use, and they should be used when appropriate.

Jesus did not find patronizing terms to deal with the rich who wanted to keep their wealth, to speak to the Pharisees, to admonish the money changers in the temple. When wrong is clearly wrong, it must be called out as being exactly that with no room for misunderstanding nor tolerance.

God Bless.

[65] Posted by Antique on 02-19-2007 at 02:11 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.