Report from the Field: In a Certain Diocese in the South, a Priest Reports on some Diocesan Meetings

<blockquotes>Make no mistake: The bishops are serious and are willing to “go to the mattresses.”“</bolckquote>

How appropriate.

Well, this sounds like the beginnings of persecution? Somehow I suspect these meetings were in my state. :-( If not, they could have been.

Considering what is happening in other locations, if Congregations want to leave, they might do as we did and find temporary quarters. After a while the TEC Church will come up for sale and the former congregations may be able to buy it for nickles on the dollar.

It’s funny how paranoid these people are. It’s as though they know they’re wrong but don’t want to get caught.

As I understand it, it will take a prosecutor to file RICO charges and there might be one out there who could be bribed into doing it, but otherwise, most are gonna let this be fought out in the civil courts. RICO has no application here. It’s a property dispute pure and simple, no matter now extreme these fools want to make it appear.

I feel ashamed, reading this. Ashamed that people who think and talk like this, are leading the church I belong to.

Seriously, folks, just leave the property behind.  Truly.  I’ve heard the arguments, but believe me—you’ll never feel as liberated.  Let ‘em have it.

After a while the TEC Church will come up for sale and the former congregations may be able to buy it for nickles on the dollar.

Why should they get a penny of what doesn’t really belong to them?  They were the ones who broke trust with the faith and practice of generations before them.  Faithful Episcopalians are faithful Anglicans by definition, and if they are unfaithful, they have abdicated the right to be called Episcopalian or Anglican, let alone any rights to real property or other endowed assets.

Of course the bishops are willing to go to the mat. It is about property and making themselves look good so that they can delude themselves that “all is well.” Look at the number of functioning parishes we have. If their functioning parishes are anything like we have around here they are a joke. There are six parishes within a two county area. Two of them have Sunday attendance well below 20. One other has around 50, and two have average Sunday attendance somewhere around the 70 mark. There is only one conservative, evangelical parish that has Sunday attendance well over 100 at its three Sunday services. If this is what ECUSA bishops call functioning parishes. Good luck. Half of these parishes around here would have closed long ago if it weren’t for their endowment funds. Sooner or later these Parishes will have to be closed. They can’t go on for ever like they are.

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)

James, I have come to agree with you. I love my little church. It is beautiful and a fitting home for prayer and worship. But it comes at too high a cost.

It looks like we are entering the realm of surrealism when bishops begin alluding to the use of RICO and other criminal statutes to battle the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.  Hysteria has obviously set in among the bishops, and it appears they are now busily attempting to foment similar hysteria among their sycophants in the laity.  If the HOB follows through on this absurd course of action, they may be unpleasantly surprised to find that the RICO shoe is on the other foot for conspiring among themselves to threaten baseless criminal charges against those in the Network.  If anyone has any doubt about how far gone TEC is, please refer them to the above post.

Again the shadowy conspiracy.  I must reiterate, from another thread, my notice of the

*** ACN REPORT HELD HOSTAGE: DAY 21 ***

When will ECUSA release the secret report condemning the secrecy of the Anglican Communion Network?

why not say what diocese your are talking about?

Remember friends-
The Lord is my light and my salvation, whom shall I fear?
The Lord is the strength of my life, of whom shall I be afraid?

In abandoning God and their ordination vows, they are now paranoid that someone is conspiring to violate their property rights.  Let’s face it, if when this is all over, and there are 500,000 Episcopalians left paying the bill (and ASA of 200,000), 815 is going to cut back to 30 or 40 bishops and these guys aren’t going to have their cushy jobs anymore.

I am simply AMAZED that anyone could read the New Testament and then go out and file a pile of lawsuits against Christians over who owns the church.  We may argue over the interpretation of St. Paul’s views on Justification, but how is possible, no matter how “liberal” your interpretation, to read into the Bible (Pauline letters or anywhere else) that it is in any way permissible under the laws of God to carry on this way?
Please excuse me, I know the questions are rhetorical.  I have to leave now, and go discuss this week’s lectionary with a fellow conspirator.

Yea, let’s all stay and fight for those buildings….......  Now everyone who is staying needs to practice…...  Bite down hard and grind your teeth and scream as loud as you can…..  Oh and wear fire proof clothes too.  You will need them.

It’s your soul your throwing away.

Sarah, the mystery writer wrote :

“These things need to be understood by as many people as possible and not kept quiet within the confines of the diocese. These were both public meetings—one of which was on the record. Yet the content—let alone the tenor—will not reach beyond our borders unless someone does something about it.”

Sarah, if the writer is serious, he or she needs to identify “Bishop Anonymous?” Perhaps someone would like to do something about it. (Cleansing the Temple comes to mind) What is the “motto” at Stand Firm? Hmmm.

Be on your guard.
Stand firm in the faith.
Be brave. Be strong.
Be loving in everything you do.

It appears to me that it is in order to LET THE SUN SHINE a bit more upon this ominous meeting of Bishop “Anonymous” and Bishop Sauls (and their loyal subjects)  .  it appears to be well beyond the dawning of the “Age of Aquarius” in this mystery diocese.

Regards, Stan

Where does it say in Holy Writ that we are to stay and fight for buildings?  Our Lord didn’t care about buildings, He cared about souls dying without hope of eternal life.  Shouldn’t we expend our energy as Jesus did?

RE: “why not say what diocese your are talking about?”

Same reason why some reasserters believe they must post anonymously—because they know ECUSA progressives like you would behave vengefully.  ; > )

Seriously, reports from the field are anonymous, nearly always.

And the diocese actually does not matter. The important thing is the interesting details about the Sauls report to the HOB, etc, etc.

I’d be very interested to hear from clergy and laity in other dioceses on this thread, as they report in from various diocesan meetings.

Should be interesting.  Who knows, maybe this guy got it wrong in his diocese?  Maybe he made up all the statements.

Just a very interesting report from one priest to ponder . . .

This report of this bishop’s words along with the other statements made by like-minded bishops remind me so much of George McClellan’s bluster in the early parts of the Civil War.  Lots of marching back and forth, many big plans, incredible organization, but a functional inability to carry the battle when it counted.

Lots of saber rattling here to rally the troops with some good music.  Let’s wait and see how it all shakes out when the real bullets start flying.

Fr. Rick is right, these people are trying to lead an army that is
hollow at its core.  Strong beliefs coupled with free-falling attendance leaves one as a bishop of the Shakers.  With all the societal impact of the Shakers as well.  (“Nice furniture you have there, bishop.”)

Sarah
to my knowledge we have never met. Yet you label all progressives and me as vengeful. shame on you

Civil claims are also available under RICO, not just criminal.  Any person damaged by the actions of persons engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity has recourse to the civil courts.  In fact, many states have “little RICO” statutes that also allow such civil claims to be brought under state law.
I think the idea of trying to use RICO is ridiculous.  To succeed, one must prove underlying predicate acts that are generally criminal in nautre.  Asserting a legal claim to real property is not a predicate act that would underly a RICO claim. Neither is transferring one’s church affiliation.
For RICO to apply, TEC would have to prove something like the following:  TEC and not the parishes own the bank accounts.  By taking control over the accounts, the vesiires and clergy of the breakaway parishes stole/embezzled funds belonging to TEC.  They did so in connection withm a criminal or quasi-criminal conspiracy whose aim was to loot TEC of its assets.
I don’t doubt that the PB’s pit bull, Beers, would recommend trying it but the Courts would by terribly reluctant to enmesh themselves in what is really a theological dispute.  But if it might work for TEC, why not make the same kind of reverse claim that by using endowments for their new thing, TEC is stealing the legacies of faithful Anglicans whose gifts/bequests were to further Anglican-Christian worship.  By devoting those funds to causes (RCRR, Inegrity, etc.), TEC is embezzling the funds of the faithful and each of the reappraising bishops and their standing committees are engaged in a massive civil conspiracy in violation of RICO!  Sometimes one should be careful about trying to blaze new territory with laws never intended to cover their situations.

When TEC sinks ‘dem dirty rotten rats will be sleeping with da fishes!

Maybe the property is a test.  Maybe you pass the test if you give up your concern about the property and let go.  Maybe letting go is a form of worship or sign of your devotion.

except with the relentless accusation that there was a criminal conspiracy at work to steal church property

I suppose anything is possible.  After all it was proven that there are Nigerians in Nigeria! 

You all know that I am progressive, but I’m with Phil on this. Bishop Sauls’ report was cited in the published summary of events that happened at the meeting. It was indicated then that a written report was going to made available. Clearly, as many bishops have stated since, the report was influential on their thinking and their actions. Going forward ever member of TEC is entitled to know the basis of their thinking in this matter, as it affects every member of TEC.  I want it all on the table. If it’s a crock, better it be seen for what it is, right now.  If it validly impacts on the situation at hand, everyone, includes those here, need know.

In my recollection, RICO was one of the approaches used to confront the actions of the Roman Catholic Episcopate to protect pedophiles.  In no way am I suggesting that Windsor Bishops or Network bishops are pedophiles, what I am suggesting that the RICO approach may not be as novel as one might think in an ecclesiastical setting.  If one were to argue that a conspiracy exists to divert assets belonging to one organization (with possible criminal activity), it might make sense.

DaveG

I don’t know that the courts or these bishops would be so reluctant to use RICO as a weapon against the Network.  It was used successfully against Operation Rescue and others (such as Randy Alcorn ) in the anti-abortion protest movement.  It cost some of those people their freedom and others their worldly possessions.

For a church whose highest and most vocal leadership circles are as rabidly pro-death as TEC, I would not think that those lessons have been missed in their application to this case.  RICO is very effective in silencing or squelching opposition in the hands of skilled lawyers.  I presume Beers has skill in practicing his craftmanship at law.

RE: “Yet you label all progressives and me as vengeful.”

No—just *some* progressives, [and yes, you are a progressive, as you have been quite clear in prior comments, so it’s no use now trying to slip away from that ideology].  Thanks for bringing this up so that I could make clear that plenty of progressives are fair and non-vengeful.

However, the shame that you attempt to apply to me just rolled right off—I have “progressive shaming flame retardant material” on me.  ; > )

RE: “Maybe letting go is a form of worship or sign of your devotion.”

On the other hand, maybe letting go is a sign of heretical gnostic believe that only cares about the “spiritual” and believes the “material” to be unworthy of attention or care.

Or . . . it might be a sign of gross and cavalier disgregard for the symbol which is the church building, symbols that will be misused by those who do not preach the Christian gospel to dupe the unwary, the weary, the hurting, and the seeking into entering a “Christian” church to seek Jesus.

I hope that people will be called to fight for their property should they need to leave ECUSA.

RE: “It was indicated then that a written report was going to made available. . . . If it’s a crock, better it be seen for what it is, right now.”

CB, of course the written report will be made available.  And of course it won’t be “a crock”.  No, it will be all about the evil Network and how it wants to establish a province [carefully gathered from all those secret public speeches] recognized by the Anglican Communion and how parishes want to keep their property, er, I’m sorry, how parishes want to steal their property.

Though I am not a member of the Network, I certainly hope that they succeed in establishing a province [highly doubtful in my opinion] and I strongly support any help that anyone can offer to parishes who wish to keep their property.

God bless ‘em!!!

EmilyH - perhaps it might make sense.  The reason I think it fails is because it is not obvious the assets in question do belong to ECUSA or its affiliates.  Precisely for the reason that this is in dispute, using civil RICO would be likely to fail.  It would be tantamount to asserting a conspiracy to litigate a disputed action, which is, obviously, silly.

Not being one of great theological learning, RICO makes sense to me when I think of earlier comments about bishops with clay feet.  While clay isn’t as effective as cement overshoes, RICO the Bishop Bruno and cohorts may well be paying the final cost: mitres floating down the Hudson River.

I can’t think of anything else to say except that the worldliness of the majority of the HoB beggars description.  These are not men of God!  Theirs is a religion I simply don’t understand; it is so full of lies and self-deception.

And reappraisers say it’s not all about sex!

Make no mistake: The bishops are serious and are willing to “go to the mattresses.”“

Now we know where to find many a reappraising bishop!

Perhaps they will lose these wrestling matches if they have been practicing on mattresses instead of mats.

Phil, you are correct, the argument does make that assumption and it is likely that is the argument that will be presented, state by state, painfully.  Will Denis hold?  I don’t know.  By contrast, will an argument based on the preamble of the constitution hold?  I don’t know if such preambles are judicable in the manner that Network dioceses are likely to suggest?  I don’t know.  Like CB, I am a “progressive” but I would so like to find a way to hold TEC together and find a way to absolutely protect the rights of the minority, those who don’t agree with me.  If TEC can’t find a safe place for the conservatives, we have failed and failed miserably as a church.

It is so sad to see this, but nothing will surprise me. This left the realm of the Holy the moment it got to the Courts.  Satan is having his day, and I fully expect TEC to use all of the tools of our litigous, secular society. 

TEC reminds me of a disfunctional, violent prone domestic household you see on one of the “Cops” programs, with threats and counterthreats escalating and the police are being called out repeatedly to keep the peace. Things will get progressively worse as long as the two bodies reside under the same roof. 

My own views would not have allowed me to be a party to litigation, sacrifically giving up assets is preferable. But I respect the process used by those handful of parishes that succesfully negotiated for their property and those that sought to retain their property by going through the discipline of the forty-day process before they left. Unfortunately, both scenarios now seem to be closed.  I doubt TEC will permit negotiations or allow another church to enter the 40 day process without taking preemptive action.

Sarah, guess it depends on your situation and who you share the church building with.  If the majority of your fellow parishoners don’t want to resist and/or they value the property pretty highly, or even if that group is a good size minority, then letting go and moving on does not make you a gnostic. 

Trusting that others will not be easily fooled later on by what have become empty trappings doesn’t mean that one has gross and cavalier disregard for the symbols of the church.  It is also possible to respect the symbols and recognize that sadly there will always be those who misuse and abuse them.  Those people are best avoided and separation can be the clearest sign of your repudiation of them.

If you are lucky enough to have a congregation that understands and is willing to fight, great, keep the property (if your state will let you).  Otherwise, you are leaving TEC, either sooner or later, and probably without the old building in tow.

Sarah, before you can zap me back, let me say that I love you, admire you and your work and your posts.  If you hit me hard, at least send me the little smiley thing.

EmilyH - any of this going to the courts is a failure and a tragedy, as Timothy says.

I think the Primatial Vicar plan was a possible way of providing that safe place.  Unfortunately, ECUSA rejected it.  Something like this really needs to be done; ECUSA needs to swallow its pride, or its polity, or whatever, and implement the plan, and the heck with the rules.  When you’re house is on fire, you don’t worry about drafting an environmental impact statement on the fire retardant, you put out the fire.

As we saw with the debate over B033, ECUSA’s institutions are very happy to ignore the rules when they want to get something done.  The problem here seems to be that, not sharing your charity, getting something done is not of interest to the powers that be.

I think that the better reason to post this without naming the diocese is to motivate each and every one of us to examine our bishop and our diocese and its position on these issues.  My own bishop is a Windsor Bishop, yet he does not approve of the Network strategy or the crossing of boundaries by AMIA or CANA so there are some arguments above that he might view sympathetically despite his overall view.

TEC reminds me of a dysfunctional, violent-prone domestic household you see on one of the “Cops” programs

Can just you imagine Bishops Sauls, Howard, Bruno, et al all wearing purple wife-beaters while appearing on Cops?

RE: “Sarah, guess it depends on your situation and who you share the church building with.”

I agree wholeheartedly and I don’t think I have ever castigated a group for leaving their building behind.  That is why I put the words “maybe” and “might” in front of my two possibilities.  ; > )

But I do hear distinct notes of gnostic pietism when people comment that Jesus did not care about the material world and only cared about people’s souls.  I believe very very very differently.

Phil - You want a way forward. Guess what ,many others do too. We all know that there is an immense lack of trust.  You and others here mock the tin foil conspiracy stuff, but true or not, many obviously believe it to be true. If people truly want to “save the union” then it needs to come out and be dealt with openly and exhaustively. If you really want TEC to accept the Primates PV plan, and see that as the only way forward,  then TEC’s concerns in this area must be dealt with and ridiculing those concerns as simply made up - gets us nowhere.

If TEC can’t find a safe place for the conservatives, we have failed and failed miserably as a church. -Emily H.

I wish there were a “safe” place for conservatives/orthodox/reasserters in TECusaCORP, I really do. I wish everything was love, peace, happiness, blue sky, sunshine, roses and puppy dogs. It ain’t that way though and it is becoming increasingly evident the only “safe” place for us is as far away from TECusaCORP as we can get.

the snarkster

CB,

The TEC had a chance to be heard before the primates, in Dar es Salam.  The PB had staff there, she and they knew what the proposal was, and I assume they had some vague notion of “the polity” of TEC.

Did the Glorious Leader speak up, did she tell her brother primates that she had serious concerns about the effect the communiqué’s plan would have on TEC governance - no, she weaseled.  She signed, but didn’t sign.  She assented, but didn’t asent.  She crossed her fingers and said yes even though brave Canada stood ready to fight with her (anyone find the spector of “brave Canada” amusing?).

TEC’s Dear Leader is symtematic of what is wrong with the church.

RSB

If TEC can’t find a safe place for the conservatives, we have failed and failed miserably as a church. -Emily H.

If so then the Dio of Atlanta is a failed diocese.

Others please feel free to let Emily know where elece the church is failing.  I guess Dio Newark and Dio Virginia are well known.

RSB

If I can be the devil’s advocate…on both sides.  Was the primate’s “solution” thrown together at the last minute?  Was the General Convention Resolution (I forget the number of that which was adopted B033?) thrown together too at the last minute?  What elements of the primates plan might work for TEC?  Even +Stacy Sauls suggested that there might be a version that would work?  Could one with accountability, veto power and “ultimate” discipline belonging to the PB work?  ...One that acknowledges that the PB is conceding her authority for the purpose of pastoral supervision only, like a bishop giving permission for another to “act in his/her behalf” work?  Would such be acceptable to Network dioceses?  What are the negotiable?  Can we talk about mission, and worship as commonalties?  Among the conservatives there appear to be a major concern with a “confessing” church and doctrinal issues.  Is there anything that can be offered by “revisionists” that can work here?  Am I just plain stupid.  Is it just too late?  Is there nothing that can be done?  Is Lambeth 1.10 really what you want to split over?  Is this the defining issue of our faith?

Is Lambeth 1.10 really what you want to split over?

Emily,

Is that what you think this is all about?  We have bishops who deny the divinity of Christ, and a PB who cannot acknowlege Christ’s own words that He is The Way, The Truth, and The Light, and you think this is all about Lambeth 1.10?  Oh, woe to you who are so lost.

RSB

RE: “You and others here mock the tin foil conspiracy stuff, but true or not, many obviously believe it to be true.”

Begs the question.  The reason why much of the tinfoil hat stuff is so readily mocked is that all of the breathlessly noted dreams and hopes of the Network, and of peons like the laypeople in the pews, are already out there clearly stated on the ACN website and in copious posts on various orthodox websites.

The truth is, you don’t like what it is that we want!  That’s fine . . . but it is silly to pretend as if this is all some sort of grand secret plan. 

Once the report comes out from the HOB it will be all tizzied over by the revisionists, the reasserters will do the tinfoil hat song, and the moderates will continue not reading the blogs and hoping that someday this will all go away. 

It’s almost—now—amusing to observe.  Over the past four years reasserters in the Episcopal church have repeatedly stated, clearly and forthrightly, what we would like to see happen, at every turn.  Those statements are ignored for about six months at a time, then they are “discovered” and paraded about for a while.  Every six months this seems to happen, and each time the response by all sides is the same.

RE: “If you really want TEC to accept the primates PV plan, and see that as the only way forward, then TEC’s concerns in this area must be dealt with and ridiculing those concerns as simply made up - gets us nowhere.”

Too late.  TEC rejected the plan.  TEC does not like the plan, even though it would have held parishes and clergy together, though greatly boundaried and guarded. 

The truth is, what progressive activists desperately want is 1) all reasserter activists to please leave, 2) all reasserter passivists to please stay and keep sending those checks and 3) the proud ability and virtuous feeling of being able to say “look at all those schismatics who left the Anglican Communion”.

What strikes at the heart of all of that is the Pastoral Council and structures of pastoral care envisioned by the Primates.  It would mean that, rather than having the joy of seeing the backs of departing reasserters, people could continue to be a part of the Anglican Communion, yet not support the national leadership of the Episcopal church.

. . . And that, friends, is anathema to the progressive activists.  That scalds.

C.B., so how do we do that?  And, don’t we have to get our concerns on the table, also?  They are also ridiculed by many in the Episcopal Church.

To the extent that I’ve ridiculed anything, it hasn’t been ECUSA’s concerns, it’s been the idea that there is a conspiracy.

What many conservatives want is to leave ECUSA and take their property.  Straight up.  They’re honest about it.  The Network is honest about it.  Many see ECUSA as irreformable and don’t want to be excluded from the Anglican Communion because ECUSA insists on its own unfettered autonomy.  Why should they?  They’ve done nothing wrong, and they have every desire to live by the norms and rules of their communion partners.  So these people want a parallel province to achieve that goal.  It’s been talked about openly for four years.  There is no secrecy, so there is no conspiracy.

“Conspiracy” also implies an agreement to violate the law, but nothing illegal is being contemplated here.  Once again, missing this element, there is no conspiracy.

I understand ECUSA’s concerns: it wants all of the property currently occupied by its affiliates.  The concern for some conservative parishes, in contrast, is the opposite.  As with any such situation, then, we are confronted with a negotiation.  To echo your comment, going to court gets us nowhere.

But I’ll ask again: how do you propose we go forward?

Phil,

For reappraisers the “way forward” is what it has always been, that we “conservatives” are allowed complain a little as long as we then let them have their way, and confirm that despite our differences “they are good christians” too.

Sarah, after our Chrismation Eucharist we had a salad lunch at the Cathedral. I was waiting for the deacon with whom I will be serving Hope Mission to rejoin me.

Three worthy opponents sat down, beginning with TBW, as we have a good relationship. Another retired priest from Chicago and former member of the Jesus Seminar was next. Since I was ordained in Chicago, we have talked a lot over the years. Finally, a rector of one our largest inclusive parish sat down.

TBW asked, “How many do you think will leave the end of September?” The retired priest from Chicago said he thought about 10% nationwide. TBW had heard up to 30%. The parish rector and member of the PB’s Council of Advise said, “I know the answer!” and paused as we looked at him when one of us said, “Well?” With a big grin he replied, “Just Enough!”

With tear in my eyes I looked at him, spoke his name firmly, and said “_____ , you are talking about me. That hurts that you would be so flip about the situation we are in and that my walking away would be ‘just enough’.” He said he meant it as I joke, and I told him that he spoke it like a joke, but he must realize that is what lies before many of us in the DRG, thanks to the HoB rejecting the PV/PC.

There is now a growing realization by most of us that there is no way a DRG can financially continue to exist if a large number of congregations leave with their clergy. TEC will have to reorganize jurisdictions and probably reinstitute missionary dioceses, IMO.

Realignment is now happening. What it will end up looking like is to be seen perhaps after Advent 1. New Year, new structure.

Phil - This is what I see from my side. Where things have gone off the tracks. It isn’t that the Network wants another province in the U.S. to accommodate “conservative Christians”, but that it is understood that it wants to “replace” TEC as the only province in the U.S. in the AC. And it has based this goal on the assertion that TEC’s progressives are not true Christians, but heretics, apostates, non-Christians. And its the latter assertion, that absolutely has every progressive’s (and increasingly moderates as well) back up in this matter. For many, to concede you an inch in any way is to accept your judgment in this regard.  And therefore, under these circumstances there can not be any concessions. If your efforts fail to provide you what you are seeking, I don’t doubt that some will attribute it to having made this assertion.  Without this assertion and the concomitant goal of replacing TEC in the AC, there would be more trust and freedom to negotiate in order to provide conservatives with a better situation than the one they are chaffing against right now. 

Now perhaps, it is these very assertions that has created a crisis in the AC and has brought TEC to a point of having to take the needs of the conservatives seriously, but perhaps they are now an impediment to actually finding a way forward. However,  as Sarah has so forthrightly stated, for many these assertions and goals are non-negotiable and can not be put aside. To me, such a position is very hard to accommodate in any way. And if they continue to be held by a majority of those seeking relief, there will be schism.

Emily – in the wake of her coordination with her lawyer to not only sue for injunctive relief against departing Virginia parishes corporately, but to financially crush individual volunteers – to, in effect, take food off of plates and seize college education money – I doubt any plan that leaves KJS with “accountability, veto power and ‘ultimate’ discipline” will be acceptable.

Just for talking purposes, though, such a plan leaving KJS technically in charge might have to include elements like these – and I think these will tell you how far trust has eroded on our side of the aisle:

- The set of those under the primatial vicar plan (the “PV zone”) can be made up of both dioceses and individual parishes within dioceses that otherwise desire to remain outside of the PV zone.
- The appointment of individuals to the episcopate within the PV zone is determined solely by those within the PV zone.  Consent by Standing Committees and bishops outside of the PV zone would not be required.
- ECUSA agrees to dismiss with prejudice all lawsuits against those in the PV zone and agrees to file no new lawsuits for some period, to be determined.
- In the event that any future act or acts of General Convention attempt to impose on the PV zone women’s ordination, a requirement to conduct any type of marriage other than that between one man and one woman, or a requirement that any type of union outside of such a marriage be “blessed” within the confines of the church, all parishes within the PV zone would be automatically severed from ECUSA, with their property, with no further recourse by ECUSA.
- In the event that any future act or acts of General Convention alter the wording of the Nicene or Apostle’s Creeds as currently found in the BCP, even on a trial, optional or occasional basis, all parishes within the PV zone would be automatically severed from ECUSA, with their property, with no further recourse by ECUSA.
- In the event that any future General Convention propagates a BCP revision that substantially departs from historic Anglicanism, as judged solely by those within the PV zone, all parishes within the PV zone would be automatically severed from ECUSA, with their property, with no further recourse by ECUSA.

Phil,

Sounds alright although I would add that consecration of another non celibate homosexual to the episcopate is another automatic out.

RSB

it is understood that it wants to “replace” TEC as the only province in the U.S. in the AC

Understood by whom, C.B.?  Could you point us to the quote from the ACN or Bp. Duncan that says the goal is replacement?  All I have heard for the past few years is the desire to exist alongside TEC.

Could it be that the real issue for TEC is losing the power, finances and people that would come from an alternative alongside of them in one place?

Don’t haul out the ancient canons and teaching about one bishop per district stuff.  It won’t work with Protestants unless TEC is planning on going back to the one holy catholic and apostolic church that existed before 1054, doctrine and practice inclusive.

If that’s the case, then we wish you the best as you tilt at that windmill.  We’re going to work right here on this issue, thanks.

Rom 1:16 - Understood by progressives. Progressives read the Network’s Chapman Memo as calling for a replacement province.  It states - “Our ultimate goal is a realignment of Anglicanism on North American soil committed to biblical faith and values, and driven by Gospel mission. We believe in the end this should be a “replacement” jurisdiction with confessional standards, maintaining the historic faith of our Communion, closely aligned with the majority of world Anglicanism,...”

CB,

Oh such a straw man.  In Jan 2004 Bishop Howe (hardly a rabid conservative) wrote:

2) Several of the bishops confer with each other with some frequency, and I can tell you that none of them, including Bishop Bob Duncan of Pittsburgh, had seen the Chapman memorandum prior to its release on Wednesday. It was, apparently, a work in progress, to be shared at the convocation next week. Its expressed desire that the Network be recognized as a “replacement province” is not
shared by the majority of the bishops. It has not been discussed. It has not been voted upon. It has no official standing. Even if it were the position of the AAC it could not be the position of the Network itself, since the Network has yet to be formed.

Please, come up with something of substance.

RSB

C.B.

You haven’t read this statement from the ACN?

It seems you are repeating a charge that has been refuted and denied publicly on their website.

I also note the charge being repeated originated with Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh.  Not exactly a disinterested observer of the ACN, eh?

RE: ” . . . but that it is understood that it wants to “replace” TEC as the only province in the U.S. in the AC. And it has based this goal on the assertion that TEC’s progressives are not true Christians, but heretics, apostates, non-Christians.”

First of all, one side or the other within ECUSA is not preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ.  So that’s kind of a given.  Maybe it’s both sides.  But certainly the two opposing gospels, both being held fervently and faithfully, with both sides willing for the church to divide over it are not BOTH the gospel of Jesus Christ.  I actually have no opinion on whether those preaching the progressive gospel are “non-Christians”—I really don’t know.  But I do know that they are not preaching the gospel [just as, of course, the progressives have their gospel, also claimed to be the gospel of Jesus Christ, which reasserters do not preach]. 

That being the case, we have always clearly stated—as lay peons here at SF—that the Anglican Communion must discipline and boundary and order its communion life, or it is no communion at all; without borders the water becomes a swamp, rather than a powerful, cleansing river.  So your statement above is merely begging the question—the debate for the past four years has been entirely about discipline within the Anglican Communion.

And since there is a group within ECUSA that still wishes to adhere to Windsor and remain a part of the Communion and another progressive group that wishes no such thing then the end result would be a new province, one with actually people in it who want to be a part of the Anglican Communion.  There is precisely nothing new in that.

Reasserters in the Anglican Communion wish to make certain of the identity of the Anglican Communion.  Reappraisers wish to too!  Both wish something about that identity that the other cannot have.

Reappraisers want the AC to be a free-for-all [insert standard liberal boilerplate here].  Reasserters do not.

So at the end of the day, CB—as has been stated ad nauseum over the past four years—there will either be 1) a boundaried Anglican Communion or 2) a divided Anglican Communion.  If there is a 1) boundaried Anglican Communion, reasserter Episcopalians would like a place in it!!!!  That could be called “replacement province” I guess since necessarily ECUSA has—for the past four years—methodically and carefully and clearly REJECTED the boundaries that the Anglican Communion has itself carefully maintained.  But ECUSA will have made its decisions with clear knowledge, and it seems to me that that has been Rowan Williams hope—ECUSA making its own decisions, knowing full well the consequences.

RE: “And therefore, under these circumstances there can not be any concessions.”

We already know that.  ECUSA has been crystal clear.  It wants to be in the Anglican Communion on its own terms.  And if it can’t be—then it wants no one else within the U.S. to be a part of such a communion.

RE: “Without this assertion and the concomitant goal of replacing TEC in the AC, there would be more trust and freedom to negotiate in order to provide conservatives with a better situation than the one they are chaffing against right now.”

Ya mean, like the “trust and freedom” and negotiation that we’ve all enjoyed over the past four years?  No thanks.  I’ll take my chances with the communion and if the communion fractures, then I’ll be elsewhere anyway.

RE: ” . . . has brought TEC to a point of having to take the needs of the conservatives seriously . . . “

No, it has brought TEC to rage and fury, as the door slowly closes on its self-professed [not a secret plan either] goals of spreading its tripe to the rest of the AC, along with enjoying the cachet of being a part of something that they dearly appreciate.  I translate “taking seriously” to sudden fear that things may not go precisely the way they want.

As the door continues to slowly close and as national ECUSA progressive leaders continue to recognize that the actions of the past four years haven’t worked, that will only lead to further kicking and infliction of pain by ECUSA on reasserters.  It’s a given.

Things are going to get much much more painful, petty, angry, and bullying from national ECUSA leaders before things get better.

I hope that all the reasserters out there understand that the next year will be very hard, and after that, the lawsuits will go on for many many years.

Rom 1:16 -The statements on ACN’s website do not contradict the ultimate goal set forth in the Chapman Report.

Sarah - “And since there is a group within ECUSA that still wishes to adhere to Windsor and remain a part of the Communion and another progressive group that wishes no such thing then the end result would be called a “replacement province”.  There is precisely nothing new in that.”

The goals of a replacement province were established in 2003 in the Chapman Memo. Before there was a Windsor Report or such a thing as a Windsor Bishop.  The Windsor Bishop contingency is merely a means by which the goals of the Chapman Memo are to be fulfilled.

CB - you did not address this:

Oh such a straw man.  In Jan 2004 Bishop Howe (hardly a rabid conservative) wrote:

2) Several of the bishops confer with each other with some frequency, and I can tell you that none of them, including Bishop Bob Duncan of Pittsburgh, had seen the Chapman memorandum prior to its release on Wednesday. It was, apparently, a work in progress, to be shared at the convocation next week. Its expressed desire that the Network be recognized as a “replacement province” is not
shared by the majority of the bishops. It has not been discussed. It has not been voted upon. It has no official standing. Even if it were the position of the AAC it could not be the position of the Network itself, since the Network has yet to be formed.

C.B., I haven’t read the infamous Chapman Memo yet, but why do you think it exists? Why do you think it was created? What drove the people behind it? And what place, really, would you accord to orthodox believers in the Brave New TEC?

RE: “Before there was a Windsor Report or such a thing as a Windsor Bishop.”

Sigh.  CB, the Windsor Report articulated where the Anglican Communion stood.  It gloriously articulated the Anglican Communion’s stance on the nature of the church, communion fellowship, and scripture.  Long before the Windsor Report there was an Anglican Communion, there was Lambeth 1.10, there was a clear vision of what the AC stood for, despite ECUSA’s wishing and hoping and dreaming.

Long before the Windsor Report and Windsor bishops, there was an Anglican Communion and Episcopal clergy, laity, and bishops who wished to remain within it.

ECUSA took its chances, way way way overextended itself in its false beliefs about its own leadership and identity, and, much to its surprise, managed to achieve fierce resistance to its agenda both within and without ECUSA.

It thought it would be able to slip this by back in 2003.  It failed.

Now it’s four years later, and it looks as if [though who knows if this is true] that its big bluff and big chance may not quite get it what it wanted, which was to move both ECUSA and the Anglican Communion toward its own agenda.  Primates, bishops, deputies, laypeople, clergy all warned ECUSA over and over to stop and take heed. But ECUSA’s values are—manifestly—not the values of the Anglican Communion nor of those who repeatedly begged and warned.

Thank God that there are parishes, clergy, and laity who wish to be with the Anglican Communion as ECUSA continues to pull away from it. 

If the report hadn’t been named “Windsor” it would have been named something else.  And there would *still* be bishops and clergy and laity who would want Anglican Communion identity.

R S Bunker - Please listen more carefully. Phil engaged me to talk about what would be a way forward. I responded by telling him what was causing such distrust between progressives and conservatives. from the perspective of progressives. Stop dismissing the Chapman Report. Clearly, by the post set forth at the top of this thread, progressives believe “replacement” is the intention.  And one of the places that this belief is coming from is the Chapman Report, public disavowels notwithstanding. You will no doubt here more about this in the future. You may wish to dismiss it all, but it is why the HOBs acted as it did, when it did.

ocw…. It does exist (I’ve read it from a link on Susan Russell’s blog).  The other answers are obvious aren’t they?  Its all the IRD!!!! I have a feeling that is where you would go CB.  If so, I would ask where is the money behind the LGBT agenda in the church?  I guarantee the “special interest” money is out there.  Plus, now you have 815 and the Eastern seaboard churches with all the endowment funds more or less at their disposal.  I find little wrong with the Chapman memo.  It is a strategy.  According to the post above, not one developed by +Duncan or ACN.  How long has it been since +Pike and +Spong?  I should think someone would have developed a strategy earlier.

Sorry, usma87, I wasn’t doubting its existing - I was asking for what reason did it come into existence. I could have worded that better.

RSB - Also Bishop Howe has tried to distance himself from the more extreme views and goals of the Network. It does not surprise me at all that he disavowed the Chapman Report.

oscewicee - Responding to your questions will take some thought. I don’t want to speak to quickly. It’s always easier to speak of what you see for oneself, than what you see for another. Phil and I have a bit of a history. That is why I felt comfortable responding to him in this forum.

Take your time, C.B. I would like to hear your thoughts on that.

RE: “Also Bishop Howe has tried to distance himself from the more extreme views and goals of the Network. It does not surprise me at all that he disavowed the Chapman Report.”

LOL—just not “distance himself” enough to leave the Network?  And as has been stated before, he didn’t need to “disavow” the Chapman Report in order to “distance himself from the more extreme views and goals of the Network” since the Network wasn’t formed before the doc was leaked.  Big mistake—maybe the progressives should have waited until after the Network was formed before they leaked the Terrible News!  ; > )

RE: “I should think someone would have developed a strategy earlier.”

Yeh, me too.  I read the report when it was first tossed about the Net with outraged abandon back in 04—no one really cared and everyone yawned on the reasserter side.  I thought a lot of it sounded like fine ideas but sort of a wish list.

I think it’d be great for that stuff to come about, and no doubt now, three years later, ECUSA bishops are just now reading it again, and irked about the whole failed Windsor Report spin/non-response, and the AC’s response to it, and now they’re getting nervous and Very Angry.

I expect that there will be a lot of blame and finger-pointing now, as more breathless outrage occurs—but very little blame and finger-pointing towards the progressive activists who did all of this Great Work in ECUSA that has gotten us to this point.

Again, we just all need to be prepared for all the rage, and take it like the adventurers we are.

CB,

If TEC wants to stay in the AC then they have to realize that the ‘My way or the highway” game they have been playing is over, done, finis.

TEC asked for Lambeth 1.10 and they want to ignore it.  TEC asked what would happen if they elevated VGR and they were told.  I believe the ABC’s words were that is would rend the fabric of the communion - TEC went ahead and did it anyway. 

Tell me why is it that reasserters are so committed to being in the AC?

RSB

oscewicee - The Chapman Memo was written by Geoff Chapman, rector of a church outside Pittsburg in Rev. Duncan’s Diocese. He states: “I am responding to you on behalf of the American Anglican Council and their Bishops’ Committee on Adequate Episcopal Oversight (AEO). Thanks for contacting us; we very much want to network with you in these difficult times and be of real help to you.”

The intent was to create the Network which it did.

Here is a site to the Chapman Memo on Thinking Anglican complete with comments at the time.  Want to know what progressives thought at the time and possible still do.  - read on.  You may have to copy and paste to go there.

http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/ss/archives/000405.html

And now I most break - to prepare dinner for my two sons.

Thanks for the link, C.B. I will take a look. But I am really asking you why you thinkthe Chapman paper was written to begin with?

C.B., I am not lumping you in this catagory, but those within TEC, including the Presiding Bishop, who deny the uniqueness of Christ you   are a heretic and apostate. That doesn’t mean we should be uncivil to each other, or fail to love the individuals and respect their right as people of free will to hold such beliefs.  I admire their honesty and candor in saying what they believe.  But the Presiding Bishop and others can’t make these statements and then assert that it is somehow unfair for others to state that their views are, by definition, not those of the Christian faith.

In terms of fears that the conservatives want a replacement, as opposed to a parallel, province I believe all would be surprised with the lessening of tension if a negotiated seperation occurred. Imagine if all of this energy could be directed toward church building, bringing new members into the Kingdom, and meeting the spiritual needs of our existing members. 

If you were in charge of TEC, CB, I suspect an accomidation could be reached.

Hey Sarah,

You mentioned above that you are   not   a member of the Network. Am I safe in assuming that is only because your parish has chosen not to join?

Curiously,

Timothy

OK,

So the Chapman Memo (haven’t seen it either, that’s why I went to the ACN site) came out BEFORE the ACN was formed?

And it is used to declare the ACN intent to replace TEC?

But ACN states on its own webpage that it is not intending to “replace” TEC only to be faithful members and partners with the Anglican Communion, even if TEC chooses not to be?

Something doesn’t match here.  How does the Chapman Memo speak for an organization that didn’t exist at the time it was created, especially if the organization is denying the content of the memo?  How is this seeking to replace TEC?

I’m left with this conclusion, reappraisers/revisionists who use the Chapman Memo as the black flag against the ACN aren’t really serious about remaining in the Anglican Communion and are looking for an excuse to flog the ACN for trying to stay inside the Communion.

The rehashing of old canards which have been brought to disrepute is losing its luster.  Surely there must be something fresher that the ACN has stated (since it was formed) that could be served up as roadkill proof that it intends to see TEC replaced in the US?  If not, maybe it’s time to let it go.

Using a memo to prove an organization’s intent when the organization didn’t exist, but rather was sent by a parish priest in Pittsburgh is potentially laughable if the circumstances weren’t so incredibly serious.

To affirm CB, the Chapman memo also played a role in the lawsuit Calvary v. +Duncan.  It eventually settled, with specific obligations on the part of +Duncan and Dio Pittsburgh.  Because Calvary came to believe that +Duncan was in violation of the terms or was soon planning to, Calvary filed a petition with the court to enforce the settlement.  As a result of court ordered discovery in that case, two new documents came to light in January and Feb 2007 The relevant portions are below:  First a letter from +Duncan to the Steering Committee of the Global South: “Our Need: 
We ask for and urgently require the following:Connection.1.  We need to be connected to the Instruments of Unity of the Communion,and especially to the Primates Meeting.  We cannot be represented in theCommunion through the person of the Presiding Bishop of the EpiscopalChurch.  Bishop Jefferts Schori teaches a manifestly defective Christologyas well as embraces moral actions and teaching directly contrary to theWindsor Report.  We seek to be accountable. 2.  We need a means of connecting among ourselves.  All of the roles assigned under our Constitution to the Presiding Bishop need to becarried out among us, but cannot reasonably or impartially be carried outby Bishop Jefferts Schori.  In seeking alternative Primatial oversightand pastoral care, we are seeking a Primate from elsewhere in theCommunion who will carry-out, or cause to be carried-out, the
constitutional and canonical duties of the Presiding Bishop.3.  We need an antidote to the inherent independence of action that has characterized relations among bishops and dioceses in the American Church. In the time between the present and the point at which some permanent structure can emerge, alternative Primatial oversight and pastoral careseems to us a wise interim strategy.
Cover.4.  During the period in which a “separate ecclesiastical structure” can be worked out among us, we need protection from those who would “seek to destroy the child.”  The moral influence of the Primates, one of theInstruments of the Communion, can, we believe, provide the protectionnecessary to counter-balance the historic hostility of the majorityEpiscopal Church.5.  A Primate in the role of alternative overseer, agreed by the Primates Meeting, allows us to continue our domestic legal and property battles as that part of the Episcopal Church that remains “a constituent member ofthe Anglican Communion in communion with the see of Canterbury.”Consultation.6.  We are fully prepared to take responsibility for our own future and to commit to a plan of action from which we will not retreat.  Nevertheless,in this transitional period under alternative Primatial oversight andpastoral care, we would be immensely aided by the wisdom, insight andperspective that an outsider, discharging (and as appropriate assigning) the roles of “presiding Bishop,” might achieve among us.
And Second, A confidential memo to the primates with 4 specifc articles This was presented in Chantilly VA and is called the Westfield Response Only the names of +Duncan and his chancellor are legible.  The names of the other signatories appear to be redacted out.  Since +Schofield of San Joaquin told his deaonery that all present signed something, it is possible that the signatories signed on to this:  It is unclear what the content was, but given the dates of the Global South letter, it would not be unreasonable for TEC officers to deduce that it was the terms of the GS letter.:
ARTICLE II: We have chosen the Rt. Rev. Robert W. Duncan as our leader and hereby submit to his leadership without reservation in building unity among us and as our representative for the present in the councils of the Anglican Communion.

ARTICLE III: We pledge to lay aside all obstacles, which may prevent us from achieving our common purpose.

ARTICLE IV: We solemnly pledge not to withdraw from these commitments.”

I encourage this priest to speak out in his diocese, then he will be able to report these things with full names and integrity.  Having been in several meetings where fellow clergy are concerned about being quoted on sites such as this, I think that it stems from not speaking the same truth with the same voice from the pulpit and from the podium and in the marketplace. 
If he fears persecution, let me assure him that he will be blessed beyond measure for standing up and speaking out. 
HowardRGiles+

Rom 1:16 - You are missing the point. The Chapman Memo was leaked. It was never meant to be public. To be a public statement of the intent of the Network.  It states on it’s face that it is confidential and was supposed to be kept that way.  And yes it was written before the ACN was formalized by and for the founding Network members.

As a further note, The Global South letter was written about Nov 6 2006 and Westfield Response circa Nov. 16th.  (We have some t-storms in the area and I’ve turned off my computer) I’m writing from my PDA and don’t have the exact dates with me.  +Duncan released the Global South letter with some interpretation 2 days before discovery would have compelled it.  From these documents would you assume that the signatories had repudiated the elected representation to the primates of KJS as well as her leadership and that of the General Convention ?  I present these documents to suggest that the “conspiracy” theories may have more than a little basis in fact.  For example, the letter from +Duncan et al. requesting APO was hugely different from this one to the Steering Com of the GS requesting the same.

Conspiracy? Conservatives get together and hash out strategies to defend the gospel foundation of the church and that’s conspiracy. The homosexual usurpers do the same and it’s part of the listening process, very private listening. How did the recent HoB statement just appear to be voted on? No ad hoc committee, no authors described, just miraculously appeared! But they’re not meeting in secret. No!

Emily and CB:

From your posts I see that you DO understand.

Emily:
Yes “TEC has failed miserably as a Church.”
Also- those opposite each other in this debate don’t share “the same faith.”

And CB- yes:

“There will be schism.”

Would that it were otherwise, but there it is in plain English.

JAM

I’m in from a long day at work and don’t have the patience for the thread, but wanted to share my first reaction on reading the post.

He alluded very strongly to their eventual culpability unless they read the information that’s “already out there” and realize just who it is they’re associating with. He was careful not to implicate anyone in the room, but made it known that eventually your mere association with the “conspirators” would be a grave, personal liability.

Jesus associated with tax collectors (purportedly thieves)—GOOD.  Jesus associated with prostitutes and lepers (purportedly unclean)—GOOD.  We associate with Network members (purportedly nasty thieves)—BAD.
The anonymous bishop amuses me.

CB and EmilyH, could you please tell me where to get the money from the IRD?  You seem to have all the rest figured out form publically available data, so I’m looking forward to this data point as well.  And, while your are at it, could you tell the location of the sole remaining Griswoldium you guys are inhaling?  And do you have proof that the Moon landings were faked?  How about the location of certain notoriously missing bodies?  I mean, you guys are good. ;>)

Jill,

Of course Jesus was crucified between two thieves…the company some people keep!

C.B.
I do get the point.  You choose to believe a leaked memo purporting to state intent for a group that has publicly disavowed said memo and statements.  If there is goiong to be a split, it will be becasue trust has broken down to this level that public statements to the contrary are no longer to be believed from either side.

EmilyH,
None of what you have written claims to replace TEC from my first quick read.  Indeed, it seems to do exactly what the Network and +Duncan have always said, the orthodox need protection from the revisioning majority.  Maybe I missed something.  What is the surprise about these documents?

I’m not trying to flog a dead horse.  I just can’t see what the alleged secret agenda is for the Network.  People who want to see a secret agenda in all of these public statements from either side need to get out more often and get some coffee to go with the fresh air.

RE: “As a further note, The Global South letter was written about Nov 6 2006 and Westfield Response circa Nov. 16th. . . . +Duncan released the Global South letter with some interpretation 2 days before discovery would have compelled it.  From these documents would you assume that the signatories had repudiated the elected representation to the primates of KJS as well as her leadership and that of the General Convention ?  I present these documents to suggest that the “conspiracy” theories may have more than a little basis in fact.”

LOL!  This is now the third time that a progressive has come on this blog and posted this letter as if none of us know about it. 

Jackie posted the link back on March 16—we were all happy to know that people are planning and working hard together with their allies, although of course you know that the Primates *announced* that such a meeting was taking place, and so naturally reasserters wondered what would be decided, and reappraisers gnashed about what would be planned and accomplished. 

But naturally, we couldn’t help but notice the Really Big News about the Westfield thingy, highlighted here:  ; > )
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2562/

We had a lot of fun with that thread . . .

I suspect that the Discovery Process for which poor old Grace Church wasted its pesos to discover the Really Important and Terrible Schemes must have been a huge disappointment.  You folks have been trying to puff a whole lot more air into the “discovery” to make it worth your while and really whip up the interest . . . and so far . . . nobody cares but bishops [who already did care] and the same old progressive activists.

But EmilyH, you’re a progressive and I’m a reasserter.  Reasserters get to be happy when their side plans and gets together.  Conversely progressives get to accuse us of Conspiracies and Wicked Strategeries.  ; > )

Isn’t it funny, though, when Integrity meets or when Via Media meets and its minutes are leaked with all of their hopes and wishes and dreams for diocesan takeovers [don’t think we’ve forgotten that] or when we discover that Louie Crew is engaging in little email tete a tetes with the head of the ACO, or when we post the link to the Integrity handbook with an appendix about how to take over a diocesan convention, or when we read Louie Crew’s history of how the gay agenda took over ECUSA, or when we read Bishop Kelsey chattering extensively in his report on how all these secret meetings of bishops took place prior to the HOB meeting to plan . . . all of that is Just Good Clean ECUSA Fun!  ; > )

No, the revisionists have been planning and meeting and strategizing—privately—for decades now.  Finally, over the past four years, we’re doing it too.

Good for both sides. 

It should be noted, by the way, that so far we have CB, JRTFSC, and EmilyH posting feverishly regarding the ACI—all progressives.  All of them suddenly Terribly Concerned about So Many Many Things Here At SF.

We’re glad to have ya’ll—it’s good fun, and we need the skirmishing.  But don’t think we’re not seeing the interesting trend.

; > )

Maybe all of this will indeed be made clear when the reort of the HofB Committee on Property is made public.  The Chapman memo refers to a “replacement” for TEC.  Global South refers to another “structure”  Westfield Response refers to +Duncan as the signatories represntative to the communion.  I have only referred to the public record, I suspect that there is more but “suspicions” are only that.  I am starting with the premise that there must be ways to work out difficulties within TEC and that the actions of a few on the far right The Great Conspirators and a few on the far left, those whose believe that the Holy Spirit is the daughter of the tree sprite who lives in my Sitka spruce are divisive all around.  CB is right.  The problem is that basic trust has broken down.  I wondered if maybe the Desmond Tutu group might be able to offer mediation, but liberals said conservatives would never go for it.  But most of us want to live in the messy middle.  If it is not possible for us to live together, as Ephraim Radner seems to feel, what next?  Sarah, does it just hurt too much to stay, and if it does?  In between the meantime CANA has filed for the property in Va.  Grace has moved to prevent their accounts being frozen in CO.  In the end, I think TEC will overwhelmingly win the state by state court battle..of course CA is strange due to its revocable/irrevocable trust thing so the Golden State goes to reasserters.  And so on and so on..  The reasserters get +Akinola and Orombi Venables Chew and Gomez.  The reappraisers get Hutchinson and Barry from Wales,  Eames? New Westminster etc If TEC splits I believe that will be the way of the communion….Who gets the ABC and the CofE…?That’s a really interesting question.

Sarah Hey wrote:

we have CB, JRTFSC, and EmilyH posting feverishly regarding the ACI

Ehhh - sorry, but I haven’t been part of the ACI discussion. BTW, it’s actually fairly chilly here

And we in the VCAC get all that IRD cash.

jrsftc, sorry, but the archives don’t lie.  Your meltdown—and Big Reveal, by the way, as a progressive, when you simply couldn’t control your “objective p.r.” any longer—was here, in which you targeted not just the ACI, but the IRD, the AAC, CANA, AMiA, FIFNA . . . it was a laugh-riot!  ; > )

“I think it says more about the PR machines of IRD, AAC, ACI, CANA, AMiA, FiFNA and all the other alphabet soup of entities who have a dog in this fight. It is so often proved that if you repeat something often enough, it becomes true in many peoples’ minds, regardless of its veracity or merit. The fact is the rhetoric (on both sides) is so high that nothing is trusted anymore.

Fortunately, the vast majority of Episcopalians in the pews know none of this.They are able to worship God and go about their lives with concern and affection for their fellow human beings blissfully mindless of the barrage of invective that stirs the Internet…

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2752/#44666

The entire thread is instructive actually.  You tipped your hand, and it’s too late to issue fervent denials.

Sarah Hey: mea culpa. I thought you were referring to the big discussion about AI, ACI & Grace Church’s involvement - or lack thereof - that took place in the last day or two.

RE: “I have only referred to the public record, I suspect that there is more but “suspicions” are only that.”

And we all know that there aren’t any “suspicions”—ECUSA progressive activists—and you included—already *know* what the reasserters want and the Global South Primates, as they’ve been crystal clear in many many public statements.  All you’re doing is tacking the word “conspiracy” on what you know and what has been clearly announced, in order to try to do a Grand Reveal and breathlessly announce it as a “Discovered Conspiracy”.  I don’t think it will work—but hey! Keep trying . . . ; > )

RE: “But most of us want to live in the messy middle.”

Nope—you’re a progressive EmilyH.  You want to live in the progressive left while calling it “the messy middle”.  You have a desire to 1) continue to enact your progressive agenda in ECUSA, 2) continue to defy the Anglican Communion’s call to interdependence and submission to the boundaries and identity of the AC, while enjoying membership in the same AC, 3) continue being a part of the Anglican Communion in enjoyment of the cachet and as a vehicle to further spread your progressive agenda to other parts of the globe, 4) prevent any other entities within the U.S. from being a part of the Anglican Communion—because you know what competition will do even more to ECUSA, and 5) call the whole progressive hash “living in the messy middle”. 

In actuality none of those actually “living in the messy middle” are engaging in their progressive agenda in blogland.  ; > )  Nor are they tipping their hand over and over in threads purportedly about the Great Tragedy of Grace Church, with Deep Concern about the ACI, trending over into Raised Hands of Horror over the much-loved and acclaimed [by reasserters] Westfield Response . . .
; > )

RE: “In the end, I think TEC will overwhelmingly win the state by state court battle . . . “

Could be.  I’m not too concerned about that.  We’ll see over the decades that follow as the suits wind their way through the courts.  I suspect that the 815 attorneys are concerned about one interesting trend—states moving towards revocable trust law, with California leading the way.  But it will be the states that decide who owns the property, and that’s as it should be.  I personally think it’s a good plan to move forward on all of that . . . the sooner the suits move along, the sooner the decades will roll on by and this will be over. 

RE: “Sarah, does it just hurt too much to stay . . . “

Not at all!  I’m glad to be a part of ECUSA.  But . . . your questioin sounds just a bit like a progressive “hoping and wishing and dreaming” for a person’s departure.  ; > )

I’m off to bed.

Chippers,

Sarah

Ooh!  Can I have the CofE!?  I have a place in my backyard that is just *perfect*!

No, jrsftc, you have merely been trying hard to impugn the credibility of the Executive Director of ACI, his parish, and ACI’s funding for days on end.

Sarah, maybe I spoke too quickly saying I was a “progressive”  Maybe that is a loaded term on this blog.  No, I am in the messy middle.  The presuposition I bring is “inclusion”  That is the lens I view things through.  Can everybody come to the party and how can we insure are all welcome?  What will it take for you, not everbody else to feel safe and welcome at the table?  Yes, I am, if you want to call it, trolling this blog, but what I am fishing for are alternatives.  One person here did tell me what it would take.  Maybe a plan could be created and no the bishops did not say it was over.  They said the plan and the fact that the nominations deadline for PV was the same day as their conference began as well as the plan as presented by the primates was rejected.  No, I think the serious one suggested above won’t work because it does not force real accountability on both sides but it’s a conversation starter.  And Sarah, NO, I don’t want you to leave.  I don’t want any of you to leave, but if it hurts too much for you to stay I can understand that.  My parents are divorced.  I truly to understand what it means if it hurts to much to stay. ( Still writing on PDA…but trying for some text separation.)  Also, I come from a long line of attorneys.  There will only be one group of winners in this and it won’t be either the “reasserters” or “reappraisers”

EmilyH asks,

Is Lambeth 1.10 really what you want to split over?  Is this the defining issue of our faith?

Yes.  The reason is quite simple:  Either we fight now, here, or we just accept that we belong to a church where every three years General Convention redefines Christianity by a vote of 50% plus one.

If a sexual ethic that has been an unquestioned part of core Christian moral teaching for 2000 years, and of Jewish teaching for 1500 years before that, can be simply waved away on the grounds of some unspecified “new scientific discoveries” that don’t even pretend to pass the giggle test, accompanied by a vague theology that teaches that Jesus was a Real Nice Guy—if we will simply snooze in the pews and leave our envelope in the plate because Grandpa’s stained glass window is so lovely and we don’t want to cause any sort of unpleasantness, then what real content does our faith have?  Are the UN Building our new Temple and the MDGs our new Commandments?  (No wonder we don’t read them at the beginning of the Sunday Service…)

RE: “Sarah, maybe I spoke too quickly saying I was a “progressive” . . . “

Your progressive theology has been clear for some time on this blog., EmilyH, although I am unsure of exactly when you said that you were a progressive.

But it was becoming obvious over the past two weeks, as you did a bit too much of the “naive questions” act while inserting tons of facts that showed you were avidly following the news and hoping to bring various organizations and people into the Grace Church financial questions you claimed you had. 

But where you really badly overplayed your hand was yesterday at 1:15 p.m. at this thread:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2774/#45823

You said this: “In addition, there have been allegations of 1.  An attempt to imply that the ACI is more than it is, strength and support, (influence with US Anglicans and the scholarly voice of Anglicanism) and 2. An attempt to portray it as something very little and insignificant, Chris Seitz’s “six guys with a website””—and that’s when I knew.  ; > )

That’s when I knew that not only were you a progressive, but you were an activist too, and that more than justice and truth regarding the financial actions of Grace Church, what you really desire is for some sort of damage to be done to those people and organizations that you’ve decided are harming your progressive agenda in the Episcopal church, to wit: Kendall Harmon [mentioned repeatedly by you], IRD [of course, chuckle], the ACI, and Ephraim Radner.

I’m afraid it’s too late, EmilyH, for you to pull back from that starkly revealed purpose of yours on this blog.  It’s there now for all to see.

Again, I’m glad to have you and others posting comments here—I think it instructive for other reasserters to watch how this works.  Generally speaking, a progressive activist simply isn’t able to restrain him or herself for too long on a blog like this—they’ll almost always overplay their hand, and any pretence or facade at “objective seeker of truth” slips away.

And the neat thing is, that any reasserter on this blog can go back to this thread here—http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2774/—and read all of Emily H’s comments in the light of my comments above—and read this thread we’re on as well. 

Even the most naive reasserter can read these two threads and recognize exactly what I note above.

I continue to enjoy learning from reappraisers, every chance I get.

Craig your point is an excellent one ...again the tyranny of the majority, the bane of all democracies But can you also look at the decisions made by the primates in the same way?  Not conceding that they are the instrument of communion that has the authority for the moment, can TEC see the actions of the primates in the same way?  The tyranny of a “majority” ?  And here it’s 38 guys many of whom do not acknowledge the full inclusion of women let alone gays.  In some cases, they are near absolute monarchs in tneir own kingdoms (Please review the Canons of Nigeria…I mean really read them.) It seems to to me that the primates are saying,: You can stay on our terms” and the reasserters are saying that TEC is saying: “We’ll stay in but on our terms”  And moving from communion to province: the reappraisers accuse the right of saying : “We’ll stay, but on our terms”  It’s the same argument, it cuts both ways.  Again I am the child of divorce.  Frankly, if I get in a squable with one of my siblings, I won’t run to either my parents or grandparents for an imposed solution.  Ill sit in the room with my siblings ‘til we work it out.  If I appeal to either my parents or grandparents, I am likely to get a decision based on their baggage, not mine, nor that of my siblings. The intervention of the off-shore primates for me is the intervention of their baggage, their agenda and diverts us in TEC from sitting at the table and working it out.

Sarah - You are a lioness defending your turf and greatly to be admired. You presuppose that every progressive that comes here is looking for some fun and a little skirmish when in actuality some come because there is so much at stake and we a hoping that both sides retain some clarity about the events and goings on that involve our church (if you do in fact still consider TEC, your church).  Blogs that are dedicated to advancing one perspective are needed, but tend to overly marginalize and diminish the perspective of the other side to the point of sometimes eliminating any useful dialogue or exchange between members of the parties -who oddly, still want some dialogue going forward.  You obviously have heard it all before and there is nothing useful in such a enterprise. The trick in these marathons is to stay the course, but to stay open.  I was asked by two posters here yesterday what I thought (Phil and oscewicee).  I have a bit a of history with Phil and so I thought he meant it. oscewicee - I don’t know, so I hesitated, but it sounded sincere. Perhpas, I was mistaken on both counts. Perhaps, it is a given here that all comments by progressives are seen as spring board “to have some fun” even when they are being approached to talk about what they think, from a different perspective, is going on and might be helpful.  I will try to remember that .

As far as commenting on other threads, it usually has to do with salient facts that are either missing from the discussion, or possibly open to a different informed interpretation. Again, you may find all such contributions by progressives to be suspect - A trend of some sort.  But perhaps, others would find such a welcome addition to their own understanding. It certainly has helped mine.

Finally, you say to EmilyH “you included—already *know* what the reasserters want and the Global South primates, as they’ve been crystal clear in many many public statements.”

I suppose that would be for TEC to, in effect, repent of its position regarding the inclusion of gays in the life of the church until there is a consensus amongst the entire AC (including Rev. Akinola who supports legislation criminalizing homosexuality) that changes the Lambeth resolution 1:10.  You and I both know that such a consensus is not forthcoming in our life time. So the request is not for a season, but for the foreseeable future. You also know that given the nature of the request, it can not be satisfactory complied with. Wanting something that you know can not be given, is a recipe for unhappiness on both sides.  In other words, not a solution for anyone.

In light of this, what do reasserters and the GS want?  TEC to be renounced (as apostate) and removed from the AC and replaced by a new “orthodox” province (maintaining the property already used by the “orthodox” churches) in full communion with the AC.  Short of that happening immediately, would be to put in place a Primatial PV Scheme which establishes the AC as the overarching church within which TEC is a branch, so that TEC when fails to comply with the requirements of the covenant (and it must fail because the covenant will require it to repent), and TEC is removed from AC, such removal will be viewed in the courts as a split in TEC, thus providing the “orthodox” with a legal upper hand to retain all the property. Perhaps, you will readily admit that this plan is not new, that it has been in the works prior to Lambeth 1998, with Bishop Wantland’s efforts to establish an alternative Protestant EC. And that the GS has been seeking to remove TEC from the AC since the early 1990s.  So, you’re right there is nothing new here.  At least, we can agree on that.

The Network does not have to replace TEC in the Anglican Communion.  TEC is accomplishing that all by itself by choosing to exalt its independence over tradition and common understanding of Scripture.  The Chapman memo is a straw man.  Long before it surfaced and long before there was a Network, so-called progressives began to turn the screws on more traditional believers.  Remember Jackboot Jane’s assault on Accoceek.  And the refusal of “progressive” bishops to allow postulants to attend Trinity.  The problem isn’t the perception that conservatives want to repalce TEC as the only authentic witness of Anglicanism in the US - the problem is their final realization that it has already happened and that TEC has become just another denomination in liberaldom.  The Holy Roman Empire was said to have been neither holy, nor Roman nor an empire.  Reflected in the mirror of the Global South and the emerging covenant process, TEC is shown to be neither one, holy, catholic or apostolic.

On my way out for an overnight Don’t know if they’ll have WiFi.  If not maybe I’ll check in with you all for the “solutions” you all have come to tomorrow

As the Archbishop of Canterbury recently told Bennison, EmilyH, the Primates will determine membership in the Anglican Communion and the HOB’s antipathy and fury towards them is evident in their public and private invective about them and towards any like Fr. Radner who tried to explain the Tanzanian Communique, Covenant process and other things to them.  So, unless and until the HOB backtracks really fast and quite a lot, it looks over for TEC as a member of the Anglican Communion, as of sometime after September 30.  The HOB has announced to the Anglican world they would like to be members of the Anglican Communion if they alone decide on their membership, a condition risible on its face, and breathtaking in its ineptitude;  therewith the HOB defied the lastest request from the Primates to them specifically.  But, I noticed you even denied/dissembled on this blog what the Archbishop of Canterbury told Bennison, so unless the HOB has a major reversal before Sept 30, which no one believes will happen, they will follow through with their stated intentions of departing from the Anglican Communion to complete in absurd extremity the entombment they call “autonomy.”  Most of those in TEC now who are determined to remain Anglican are just trying to keep bridges to the Anglican Communion as protected as possible for any who wish to get there.  Simultaneously, TEC is trying very hard to blow up the same bridges, because they want to hold everyone else captive with them.  They wish to burden everyone else with the misery of their bad choices.

RE: “. . . the “solutions” you all have come to tomorrow. . . “

EmilyH, here’s the link to the Tanzania Communique:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/42/50/acns4253.cfm

And then there’s this helpful document over here called “The Windsor Report”:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/windsor2004/

And then over here there’s this nice Dromantine Communique about the Windsor Report:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/39/00/acns3948.cfm

Here’s the Covenant Design Group report [you know, the one that has Ephraim Radner on it]:
http://www.aco.org/commission/d_covenant/index.cfm

It’s great, isn’t it, to know about all these solutions.  I’m sure you’ll be heartened to discover that for the past four years, so much about the solutions has been studied and written.

Funny . . . so far, none of the “solutions” have worked for the offending province.  We’ve all just been amazed at that!

Emily H-

The intervention of the off-shore primates for me is the intervention of their baggage, their agenda and diverts us in TEC from sitting at the table and working it out.

Sorry Ms. H, we’ve been talking it over with TEC for 50 years now (and I speak from personal knowledge).  This didn’t start with Lambeth 1.10, that was just one more straw.  Perhaps, with the coming formal rejection of the Primate’s communique by the HoB in September, we will FINALLY see the last straw.
The “agenda” of the primates is Scripture, the Nicene Creed, the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ.  Those of us who you view as conservatives are more than willing to sit at a table with anyone on Earth who believes in those things.  A substantial number of bishops in TEC do not believe in these things- sexual orientation is a REALLY minor part of all this. 
Beyond this, personally, I don’t maintain a lot of dialogue with people who brand me as a “conspirator,” (not to mention “christo-fascist”) and threaten my friends with inhibiton, removal from vestries and the like.

Raymond Dague has an interesting press release out today about a decision in the Syracuse litigation limiting 815’s participation on the grounds that it does not have sufficient legal interest in the dispute.

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5845

The nonsense noted above about RICO and 815’s ill-considered moves to intervene in local litigation indicate a national church that is every bit as adrift legally as it is theologically.  New York is a state that is receptive to the hierarchy argument, but even in its home state of NY, 815 is apparently told it has no significant interest in parish property.  Everyone should note carefully and inwardly digest that there is no legal precedent on the results of a diocese leaving ECUSA.  Even in states like NY or Pennsylvania (!) that are sympathetic to the diocese vis-a-vis the parish, this decision shows that the national church will have a tough row to hoe if dioceses leave.

I just hope they continue to rely on RICO as their fallback defense.

“You presuppose that every progressive that comes here is looking for some fun and a little skirmish when in actuality some come because there is so much at stake and we a hoping that both sides retain some clarity about the events and goings on that involve our church (if you do in fact still consider TEC, your church).”

You are mistaken.  If you had been at this blog for long you would know that there are plenty of progressives that come here for a little fun and a skirmish—they have over the years, and that’s fine.  They are upfront and clear about 1) their being progressive and 2) their wanting a little fun and a skirmish.  Some are progressive and also activists, as well.  And they are usually quite clear about that as well—that they have an agenda and that they are quite active in attempting to move that agenda forward.

Others are progressive and come here with an agenda—no fun or skirmish, but still, an up-front agenda, frankly stated.

But as I think has become now transparently clear, EmilyH and JRSFTC were not here for “a little fun and a skirmish”, nor were they here to “dialogue” or “retain some clarity”—quite the opposite, in fact, they were here to obfuscate their true views and real agenda.  In fact, neither of them came with transparency in their theology or their agenda. They both made the effort to pretend to be objective moderate “seekers after truth” when in reality they were nothing more than progressives, and actively pursuing an agenda [“progressive activists”].

Regarding whether I consider TEC my church, unlike some I make no attempt to deny that I am a part of TEC.  I am, it is my church, and I’m here and intend to be here for quite a long time.

“Blogs that are dedicated to advancing one perspective are needed, but tend to overly marginalize and diminish the perspective of the other side to the point of sometimes eliminating any useful dialogue or exchange between members of the parties -who oddly, still want some dialogue going forward.”

We’ve had plenty of “useful dialogue” with The Other here at SF—but the EmilyH and JRSFTC, you see, arrived pretending NOT to be “The Other”.  They arrived attempting to hold up a facade and a pretense, which, as usual, slipped once their emotions or overeagerness got the better of them.  They *pretended*, CB, that’s all, and then they accidentally outed themselves.

“Again, you may find all such contributions by progressives to be suspect - A trend of some sort.  But perhaps, others would find such a welcome addition to their own understanding. It certainly has helped mine.”

Not at all.  We’ve had many helpful exchanges throughout the years between reasserters and progressives.  But, as I’ve mentioned before, the striking thing about EmilyH and JRSFTC was that they carefully *concealed* their progressive theology, as well as activism, until they were outed.  The reason was that they wanted to be taken for objective moderate seekers after truth.

However, as I’ve also made clear, they have also contributed greatly to our “understanding”, only not in the way that you might think.

It is helpful, for instance, to simply review EmilyH’s first comments at this blog, back at the beginning of April:
Here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2729/

And here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2737/#45409

Comments continue here and this is where she really goes full throttle and begins to thoroughly tip her hand—note all the extra mentions of various “progressive enemies”, couched in the naive wonderment tone—in almost every comment, she works hard to add in some extra players to the scene, truly an incredible display that culminates in this decisive little gem about the ACI, which pretty much blew her cover: “In addition, there have been allegations of 1.  An attempt to imply that the ACI is more than it is, strength and support, (influence with US Anglicans and the scholarly voice of Anglicanism) and 2. An attempt to portray it as something very little and insignificant, Chris Seitz’s “six guys with a website”—I highly recommend that reasserters read her comments at this thread carefully, as this is the way it’s done [other than the cover-blowing part]:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2774/

We have this lone comment here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2781/#45774

And then we’re onto this current thread, where the whole agenda is clear.

Let’s look at JRSFTC, too, while we are at it.

There are his maiden comments here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/1803/#23964

And here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2665/#42538

There are a number of other comments, including this Kind and Loving Plea for Objectivity and Less Speculation:  ; > )
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2708/#43780

Sadly, after all that effort over the past three months of establishing his moderate, seeker-after-truth cred, JRSFTC totally loses it on this thread, unable to prevent himself from venting his spleen on the Real Purveyors of Wickedness:

“I think it says more about the PR machines of IRD, AAC, ACI, CANA, AMiA, FiFNA and all the other alphabet soup of entities who have a dog in this fight. It is so often proved that if you repeat something often enough, it becomes true in many peoples’ minds, regardless of its veracity or merit. The fact is the rhetoric (on both sides) is so high that nothing is trusted anymore.

Fortunately, the vast majority of Episcopalians in the pews know none of this.They are able to worship God and go about their lives with concern and affection for their fellow human beings blissfully mindless of the barrage of invective that stirs the Internet… “

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2752/#44666

And he can’t stop there:

Of course I’m referring to the endlessly-repeated “facts” (opinions, mostly) used to support personal positions.

If - as you say - even liberal ECUSAns are so easy to rouse, how is it all these monstrous bishops are allowed to continue their reign of persecution in their dioceses? That would require the complicity of all those Standing Committees, delegates to diocesan conventions, etc. - thousands of people. If those bishops are as wicked as you’d have us believe, they would be readily exposed and thrown out of office.

Does every exchange have to devolve into a personal attack?

Finally, after I respond to him with these words—“I am not certain how my characterization of your statement about the “PR machines” as “denial”, nor my admittance that such statements “amaze me” is a “personal attack”. How does my expression of an opinion about your statement and my expression of emotion—amazement—constitute a “personal attack”?—he goes away from the thread.

Poof!

I’ll give you credit, though, CB—you’ve been vaguely, somewhat up-front about your theology and agenda, sort of from the beginning.  Props to you.

But your two allies here? 

Busted.

C.B. – when I asked you about a way forward, I was sincere, and I don’t see your comments as simply a springboard to have some fun.

What I’ve learned from my experience in going to and staying at Fr. Jake’s, and what I’ve seen on our side as well, is that new, dissenting, commenters get treated with hostility.  If they stay around and aren’t obviously lobbing gratuitous insults, they get treated with less hostility, but the undercurrent is always there.  Still, you can have some great discussions mixed in with all that.  Some days it really seems worth it, and others, not so much, as in, “I’m never coming back.”  I think the progressives currently commenting here are making some good points and keeping us on our toes.  A couple others that really don’t comment here any more, I would not be so charitable toward.

In any case, you mentioned above (and it runs through your last post, also) that you resent being called a heretic, or the implication being made that you’re not a Christian.  I know it isn’t up to me to decide whether a particular person is or is not a believer.  There are limited exceptions (i.e., where I decide, but it still isn’t up to me, of course, it’s only up to Christ).  For example, I have no problem making that judgment about John Shelby Spong, because he’s objectively renounced the Christian Faith; he’s an apostate, and quite proud of it.  On the other hand, I do, and think I should, make judgments as to whether particular teachings or statements fit within Christian orthodoxy as the larger Church has received it.

Within that context, it’s my view – and I’ve raised this issue at Fr. Jake’s also – that a) there are many within ECUSA that detest the Christian Faith and desire to have it radically re-made, and b) those of you that are “orthodox but for the issue of sexuality” have made common cause with them for the sake of achieving your aims on the single issue of homosexuality.  You know they’ll vote your way when the time comes, and that’s all that matters.  This has been devastating for the church, and it explains why you are so often lumped in with that group.

It shouldn’t be controversial to those claiming to be “orthodox but for the issue of sexuality” that John Spong should be removed from good standing as a retired bishop.  That the occasional post-Christian “trial liturgies” posted by ECUSA on its website are noxious and heterodox also shouldn’t be in question.  The same goes for any radical remaking of the current liturgy with “inclusive language,” for speculation by bishops (such as that just posted on this site) that the Resurrection is a mythical construct, for open communion and for some of the more lurid ponderings of the Presiding Bishop.  But, they are controversial.  Bring these up, and, at best, you get a, “yeah, but . . .”  The supposedly “orthodox but for the issue of sexuality” won’t budge an inch on things like this, because the people doing it are your allies.

That is wrong, and it’s wrecked the Episcopal Church.

If you want to stop being called heretical and un-Christian, albeit with a broad brush, then, IMHO, you need to start joining with us in condemning and cracking down on these abuses, and let the chips fall where they may.  But let’s face it: that isn’t going to happen, and we both know it.  The typical progressive represented in the blogosphere will never be caught criticizing John Chane or Katharine Schori over a point of theology.  The only conclusion I can draw is that either my assertion here is correct (that a single issue is so important to you that you will gladly ally yourself with the heterodox to advance it), or that the numbers of “orthodox but for the issue of sexuality” are not so great after all.

Phil - I read and received your response. Let make this reply. I am openly gay, long term partner, adopted kids.  Under your world view, you can not be an open “practicing” gay and “orthodox.” It’s an oxymoron. Reasserters have created a theological environment where gay people like myself either accept a broader theological (heterodox, if you will) milieu for a home or they find themselves with no home at all. The choice has been made that simple. I think you will see in the coming months a reintroduction of a dialogue regarding the theology of “inclusion.’  I think TEC has only done a fair job in defending the “orthodoxy” of it’s position with respect to homosexuals.  You are not to blame for that.  Whether we will ever agree on theology I can not say. But I do not think this fine distinction between who is and who is not “orthodox” with gays as a dividing point will not remain.  And once that dynamic changes, there may be a surprising realignment.

Sarah Hey: Oh curses, you’ve foiled my Sneaky Activist Agenda of Progressive Theology! (apologies to Snidely Whiplash)

I’m sure everyone can sleep much better now that’s out in the open

EmilyH wrote, “What elements of the primates plan might work for TEC?  Even +Stacy Sauls suggested that there might be a version that would work?  Could one with accountability, veto power and “ultimate” discipline belonging to the PB work?  ...One that acknowledges that the PB is conceding her authority for the purpose of pastoral supervision only, like a bishop giving permission for another to “act in his/her behalf” work?  Would such be acceptable to Network dioceses?  What are the negotiable?  Can we talk about mission, and worship as commonalties?  Among the conservatives there appear to be a major concern with a “confessing” church and doctrinal issues.  Is there anything that can be offered by “revisionists” that can work here?  Am I just plain stupid.  Is it just too late?  Is there nothing that can be done?  Is Lambeth 1.10 really what you want to split over?  Is this the defining issue of our faith?”
For me biblical orthodoxy is the issue, not Lambeth 1.10…it is simply the presenting issue and I repent of my failure to join in this battle decades ago…I don’t see how there is anything that can be offered by revisionists that can work, but I will be happy to play along on this one.  I would generally agree with Phil on the necessary safeguards to make a system work, but even then I would have a problem and here is why…

1- I couldn’t accept any plan that left me under the direct or implied authority of somebody that I consider to be heretical in their core doctrine – KJS is a heretic, therefore revisionists would need to convince her to resign and then replace her with somebody more middle of the road…someone who hasn’t denied Jesus as THE way….

2 – I can’ contribute any money directly or indirectly to an organization that would use that money to promote their heresy though mission or lawsuits against people who share my biblical view.  So joint mission work is out…I absolutely am interested in doing social missionary work, but only as a means to spread the Gospel. 

3 - Surely I would prefer true repentance from the other side, but if that option isn’t on the table then what I want is to be part of a communion that upholds traditional teaching and disciplines those who fail to do so…I could accept parallel churches with the Network in full communion with the AC and ECUSA in impaired communion with the ABC until such time, if ever, that they repent…but even there I would want to work to reduce the monetary influence that ECUSA has over mission and outreach in order to eliminate their ability to work through the AC to spread their heresy further…and I would want to support the many battle plans that Sarah has drawn up to retake as much of ECUSA as I could.

5 – I am perfectly willing to fight for property in court, settle property through talks, or walk away from property if I have to…I am willing to stay with Sarah in TEC and fight for my Parish/Diocese and those in the middle until a clear exit strategy is completed and at the same time I am willing to leave this instant if such a AC/Primate/ABC/Network strategy is announced.

I don’t believe in any of the conspiracy theories discussed earlier…it was quite clear to me when I first became an Episcopalian what the goals of each side have been…only the strategies and tactics have been blurred, and that was not the result of conspiracy so much as it has been the product of division within our own ranks…a division which recent events have helped to heal to a great extent, though not completely.

CB, just to be clear. You would be satisfied to be in a church with a priest who denies the physical resurrection of Christ under a Bishop who is non-theistic in belief and preaching, as long as there were rainbow flags on the altar and they offered same-sex blessings. 
However, you would not be satisfied to be in a church with an actual Christian priest who professes a credal faith if he also professes the universal orthodox (or traditional if you will) sexual ethics of the Christian church.  Am I misreading you or do you put your sexual identity on a higher plane than your Christian faith? 

I’m maybe not putting it as nicely as Phil, but I think that’s what he’s getting at here.  You take great offense at being lumped in with heretics and apostates (as 99.9999% of Christians over the last 2000 years would have no difficulty in characterizing anyone who denied the divinity or resurrection of Christ), but then in the next breath you say you’d rather be associated with those apostates or heretics, playing at “church”, as opposed to worshiping in an actual Christian church.

Cabbages - the caricature you draw of TEC is not experience of it. So fortunately, I do not have to make the type of choices you describe. The only either or choices are coming from the “orthodox.” And that’s my point.

C.B. - Cabbages not a caricature of TEC parishes in Atlanta, but a near photographic portrait.

I will not mention that Spong and Company also could have been the life models for his discription.

RSB

That’s exactly my point as well.  If the progressives are open to being in communion with non-Christians, what does it say about the Christians who choose to be in communion with non-Christians.  You’re the one who raised the objection to being lumped in with the apostates and heretics, and being forced into it because you don’t feel welcomed by traditional Christianity.  So how could you possibly take offense if someone on the outside looking in (as we all are) draws the conclusion that those who claim to be “orthodox but for the issue of sexuality” are anything but?

Cabbages - the caricature you draw of TEC is not (my)experience of it.

Maybe not but it is the experience of a whole lot of other Episcopalians.
I hear this all the time, “Look I am just as orthodox as anyone else, except for the little ol’ sexuality thingie.” And then you crawl in bed with the rabidly liberal true revisionistas and wonder why people call you heretics. Two things: (1) You are judged by the company you keep. (2) The Bible is not a menu, you don’t get to order what you want and discard the rest.

Why is it so hard for you to understand why we can’t and won’t live under the rule of anyone who is a heretic by any classical defintion of the word?

the snarkster

Clearly, the answer lies somewhere in one’s definition of “orthodox” and what constitutes being “orthodox” from either a creedal or a confessional point of view. I am not going to discuss theology.  I have been present during discussions between Phil and other progressives at Fr. Jake’s regarding orthodoxy.  There are many who espouse an “orthodoxy” you would accept but for the fact that they are gay or support gays. And because they do support gays, their theology is suspect as well.  I, on the other hand, don’t have that problem.

C.B., I appreciate the challenges you face in your relationship to the church, but I think these are challenges we all face, to a greater or lesser extent – much greater for you than for me, no question – and most of us can live with the inevitable tension.

When you say

Reasserters have created a theological environment where gay people like myself either accept a broader theological (heterodox, if you will) milieu for a home or they find themselves with no home at all. The choice has been made that simple.

I’m really not sure the choice is that simple.  Take Roman Catholicism.  Much is made by those that dislike its teaching that everybody is using birth control, for example, in defiance of the Church’s teaching.  To the extent that’s true, a lot of those contraceptive users are in a theological environment where they have to accept a broader milieu with which their lives show they are not prepared to cooperate.  On the other hand, most of them aren’t asking the Church to change its teaching, or approve that which it cannot.  They’re just silently disagreeing or hoping they won’t get in too much trouble when they get to heaven.  Who among us hasn’t done something like that?  The point is, we do the best we can and throw ourselves on God’s mercy, but we don’t ask the Church to alter its teaching.

On this:

I think you will see in the coming months a reintroduction of a dialogue regarding the theology of “inclusion.’ I think TEC has only done a fair job in defending the “orthodoxy” of it’s position with respect to homosexuals.  You are not to blame for that.  Whether we will ever agree on theology I can not say. But I do not think [I assume you mean “do think”] this fine distinction between who is and who is not “orthodox” with gays as a dividing point will not remain.  And once that dynamic changes, there may be a surprising realignment.

This really gets to the problem I talked about above.  Right now, the situation is extremely muddled, such that none of us can say gays are the dividing point of orthodoxy.  I actually think that’s the point you should be striving to reach.  As it is, you’ll never succeed at changing the dynamic, because you’ve fatally involved yourself with the party of the trial liturgies, of cheap grace, of the “God just means interpersonal experience,” of the “everything besides New Deal type stuff in the Bible is mythology.”  The conversation on why gays shouldn’t be a dividing point just can’t get off the ground without your opponents throwing this stuff at you, and, every time the rest of the Christian world sees it, they roll their eyes.

P.S. Just to address your latest comment, this may or may not be a caricature of ECUSA as a whole.  We have no way of measuring it objectively.  But, it is just plain fact that this stuff exists in ECUSA and is tolerated.  Only if you help us get rid of it will you take away the ability of your opponents to caricature.

EmilyH takes a reasonable tone:

Craig your point is an excellent one ...again the tyranny of the majority, the bane of all democracies But can you also look at the decisions made by the primates in the same way?  Not conceding that they are the instrument of communion that has the authority for the moment, can TEC see the actions of the primates in the same way?  The tyranny of a “majority” ?  And here it’s 38 guys many of whom do not acknowledge the full inclusion of women let alone gays.

Mmmpf.  The 38 Primates plus upwards of two billion living Christians plus several billion more in Glory on one side, perhaps fifty thousand True Believers plus David Booth Beers on the other.  Let’s hear it for the tyranny of the majority.

What, precisely, do you mean by “full inclusion” here?  Moreover, being female is 100% genetic, pre-Fall, and not inherently sinful in spite of mailboxes full of jewelry and shoe catalogs.  “Gayness” is not a category of Christian anthropology, any more than “greediness” is; it’s simply a description of a susceptibility to a certain sort of temptation to sin.

The ordination of women was a clear violation of Catholic order and ecclesiology, but not a corruption of the Gospel.  What parallel, exactly, are you trying to draw here?  And, bearing in mind that Anglicanism presents itself as an adaptation of the theology and ecclesiology of the Patristic undivided Church, what precise criticism are you making of the other Communion Churches?

Phil - “The conversation on why gays shouldn’t be a dividing
point just can’t get off the ground without your opponents throwing this stuff at you, and, every time the rest of the Christian world sees it, they roll their eyes.”

Completely agree. TEC has been inarticulate and (shall I say) undisciplined in it’s approach to these matters.  Where you have found it intolerable to endure, I have found it necessary to endure. We are in a new phase here. A critical juncture whereby TEC is being called to get its act together in presenting the Gospel in a coherent and comprehensible way. To say more would only serve to accent our differences.  For now, let us agree to encourage TEC to go further in explaining and clarifying its Christian witness for times in which we life.

C.B. asserts,

We are in a new phase here. A critical juncture whereby TEC is being called to get its act together in presenting the Gospel in a coherent and comprehensible way.

This is clearly true, and TEC hasn’t taken its responsibility very seriously, to judge from the risible To Set Our Hope ....  Neither have the other denominations, whose hierarchies have also been subject to the Great Gay Coup; the ELCA bureaucrats produced a series of congregation study guides that was utterly laughable, and the UMC leadership has been trying to produce decent pro-homosexual PR for years without much success.

A more cynical poster might suggest that the reason for this is that the theological position advocated by the progressives is inherently indefensible (except in the way the Flat Earth position is defended:  take the discussants to North Dakota and say, “See?  Isn’t it all clear now?”)—but of course I would never make such an assertion, being broadminded and terribly modern and all…

For Sarah, I read the comments about the ACI on Thinking Anglicans and yes one writer did make the allegation that the the term “Communion Institute” did seem a bit of a stretch for 6 what it’s president Chris called “6 guys with a website”  But you may make all the allegations about me that you want, decide about my motives the competance of my theology whatever, but I want you to stay in TEC.  I WANT you feel safe in TEC and I want to share the table with you.  Do you want to sit at the table with me and others like me?  For me everything else is meaningless.  Like CB, I admire your scrappyness in protecting you turf.

EmilyH: you have come upon a very important and so far missing question:  What is orthodoxy?  There are several subquestions:  What is the relationship to fundamentalism?  How do we undrstand and use “faith once handed down?”  How do orthodox believers behave (and not behave)?  Im sure there are many others.  These are not limited to theology but include salvation, communion and church structure issues.  I am well (and Im sure wearily) documented here that for example, Sarah’s above “scrappyness” is not orthodox behavior.  It may have orthodox roots but she betrays her theology when she rants as she does toward those who may very well be true believers.  I have called Sarah’s an orthodoxy of the lips, but not of the heart, because her actions tend to destroy communion which I believe to be the very heart of orthodoxy.  Anyway the term needs careful definition, and a general agreement on its requirements and limits would be indeed helpful.

Actually, Terebinth—I have not seen Sarah attack people.  She is very pointed in going after wrong ideas, but so were Jesus and Paul.  I have not seen her pass judgment on the heart of another, and that is where we tread on dangerous ground.  Not good to judge a heart…but I have not seen her do that.  But her reasoning is razor-sharp, and very clear.  I am sure it must be frustrating to find her an opponent of one’s ideas.

Besides—I have appreciated both her honesty and the way she will build bridges to reappraisers where she can, and give honor where honor is due, which includes the “worthy opponents.”  But she will call someone when it appears they are not speaking honestly, or are operating from motives they seem to be hiding.  They then can argue the point with her, if they feel they have been misunderstood.

But all that being said, Terebinth—there are things you have posted that I think are lovely, and I agree with.  I just do not always agree with you, as in this case.  You know what is funny?  It sounds to me as though you view Sarah as not loving—but I see her as one of the most honestly loving people I have seen to take a stand.  It takes courage and love to take a firm stand for what you know is right.  If she did not love the Lord and care deeply about those around her, I am sure she would not expend so much time at this.

Peace,
Pat

Terebinth and Emily H- for your education and edification:
Orthodox: adj.- Of opinions or doctrines: Right, correct, true; in accordance with what is authoritatively established as the true view or right practice; orig. in theological and ecclesiastical doctrine.
As a noun, it refers to one who holds orthodox views (or in the specific case here, theology) or, when capitalized, a member of one of the Eastern Churches.
I daresay that if you hold views held by less than 5% of the Anglican Communion’s people, and views that would have had you thrown out of any Christian church on the planet through 95% of the history of Christianity, you are NOT orthodox (or, Orthodox, either).  I cannot state with any authority whether you are “true believers”- you say you “may very well be” which implies that you have your own doubts on the matter.  I think I can say that you are probably not true believers in orthodox Anglicanism of either the Anglo Catholic or Evangelical persuasions.  You may, of course, be true believers of something completely different.
If you really wish to engage Ms. Hey in a battle of wits, I should warn you that it is apparent from your posts that you are not so well armed as she, and you might do well to do some reading up before attempting to take one of her little stone bridges.  However, if you do indeed persist, I am sure the rest of us will be quite amused by her ripostes.

Does one get the sense that we’ve entered into the Twilight Zone?

bb

After reading this, I pulled up the Zapruder film on You Tube and, yes, in the distance accross the street in the shadows, wearing sunglasses, I could barely make out…Geoff Chapman.

I also understand his name was found in John Wilkes Booth’s diary.

Seriously, Rev. Champman is about the nicest, most unassuming guys you will ever meet. He is not the first, nor the last, to speculate about a new Province.  Whether it is parallel or a replacement is largely up to TEC.  This memo is periodically dragged out as a propoganda too, but is smokescreen.

tjmcmahon:  I confess it is tempting to me to rise to the challenge of engaging Ms Hey.  I feel sure her creds—be they street or academic—are legion.  But that’s where orthodoxy steps in for me.  I must abstain from that challenge, it would only tend to destroy rather than encourage or enable communion.  Similar for those who might encourage such “engagements” for the fun of it.  Orthodox faith calls to wholeness, not sport.  Also IMHO orthodoxy really cannot be learned from books (save Scripture), although they can be a help.  This is beautifully demonstrated by your dictionary quote: accurate but dead. Orthodoxy must be lived, experienced and shown out.  Our small group is currently using Being as Communion by JD Zizioulas.  It is a great example of help and challenge, we struggle with how to apply it in a living way.  I recommend it as a potential help to you as you move toward more heartful orthodoxy and away from the labels.

tenebinth- I do have a passing familiarity with ++Zizioulas writing.  (sorry, it took a little time to find the quote I was looking for)
From “Communion and Otherness”:

Eucharistic communion permits only one kind of exclusion: the exclusion of exclusion: all those things that involve rejection and division, which in principle distort Trinitarian faith.  Heresy involves a distorted faith that has inevitable practical consequences concerning communion and otherness. Schism is also an act of exclusion; when schism occurs, the eucharistic community becomes exclusive. In the case of both heresy and schism, we cannot pretend that we have communion with the other when in fact we have not.

It seems to me that TEC has chosen to follow a path that “has inevitable practical consequences concerning communion .” Communion, indeed, is the very heart of orthodox (capital or small o) Christianity.  I think a marvelous example of living, orthodox Anglicanism is on this blog- the recent on going conversations between Anglo-Catholics and Reformed Anglicans that have responded to Matt Kennedy’s articles on the nature of Justification and Revelation.  The greater understanding of one another brings us into closer communion with one another, and into closer Communion with one another.  BUT this greater communion and understanding is predicated on the acceptance of scriptural truth and Christian tradition and charity.

tjmcmahon: you are right, Matt+‘s series is very helpful and w/o expressly saying so is a grand display of orthodoxy.  I love Matt+‘s work but it tends to be isolated scholarship and I prefer the more applicable living testimony, w/real people “in the field” as it says above.  No matter where you start, you come out the same.  BTW could you possible be related to a Tom McMahon who was EVP of Chase in the 1970’s?

terebinth- To the best of my knowledge, he and I are not related, although it is remotely possible we are distant cousins (a number of Toms in my family)

RE: “This is clearly true, and TEC hasn’t taken its responsibility very seriously, to judge from the risible To Set Our Hope .... “

Craig Goodrich, I’m afraid that they have taken it Terribly Seriously.  I can just see them with furrowed brows laboring earnestly over that particular document, and I believe that they believed that they had presented the Read Deal, a Theological BodyBlow for Their Gospel.  They probably still believe that.  No, they’ve had 40 years to make their case—and they have made their case as well as they possibly could.  I know that’s probably hard for all of us to accept, but we might just as well go ahead and shake hands and say “well tried, mate” . . .

RE: “But you may make all the allegations about me that you want, decide about my motives the competance of my theology whatever, . . . “

EmilyH, I’ve already done what I needed to do for the public record, and I presented the links and the quotes for everyone to see.  All of that’s archived now and public analysis.  Anyone here can read it for themselves, and they’ll make their own decisions.  I am quite confident that most will come to the same conclusions that I have, because you provided so much evidence over the past weeks.

RE: “Do you want to sit at the table with me and others like me?”

I’m afraid that’s not the question at all, though it is a nice red herring to get people off track.  The question is have the leaders of our church made serious changes in our church’s doctrine and practice.  Serious changes that are NOT adiophora or meaningless.  The answer is yes. 

Those changes are so important and so serious that they represent a gospel that C.B. and national ECUSA leaders are willing for the church to divide over. 

They are willing.

And I agree with them.  The two gospels are mutually contradictory, and the church will have to divide.  When leaders lead a church into heresy, no, they do not belong at the table of the Lord.  They are false teachers.

RE: “Like CB, I admire your scrappyness in protecting you turf.”

You know, if I felt the need to “protect turf” I would be squealing for the Commenatrix to come over and ban the revisionists on this thread.  ; > )

But you folks have served as a great example of Games Reappraisers Play, and I think it a wonderful lesson for all of us reasserters here.  What you see as defending turf is merely my articulating and compiling and organizing the relevant data for all the world to see.

I am satisfied that I have done that here on this thread for future readers.

Finally, I need to say again how much I appreciate CB’s frankness here at SF.  MerseyMike, of course, will always be first in my heart as a Raving Reappraiser, and then Brian, but someday, perhaps after several years or more of steady plodding achievement, CB may achieve the upper echelon of Raving Reappraiser as others have done.  ; > )