Announcement Concerning the ACI (the ACI ends relationship with Grace Church and Fr. Armstrong)

We love you, we love you not.

I read this letter from the three, Christopher Seitz, Philip Turner, Ephraim Radner, as dissolving their relationship with the web-site, namely the Anglican Communion Institute (http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.org/).

The three are going to continue their Anglican work, apart from the ACI and apart from Grace Church.

Seitz, Turner and Radner are just exposing themselves as fair-weather friends and cowards.  Their credibility just hit rock bottom.

I don’t think the fact that ACI is dissolving its relationship with the web site and all activities of Grace Church, CANA or TEC, should be construed as abandoning Don Armstrong.  It is being done, hopefully, to slightly unmuddy the waters.  Obviously, the bishop does not understand what the relationship has been and, consequently, the charges against Armstrong are muddled and confusing.  Given the people involved, the charges would have been muddled and confusing anyway.

PapaJ and Leonardo Ricardo, I read this as the plain sense of the text says.  (I would, wouldn’t I, being a reasserter? )  It will benefit both +Armstrong and ACI.  ACI can no longer be painted by reappraisers as the Illuminati, the Triumvirate, the Vast Anglican Right-Wing Conspiracy and the IRD!!! all rolled into one, funded by the vast reserves of funds that +Armstrong must have embezzeled from true Episcopalians. </sarcasm>  +Armstrong can prove that charges were conjured out of thin air without seeming to be “gotten off the hook” by the shadowy goons of the ACI.</sarcasm>  And you two can get a life!

This doesn’t seem to address the $170,000 that is the Grace loan to the ACI reflected in its 2007 budget.  I really don’t have a clue on what is meant here.  How can the president and its vice-president of the organization just walk away?  Don’t they have some accountability here if nothing else to their Executive Director?  What about the donors who may have contributed to the organization because they were officers and fellows?

An important clarification for a confused set of circumstances.  This is the first I have heard that AI, which pre-existed ACI, continues to exist as an incorporated entity with its own board.  Loans may well have been made to it and not to ACI which, from the sounds of it, never needed a loan, especially for that amount.  More should become available in time, including from today’s briefing by Fr. Armstrong at Grace Church.

There is an article regarding Armstrong’s+ presentation with this quote:

During his presentation to Grace congregants Saturday, Armstrong said the ACI provided scholarships and grants for continuing education for clergy, and he said the ACI was the mechanism through which the church paid for his childrens’ college educations

Goodness!  This is a real mess for ACI.

http://www.gazette.com/articles/armstrong_21250___article.html/church_grace.html

The Rt. Reverend Michael Marshall, Assistant Bishop of London, became the founding Episcopal Director of the Anglican Institute in St Louis, Missouri in 1984. The Anglican Institute was registered as a non-profit corporation with the state of Missouri in 1984, but that status has since been forfeited. [See: ]https://www.sos.mo.gov/BusinessEntity/soskb/csearch.asp.] Neither the Anglican Institute nor the Anglican Communion Institute has registered as a non-profit organization with the state of Colorado. [See: http://www.sos.state.co.us/biz/BusinessEntityCriteriaExt.do ]  Grace Church & St. Stephen’s registered as a non-profit in 1973, and the International Grace Foundation, formerly affiliated with Grace & St. Stephen’s, registered as a non-profit on May 22, 2006.

For those of us who haven’t been following the situation until now—How long is all of this expected to drag on? Is some resolution in sight?

“SEAD dissolved, but AI has (we were told) remained incorporated and functions as such, though we have no knowledge of its operations. That is a matter for its own board.”

Seitz has also claimed that AI and ACI are unrelated.

AI is listed on the ACI website. Just scroll down.
http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.org/bookorder.html

It appears, from Don’s remarks today as reported, that the Wardens, Treasurer, and Rector of Grace Church chose to use their Grace Church line-item marked “ACI” as the church account to/through which they charged scholarship funds for the Rector’s children.  This was their own decision, and—I cannot repeat this enough it seems—it is an internal Grace Church decision that has nothing to do with ACI itself or with anybody else except Grace Church.  If there are questions about this, they must be addressed to Grace Church, her vestry, her Wardens, her Treasurer, and her Rector.  They are a large organization, with the means and skills to provide the accounting expected for their own expenditures.

ACI’s work has been the the recipient of funding, from Grace Church as well as from other parish and diocesan sources, not the manager of funds.  We have no bank account that belongs to the organization.  We have always been grateful for such support.  But it is not our policy or responsibility to audit the books and finances of supporters. 

As for “scholarships and grants for continuing education”, I am unaware of any except the one noted within our announcement (which contributed to part-time sabbatical costs for me [no compensation], while writing a book in 2006, and which was arranged with Bp. O’Neill’s explicit and documented knowledge and permission), and the occasional coverage of conference registration and travel costs for clergy and individuals in need of financial assistance. 

Mention has been made of a “loan” by Grace Church to the ACI.  That, apparently, is an internal Grace Church accounting affair that refers to its own line-item.  No one else at ACI was or is aware of such a loan. It was never requested. 

C.B. and others continue to insinuate knowledge, responsibility and conspiracy in all of this on the part of myself and others, and point to the Website as a misleading and perhaps even deceptive front.  It is hard to imagine why anyone would have such inflated views about ACI’s “structual organization”.  The Board listed has been a great help in terms of counsel and direction, as noted in our announcement, but no more than that.  This is, in fact, how many academic and church “institutes” operate.  For 3 years, no one paid any attention to ACI—Website and Board notwithstanding.  If they read anything we wrote, it was via someone else’s blog, website, or email network.  Some time ago, Dylan Breuer—no friend of ACI’s by a long stretch—opined that ACI was nothing but “6 guys with a website and some spare time”.  We laughed when someone brought this to our attention, because it was pretty accurate (except for the spare time part), at least in terms of our public face and the division of labor.  If we had ever hoped to “fool” anyone, we certainly weren’t doing so.  Nor was there ever any intent to do so, in any case. 

I regret to say, to those who are looking for conspiracies, that there is only one body knowledgeable and responsible for the financial matters that are currently being discussed, and not surprisingly that is Grace Church.  I continue to pray, however, that these matters will indeed be explained and resolved in ways that bring peace and not conflict, trust and not suspicion.  Grace Church has indeed been generous to the work ACI has done in the past 3 plus years.  How they account for their generosity, however, is their own affair.  We have disengaged from the Grace-Church supported website and any other public relationship with Grace, precisely to make this clear, and to allow for the questions and explanations to be appropriately focused where they should be.

I doubt that ACI will have much more to say in this discussion, nor need we say any more.

Rev. Radner - I do not now and I never have thought there was a conspiracy at work in this matter. I have been puzzled as to how ACI could have been so unaware of the matters touched on in the Presentment.  That has been explained by yourself and Rev. Seitz.  That said, I do not believe that I have been alone in my impressions of ACI based upon its website, and other statements in the public domain concerning the orgins and purposes of ACI. May God Bless. C.B.

Don’t you just want to throw your hands up in the air?  We’re playing The Clash now over at BabyBlue.  See CB’s little note - I hear the voice of Professor Umbridge every time I read CB’s posts which continue to indicate to us that the real target is not Don Armstrong or Grace Church after all. 

It appears - especially after today - that the real target is Ephraim Radner. 

It looks to me like someone has been reading an old copy of Primary Colors.  It’s called “opposition research” and its used by political campaigns to shut down, even destroy rivals.  Guess Colorado is not so far from Washington after all.  Or New York.

bb

bb -Between you and Sarah acting as the ever vigilant hall monitors, insuring that every comment or exchanged is reframed so that every progressive is seen as an evil doer, so God forbid truth leaks out and we see that we aren’t all enemies after all, and whoops may be there is room for someone like Radner to build bridges within TEC.  No that would be too awful because then all the fun would be spoiled. It really gets tiresome.

“Primary Colors”?  In my view, it’s more like “Wag the Dog”. 

I believed the ACI website to be a valuable resource, and, if it is to be dismantled, it will surely be missed.  I for one do hope that its learned and informative men continue to write for other websites.  They are an asset to us all, and I thank them for their time, Faith, syntax, and brain cells.   

Orthodox or not, I’m honestly not very happy with Grace Church.  Time to get with the program and clarify the financial and ethical questions, without possibly using an affiliation with CANA as a dodge-and-weave. 

I too have some experience with rectors’ discretionary funds and church budgets.  We’re not talking about $20.00 that the rector may have given to some poor outreach person and then forgot to write in the register for the d.f. checkbook.  It was my understanding(and anyone correct me if I’m wrong) that the funds in question here run to HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars.  That means that something stinks at Grace Church, and frankly, if it truly doesn’t stink, then PROVE IT. 

I am very sorry that ACI has gotten caught up in this whirlwind.  In my view the gentlemen there have always done their work with integrity.  It’s my prayer that both the lay and clerical leadership at Grace Church start doing the same.

I hope that the press accounts of Armstrongs+ statement on Saturday are incorrect. As reported, he said that Grace money was earmarked as scholarships which according to the paper was discribed as “a perk.. to bring his compensation up to par with other experienced, big-church Episcopal rectors. His total compensation for 2005 to $141,573 — about $8,000 above the diocesan norm, according to Armstrong’s figures. In 2006, money earmarked for scholarships was replaced by a big raise in Armstrong’s salary.” 

Again, I hope that this statement is incorrect. I will leave it at that.

RE: “Between you and Sarah acting as the ever vigilant hall monitors, insuring that every comment or exchanged is reframed so that every . . . “

Yes . . . it must be vexing for you, CB.  ; > )

But actually . . . it is *you* who are over here most regularly doing your bit for the cause, much like a skulking hall monitor in enemy territory.  The good news is, thanks to the other two threads over here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2774/

And here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2786/#46068

Every commenter knows the background and the consistency and the purpose of the references to the ACI, Kendall Harmon, The Anglican Digest, the IRD, the AAC, the Network, the AMiA, CANA, and on and on and on.

Props to you for being open about your agenda.  But two other commenters got way overeager, and got busted big time.

PS: I said the nicest thing I possible could about you in the final comment of this thread:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2786/#46296

I was hoping you’d be touched.  ; > )

Oh for the rules of evidence!  The liberal bloggers have been overcome with the vapors.  They are about to get to the bottom of who registered the ACI domain name and have pretty much nailed the fact that some people confuse ACI with the Anglican Institute.  If someone doesn’t administer smelling salts, I’m afraid they will discover that Tanzania never happened and that Rowan Williams never appointed Ephraim Radner to the Covenant Design Group.

Anyone who has ever witnessed a young lawyer drone on for hours asking irrelevant questions will understand what I’m talking about.  Where is the judge who will tell them to get to the point or sit down and shut up?  Can we stipulate that the relationship between ACI and AI is confusing?  And that that is why Drs. Seitz, Turner and Radner took the steps they did today?  And that being confusing is not criminal, which is the sole reason Griswold is not serving consecutive life sentences at Leavenworth?

In the midst of this silliness, it is necessary to re-state the relevant facts:
1.There is not a single allegation—and I doubt that even the most avid of the conspiracy theorists in fact so much as suspects—that Drs. Seitz, Turner and Radner had anything to do with the matters raised in the Armstrong presentment or have otherwise engaged in any improper conduct.
2.Drs. Seitz, Radner, et al. have enormous influence in the Anglican Communion and this does not depend on whether ACI was formed in 2003 vs. 2004 or the details of its organization.
3.They will continue to have this influence tomorrow and the day after because they represent the mind of the communion.
4.The alternative to the approach to the communion crisis advocated by ACI is not ECUSA lives happily ever after, but CANA writ large, really large.

Drs. Seitz, Turner and Radner did the right thing; their explanation was clear and convincing; they need not say anything else.  I hope they can now get back to work.

I for one hope that Binky at anglican.tk (or some other only semi-mischievous elf)  will arrange to pull in the ACI archives and set up a new site.  The Internet has been ACI’s primary medium, and its influence throughout the Communion is a measure of the ‘Net revolution.

As to the Grace Church controversy, having lived in the world of business for 30 years, I find none of the “controversial” arrangements particularly shocking, surprising, or unusual, and knowing how academics and intellectuals generally work, I’m not surprised at ACI’s rather loose and informal organization, either.

The bishop is obviously desperate.  I’d be interested to know if there was any particularly significant event between Grace and the diocese, or between the diocese and 815, shortly before the “investigation” began a year ago…

The great blessing of this painful moment is that Grace Church and the ACI can each move forward.  By respectfully stepping out of the picture, the ACI has given the Grace Church family the space and time needed to clarify their internal affairs and to rebuild their internal relationships. 
I am grateful that the ACI will continue to work on matters related to the Anglican Communion.  They have worked tirelessly without compensation.  It is quite a tribute to their calling that they have bolstered the body of Christ far more than many institutions with big budgets.

Fr Radner says:

For 3 years, no one paid any attention to ACI—Website and Board notwithstanding.

I’m not quite sure what he is saying. I have been paying a great deal of attention to ACI, the claims of its Mission Statement and other particulars on the web pages (and reading their work) for three years.

I have until the last few days believed that what I read there was an accurate depiction of the ACI.

I find this bruhaha about who registered websites risibly irrelevant. The purpose is so clearly yet another attempt to discredit Ephraim Radner. It is the classic guilt by association move. It’s not the first time it has been tried with Dr. Radner in recent months and it surely won’t be the last.

What the folks who engage in such politicking don’t realise is that (apparently all to rarely within TEC) Dr. Radner’s only authority is not as a political operator, or leader of one interest group or another, or disposer of big budgets, but as a theologian. The only authority he has is the authority his ideas and analyses command.

What is sorely needed is a serious engagement with these ideas.

The Colorado Springs Gazette covered Armstrong’s Grace Church question and answer session yesterday morning.  According to the report, the following statement was made:

“The vote, according to Armstrong, will determine who gets the church building ........ If congregants loyal to the Episcopal Church win the vote, Armstrong hinted that a vestry member — whose Nebraska bank loaned the church nearly $2.5 million — might call the loan. “

In the light of unfolding developments, one is less interested in the question of where the $2.5 million came from, than of where it ended up.  And, in the event that the loan was secured against church property, as may be implicit in the Rev’d Mr Armstrong’s comment, what security, if any, was in fact given?  Plus, of course, did a loan of this size need, and did it receive, approval at the diocesan level?

http://www.gazette.com/articles/armstrong_21250___article.html/church_grace.html

RE: “For 3 years, no one paid any attention to ACI—Website and Board notwithstanding.”

Heh.  So true . . . just idle interest from progressive.  Until . . . The Horror!!!  Ephraim Radner is appointed to the Covenant Design Team.  Why!  A Horrible Traditionalist!!!  And smart too!!!!! Get out the sackcloth and ashes, and start gnashing the teeth!!!!!  ; > )

RE: “I have until the last few days believed that what I read there was an accurate depiction of the ACI.”

Nice to see the spokesperson for the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement over here commenting for the first time.  We’re all Very Shocked that the comment was about the ACI and Ephraim Radner! 

Here’s a great example of Martin Reynolds’ work:
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s966308.htm

Looks as if the progressives have realized that the financial stuff is not going to harm the ACI.  And the IRD stuff.  Gosh, the only thing they’re left with now is “but, but . . . we thought it was more insignificant . . . no wait, we thought it was Far More Powerful than it really was”.

But there is good news.  Every month, there’ll be something they can scrape together to go after. 

It’s just too devastating to them that Dr. Radner is on the Covenant Design Team.  Must have been a terrible shock . . .

“ACI’s work has been the the recipient of funding, from Grace Church as well as from other parish and diocesan sources, not the manager of funds.  We have no bank account that belongs to the organization.  We have always been grateful for such support…”

No bank account…

Ok, and when you got this money, Dr. Radner, what happened to it then? How was was the money conveyed and where was the money put? Are we to be left with an open opportunity to imagine briefcases full of small bills, tens and twenties? Were the bills stuffed into pockets or were they put under mattresses to be grabbed as needed? Didn’t Phil Turner, an ethicist, suggest a checking account with a register for the purpose of keeping track of the funds you (all) were given? What about your executive director, Don Armstrong?

You must excuse the curiousity of the general public, and those like myself, who were able to see the Anglican Communion Institute’s web site, and also the web site of Grace and St. Stephen’s Church. The works, patronage, directors and linkages of the institute were prominently displayed there for all to see. In fact what was shown on those web sites looked quite impressive:

THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION INSTITUTE

Collegial Theologians

President:  The Rev’d Professor Christopher Seitz
Vice President:  The Very Rev’d Dr Philip W. Turner III
Senior Fellow:  The Rev’d Dr Ephraim Radner

Fellows:

The Rev’d Dr Andrew Goddard
The Rev’d Dr Peter Walker
Executive Director:  The Rev’d Donald Armstrong III

Board Members:

The Most Rev’d Dr George Carey
The Most Rev’d Drexel Wellington Gomez
The Rt Rev’d John W. Howe
The Rt Rev’d Alpha Mohamed
The Rt Rev’d Edward L. Salmon, Jr
The Rt Rev’d James M. Stanton
The Very Rev’d Dr Paul Zahl
The Rev’d Dr George Sumner
Professor Russell Reno
Mrs Elizabeth Cooper

Then we read this in your recent announcement concerning the ACI,

“ACI is not now and was never incorporated. Its ‘board’ has been a loosely-knit network of sympathetic consultants within our work on behalf of the Communion. There was and is no budget, no compensation, and no formal structure.”

You must forgive us for having a few questions about all of this, especially since it is widely kown that Don Armstrong, listed as executive director of the institute, is facing formal charges of fraud and the illegal receipt of funds with conduct unbecoming the clergy.

SHRLB*: “Progressive Activist” [chortle]

Frankly, I don’t see why anyone cares about ACI’s involvement in Grace Church’s current situation. Regardless that I don’t agree with much of what he says/writes,  Ephraim Radner is a man of indesputable personal integrity. It’s impossible for me to believe that he ‘s involved in any financial impropriety. His very clear statement above (and several previously)  about the relationship between ACI and Grace Church should put that to rest.

I’m not concerned about Dr. Radner’s presence in the Covenant Design Group, either. His is a far more moderate voice than many others who might try to turn the covenant into something confessional and/or punitive.

Jim S

*SHRLB: Sarah Hey Required Label of Bias

Dr Radner, I now note somewhat tardily, says he received money -

which contributed to part-time sabbatical costs for me

Presumably from those with access to the cheque books at Grace Church?
Is Dr Radner now saying that he has received money from an account designated “Anglican Communion Institute” and so had knowledge that such an account existed in the name of their collaborative venture?
Or did this money come from another source?

A report in yesterday’s Denver Post indicates that Armstrong stated “that O’Neill has set up a “kangaroo court” to go after him, and that what O’Neill really wants is to sell the church building to developers.”

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_5670092

It doesn’t seem likely that the progressive activists are going to let Ephraim Radner and ACI out of their sight.  The attention, the energy, the amount of time spent posting here at SF or at T19 by Professor Umbridge and the others is all directed toward calling into question the integrity of Ephraim Radner. 

Think about how much he has now associated with all the major defeats of the Episcopal Church elite leadership: The Convenant Design, the Windsor Bishops meetings at Camp Allen, meeting with the House of Bishops at Camp Allen, and tons and tons of excellent theological material that shows that The Episcopal Crisis (TEC) is a theological crisis after all.  You bet TEC leaders are spitting mad.  They trolled for a year to find something on ACI and then timed the “presentment” at the best opportune time (after the House of Bishops meeting in March when things went south with the Communion).  Only it seems the Vestry of Grace Church found out and moved faster then they did - and now all hell has broken lose.  Pretty isn’t it?

My guess is that very few people had ever even heard of Don Armstrong before all this started - but most Episcopalian/Anglican leaders and activists and theologians around the world know who Ephraim Radner is and what he and the ACI have been doing in this present crisis.  With Diane Knippers no longer around to be the usual target, someone else must be scapegoated, someone else must be blamed for the huge mess that The Episcopal Church has gotten itself into and it has to be done before September 30.

When you see stuff like this, you start to think that those Rumors of RICO floating around the internet may be serious rumors after all.  If TEC were a country, it might be time to call Amnesty International.

bb

As a Christian lawyer I have to wonder if it is wise for the principals in these matters to allow themselves to be engaged in cross-examination and discovery by Blog.  There appear to be a number of recently arrived characters using legal lingo and with a satchell full of briefs and tidbits engaging in what looks like a fishing expedition.  It will be interesting to see if they appear over the weekend or whether they will wait until they are back behind their desks at their firms on Monday morning.

Blogs have ears!

A few questions for Robert and Martin Reynolds:

Where do you get your money?
Do you have a joint account?
Did you file a Form 4268?
Do you like broccoli?
Starch or no starch?
What is the capitol of South Dakota?

Questions, questions.  There is no end to the questions. And if you ever think of anything relevant, please be sure to post it.

As to the wisdom of comments from Radner and Seitz.  I practiced law for many years in New York, Washington and Paris, specializing in international litigation.  I have taken depositions, defended depositions and been deposed myself.  I have had witnesses who have been tortured, witnesses who were generals, witnesses who were the highest officers of global corporations.  I have drafted countless affidavits and prepared more expert testimony than I care to remember.  I could not have prepared a better statement than Dr. Radner’s comment above if I had had a week to polish it.  My only concern about Dr. Radner is that he will be distracted from his important work.

Statement agreed
Point was really directed to background “chatter” I have read here and elsewhere in the last few days.
Mr McCall you seem to have a pretty impressive pedigree.

There seems to be some speculation as to why all this interest now in ACI, and positing that it has to do with discrediting Rev. Radner.  In the last couple of months the Primates have issued a communique and the HoBs have issued an initial statement in response. The entire AC including TEC is functioning in a crisis mode, with an established deadline.  These developments tend to focus attention in new and acute ways. Sarah has already stated that the next few months will be particularly difficult for all who have and are playing a role in this matter. So, why not just recognize that and move on to dealing with the times as they are. It absolutely is crunch time, and nothing and no one is going to be given a pass. The question is who and what is going to be left standing when its all over.

I, for one, have no particular interest in Rev. Radner. He has been a moderate. I reserve my interest for CANA, and Minns and Akinola, and suggest that had they not entered into this matter, the trials and tribulations of Grace Church and Rev. Armstrong would have not drawn the focus and ire of so many. The spill off of that is that ACI and its fellows get to share the microscope.

C.B.  Actually the rest of the Communion is getting on with what it is meant to be doing.  The crisis is focused in one or two provinces.

It is the personalisation of issues and the attacks on individuals and congregations that has woken up and angered many within the AC (and appalled those outside it) and one of the bye-products of that has been the interventions.
No-one underestimates the strength of feeling on all sides but attacks on individuals do backfire and remove sympathy for the merits of the arguments.  I see little of Christ in all this and it gives a terrible example to those outside of Angicanism looking in.
Giving “passes” to one’s opponents and engaging them in their arguments may be a more Christian approach.

God Bless

RE: “You must excuse the curiousity of the general public, and those like myself. . . “

LOL.  You mean, the rage of the revisionist Anglican public, of course.  ; > )

So far, we have Martin Reynolds, CB, EmilyH, and various other progressive activists who are Just Terribly Terribly Interested in the ACI all of a sudden. 

RE: “The works, patronage, directors and linkages of the institute were prominently displayed there for all to see. In fact what was shown on those web sites looked quite impressive . . . “

Actually it is *still* quite impressive—for orthodox Anglicans, that is and apparently for bitter, angry revisionists too, only for different reasons.

Let’s take the board members, for instance, who according to Ephraim Radner provided valuable consultation, editing, and revisions.

Let’s repeat those board members right here, as it’s such a nice list:

Board Members:

The Most Rev’d Dr George Carey
The Most Rev’d Drexel Wellington Gomez
The Rt Rev’d John W. Howe
The Rt Rev’d Alpha Mohamed
The Rt Rev’d Edward L. Salmon, Jr
The Rt Rev’d James M. Stanton
The Very Rev’d Dr Paul Zahl
The Rev’d Dr George Sumner
Professor Russell Reno
Mrs Elizabeth Cooper

A lovely list.

I like it very much.

But I can kind of see why revisionists would be quite vexed over such a list.  ; > )

Anyone seen this post over at Sarah Laughed? I have no idea where that blog stands on the Anglican political spectrum, nor do I express any opinion about what it does or does not demonstrate.

regards,

JPB

I reserve my interest for CANA, and Minns and Akinola, and suggest that had they not entered into this matter, the trials and tribulations of Grace Church and Rev. Armstrong would have not drawn the focus and ire of so many.

CB, I think you persistently deny first causes. The troubles in TEC have NOT been caused by CANA, Minns and Akinola - their involvement in TEC arises from the troubles in the church, problems which are repeatedly denied by TEC, problems which the leadership apparently has only one answer - coercion and force. That reasserters find themselves being squeezed out of their own churches by people who often appear to be barely Christian - THAT is what has led us to this point. You don’t seem to be very concerne about that. But few revisionists are.

Fascinating post by Sarah Dylan Breuer, a former writer for The Witness.  Makes the case that it’s Ephraim Radner and the ACI that is the real target after all.  Very interesting indeed ...

TEC is looking more and more like this every day.

bb

“A lovely list.

I like it very much.

But I can kind of see why revisionists would be quite vexed over such a list.  ; > )”

Oh, Sarah, for them it’s a “hit list”.

‘I reserve my interest for CANA, and Minns and Akinola, and suggest that had they not entered into this matter, the trials and tribulations of Grace Church and Rev. Armstrong would have not drawn the focus and ire of so many.’

Thank you, CB, for admitting what is really at stake here, not concern for the correction of potential wrongdoing (a legitimate concern) but concern over the creeping reassertion of an orthodox Anglican presence in the United States.

No Timothy, rather it speaks volumes about their priorities and judgment to have entered so quickly into the fray of Rev. Armstrong’s train wreck.  After all, these are the leaders of the new Anglican Province in North America.

Bingo, Timothy.  This is looking like a real case of retribution and revenge.  No wonder we’ve been reading Joseph Brodsky over at the cafe lately.  More to come.

bb

C.B., the leaders of CANA aren’t in this business for Father Armstrong any more than any other individual.  The are doing this at great sacrifice to preach the Gospel of Christ Crucified.  The easiest thing for the leaders of Truro, Falls Church, et al would have been to do as you are doing, support the status quo within TEC.  But they found that to be inconsistent with their greater call.  In doing so, they have willingly walked into the Lions Den.

As my earlier posts demonstrate, I am not sympathetic to those that wish to gloss over obvious accounting problems, and know that believers are required to meet a much higher standard in terms of financial integrity.  I am confident that there will ultimately be a full accounting, and likely apology for mistakes made, none of which from public accounts justify the Grassy Knoll Conspiracy that you and others advance.  But even if everything you suggest or imply is true, the parishioners at these fine churches would still have to wrestle with whether they can remain faithful and obedient to Jesus Christ while serving in the Diocese of Colorado in The Episcopal Church.  An increasing number of Episcopaleons, including the fastest growing and most vibrant parishes in the denomination, have found that they cannot.  In none of these other parishes is there a whiff of financial impropriety. 

Ask yourself, why are they leaving?  What would motivate regular churchgoers to give up, or risk giving up, their material assets and, relationships in order to worship in a new association of churches with an uncertain future? 

It is this movement that TEC can’t control, which is why the controversy has moved to the first page.

RE: “You must excuse the curiousity of the general public, and those like myself. . . “

LOL.  You mean, the rage of the revisionist Anglican public, of course…

No I did not mean
“the rage of the revisionist Anglican public,...”

at all. I specifically said “the general public.” It is quite unfair, not to say disingenuous, Sarah, for you to take my explicit words and tell ME what I mean by them for the benefit of readers here.

RE: “The works, patronage, directors and linkages of the institute were prominently displayed there for all to see. In fact what was shown on those web sites looked quite impressive . . . “

Actually it is *still* quite impressive—for orthodox Anglicans, that is and apparently for bitter, angry revisionists too, only for different reasons.

Again Sarah, you mis-characterize my own words and intent of them. I can only speak for myself, but I am not personally am one of the

“bitter, angry revisionists…

you conjure at all, and certainly not about these Colorado Springs issues. 

Also, my point was not the fact that well known public figures were listed a board of directors, “fellows” and an executive director for the Anglican Communion Institute, and perhaps I was not clear about that. My point is that the general public could only conclude from the web sites in question that some structure of considerable weight and responsibility - not to say probity or authority - existed with the ACI. Any reasonable person looking at the web sites would conclude that. Now Radner, Seitz and Turner come along an say that wasn’t so, despite what was published. Most organizations which announce and display a board of directors,  “fellows” and an executive director, would at least have a simple checking account. THAT is my point.

Let’s repeat those board members right here, as it’s such a nice list:
A lovely list.

I like it very much.

But I can kind of see why revisionists would be quite vexed over such a list.

Speaking for myself, I was not

“vexed”

by the names of the people listed as the ACI board of directors. However I would not at all be surprised if more than one of those listed was vexed, as you put it, by the untoward publicity coming from Colorado Springs with which their names might be associated.

Could it be that the “no-whining, no-freakout” rule applies only to “revisionists”?

RE: “I specifically said “the general public.” It is quite unfair, not to say disingenuous, Sarah, for you to take my explicit words and tell ME what I mean by them for the benefit of readers here.”

Hi Robert.

It is not at all “unfair” for me to state my opinion about your explicit words—and that is what I did. 

In fact, the only part of the “general public” that has expressed such Deep and Abiding Concern about the ACI line item at Grace Church is . . . [drum roll] CB, JRSFTC, Robert, LapinBizarre and EmilyH—all revisionists who sound awfully angry at times.

RE: “My point is that the general public could only conclude from the web sites in question that some structure of considerable weight and responsibility - not to say probity or authority - existed with the ACI. Any reasonable person looking at the web sites would conclude that. Now Radner, Seitz and Turner come along an say that wasn’t so, despite what was published.”

Now here’s just what I mean.  You accuse Radner, Seitz and Turner of stating that “some structure of considerable weight and responsibility - not to say probity or authority” actually did NOT exist for the ACI.  But they did not state that at all. They stated that they did not have a checking account—but the Board of Directors exists and it is only revisionists like yourself that wildly state that the ACI is NOT “some structure of considerable weight and responsibility” with “probity” and “authority” and then accusingly point to their excellent list of board of directors. 

But then . . . the ACI for revisionists never was a “structure of considerable weight and responsibility” with “probity” and “authority” and all of us on this thread know just why that is.
; > )

No, you’re trying to claim that somehow having a great board of directors, but not having a checking account, makes the ACI pretend to be something that it is not. 

But in reality, you’re just fishing trying to come up with something bad about the ACI, now that it appears that the mention of the Grace Church line item in the presentment won’t work . . . now that the whole IRD board member thing was met with a big yawn . . . all you’ve got is “but, but . . . we thought . . . they acted like they were a big powerful money-filled conspiratorial organization . . . or at least . . . that’s what we accused them of anyway . . . ”

RE: “But I am not personally am one of the “bitter, angry revisionists…”

Of course not, Robert:

“Excuse me folks and Sarah Hey, but this piece is muckraking in its lowest form.

1. The Episcopal Retreat Center seems to be largely interested in presenting workshops on eastern religion, with a thin and obscuring glaze of Christianity baked on… Not true. See The Episcopal House of Prayer web site:

http://www.ehouseofprayer.org/

2. It chooses as a key presenter a person who is heavily and intensely involved with gnostic spirituality and a presenter at a gay activist organization… So what? Big deal…to YOU. It’s a sin to talk to gay people?

3. He is also a convicted sexual offender… Muckraking! By your own admission all those in authority, religious and secular, were made aware of the facts about Lynn Bauman. There was no involvement of minors at these events at The House of Prayer. Bauman served his sentence, was removed from the ministry and has had a clean record for over ten years.

4. Is anyone concerned about the non-Christian and rather unbalanced teaching that is going on at the retreat center? I guess not. Why do you call this “Non-Christian?” What’s wrong with these titles from Praxis?

* A Handbook to Practical Wisdom: A Study Guide

* A Short Course on Wisdom

* Ancient Songs Sung Anew: The Psalms as Poetry

* The Anglican Rosary

* The Book of Prayers

* Foundations of Christian Spirituality - The Biblical Tradition:  Revised Edition with Study Guide

* Living the Presence: A Manual for Contemplative Christian Practice

Gnostic?? Since when is contemplative prayer Gnostic? In your imagination…

It’s not so much SNAP that has The House of Prayer in its sights, as it’s Sarah Hey and her “traditionalist” companions here going after a good work of the Minnesota diocese by furthering the use of character assasination.

Shame!

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2054/#30262

You’re actually a joy-filled revisionist who really loves all reasserters . . . in your Own Special Way.

On the other hand, SNAP is in the business of muckraking by its own charter and self definition. What SNAP turns up may not be very pleasant, but someone has to do it, as they say. The problem comes when such good works become partisan and driven by ideology. In other words, there is an ax to grind. That’s when muckraking ceases to have any virtue connected to it.

I would say, Sarah, that you do have an ax to grind, and its obvious to all that you are grinding away with The Episcopal Church in mind. Just look at this Stand Firm web site for Pete’s sake! To answer your question, I think you are guilty of muckraking, editorializing, over reaching without evidence, furthering general hysteria and calculating incitment to riot - all with the highest partisan motives.

If anything, what you have done is worse than SNAP muckraking, for which they are notorious. The newspapers are merely reporting. It was not my intention to call you on that so severely, but I’m going for that opportunity since you asked my opinion.

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2054/#30289

Not an angry or bitter bone in your body:

“While we are on the subject of pronunciation and, more to the point, StandFirm’s reportage on Tanzania with the Rev. Mr. Kennedy; perhaps a couple of pronunciation pointers are in order for him:

1. The word schism is properly sounded as SIZZ-UM, and not SKIZ-UM.

2. The name Akinola , as far as I know, is pronounced AK-IN-OLAH, and not AKY-OLAH. Someone please correct me if I am wrong about that pronunciation, but Kennedy is the first one that I have heard use AKY-OLAH.

Mr. Kennedy does a good job with print coverage, but his presence before the camera is compromized by his - what shall we call it? - youthful enthusiasm? Further, Kennedy was obviously scripted to come on as a anchor/reporter. At the end of the clip he begins to editorialize in a most unseemly, Evangelical way. That switch cuts into his on-screen credibility and the unbiased credibility of further reports.

This is not nit-picking because credibility before the public is very important. A calm and smooth, non-anxious presentation before the camera must be coupled with a script that is reasearched, thoughtful and believable - unless one is concerned with mere preaching to the choir. What Mr. Kennedy said about the primates potential to discipline The Episcopal church is a case in point. The primates meeting has no mandate and no canonical mechanism at its disposal to discipline an independent, constituent member church of the Anglican Communion. There is inference in Kennedy’s report that such a thing is a canonical possiblity.

Kennedy’s report makes not the slightest mention of the fact primates meet in camera and are effectively sequestered for the duration. A statement or statements are issued to the public following the meeting. There is a photo op. There surely will be high profile press conferences following this one at some stage of the game. However, Huffing and Puffing and Blow Your House Down is not a substitute for study, listening, prayer and reflection, the cooperative and collegial purpose of any primates’ meeting. In any event, what we will be observing is not to be likened to The Episcopal Church before the bar in the US Supreme Court. Kennedy utterly fails to get that point across to his listeners. It is plain to see that Kennedy, like others in his camp, wishes it were otherwise. It ain’t.

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2069/#30485

And certainly you are not a “revisionist” . . . ; > )

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

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

What…?

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

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

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

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

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

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

and from Greg and others the use of the words

”...heresy…

‘...apostate TEC…

‘...untruthful Rowan Williams…

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

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

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2232/#32697

Why anyone would ever think you angry or bitter or a revisionist I have no idea!

And certainly you have only commented at StandFirm only after the “recent change of management”.

; > )

RE: “Could it be that the “no-whining, no-freakout” rule applies only to “revisionists”?”

If only the rule applied to revisionists at all. 

But obviously, judging by the comments on the GraceChurch threads, it does not.

My, my, such attention you give me Sarah! What does all this stuff you post about me have to do with the topic here? At the top of this page it says

Announcement Concerning the ACI (the ACI ends relationship with Grace Church and Fr. Armstrong)

Surely you are

1. Over reacting to what I posted, and

2. Off topic.

Call me any name you like, Sarah. You seem to have a facility for sensing and projecting such things onto me…erm…and others. However, the topic here is the Anglican Communion Institute. Perhaps if I go away you can get back to defending that with your assigned resposibilities of labeling others and playing hall monitor.

RE: “My, my, such attention you give me Sarah! What does all this stuff you post about me have to do with the topic here?”

Merely responding to your assertions, Robert, which were this:
“My point is that the general public could only conclude from the web sites in question that some structure of considerable weight and responsibility - not to say probity or authority - existed with the ACI. Any reasonable person looking at the web sites would conclude that. Now Radner, Seitz and Turner come along an say that wasn’t so, despite what was published.”

And this: “But I am not personally am one of the “bitter, angry revisionists…”

I responded to those assertions with illustrated and quoted facts and I think the falseness of both assertions has been demonstrated pretty thoroughly now.

Or . . . did you just hope that you could say things without any contradiction or response?

RE: “Call me any name you like, Sarah.”

No—just the ones that apply and are copiously proven—like “revisionist”.

RE: “Perhaps if I go away . . . “

That seems unlikely, since you have threatened to at other times. . . but we all await your imminent departure [again] with bated breath.  I somehow doubt it will be for long, however, and will leave it to the readers of this blog to wonder why that would be.
; > )

RE: ” . . . you can get back to defending that with your assigned resposibilities of labeling others and playing hall monitor.”

LOL—nope.  If *you* went away [again, unlikely it seems] I’ll just continue responding to all the other incorrect assertions from your allies.

You see, Robert, over here, we do very little comment moderation or deletion of, uh, those with whom we ardently disagree.

We’re pretty confident that we merely need to point out facts in response, because revisionist assertions have so little to stand upon.  We positively relish revisionists coming over here and inserting their comments.

Our confidence in the face of comments by revisionists means two things.  1) We respond to revisionists and 2) we don’t have the need to protect ourselves by . . . shall we say . . . the methods of certain other revisionist websites that simply do not post informed comments by traditional Episcopalians.

No . . . you feel free to come on back here—you know, after the new management and all—and post here any time, Robert. 

We’ll be waiting.  . . . With bells on.

Breaking news:
- Bill Clinton only served enough food at holiday soup kitchen for photo opp.
- George Bush did not actually cook the turkey he served to US troops.
- Susan Sarandon did not stay for the whole Olympics after carrying the flag in Torino.

Sheesh people, famous folks ‘lend their name’ to organizations and causes they support all the time.  Where is the conspiracy?  Oh, maybe there isn’t one.

Most of what I see in this is a lot of blindfolded folks (me included) talking about the part of the elephant they are closest to.

So, what if the ACI was incorporated, held regular board meetings, had coversations with other like-minded organizations, accepted donations from well-heeled donors?  Who would feel better? 

As with the recent document from Canadian scholars, I think we should hope for as much thoughtful scholarship as possible on the matters before the Communion from all sides of the issue.

Peace to ALL seeking to discern God’s will,

Prophecy:  If TEC were to be shown the door from the AC (and I still have my doubts)  ECUSA would rejoice and proclaim and have on their website that they “are the only true US Anglican representative of the Anglican Communion and in fellowship with the ABC.”  And I doubt the public would know the difference and the AC would do nothing.  I don’t know why every church doesn’t make the same claim.  You could even design a good houskeeping seal that says so and use it regularly.  Come to think of it I may get the NASCAR Provence and the Dixie Diocese to do that.  Now if I can get some of those costumes…...Armstrong+ and co. should have just changed the sign in front of the building and gone on with nothing said.  Maybe the secular courts are the place to sort this all out.  Too bad.

This statement appeared today at Titus onenine:

“Armstrong said in an e-mail Monday that his ACI colleagues’ break was a surprise. “I have worked side by side with these men for several years,” he wrote. “But essentially ACI’s work is done. Their mission is no longer valid as the Episcopal Church enters its last days, and their house of cards comes tumbling down.”

It would appear that Armstrong+ no longer sees the work of the ACI (assuming because it is from within TEC) as valid because TEC is not valid?