Total visitors right now: 89

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Just a Little Reminder: What Our Presiding Bishop Said about SC’s Bishop Election

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 • 2:52 pm


“In the past, when consents to episcopal elections have been so closely contested, the diocese has been diligent in seeking to have canonically adequate ballots submitted, asking Standing Committees to resubmit their ballots when necessary,” she added. “It is certainly my hope that in future any diocese seeking consent to an election will use all possible effort to ensure that ballots are received in an appropriate form and in a timely manner.”

Let me just repeat a line.

“It is certainly my hope that in future any diocese seeking consent to an election will use all possible effort to ensure that ballots are received in an appropriate form and in a timely manner.”

“. . . in an appropriate form and in a timely manner.”

The truth is, that apparently some of the consents to the election of the bishop of South Carolina were in blatant violation of the canons, and thus invalid. . . . And—if we are to slowly believe the news that Virginia sent out the non-canonical wording on their consent form—apparently all of the consents to the election of the bishop of Virginia were in blatant violation of the canons and thus invalid.

Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori chose not to invalidate the election of the bishop of Virginia, despite the blatant violation of the canons.

And Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori chose to invalidate the election of the bishop of South Carolina, based on the blatant violation of the canons.


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

There’s been so much of this picking and choosing by TEC, from Scriptures, to Canons, to darn near everything else, that I find myself unable to get terribly upset about this, other than for what has been perpetrated on ++Mark Lawrence and South Carolina.  The only constant with TEC is their inconsistency.  There is no surprise to any perfidy perpetrated by TEC in its pursuit of power and control.  None.  I feel more weary and saddened that any organization claiming to be Christian can be so little “of Christ” and so relentlessly, endlessly so in virtually every aspect of its existence.

[1] Posted by Horseman on 07-24-2007 at 03:10 PM • top

I’m dense.  What exactly are you saying about the beloved PB KJS, Sarah?  wink

[2] Posted by Truth Unites... and Divides on 07-24-2007 at 03:11 PM • top

A question: are we to assume that the PB actually goes over the actual consent forms herself, making sure that they are within the canonical limits? Isn’t it possible that this is handled at a lower level, and that she counts on advisors to tell her if something is wrong with the consents?

And again, if there truly are 80 or so other elections in which faulty consents have been used, the blame doesn’t fall solely with 815. Somebody on some Standing Committee should have raised the alarm before now. Is everybody - on all sides - just going through the motions?

[3] Posted by BillyD on 07-24-2007 at 03:11 PM • top

P.S.  Are you trying to instigate something Sarah by posting this reminder of PB KJS’s written words from before?  Tsk, tsk…  rolleyes

[4] Posted by Truth Unites... and Divides on 07-24-2007 at 03:13 PM • top

And the silence from 815 continues to be deafening.

the snarkster

[5] Posted by the snarkster on 07-24-2007 at 03:13 PM • top

I tend to view modern ECUSA communications as very postmodern and deconstructionist.  That is, in the view of deconstructionists such as Derrida and Foucault, words can have no fixed meaning.  The logos is gone from all speech, and our words do not signify an external reality.

For that reason, a deconstructionist professor could use Shakespeare to talk about Marxism, or baseball.  Language is merely a shifting set of symbols without external references, which we can use freely to accomplish ulterior objectives.  The end objective (or rather, subjective preference) is what counts, because words themselves are fluid and are not tied to an objective external reality about which two people can communicate meaningfully.  Symbols are simply tools, used for power.

Apply this methodology to the current Anglican conflict and a liberal churchman can decry conservatives for being old-fashioned, narrow, and provincial.  Then, an opponent of our Global South brethren can recast his opposition as good, old-fashioned American nativism (“we’re not going to let Great Britain tell us what to do” [if it looks like Canterbury is swinging toward the Global South], or
“non-Americans just can’t understand what we are about.”)

The same person can talk high church about the catholicity and the necessity to be obedient to the hierarchy, on disputes within ECUSA, but then talk about freedom from oppression and the value of individual protestantism when discussing the worldwide Anglican communion.

Then, of course, there is the odd disparity between the treatment of canonical consents in Virginia and South Carolina.

I notice a real divergence between official ECUSA statements now and statements 20 years ago.  The difference is that liberals in the past argued within a framework that was more internally consistent.  One might agree or disagree, but it was based on references to external reality.

Now, many of the statements being issued sound like shifting statements, made ad hoc as circumstances arise with only the end objective as the goal.  The words being used are just the manipulation of symbols. 

It is a different, post-modern way of thinking.

Hmmm…..
—John Clay

[6] Posted by John Clay on 07-24-2007 at 03:13 PM • top

While there seems to have been an apparent unfairness here, and I certainly think it needs to be brought to light, I still believe where we need to continue to focus our criticism (constructively, of course!) is on the presiding bishop’s blatant heresy. The kind of behavior cited above, like the outrageous legal attacks over parochial properties, is just another tactic in our worthy opponents’ struggle to strengthen their stranglehold on the church and stifle all opposition. Far more dangerous, in my opinion, are the lies they promote as acceptable Christian teachings.

[7] Posted by notworthyofthename on 07-24-2007 at 03:15 PM • top

Thanks John Clay for the fine essay.  As someone who’s read of postmodernism, deconstructionism (in literary theory), revisionism (in history), relativism, power politics, etc…, I fully agree with your analysis.

Now it’s time for those who hold firmly to historical and biblical Christianity to purify the Church of such spiritually harmful impurities which destroy the Body from within.

[8] Posted by Truth Unites... and Divides on 07-24-2007 at 03:19 PM • top

NONONONONO! Your all just don’t understand.  She is being very consistant.  Anyone who is a Bible believer is out, anyone who totes the revisionst line is in.  What are friends for?  It’s her club anyway.

[9] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 07-24-2007 at 03:20 PM • top

I still believe where we need to continue to focus our criticism (constructively, of course!) is on the presiding bishop’s blatant heresy. The kind of behavior cited above, like the outrageous legal attacks over parochial properties, is just another tactic in our worthy opponents’ struggle to strengthen their stranglehold on the church and stifle all opposition. Far more dangerous, in my opinion, are the lies they promote as acceptable Christian teachings.

So Notworthyofthename, what do you think of the following (which I’m cross-posting): 

Goodness Gracious!  When I read such astute comments as above, I can’t help but recall the pharisees in the New Testament with their equivalent and analogous usage of pharasaical canons and canonical instructions used to judge people and circumstances.

815, TEC, PB KJS, Beers, liberal revisionist bishops and leaders… they are the most amazing and unique atheological mix I have ever had the horror of seeingThey combine legalistic pharasaicalism and unrepentant heresy into a poison potion of an unprecedented acidic magnitude! 

My heartfelt sympathies for any reasserter, any moderate, and any reappraiser who drinks this foul Kool-Aid.

[10] Posted by Truth Unites... and Divides on 07-24-2007 at 03:25 PM • top

I still believe where we need to continue to focus our criticism (constructively, of course!) is on the presiding bishop’s blatant heresy.

I think John Clay argues convincingly that there is an inherent connection between the arbitrary behavior and the nature of the heresy.

[11] Posted by William Witt on 07-24-2007 at 03:25 PM • top

Here’s additional fodder from TLC article:
“the Rt. Rev. F. Clayton Matthews, Bishop for the Presiding Bishop’s Office of Pastoral Development, cautioned the diocese about the language in its consent request. Fr. Sanderson said that Bishop Matthews considered the matter important enough that he delayed giving approval for South Carolina to send out its consent requests until he had personally sent the canonically correct language to Fr. Sanderson, who said he cut and pasted the relevant portion of Bishop Matthew’s email message directly into the South Carolina standing committee consent request letter.”
I would suspect that Fr. Sanderson has a copy of the letter (from which he cut and pasted) and could share bishop Matthew’s cautionary instructions on this blog?  This would be very instructive.  And again, since our polity is unique among churches in the Anglican Communion, and since only GC can decide matters for the entire US province it would be instructive to know which GC passed an amendment to the canon authorizing a new, ‘shortened’ version of the consent.

[12] Posted by anglicanhopeful on 07-24-2007 at 03:27 PM • top

Sarah,
As much as this bothers me, it is business as usual.  What bothers me more, actually, than the outcome of the Johnson election is that apparently this has been going on for years because not one of the diocesan committees KNEW what the canon said.  And if I understand correctly from the article over on BabyBlue’s site, 815 actually held up approval of the SC ballot because the wording was wrong, but let VA’s go out uneditted. 

But this is a minor symptom of the “canonical disease.”  The thread on T19 about the promoting of Communion without Baptism by Seabury Western is much more frightening to me.  This goes far beyond the “legal technicality” kind of problem presented in the bishops’ elections and is striking at the very soul of Catholic Christianity.  If you can outright violate canon law on Holy Communion (a canon that goes back to 325 AD or earlier) IN A SEMINARY, with the full support of the powers-that-be, what possible difference does the wording on a ballot make?  I guess Communion without Baptism must seem an “exciting interfaith opportunity” now that Islamopalianism is off the table for at least a year.
  Sorry, I know I went off topic.  Pity that there is no chance of having every bishop who has bad ballots recalled.  Although one is tempted to look into whether the correct ballot was used in Pennsylvania- I’d be willing to bet the standing committee there would not re-nominate the same guy.

TJ

[13] Posted by tjmcmahon on 07-24-2007 at 03:34 PM • top

William Witt:
I think you are probably right abou tthe inherent connection. Once you have begun to believe and promulgate the death-dealing lies of heresy, canonical unfairness must seem a mere pecadillo. Yet I still think the major battle where we ought to be concentrating our efforts is the former. To back off from an unfair interpretation of canon law is one thing, but imagine if KJR and her lot were to repent of their apostasy and turn to Jesus as the Way, the Truth, and the Life, their only Lord and Savior!

[14] Posted by notworthyofthename on 07-24-2007 at 03:36 PM • top

Hmmm, you think there is a connection with wishy-washy “truths” and relativistic morality ... hmmmm cool hmm

[15] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 07-24-2007 at 03:36 PM • top

Well shortly the ABC will be lucky enough to have the polity of TEC explained to him.

[16] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 07-24-2007 at 03:41 PM • top

Prophet Micaiah writes: <blockquote> NONONONONO! Your all just don’t understand.  She is being very consistent.<blockquote>
Yes, PB KJS is being very consistent.  Likewise, it will be interesting to see if DioSC and its standing committee will be consistent too in acknowledging that they were responsible in large part for why their bishop-elect Mark Lawrence did not obtain sufficient numbers of canonically valid consents.  DioSC absorbed major responsibility before, why not be consistent now in continuing to shoulder that responsibility?

[17] Posted by Truth Unites... and Divides on 07-24-2007 at 03:47 PM • top

Consistent in furthering the political agenda by favoring allies and blocking opponents?

[18] Posted by Deja Vu on 07-24-2007 at 03:52 PM • top

(Formatting properly.)  Prophet Micaiah writes:

NONONONONO! Your all just don’t understand.  She is being very consistent.

Yes, PB KJS is being very consistent.  Likewise, it will be interesting to see if DioSC and its standing committee will be consistent too in acknowledging that they were responsible in large part for why their bishop-elect Mark Lawrence did not obtain sufficient numbers of canonically valid consents.  DioSC accepted major responsibility before, so why not be consistent in continuing to accept that responsibility now?

[19] Posted by Truth Unites... and Divides on 07-24-2007 at 04:00 PM • top

TJ, I sometimes get frustrated if a thread goes way off topic.  Let me just say that I think you’re exactly ON topic in mentioning this canonical violation in the context of the other even more obvious and more blatant violations such as allowing CWOB openly at Seabury Western.  It’s all part of the same situation.

[20] Posted by The_Elves on 07-24-2007 at 04:09 PM • top

oops.  I was writing the above PURELY in a pesonal capacity, just my own personal opinion.  Not in any official capacity as an “elf” lest any of my SF friends be hankering for barbeque!  wink

[21] Posted by The_Elves on 07-24-2007 at 04:10 PM • top

Are we really in shock and awe? If a particular group is able to re-write scripture and ignore the rest of the world’s warnings about their transgressions, do you really think something as small as an election would present any type of obstacle to their goals?

[22] Posted by Laytone on 07-24-2007 at 04:18 PM • top

I was going to comment on “worthy opponents” when I re-read the posting rules and realized I have nothing to say. angry
But you get the idea. blank stare

[23] Posted by Elizabeth on 07-24-2007 at 04:20 PM • top

Elves having an ‘Official’ and a ‘Personal’ capacity?  Can this be a first sign of the onset of madness?  Are the elves working too hard?

[24] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 07-24-2007 at 04:23 PM • top

I’m no expert on either the 39 Articles or TEC’s Constitution and Canons.  But I’m pretty sure that neither contains an enforceable regulation that what is sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander. 

However, the Supreme Court of the United States seems to set great store by estoppel-type principles, so maybe if someone sued ...

[25] Posted by Dhimmi on 07-24-2007 at 04:23 PM • top

For all the orthodox parishes who’ve hired attorneys to defend their property against the unlawful theft by theological and canonical revisionists, do you think this revelation of 815 inconsistency will be of assistance to them as they defend the parish from being taken by the diocese and 815?

[26] Posted by Truth Unites... and Divides on 07-24-2007 at 04:27 PM • top

“Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori chose not to invalidate the election of the bishop of Virginia, despite the blatant violation of the canons. And Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori chose to invalidate the election of the bishop of South Carolina, based on the blatant violation of the canons.”

I agree about the apparent inconsistency in the standard applied. I don’t agree about “blatant.” That word means “completely obvious, conspicuous, or obtrusive especially in a crass or offensive manner.” http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/blatant Some of the defects alleged in the South Carolina consents sound quite technical, all the more so if ECUSA had not been similarly exacting during the years preceding Fr. Lawrence’s election.

[27] Posted by Irenaeus on 07-24-2007 at 04:47 PM • top

The Presiding Bishop, and her staff at 815, are merely behaving the same as secular government officials who use their control of the administration to advance their ends. So for Bp. Lawrence to be approved, the curia at 815 will apply the most exacting, literal, restrictive interpretations of the canons in order to prevent his election on procedural grounds. This posture enables the Presiding Bishop to shift the blame for the debacle to the South Carolina Standing Committee and pretend that 815 is being impartial. We all know that such spin is hogwash.

The truth of the double standard is proven by 815’s reaction when a politically correct candidate is elected, such as Bp. Johnston. Canons? Shmanons! They’re more like guidelines anyway…

What is most disheartening about this is actually not the Presiding Bishop’s hypocrisy but what we can infer about her real attitude toward reasserters based on her conduct. She is acting as if she will never have to work with or get along with us again. That is both short sighted and hostile. It is not even necessary; she, and her “amen corner” among the left, are doing this gratuitously, because they can. This is not wise leadership.

[28] Posted by Publius on 07-24-2007 at 04:48 PM • top

Dhimmi: No doubt ECUSA’s Constitutions and Canons make no mention of sauce, goose, or gander. But they do reflect safeguards designed to maintain the ecclesiatical equivalent of the rule of law. Having one set of rules for the orthodox and another for one’s revisionist cronies dishonors those safeguards and evinces a hypocrisy inimical to Christian faith.

[29] Posted by Irenaeus on 07-24-2007 at 04:56 PM • top

For the life of me I can not figure out why South Carolina has gone through all the trouble they have.  They should simply pay the way for a dozen or so Primates to come to Chareston and consecrate Fr. Lawrence ass thei new bishop and be done with it!  And then tell 815 to just suck it up if they are having problems with their choice.  Enough of this insanity is enough!

[30] Posted by David+ on 07-24-2007 at 05:06 PM • top

It would be helpful for all to read the canon III.16.3-5 and make up your own mind.  After reading it it is very clear to me that no substitutions are allowed.  The wording of these canons is very specific and deliberate.  Hey, if you want to change the canons we have this thing called General Convention . . . oh, but it doesn’t meet again for another 2 years or so.

[31] Posted by anglicanhopeful on 07-24-2007 at 05:18 PM • top

Not in any official capacity as an “elf” lest any of my SF friends be hankering for barbeque!

Actually, I forgot to give some variations on Emeril’s red bean recipe over on that thread.  I have found that tenderized elf is quite the taste treat when added to red beans.  Don’t ever add it without tenderizing first, the little buggers are tough through and through!
Just thought I’d throw that in for any who getting tired of grilled elf. 
wink

[32] Posted by JackieB on 07-24-2007 at 05:19 PM • top

When served with red beans and rice, elves really need to simmer long enough that they fall apart into tender, shredded chunks.

[33] Posted by Greg Griffith on 07-24-2007 at 05:26 PM • top

NONONONONO! Your all just don’t understand.  She is being very consistant.  Anyone who is a Bible believer is out, anyone who totes the revisionst line is in.  What are friends for?  It’s her club anyway.

Understanding the actions of KJS/815 is enhanced immeasurably if one views them through the lens provided by PROPHET MICAIAH.

[34] Posted by Jeffersonian on 07-24-2007 at 05:36 PM • top

Cross-Thread Repost: 

I learned this yesterday.  Does it apply to this situation? 

Never attribute to malice what can be accounted for by incompetence.

Posted by Truth Unites… and Divides on 07-24-2007 at 07:13 AM

But I think the hard-line rejection of Mark Lawrence was malice.

Posted by Branford on 07-24-2007 at 09:34 AM

[35] Posted by Truth Unites... and Divides on 07-24-2007 at 05:37 PM • top

Publius: 

So for Bp. Lawrence to be approved, the curia at 815 will apply the most exacting, literal, restrictive interpretations of the canons in order to prevent his election on procedural grounds. This posture enables the Presiding Bishop to shift the blame for the debacle to the South Carolina Standing Committee and pretend that 815 is being impartial. We all know that such spin is hogwash.

Irenaeus: 

Having one set of rules for the orthodox and another for one’s revisionist cronies dishonors those safeguards and evinces a hypocrisy inimical to Christian faith.

C’mon guys, doncha’ think you’re being a bit too harsh.  It’s just incompetence by 815 and PB KJS.  It’s not malice, implied or otherwise.  Y’all make it sound rather nefarious and scurrilous.

Let’s be charitable, forgiving, and full of grace.  Let’s simply put it behind us and just fuggedabout it. 

gulp

[36] Posted by Truth Unites... and Divides on 07-24-2007 at 05:44 PM • top

BBQ elf ... elven red beans and rice ... mmmm! Man I’m going to have to revise my diner plans, you’al made me VERY hungry ...  smile

[37] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 07-24-2007 at 05:44 PM • top

Is it possible that the person who posts as Grace what’s her numbers has gotten hold of Truth Unites and Divides sign-in password?

[38] Posted by Deja Vu on 07-24-2007 at 06:01 PM • top

Would someone ask the elves what they have done with the ABC? He has disappeared and everyone is speaking in his place. Or perhaps the ABC is off developing new and better forms for all to use.

By the way: ELF CHILI: Simmer ancho peppers, eventually pour off the juice into a pot with crushed tomatoes, water and 1 can of good beer (Good beer is further proof that God loves us, as if we needed any). Season with lime pepper, garlic powder, minced garlic, granulated garlic, parsley, dill weed, touch of red pepper flakes, lots of comino, chili powder. Cook copious amounts of ground elf with chopped onions, green and red bell peppers, jalapenos and problamos. Add to chili while medium rare. Stir and simmer. Yum, yum! (Warning: Do not substitute lawyer into recipe under any circumstances. Yuck.)

[39] Posted by rkreed on 07-24-2007 at 06:09 PM • top

Deja Vu, do you like the new me?  grin

[40] Posted by Truth Unites... and Divides on 07-24-2007 at 06:15 PM • top

Anyone know in general how the folks in DioSC are feeling and reacting to this bit of news? What’s the expression on their faces? The words on the tips of their tongues? And the emotions in their heart?

[41] Posted by Truth Unites... and Divides on 07-24-2007 at 06:17 PM • top

Isn’t it amazing that no trolls have showed up yet to put another spin on why KJS didn’t sack the VA bishop?  Reckon that even they are having a hard time justifying the incredible unfairness to SC?  Where are Wayne+, Jake+, et al when we need them?

[42] Posted by terrafirma on 07-24-2007 at 06:20 PM • top

Personally, my impression of Grace1 something (I can’t think of the number either) is that her posts ARE generally grace-filled, although she is coming from another viewpoint.  If it’s the same person, I believe she comments at Fr. Jake’s (where she seems VERY mellow in comparison to some of the other regulars, although I haven’t been there for a long time.)  There are some other commenters I can think of who post what sound like nice words but usually manage to pack some hidden needle or propaganda in the candy/talking point (along the lines of “just saying….don’t blame me… I’ve heard….”)

[43] Posted by Cathy_Lou on 07-24-2007 at 06:22 PM • top

Reckon that even they are having a hard time justifying the incredible unfairness to SC?

Do you really think 815 was unfair to SC?  This is a hierarchical church.  Fairness in a hierarchical church is not the right way to think.

As Greg Griffith once said to David Ould:  “You’re going to get nothing and like it.”

Same thing from PB KJS and 815 to DioSC:  “You’re going to get nothing and like it.”

[44] Posted by Truth Unites... and Divides on 07-24-2007 at 06:25 PM • top

terrafirme, may Jim Naughton told the usurpers to keep it quiet (but didn’t broadcast the mandate on the listserve this time).  wink

[45] Posted by robroy on 07-24-2007 at 06:34 PM • top

It’s reading of KJS’s handling of the respective Virginia and South Carolina diocesional elections that reaffirms my opinion that ‘little tin gods’ (1 Peter 5:3 Phillips)walk among us that ‘the powers that be…soon will be only the powers that have been.’(1 Cor.2:6 Phillips NT).

[46] Posted by paddy c on 07-24-2007 at 06:40 PM • top

Good job, Sarah!
It does look, though, just like more of the same: hypicrisy, deception, etc.

Don

[47] Posted by DonaldH on 07-24-2007 at 07:17 PM • top

Excellent comments Publius and Iranaeus.
One thing that gets me is how can you tell which end is talking when describing the justifications now being put forth by TEC for allowing less than canon quality in the consent forms for the majority of their bishops while at the same time demanding every jot and tittle for Fr Mark Lawrence?
Truth Divides and Unites,I certainly hope that the churches under assault by TEC and co can use the double standards consistantly in evidence.

[48] Posted by paddy c on 07-24-2007 at 07:49 PM • top

This serves to remind us…
The Diocese of New Hampshire went to great pains to make sure all the details were exactly right so that no canonical form objections could be made.

South Carolina needs to do exactly the same thing.  Even to dotting all the “I” and crossing all the “T” letters.  This is not a time to just muddle through it all.

[49] Posted by BravoZulu on 07-24-2007 at 08:51 PM • top

“One thing that gets me is how can you tell which end is talking when describing the justifications now being put forth by TEC for allowing less than canon quality in the consent forms for the majority of their bishops while at the same time demanding every jot and tittle for Fr Mark Lawrence?”

Yes, indeed: the end where the sun don’t shine.

[50] Posted by Irenaeus on 07-24-2007 at 08:57 PM • top

Don’t you realize, 815 can never be wrong? It is just that we are being too literal. C’mon, following canons is so old fashioned. We need to do what the writers of the canon really meant to say, but never took the time to write down. wink

But, they really can’t admit to being wrong, can they?  If they begin to admit incorrectly applying canons, doesn’t that have great implications on all the open court cases?

[51] Posted by Credo on 07-24-2007 at 09:08 PM • top

These preposterous “Elf Recipes” remind me of how the three Trolls (yes, Trolls), having captured Bilbo and the Dwarves, debate whether to (1) roast them slowly, (2) mince them fine and boil them, or (3) just sit on them and squash them into jelly.

[52] Posted by Irenaeus on 07-24-2007 at 09:11 PM • top

TUAD:  Point well taken.  You are absolutely correct.

[53] Posted by terrafirma on 07-24-2007 at 09:46 PM • top

Let’s not forget Bishop Howe’s earlier remarks:

As I am sure you know, Fr. Mark Lawrence, who was elected the next Bishop of South Carolina, did not receive the required number of consents from the Standing Committees of the Church by the canonical deadline, and Bishop Schori declared the election “null and void.”

There was a very unkind article in USA Today yesterday about Bishop Schori regarding this. However, Bishop Ed Salmon (retired and acting Bishop of South Carolina) assured us tonight that Bishop Schori “bent over backward” to get this election ratified, and the problem was with the Standing Committees. A sufficient number actually was received, but some of them were in improper form, and some of them were unsigned.

From:  http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2626/

Please put to rest any notion that PB KJS and 815 may have behaved with anything less than the best interests of DioSC.  We have it on the good word of acting Bishop Salmon.

[54] Posted by Truth Unites... and Divides on 07-25-2007 at 12:20 AM • top

TUAD says:

Do you really think 815 was unfair to SC?  This is a hierarchical church.  Fairness in a hierarchical church is not the right way to think.

But “hierarchical” is not the same thing as “monarchical” - although maybe ++KJS thinks so?

[55] Posted by Branford on 07-25-2007 at 12:56 AM • top

TUAD:

We have it on the good word of acting Bishop Salmon.

No, we have it on the word of Bishop Howe, not Bishop Salmon.

[56] Posted by James Manley on 07-25-2007 at 07:11 AM • top

The Diocese of SC needs to get hard ball here.  Cross the Ts, dot the Is, have EVERYTHING notarized, copied, testified to, photographed, and sent to YOU TUBE (with each person holding a copy of the day’s newspaper up for evidence).  No quarter will be given, so don’t let them have any room to *(&()^ you.  Anything short of that and they deserve to get beaten by 815.

[57] Posted by trooper on 07-25-2007 at 07:41 PM • top

Thanks Trooper.  Your recommendations remind me of a very fine article by Sarah Hey about “Process Battles” and how they are crucially integral to doctrinal, relational, and ecclesiastical holiness and purity.

[58] Posted by Truth Unites... and Divides on 07-25-2007 at 07:59 PM • top

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


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.