Total visitors right now: 107

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Notes from a clergy conference: +Schori to prevent Departing Parishes from Communion Connection

Friday, September 28, 2007 • 10:16 pm

published with permission from the author


Notes from the clergy conference with the Presiding Bishop:

First, until Bishop Steenson’s resignation is accepted by the Standing Committee, the HoB cannot vote. They will mail a ballot to each bishop when the SC completes action, probably next Thursday.

Second, ++KJS is quite insistent that a clause be added to the St. Clement’s contract making it null and void if they cease to be an independent congregation of join another part of the Anglican Communion/ She, rightly in my mind, sees this as crucial for TEC. I believe she repeated that at least once and referred to that principle several times in the question and answer session. However, the agreement is signed, sealed, delivered and the money became an investment instrument the minute it was received. I don’t believe it can be legally reopened. But she is steely eyed committed to see that this clause gets in all the next agreements. “Warning Will Robinson!”

Third, two bishops threatened +Jeffrey, over this agreement with St. Clement. CO and I believe XX were the bishops. He was really upset by this –in tears and shaking- and it included deposition, law suits, not allowing him to resign. . .  We were quite angry on hearing this and wondered if they realized they were talking to a NM – TX bishop. Their cities may have a lot of urban gang problems; but, they don’t realize most of us have guns, know how to use them and nobody’s gonna mess with our bishops!

Fourth –from my response in the 2nd TV interview thread: We also are blessed with numerous solid, experienced leaders here in the Rio Grande and, while we do the necessary grief work and say our affectionate “Adios!” to +Jeffery and Debbie, be assured that the orthodox Anglicans will be organizing and communicating with one another.

Fifth…

A laugh. The ++Sheehan, Roman Archbishop of Santa Fe, wanting to check +Jeffrey’s ecclesial history had Jeffrey put a vita together. The found a picture in the archives of +Terence Kelshaw being consecrated bishop and there, in the inner circle of bishops, ++Sanchez, then Archbishop of Santa Fe, is clearly shown with his hand on +Terry’s head. Jeffrey sent them a copy of that picture. Apostolic succession…  [BG]

Finally, I did not have the appropriate chance to speak to ++KJS in the open session. If the wireless had reached I was going to live blog it. God provides.  Looking and listening to KJS by the clergy helped illuminate the issues that divide us in TCGC. She helped some of the moderates realize the universalist heretic that she is. Frankly, I had planned not to be there but out walking the stations. Both +Jeffery and Fr. Kelley asked us to stay. Several asked me if I wanted to spend the afternoon with her. I replied saying, “I have a two word response. ‘No’.”

I stayed and prayed for +Jeffrey. I’m exhausted, and working here at work. I was able to level in a 1x1 with ++KJS.  We ended up standing in the line at the refectory together and it was long, just long enough. My former deacon told me later she wished she had her camera with her because “it was a real Kodak moment.” Like Paul, I pulled out all my social action credentials, etc, Then with her full admiration and attention, I pointed to B033 offering a promise that this Wesleyan could take hope in and found it dashed in 24 hours. Now, “local pastoral provision” is shouting to the world where we were headed, almost making it impossible for me to have any place at TEC’s table. They are tearing it further.

Thank you Lord Jesus.

Adios. . .

Bob Maxwell+


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

From here: http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6435/

I am also pleased to tell you that the quality of leadership I am seeing in my fellow bishops and our Presiding Bishop is inspiring. I have great confidence in The Episcopal Church,...

Making Steenson shake and cry as a result of threats, bullying and intimidation.  Real class act leadership, that is.  Real inspiring.  Really instills confidence.

[1] Posted by jamesw on 09-28-2007 at 05:45 PM • top

Haven’t they been telling us how wonderfully civil this meeting was?

[2] Posted by oscewicee on 09-28-2007 at 05:56 PM • top

but, they don’t realize most of us have guns, know how to use them and nobody’s gonna mess with our bishops!

Hey everyone knows you Don’t Mess With Texas!!!.
PS please report to reeducation camp for non violence sensitivity training.

[3] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 09-28-2007 at 05:58 PM • top

Inclusion. Reconciliation. Conversation.

This is good reason for any future property transfers to be done quickly, quietly and en masse.  They can’t “reopen” a contract: it’s done.  And a diocese has the legal right to dispose of property.  Sad that Bp Steenson didn’t sell all the property to the parishes before announcing his resignation.

[4] Posted by VaAnglican on 09-28-2007 at 06:11 PM • top

I’m already reaching for my pistol…

[5] Posted by Greg Griffith on 09-28-2007 at 06:15 PM • top

the agreement is signed, sealed, delivered and the money became an investment instrument the minute it was received. I don’t believe it can be legally reopened. But she is steely eyed committed to see that this clause gets in all the next agreements.

MUST… FIGHT… SCHADENFREUDE…

Seriously, though, aside from the trauma these cretins caused Bishop Steenson, this is a hugely important story because it shows that 815 is willing to move off their “parishes can’t leave at all” position, and onto an “ok, they can leave, but they can’t join another Anglican entity” position. Time to begin exploiting this weakness.

[6] Posted by Greg Griffith on 09-28-2007 at 06:36 PM • top

Anthony,

Agreed. However, “reachin’ for my pistol” is an old expression I use around here. No threat is being made.

[7] Posted by Greg Griffith on 09-28-2007 at 06:38 PM • top

“Second, ++KJS is quite insistent that a clause be added to the St. Clement’s contract making it null and void if they cease to be an independent congregation of join another part of the Anglican Communion/ She, rightly in my mind, sees this as crucial for TEC.”

Wow.  TEC insisting that departing parishes sign a non-compete agreement and stifle their free exercise of religion by remaining a solitary, unaffiliated congregation.  Intriguing First Amendment (free exercise of religion, freedom of association) and antitrust angles.

Does TEC claim the Dennis Canon prevents a Diocese from unilaterally making a property deal with a departing parish?


Mark Brown
San Angelo, Texas
September 28, 2007

[8] Posted by MarkBrown on 09-28-2007 at 06:41 PM • top

I keep thinking that it can’t possibly get worse; and ten, sadly, it does.  Bishop Steenson deserved better.  Then the hypocrites go on and write these glowing pastorals about how inclusive and conciliar this HOB was.  I especially enjoyed the parts about how good a leader KJS is!  What tripe.  I hope every one of these men and women is proud of him/her self.  I am so happy to have a bishop that I can depend on to tell and defend the truth.

[9] Posted by terrafirma on 09-28-2007 at 06:43 PM • top

I would like to see Beers and 815 go after a bishop who has disposed of a property in the manner that Steenson did with this parish.  I don’t think 815 would get to square one.  815 would have to argue that diocesan bishops do not have the authority to decide what is best for their diocese on administrative manners.  Essentially they would need to argue that diocesan bishops are subserviant to 815 on property issues.  Now THAT would be a turning TEC polity on its head!

[10] Posted by jamesw on 09-28-2007 at 06:43 PM • top

Wow.  TEC insisting that departing parishes sign a non-compete agreement and stifle their free exercise of religion by remaining a solitary, unaffiliated congregation.  Intriguing First Amendment (free exercise of religion, freedom of association) and antitrust angles.

It’s as if she’s selling soft drinks instead of heading a church.

[11] Posted by oscewicee on 09-28-2007 at 06:43 PM • top

Little tin goddess-
I would hope that Benedict hears about this and boxes her ears IN PUBLIC ,bunch of carpetbagging tinhorns.

[12] Posted by paddy c on 09-28-2007 at 06:54 PM • top

And TEC can’t change any rules, regulations, canons, wishes, dreams, etc until GC…:-)  bet that they wish they had the power and the force with them to actually do something

[13] Posted by carol on 09-28-2007 at 06:59 PM • top

Oscewicee:

So true as a former class attender (I cannot say Class mate) of—KJS at CDSP I can assure you she would be doing the world more favors if she did sell soft drinks, as Fr. Maxwell is correct sadly that she is an arch heretic.

I too wonder how one can force a non-compete clause.  If one is to be factual doesn’t every denomination compete?  I can just see—KJS asking the RC cardinals in the USA to sign such.

Dennis Canon seems to becoming a Dennis howitzer!!!  I would personally recommend my Texan friends start loading their rounds and maybe a few mortars to lob back the heresy bombs most assuredly coming their way.

Sad, sad day when

Alasdair+

[14] Posted by Alasdair+ on 09-28-2007 at 07:00 PM • top

too bad it wasn’t being video taped for posterity.

[15] Posted by carol on 09-28-2007 at 07:03 PM • top

Anyone who grew up in a very dysfunctional family can tell you about the enormous pressure that gets applied by the family to any member who understands the disfunction and wants out for his/her own sanity and good.  The family can’t tolerate the departure as it passes judgement on the family itself.  That is what I see happening now in TEC.  The House of Biishops and overall leadership of TEC is totally sick and dysfunctional, hence the threats against this good bishop and the very harsh treatment of others who are leaving.  There really is nothing new under the sun.

[16] Posted by David+ on 09-28-2007 at 07:05 PM • top

The Presiding Bishop did put all of this in context: “things said by individuals out of anger.”  The Bishop is at peace about it.
  The meeting between her and the DRG clergy was on the whole a positive encounter with honest conversation.  And what sweet irony, the lesson at Evening Prayer was from 1 Cor. 6.  That was a Kodak moment!

[17] Posted by Hippo on 09-28-2007 at 07:09 PM • top

Can someone explain this?

A laugh. The ++Sheehan, Roman Archbishop of Santa Fe, wanting to check +Jeffrey’s ecclesial history had Jeffrey put a vita together. The found a picture in the archives of +Terence Kelshaw being consecrated bishop and there, in the inner circle of bishops, ++Sanchez, then Archbishop of Santa Fe, is clearly shown with his hand on +Terry’s head. Jeffrey sent them a copy of that picture. Apostolic succession… [BG]

[18] Posted by JoshuaB on 09-28-2007 at 07:11 PM • top

Abluquerque Journal, Dec. 16, 1971, p. A-2—“While Dr. Trelease knelt before a temporary altar, eight Episcopalian bishops and Archbishop James Peter Davis of the Catholic Archdiocese of Santa Fe and Bishop Hines laid their hands on his head to signify his consecration to the office.”

[19] Posted by Hippo on 09-28-2007 at 07:19 PM • top

It means the Roman Catholic Archbishop was one of the co-consecrators of Terrance Kelshaw. Was Kelshaw one of the bishops who consecrated Steenson? I don’t know. If so, one doesn’t have to go back to the Reformation to find a direct line of succession to the Church of Rome.

[20] Posted by Ken Peck on 09-28-2007 at 07:20 PM • top

Those Christians—see how they love one another!

I don’t think all of this talk of shooting helps the cause of Christianity or of orthodox Anglicans.

But let the truth be proclaimed on the blogs. They hate that! (Besides, death by blogging isn’t criminal. <g> )

[21] Posted by Ken Peck on 09-28-2007 at 07:25 PM • top

Presumably Kelshaw was, or they wouldn’t mention it. And (as Hippo mentions), if Dr. Trelease, his predecessor in the diocese, is also in Steenson’s line that would make two RC archbishops.

I wonder how long that was going on in Rio Grande?

[22] Posted by Neziha on 09-28-2007 at 07:32 PM • top

It means the Roman Catholic Archbishop was one of the co-consecrators of Terrance Kelshaw. Was Kelshaw one of the bishops who consecrated Steenson? I don’t know. If so, one doesn’t have to go back to the Reformation to find a direct line of succession to the Church of Rome.

I’m sure the form and intent were lacking here, but it is interesting.

[23] Posted by Paul B on 09-28-2007 at 07:33 PM • top

“It means the Roman Catholic Archbishop was one of the co-consecrators of Terrance Kelshaw. Was Kelshaw one of the bishops who consecrated Steenson? I don’t know. If so, one doesn’t have to go back to the Reformation to find a direct line of succession to the Church of Rome.”

I think that there is some confusion here.  Bishop Trelease was +Kelshaw’s predecessor as bishop, and it is well-known (among those that follow these matters) that Abp. Davis joined “fully” in Bp. Trelease’s consecration (and was subsequently disciplined privately by Rome for it, and forced into retirement).  Trelease (who died in December 2005) had to retire early when his numerous philanderings became a cause of scandal, but when Clarence Pope became Bishop of Fort Worth around 1983 he made sure to have Trelease as one of his three official consecrators; and Clarence Pope, in turn, was, as I recall, one of +Steenson’s consecrators.  I do not think that any RC bishop played such a role in +Kelshaw’s consecrations.

This little-known fact about Bishop Pope’s episcopal pedigree is, perhaps, one factor to be taken into account in explaining his three trans-Tiber crossings to Rome and his two returns to ECUSA.  He has made no secret of the fact that he wishes to be a Catholic priest in the Roman Communion, and that if Graham Leonard could be ordained only “conditionally” to the priesthood due to his “pedigree” including Old Catholic bishops, he should likewise be ordained conditionally on the basis of his “pedigree.”

[24] Posted by William Tighe on 09-28-2007 at 07:35 PM • top

oscewicee, this clergy conference took place in the Diocese of the Rio
Grande happened right after the HOB meeting ended in New Orleans.  +Steenson announced in his resignation address to the HOB that he had invited KJS.

The beatings will continue until morale improves.  Waging reconciliation, Kathy?

[25] Posted by Connie Sandlin on 09-28-2007 at 07:35 PM • top

but, they don’t realize most of us have guns, know how to use them and nobody’s gonna mess with our bishops!

  Beware of Massachusetts.  In my memory, the statute “Every man over the age of 12 must carry his musket to church with him on Sunday” was still on the books.

[26] Posted by EmilyH on 09-28-2007 at 07:42 PM • top

I have before me as I write this the official program for Bishop Steenson’s consecration on January 15, 2005, which he kindly sent to me at the time, as well as an e-mail from Bishop Ackerman of Quincy regarding his attendance at the event.  +Griswold was the Chief Consecrator, and the Co-consecrators listed on the program are Anthony Burton, Bishop of Saskatchewan; Bishop Kelshaw; Bishop Richard Llewellin, suffragan of Canterbury, retired; Mark MacDonald, Bishop of Alaska; and Bishop Pope.  Bishops Ackerman and Schofield attended the ceremony unvested, but went up briefly to lay hands on Bishop Steenson, and then left the church, without staying for communion.

[27] Posted by William Tighe on 09-28-2007 at 07:44 PM • top

This is so ironic. The same goons who are trying to force orthodox clergy out of TEC for “abandonment of communion” are now threatening to force Bp. Steenson to stay in TEC, even though he wants to abandon communion!

[28] Posted by Roland on 09-28-2007 at 07:46 PM • top

Bishop Trelease also participated in the laying on of hands.

[29] Posted by Hippo on 09-28-2007 at 07:51 PM • top

Alisdair+ : Perhaps it’s time for the “Small band of former paratroopers” to mobilize and deploy!

[30] Posted by Charles III on 09-28-2007 at 08:00 PM • top

Thanks Ken Peck. I was unfamiliar with +Kelshaw, so I didn’t get the connection.

[31] Posted by JoshuaB on 09-28-2007 at 08:06 PM • top

“Perhaps it’s time for the “Small band of former paratroopers” to mobilize and deploy!”

Hey, I was a leg, but this might be fun.  What would it be, “Step away from the Bishop or we’ll take away your birthday and stamp your meal card ‘no dessert?’”

Seriously, can the HOB PREVENT a Bishop from resigning?

[32] Posted by Paul B on 09-28-2007 at 08:08 PM • top

This is a remarkable post.
1)  I agree with the comments that if the doct is signed and sealed, it cannot be reopened absent the consent of all signing parties.
2)  I cannot imagine any departing parish agreeing to the suggested “independent congregation” clause; they would walk away, or try to buy the property on the open market, instead.  The idea is a non starter.
3)  There have been repeated rumors and reports of 815 threatening diocesan bishops if they were to make a “cheap deal” with a departing congregation.  Do we have any links to an actual 815 document?
4)  I think 815 would be very reluctant to proceed against an diocesan for making a cheap deal.  The diocese will almost certainly back its bishop,  and the proceedings will drive a serious wedge between 815 and the diocese.  Moreover, why is there a standard for fair value??  For many properties, the best value would be to knock down the church and put up an office bldg, but shouldn’t a bishop care that there be a continued Christian presence at that site, irrespective of denomination??  Also, if litigation is an alternative, and the outcome uncertain, a negotiated result will be the best for all concerned. 
5)  I would hope that departing parishes have adequate legal assistance, and that the Common Cause Partners have some resources in this regard. 
6)  Not sure I understand Hippo’s comment.

[33] Posted by Dick Mitchell on 09-28-2007 at 08:09 PM • top

Yes, +Kelshaw was one of the consecrating bishops of Jeffrey+. That is the interesting ecclesial wrinkle. I ‘m sure there would be grounds for pronouncing it invalid such as being the wrong “matter” and intention.

Certainly we had our best southwest manners on for the PB. She was given all the time she needed . . . and the questions were not pulled in the main room or when she talked with individuals. We are typical south-westerners, conservative, multi-cultural, and we value family and faith. Fire of flood, we’re there for each other

Why is it that the two things that really angers many TEC bishops, individually or collectively appears to be loss of property or successful evangelism by others, and more particularly, by laity and clergy provided spiritual support from outside of TEC’s control?

[34] Posted by Bob Maxwell+ on 09-28-2007 at 08:10 PM • top

Well it could be that the consecration was valid even if Rome deemed it illicit. All this is academic to some degree; I’m certainly not questioning the validity of our own orders.

[35] Posted by JoshuaB on 09-28-2007 at 08:19 PM • top

Bob Maxwell+
who was the other bishop besides o’neil that threatened +Jeffrey over this agreement?

[36] Posted by art+ on 09-28-2007 at 08:24 PM • top

Third, two bishops threatened +Jeffrey, over this agreement with St. Clement. CO and I believe XX were the bishops.

I take this to mean the Bishop of Colorado but who is XX?  This is my first post so I hope the question formats correctly.

[37] Posted by ASChoirmaster on 09-28-2007 at 08:27 PM • top

The pressure was on the contract particulars, not to keep him from retiring. Exhaustive due diligence was completed on the downtown property in the midst of a blighted area. Three separate legal entities compose what we call St. Clement and yet full audit and forensic examinations made.

Different non-members kept calling 815 and telling them that $6M was squirreled away. I don’t see how it could have happened. I do know that the vote could have been more like CC Overland Park and even then, some would have complained.

It is sad that the rest of the diocese will be without the leadership St. Clement normally offered. However, their many great ministries will continue in La Frontera.

[38] Posted by Bob Maxwell+ on 09-28-2007 at 08:31 PM • top

Typical HOB goon squad er…religious leaders turning mitres into asshats. Praying for Rio Grande.
Intercessor

[39] Posted by Intercessor on 09-28-2007 at 08:33 PM • top

I thought I heard +Jeffrey name the 2nd bishop but it was not the name I thought according to our bishop. +CO does have one or two property issues on his mind lately.

[40] Posted by Bob Maxwell+ on 09-28-2007 at 08:36 PM • top

Also, the PB made the suggestion she that she stop here at our clergy conference on her way to CA. It was not +Steenson’s idea.

[41] Posted by Bob Maxwell+ on 09-28-2007 at 08:43 PM • top

Bob+, I guess your gentle bishop couldn’t tell KJS “no”, but I must admit I am relieved to know it was NOT his idea. So, when he said, “I have invited KJS”, he really meant “she invited herself”.  I couldn’t understand why he would do such a thing and am glad to have that cleared up.  I am very sorry she behaved so poorly and that he has suffered so much at the hands of the so “tolerant” and “loving” TEc bishops.

[42] Posted by Connie Sandlin on 09-28-2007 at 08:51 PM • top

Inclusion. Reconciliation. Conversation.

They failed to mention <a href=“http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pacification”>pacification.

[43] Posted by ToAllTheWorld on 09-28-2007 at 08:57 PM • top

Second, ++KJS is quite insistent that a clause be added to the St. Clement’s contract making it null and void if they cease to be an independent congregation of join another part of the Anglican Communion/

According to this statement by kjs tec recognizes all the continuing churches as part of the Anglican Communion. ++ABc should be informed of this

[44] Posted by art+ on 09-28-2007 at 08:57 PM • top

Dick M wrote:

1) I agree with the comments that if the doct is signed and sealed, it cannot be reopened absent the consent of all signing parties.
.  .  .  .
3) There have been repeated rumors and reports of 815 threatening diocesan bishops if they were to make a “cheap deal” with a departing congregation.  Do we have any links to an actual 815 document?

I think the angle that 815 is likely to take is this.  Assume (without granting, but as 815 must insist on assuming) that the Dennis Canon is actually valid and enforceable, and that a parish holds all property in trust for its diocese and for 815, and a diocese holds all property in trust for 815.

If one makes those assumptions, then every parish and every diocese is a “trustee” for the benefit of the “trust’s” “beneficiaries”—that is, for 815 (in the case of a diocese) and for both 815 and the diocese (in the case of a parish).  It is no novel thing for a beneficiary to sue a trustee for mismanagement, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and the like, for making bad deals with the property-held-in-trust (called the trust “corpus” or trust “res”).  So one imagines that 815 could go to a bishop (or, for that matter, anybody potentially involved—a priest, a vestryman, whomever) and say, “you’re letting St. X’s departing parishioners reaffiliate with the Global South Province of Antarctica, and selling them ‘their’ parish grounds and building for $Y million; but WE take the position that that real estate is actually worth $Y million x 3; you owe us the difference, viz., $Y million x 2, maybe plus punitive damages, if we can persuade a court to take seriously allegations that you did it with whatever level of malice is required in the state in question for punitive damages.”  If 815 can persuade a court that, say, a diocese was really a trustee of St. X’s real estate for 815’s benefit, and that Bishop Z of that diocese wasn’t acting for the benefit of 815 in entering into the transaction, but was acting in cahoots with the departing parishioners, or the Primate of Antarctica, or Bob Duncan, or whomever, then 815 could arguably persuade the court to undo the transaction.  Kind of like if your grandma deeds her house over to me on the condition that I maintain it, make mortgage payments, and basically run the place so that grandma can live in it for life, and then I boot her out onto the street and “sell” it to my brother-in-law for one dollar—it’s not going to be hard for the court to decide that I’m acting adversely to the person I’ve committed to act on behalf of, and declare my sale to my brother-in-law to be null and void.

[45] Posted by Africanised Anglican on 09-28-2007 at 09:01 PM • top

I guess KJS never read or heeded “How to Win Friends and Influence People”. 

Sorry, I can’t leave this alone. I guess in a guilty way I might enjoy momentarily the schadenfreude of KJS shooting herself in the foot (now I gotta go to confession), but this all just fries my bacon and it gives Christians a bad name by association with the arch-heretic of TGCC.

Deep breath:  look forward, Connie. It’s in God’s hands.  He will judge.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, a sinner.

[46] Posted by Connie Sandlin on 09-28-2007 at 09:24 PM • top

Yes, “fiduciary responsibility” was an often used term.

I am very sorry she behaved so poorly and that he has suffered so much at the hands of the so “tolerant” and “loving” TEC bishops. The PB acted the professional that every skilled PhD faculty member is. She has great focus and skill and runs the meeting to reach her goals without getting diverted as much as I have seeen, heard or read.

[47] Posted by Bob Maxwell+ on 09-28-2007 at 09:33 PM • top

This is actually the best news we’ve had in a while, since it confirms what many of us have suspected all along: 815 is in abject terror at the thought of losing the Anglican franchise, they see this as a real possibility, and they understand that if they are canned from the Communion it will both seriously undercut their legal case (and threatened legal action, which is all that’s keeping the HoB in line) and cause an overnight massive exodus of both parishes and entire dioceses from The General Convention Church.

This is why they have resorted to this sort of utterly unprecedented thuggery against wavering nebbishops since New Years and why they took the risk of clamping down so tightly both the March and September HoB meetings.  And they realize that they are losing anyway.  (As an aside, we noticed some time ago here in Nevada that thuggery played a large role in Mrs. Schori’s limited repertoire of management techniques.)

This is also why +Steenson, having decided to retire, carefully timed the St Clement’s departure in such a way that he could sign the ironclad legal documents for the diocese but then be beyond 815’s canonical reach before they could retaliate—a graceful gesture of manumission before leaving the field of battle.

We’re definitely taking casualties, friends, but we’re winning.

[48] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 09-28-2007 at 10:06 PM • top

Craig Goodrich,
You are so correct. I just got in from work and WOW! Just when I think KJS-Beers & 815 couldn’t get anymore unchristian I read this!
How utterly vile and they call themselves godly and charitable. I say a big loud NOT!!!!

[49] Posted by TLDillon on 09-28-2007 at 10:13 PM • top

Two thoughts, maybe three, actually four:
1. Don’t let snakes into your living room - - they bite! (You decide for yourselves who the snakes are here)

2. If there is one thing that TEC fears, it is losing the Anglican “franchise”.  Though they downplay it, the fact that TEC amended its constitution to make its affiliation with the Anglican Communion a central part of its identity, its legitimacy as a church, could prove to be significant in property litigation in some jurisdictions.

3. Keep those snakes out of the house altogether if possible, they bite!

4. God bless +Steenson.  As one from Western Louisiana that is incredibly proud of his bishop (+Bruce MacPherson, one whom I have described on another post as being about as close as we are going to get to the rock of St. Peter in this church), from what I have read about this man, and seen of him in interviews, +Steenson, too, is an honorable man of God.  Losing him to Rome is tragic for orthodox Episcopalians, but I wish him well as he swims the Tiber.  For those of us that are committed to our catholic history and faith tradition, we may see him again.  There are indeed always silver linings!

[50] Posted by Joe Roberts on 09-28-2007 at 10:36 PM • top

If this is the 815 strategy, it is a dangerous game they play.  A bishop has many pressures and tensions and issues, and if he/she chooses to make peace with a “recalcitrant, rightwing” parish that wants to buy its way out of TEC, he will probably feel he has done everyone a service by concluding the matter without litigation.  In that context, for 815 to look over his shoulder and second-guess the deal—and to make any threats to this hypothetical middle-of-the-road bishop—is a frightening scenario for all concerned. 
    And I remain curious if there is yet any document from 815 setting out such threats.  I agree with Africanised Anglican’s analysis, but it would be an expensive, messy and lengthy suit to determine whether a fiduciary obligation had been breached; 815 would first have to bring litigation to depose the bishop, presumably in canonical court, and then use a favorable outcome there to bring civil proceedings to claim control of diocesan properties, and only after that sue to try to set aside the property transfer—and all this where the departing parish would likely have a homefield advantage.  Generations of lawyers will flourish.

[51] Posted by Dick Mitchell on 09-28-2007 at 10:50 PM • top

Well said, Craig.
TEC: not a church, a RICO.

[52] Posted by DomWalk on 09-28-2007 at 10:52 PM • top

Here’s the two predominant inherent stupidities in 815’s actions(true, this is only my peon viewpoint): 

1.  If 815 is searching for an object of blame regarding the defection of all the disaffected, she need look no further than the mirror, and

2.  Regardless of how they try to threaten, manuever, cajole, blackmail, railroad, whatever, the “foreign intrusions” are not going to stop.  And, while parishes see they have lifeboats, they’ll jump this toxic, sinking ship. 

“Second, ++KJS is quite insistent that a clause be added to the St. Clement’s contract making it null and void if they cease to be an independent congregation of join another part of the Anglican Communion/ She, rightly in my mind, sees this as crucial for TEC.”

So next is she planning to threaten all the other competing denominations in that particular town/city?  This woman and her henchmen are becoming completely ridiculous. 

I am sorry Bishop Steenson has had to deal with this sort of ordure(to borrow from Dr. Radner).  Please all let’s pray and STAND FIRM.  Both are effective. 

It’s my recollection that Bishop Stanton in Dallas has let at least two parishes go—CC Plano and St. Matthias.  I haven’t noted the New Yorkers even bothering to attempt their threatening lunacy in this diocese.  If they do, good luck—Bishop Stanton, Canon Lambert, and Neal Michell are all six feet plus and tough cookies. 

I’m a lot smaller than that but I’d be willing to rumble with the best of them.  And, no doubt, so would most of this diocese. 

It would be much easier if the Second Avenue crowd would just see the light and clean up their act…If their agenda was truly right, they wouldn’t feel this insecure about any competition.  This is the true Gospel of justice, no?  Can’t you all tell?  It’s just evangelizing people by the droves….

hmmm 

Prayers for all—

TS

[53] Posted by Passing By on 09-28-2007 at 10:55 PM • top

Wow! Where to begin. First of KJS and 815 can want all they want if the only way to effect what they want is by a deed restriction on the property and any judge will invalidate a clause which limits, especially a group’s, freedom of association AND religion which this restriction certainly would do. So Beers is giving her some very bad advice and she should speak with some property lawyers. The only problem with having the clause in the contract is if the congregation signed it WITH the intent to have the clause invalidated. It would probably still be okay but a good lawyer could have the whole contract voided because of a lack of good faith.

Next, shame on those 2 Bishops for how they treated him. I don’t know what else to say except that, shame.

Finally, it takes 3 valid RC Bishops to make another valid Bishop. providing too that the correct form was used and the Vatican approves. The 3 laying on of hands do not have to occur at the same time though. If 1 did do it, it was mostly a gesture and the the person would not be valid till 2 others do. Since that Bishop is invalid any consecrations he participates in would also be invalid so succession is broken. It only takes one Bishop to ordain a priest though so it may save +Jeffery some headaches and paperwork.
WO is invalid by form of course so even the Pope couldn’t ordain or consecrate a women till the teaching of the church was changed.
Any that have been done in secret are invalid and would have to be repeated in the unlikely event the churche’s teaching changed.

[54] Posted by Rocks on 09-28-2007 at 11:09 PM • top

Dick M—I don’t know of any leaked document setting out this strategy of 815’s, but there were rumors in late ‘06 that seemed to be <a >strongly confirmed</a> by the events of early ‘07—which, by an odd coincidence, was also about the time the phrase “fiduciary responsibility” entered the vocabulary of many of our bishops. 

As to the strategy of intimidation and stonewalling being somewhat loony, agreed.  On the other hand, if you growl loudly enough and carry a huge enough club, nobody may ever find out the club is made of styrofoam.  It’s likely that 815 was (and is) depending on the effectiveness of their threats.  Note also that although everyone admits that Beers is a high-priced lawyer, nobody here is claiming that he’s a particularly good one…

[55] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 09-29-2007 at 01:14 AM • top

I intend to do what I can for Bp. Steenson - and all that is, at this time, is to pray for him and his diocese. He has made a godly decision, and TEC intends to make him pay for it all they can.

After four years, I am finally reaching a place of personal forgiveness for all TEC and its people’s offenses - and able to say, “Lord forgive them, for they know not what they do.” They really, really, don’t know what they do.

When Bp. Steenson was elected, I had some doubts about how orthodox and helpful he would be. After having lived in the Diocese of Los Angeles and witnessing the deception of Jon Bruno and his election, I prayed Steenson was not like Bruno. Thank God, he’s not! May God comfort him, protect him, and reward him in due time.

[56] Posted by NancyNH on 09-29-2007 at 05:25 AM • top

Twisted Sister wrote:

It’s my recollection that Bishop Stanton in Dallas has let at least two parishes go—CC Plano and St. Matthias. I haven’t noted the New Yorkers even bothering to attempt their threatening lunacy in this diocese. If they do, good luck—Bishop Stanton, Canon Lambert, and Neal Michell are all six feet plus and tough cookies.

That was last year. The crackdown on agreements began January 1, 2007. St. Matthias’ saw it coming and barely got under the wire. The Virginia parishes got caught in the crackdown on amiable agreements between dioceses and departing parishes. I doubt that we will see any more of them in Dallas—or anywhere else.

[57] Posted by Ken Peck on 09-29-2007 at 05:37 AM • top

“Non-complete clauses” are for disk jockies, TV meteorologists, and anchormen.  Further proof of TEC’s insanity.

TEC: not a church, a RICO.

DomWalk, you may be on to something.  Maybe Drell can research the Federal statutes.

P.S. Texas is a “concealed carry” state.  No telling who was packing heat in the meeting.

[58] Posted by bigjimintx on 09-29-2007 at 05:46 AM • top

When a significant segment of a church knows the legal advisor of the national church in their legal capacity, that in and of itself indicates the existence of a problem, nest ce pas?

[59] Posted by yohanelejos on 09-29-2007 at 06:03 AM • top

Regarding these clauses that +KJS and company are going to require in the property agreement of departing parishes, it feels like it would be wise for those of us who have any ideas about the legal strategies to thwart these things (or to try to get some sense of what other clever garbage they may be contemplating) to be communicating by e-mail or other private means, and not going into detail on the blogs.  This idea belies a mentality that is not only as completely dysfunctional as David+ points out so well above, but also something that a take no prisoners political party or mob lawyer would come up with just to be able to have an extra piece of ammunition to put on the table before a judge.  So, I’m thinkin’ that they’re starting to circle the wagons, and are making serious efforts to have some of their troops keep tabs on anyone or anything that might be a threat to the regime.  As much as I appreciate and enjoy reading some of the excellent analyses of how the other side is likely to be overreaching, like those of Dick M and jrlawla - thought #2, it really seems that at this stage we should try to keep them behind closed doors. 

In most cases, a non-compete clause for any religious group is likely to be thrown out without much deliberation (as Mark Brown and Rocks have implied above), but to less savvy judicial minds or to members of the bench who are sympathetic to the TEC/usa for ideological reasons, it may be grounds to force the renegotiation of portions of an agreement or even grounds to void an agreement (as Rocks has pointed out).  However, I am fairly confident that there would be ways to prevent this from happening in most states just by the application of basic real property law principles, but would hesitate to go any further than that online.
 
In general, however, the non-compete idea is complete overkill and reveals a certain desperation.  It is also so completely un-Anglican that we can be fairly certain that there is a growing alienation between 815 and Canterbury.  I believe the abuse of the Denis Canon that Africanized Anglican so thoroughly breaks down may also give us a window into their growing paranoia (as Craig Goodrich elaborates on so succintly above), but again, I hesitate to comment further.  What is most disturbing about all of this is that we now are seeing coming to the surface, in living shades of grey and black, the ugliness that we’ve known was underneath their gnosticizing and paganizing of the Faith.  Their trust is certainly not in the One who gives freedom and hope, but only in their own scheming and plotting.

[60] Posted by young joe from old oc on 09-29-2007 at 07:45 AM • top

With TEC it again all comes down to money, power and property.  Instead of graciously wishing Bishop Steenson well in his journey to Rome, he is harrassed by a gang of ecclesiastical thugs (Schori, Beers, Bishops) about his deal to allow a parish to depart.  It would seem accurate to characterize TEC as not just outright heretics but as organized hitmen and enforcers who will threaten people to get their own way.  A RICO indeed.

[61] Posted by PapaJ on 09-29-2007 at 07:49 AM • top

Second, ++KJS is quite insistent that a clause be added to the St. Clement’s contract making it null and void if they cease to be an independent congregation or join another part of the Anglican Communion.

Now, there you have a TRUE “boundary crossing” violation when JKS claims threat or power to renege on a contract, yet the parish is no longer a part of TEC!

[62] Posted by MasterServer on 09-29-2007 at 08:03 AM • top

Christopher Johnson! DomWalk has finally given us the definitive response to “It’s a river, not a pie!”

<bold>TEC: it’s a RICO, not a church</bold>

[63] Posted by Enough on 09-29-2007 at 08:07 AM • top

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

—Tacitus, Agricola

[64] Posted by murbles on 09-29-2007 at 08:32 AM • top

“Second, ++KJS is quite insistent that a clause be added to the St. Clement’s contract making it null and void if they cease to be an independent congregation of join another part of the Anglican Communion…”

Why can KJS do this without General Convention giving her the authority to do so?  Nice how swift the rules get made by Bishops when the Bishop’s little kingdoms may be invaded by the orthodox members of the Anglican Communion!

[65] Posted by Josip on 09-29-2007 at 09:41 AM • top

++KJS is quite insistent that a clause be added to the St. Clement’s contract making it null and void if they cease…

Man, I wish I could have done that with the last used car I bought…

[66] Posted by James Manley on 09-29-2007 at 09:43 AM • top

“they don’t realize most of us have guns, know how to use them and nobody’s gonna mess with our bishops!...”

At last… a perfect solution to all this bickering going on in the church. We’ll just kill the sobs.
God help any dissenters on Fr. Maxwell’s vestry.

[67] Posted by Temple1 on 09-29-2007 at 09:48 AM • top

I’m already reaching for my pistol…

Hey, what gives with this? The Commenatrix (Blessed be her name) got on my case for saying a lot less than that.

It should be quite evident to all by now that our Presiding Marine Biologist and all the 815 gang are not liken to a school of angelfish. They are sharks, pure and simple.

the snarkster

[68] Posted by the snarkster on 09-29-2007 at 09:59 AM • top

Frankly, Fr. Maxwell, I wouldn’t waste a bullet on her.

Can we get back to humor,intellectual discourse and walking as the Lord would have us do? Let hatred be their prison not ours.
Intercessor

[69] Posted by Intercessor on 09-29-2007 at 11:53 AM • top

“The crackdown on agreements began January 1, 2007”.

Forgive me if I’m dense here, but what exactly is the nature of the crackdown?  Just what exactly is that woman holding over all the bishops’ heads that they have stopped negotiating with parishes?  Declaring the Sees vacant?  What? 

I’d appreciate any answer any of you could give me…

Blessings,

TS

[70] Posted by Passing By on 09-29-2007 at 12:16 PM • top

So this is how +KJS “wages reconciliation”!

It is obvious that 815 is getting more than a little nervous.

[71] Posted by Allen Lewis on 09-29-2007 at 12:26 PM • top

Forgive me if I’m dense here, but what exactly is the nature of the crackdown?  Just what exactly is that woman holding over all the bishops’ heads that they have stopped negotiating with parishes?  Declaring the Sees vacant?  What?

Well presentment might well be one serious threat. There have been a couple of of such attempts in the past few months—Schofield and Cox come to mind. (And it is suggested that Steenson was also threatened with presentment.) And the reality is that it would be very expensive for a bishop to defend himself even if innocent. Not to mention that the ecclesiastical court for the trial of a bishop is notoriously biased and has been for a long time.

And if it decided that the bishop had “abandoned the communion of this church” the see would be effectively declared vacant, and an “interim” appointed by the folks at 815 until a replacement more to the liking of the General Convention Church were elected, confirmed and consecrated.

[72] Posted by Ken Peck on 09-29-2007 at 12:36 PM • top

If she thinks she can change the Bible to fit her will, what’s so odd that she could think a contract that has been finalized could be changed?  I’m sure she will go in her pink jackboots to the other dioscese to spread her love.

[73] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 09-29-2007 at 01:26 PM • top

I will just point out that the talk of guns will be used to confirm the idea that we are a bunch of thugs.  I would have thought that after the first person posted a caution, it would have stopped.  Greg, I understand that it may mean something else to you and a few others, but it will be perceived as a threatening statement, and the original statement is not even a thinly veiled threat.  The only possible reading is, “If you mess with Bishop Steenson, you risk facing our guns.”  This cannot possibly have a Christian interpretation.  It’s a bit like Peter carrying his sword into the Garden of Gethsemane. 

Aren’t the people who blog and comment here above this.  Someone important, at least He is important to me, once said, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”  In context, it could easily be taken to mean, “Pray even for the Roman soldiers, who extort money from you.”  Someone else, much less important, said, “Never hate your enemy.  It clouds your judgment.” 

I would love to hear what Sarah has to say about the strategic implications of posting comments like, “Most of us have guns and know how to use them.”  I can just imagine how ENS would use this.  “PB threatened by radicals on StandFirm.”  In any case, the remarks reflect and error in judgment at best, and at worst, they reflect hearts that are filled with rage.

[74] Posted by revrj on 09-29-2007 at 01:32 PM • top

they reflect hearts that are filled with rage.

in other news, grass is green, water is wet, and politicians are liars.

of course we’re filled with RAGE (some of us, anyhow).  given the galling actions taken against an institution that we care(d) for, what else do you expect?

[75] Posted by Clay From Dallas on 09-29-2007 at 02:14 PM • top

Of course, no one is threatening anyone with anything here. I’ll caution anyone pondering a real threat to read our comment policy, but I’ll also remind those who think we’re under orders to keep everything here cupcakes and bunny rabbits not to fall for the caricature of Jesus that our Worthy Opponents have tried to sell us… how was it put the other day? - A sort of zoned-out hippie pacifist, wandering from town to town, spouting Zen koans and harmless parables?

Let’s not forget that the people in these churches have in many cases put their life’s work into them; that their parents and grandparents are buried in the graveyard; it’s where their children were baptized, confirmed and married; and that the people we’re up against are nasty - there’s no other way to say it - and they’re playing for keeps.

I won’t criticize those who think the best course is to play the pacifist, but they shouldn’t find fault with those who want to pick up their sword along with their trowel.

[76] Posted by Greg Griffith on 09-29-2007 at 02:33 PM • top

Revrj, I had hope the context would have led you to a non literal interpretation:
He was really upset by this –in tears and shaking- and it included deposition, law suits, not allowing him to resign. . . We were [my original text wasn’t “were”, it was written “waz” deliberately and I bet the spell checker got it!] quite angry on hearing this and wondered if they realized they were talking to a NM – TX bishop. Their cities may have a lot of urban gang problems; but, they don’t realize most of us have guns, know how to use them and nobody’s gonna mess with our bishops!

Our bishop had been rode hard and put up wet and many if not most were as angry as anything at those bishops. “Mess with” is a Texas term as someone pointed out earlier and I’d almost put in “No mas!” from “Toss o mas!” our NM slogan for not making a mess on our highways. If you took this overstatement to make the point literally, perhaps those colloquial expressions without the “waz” weren’t recognized as deliberate overstatement.

If you did understand the overstatement, some time spent with the different genres of truth telling might lower your anxiety level. This piece today is excellent on the different genres of truth as found in scripture: http://tinyurl.com/3yy7sp from Parchment and Pen

+Jeffrey read the “waz” in my original that went to SF and he got the humor: I much enjoyed this post and your great wit!  One correction—XX was not one of the bishops.  And I will take Katharine at her word that this is just the normal human expression of anger.  My own heart is much more settled today.

“Trust and verify,” a parent and grandparent and “father’s” mantra, and the second is like unto it, “sometimes they really are after you!”

And you single folk, be sure not to miss, Top Twenty Theological Pick-up Lines not to use that you can find on Parchment and Pen in the left column on their home page!

[77] Posted by Bob Maxwell+ on 09-29-2007 at 02:35 PM • top

How about some relief here.  Things are depressing but, God is still in charge.

Two videos have been uncovered recently and secretly posted to You Tube.  The first is a rehearsal for the recent HOB meeting.  The person playing the PB is rather diminutive but she gives a strong performance that puts me in mind of the PB.  Part of the rehearsal is in code.  Wherever you hear the word lollipop substitute TEC.  Remember, all is well on the Good Ship TEC.

The second video is a confidential training video for the just announced Rio Grande diocesan retreat.

Enjoy.  Laughter is the best medicine - with a healthy dose prayer!

[78] Posted by Daniel on 09-29-2007 at 02:49 PM • top

“Mess with” is a Texas term as someone pointed out earlier

“Don’t mess with Texas” is an award winning anti-litter advertising campaign. The penalty for messing with Texas doesn’t have anything to do with firearms, but is a hefty fine.

While the talk of guns may be merely an expression of righteous indignation, I still think it is a disservice to the Christian and orthodox causes. And certainly the Opposition will cite it as an example of “homophobia” or whatever.

Speak the truth in love.

Or as Jesus reminded us, “Love your enemies…” (And has someone has added, “...and drive them nuts.”)

Lovingly blog the Way, the Truth and the Life. It will drive The Enemy up the wall! They hate it when we do that.

[79] Posted by Ken Peck on 09-29-2007 at 02:57 PM • top

MarkBrown:  I like the description of this as a “non-compete agreement”—maybe the Dennis Canon is a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act!

[80] Posted by Johng on 09-29-2007 at 03:01 PM • top

What filthy, crooked people Schori and her thug henchmen are.

[81] Posted by Phil on 09-29-2007 at 03:10 PM • top

Bob Maxwell+ Again, thank you for your service and may the Lord protect you and Bev from all evils, including those found in human form.

[82] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 09-29-2007 at 03:32 PM • top

Father Bob,  I have not heard the term ” rode hard and put away wet ” in a coon’s age.  Why next thing you’ll be telling Aggie jokes.  But here is another apt saying as regards to KJS and the gang of ruffians.
As my husband is want to say ” he’s got a handful of gimmees and a mouthful of much obliged”

If y’all think Texans get riled when someone disses a beloved Bishop you don’t want to know what happens if you diss football.

[83] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 09-29-2007 at 06:47 PM • top

Are the 815 thugs and CEO’s paying a friendly visit to local bishop obliged to wear brown shirts during the visit?  We all know the fashion sense at the top is not fortuitious at best (which, given Bishop Epting’s concerns about being pilloried in New York City, really should be taken under serious advisement) and abyss-mal in consecration.

[84] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 09-29-2007 at 08:55 PM • top

Well, my Texas friends would say about a situation like that with +Jeff in DRG, we’d “saddle up and pay someone a visit”.

[85] Posted by Charles III on 09-29-2007 at 09:17 PM • top

In Ken Burns’s WAR last night, there was an interview with a Ranger or maybe a Marine who was in a crack unit that was being disatched in secret to face the Japs.  The sargent, when asked by reporters what was their missin replied,“We just take care of people.  When we meet a Jap we just take care of him.”  He was probably from Texas.

[86] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 09-29-2007 at 09:37 PM • top

Just for your info, this thread is being followed on Jake’s site, with comments about how violent and bullying we orthodox are. (It also includes some notes on Bp Duncan’s address at the Common Cause meeting, where he speaks about those who held to orthodoxy in the face of persecution.)

Just as one should be careful in the type of jokes one makes while waiting to go through security at an airport, it would be wise to watch our humorous comments—we may be “just joshing” among ourselves, but we are not alone—and reappraisers are not known for their light-hearted sense of humor.

[87] Posted by AnglicanXn on 09-29-2007 at 09:58 PM • top

“Just for your info, this thread is being followed on Jake’s site, with comments about how violent and bullying we orthodox are”.

“Bullying”?  You mean like Schori’s treatment of +Steenson?

[88] Posted by Passing By on 09-29-2007 at 10:02 PM • top

AnglicanXn,

I saw that thread at Jake’s place. It consists mainly of the same little gaggle of shrieking schoolgirls that always posts over there, plus TaoMikael calling me (for the eleventy-billionth time) a propagandist interested only in pumping up the traffic stats for the site. (True fact: Ever since we ditched SiteMeter some months ago, I have looked at our stats once, and was so distressed by the difficulty of using our web host’s stats package I’ve never done it again).

While I appreciate your advice about watching our p’s and q’s, I refuse to conform my posts to the delicate sensibilities of Jake and his gals. This will always be a place where men can feel free to be men… the kind of place our church used to be, once upon a time.

[89] Posted by Greg Griffith on 09-29-2007 at 10:16 PM • top

Greg Griffith :

Listen, Greg, time to come to grips with it - Tao is your ‘groupie’ - I will admit that the idea doesn’t fall under the title of ‘flattering’ - but hey, how else do you explain his constant theme of “Greg, Greg Greg!”

You poor man.  I’m glad you didn’t make those StandFirm Greg Griffith teddybears - he’d probably have about 40 of them now each with it’s own ‘propaganda’ written article on his mantle.

For those at Jake’s - I BAN YOU ALL OFF OF JAKE’S SITE.  THIS IS IT!  YOU DESERVE IT! 

Yes!  Anglican Cats of the Internet strike again!  wink

[90] Posted by Eclipse on 09-29-2007 at 10:30 PM • top

Bullies never have a sense of humor.

[91] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 09-29-2007 at 10:33 PM • top

Truth? or having the favor of those readers of Jake that think “just enough” conservatives will leave?

Bev and I serve the Incarnate Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth as he alone is the Way, the Truth and the Life and no one comes to the Father except through him. I pray that those who hold to an intellectual belief in other avenues to God know or encounter the Good Shepherd.

[92] Posted by Bob Maxwell+ on 09-29-2007 at 10:43 PM • top

Greg, Yo da maiin!

[93] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 09-29-2007 at 11:06 PM • top

Shades of Galatians 2:5 Greg,let them eat cake(make that fudge)

[94] Posted by paddy c on 09-29-2007 at 11:14 PM • top

Thank you all!!!! I’m off the floor now, but still trying not to burst out long enough to write, but I’m still giggling.

Bob+—Bless you for your gentile spirit.
Eclipse & Greg - thanks for the needed laugh! (I suppose I should thank Tao for providing it but Paula has wisely pointed out what is lacking).

[95] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 09-29-2007 at 11:33 PM • top

<a >Ken</a>—“Don’t mess with Texas” predates the littering campaign by at least half a century, afaIk, and if you don’t want to talk about guns don’t talk about Texas.

They’ve already got plenty of it in the fields, what with the cattle industry and all, and perhaps that’s why they don’t take too kindly to those who insist on importing a lot of the PC variety…

[96] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 09-30-2007 at 12:32 AM • top

RE: “Listen, Greg, time to come to grips with it - Tao is your ‘groupie’  . . . “

Heh.

Heh heh heh.

Low-quality groupies you have there, Greg.  Were I to have groupies I’m sure mine would be far superior . . . ; > )

[97] Posted by Sarah on 09-30-2007 at 08:31 AM • top

Were I to have groupies I’m sure mine would be far superior . . . ; > )

That we are, Sarah!!!

(From one of your Superior Groupies)

[98] Posted by bigjimintx on 09-30-2007 at 08:38 AM • top

That’s it, Sarah…. YOU’RE BANNED FROM JAKE’S BLOG TOO.

[99] Posted by Greg Griffith on 09-30-2007 at 08:57 AM • top

This is rich, to have a group that routinely compares mainstream Christians to bigoted killers to be complaining about rhetorical excess.  By the way, Jake has this whole post and has even updated it with one of Greg’s comments on this thread, yet I thought he wasn’t sullying himself with SF anymore.  Must be a stray RSS feed, I guess.

[100] Posted by Phil on 09-30-2007 at 10:20 AM • top

To all those who are concerned about Fr. Jake Stop’s the World (yeah right) posting this thread and any other from Stand Frim in Faith and its posters I say this:
I would suspect that Fr. Jake’s website hits were extremely low and comments barely there because his musings lack depth. So to spice things up and get some things rolling for his numbers he has decided that picking and plucking postings & comments from the favorite targeted website there is for liberal revisionists is of course, Stand Firm in Faith. Fr. Jake lacks the skills in being able to write his own postings that would invite good debate or conversation and thus must continue to <i>stir the pot<>, if you will, in taking comments from another website (SFiF) and then build a post from it to allow those who seem to want to swim in the sewer and partake of droppings that are out of context. Most, not all but most,  of those that post on Fr. Jake’s site do not post here. Why? Are they afraid of not being able to answer the hard questions? It certainly cannot be fear of their postings not getting posted since SFiF is not like all other liberal sites that weed through postings and decide who is and who is not acceptable in their eyes to have their comments posted & read. To me Fr. Jake and others like him do not have the character it takes to stand on their own without standing on others.

[101] Posted by TLDillon on 09-30-2007 at 10:59 AM • top

I shoulda known better, but I had to take a peek at Fr. Jake.  He is into this thread like (fill in with favorite simile).  What morbid fascination in a little conservative levity!  It is real spiritual (fill in with favorite metaphore).  I am a lady and won’t stoop to some of their more biological word pictures, I guess that is all Jake’s gals have to offer.  Potty language!

[102] Posted by Crabby in MD on 09-30-2007 at 10:59 AM • top

Concerned?  Hardly.  But ditto to the rest of your post.  I found the “love” more than underwhelming.

[103] Posted by Crabby in MD on 09-30-2007 at 11:06 AM • top

Didn’t someone post to SFIF yesterday about how evil this blog is for picking up posts from other blogs and picking them apart? wink

[104] Posted by oscewicee on 09-30-2007 at 11:14 AM • top

oscewicee,
I didn’t read anything like that but then there is alot to read and if there was please enlighten.
BTW I did not mean for the remainder of my post to be in italics. My bad…sorry!

Crabby in MD,
Maybe concerned was a bad word choice…I do not claim to be a writer. Maybe, curious would have been a better choice. But, I would hope that the meaning of the post would be more important than a word.

God’s Blessings

[105] Posted by TLDillon on 09-30-2007 at 11:22 AM • top

ODC:  Mea culpa.  Your love wasn’t underwhelming.  Fr. Jake’s was.  Flippancy comes too quickly for me sometimes.  I totally agree with your post.  I will cease any more attempts at humor - will leave it to the masters - Snarkster, I missed you! - and PLEASE accept my apology.

[106] Posted by Crabby in MD on 09-30-2007 at 11:28 AM • top

Right on ODC..I am more concerned about SpongeBob guarding the Crabby Patty recipe than the rant and reflection of Mother Jake.
Intercessor

[107] Posted by Intercessor on 09-30-2007 at 11:30 AM • top

Crabby in MD,
No apologies needed. I am often the poster here at SF that has more typos than a first grader on a type writer and I also sometimes allow my passion for Jesus Christ and Scripture take over and I get so upset I type things that get really misunderstood. I can take it though, because I know where my true love comes from and my forgiveness flows from. As long as I keep myself right with God, I will always be alright and so will you.
Blessings

[108] Posted by TLDillon on 09-30-2007 at 11:34 AM • top

I don’t know whether this is the best place to mention this, but my professional colleague and “cobelligerent” IRNS has a new, and IMHO stellar, comment on ECUSA, NO, DAR and Windsor here:

http://rathernot.classicalanglican.net/?p=296#comments

[109] Posted by William Tighe on 09-30-2007 at 12:04 PM • top

BigJimintx, why thank you!

So so far we have . . .

Greg’s Groupies = Tao, Father Jake

Sarah’s Groupies = bigjimintx

Might there be others?

[110] Posted by Sarah on 09-30-2007 at 12:53 PM • top

How about Jesus Christ groupies?
That would definately be me!

[111] Posted by TLDillon on 09-30-2007 at 12:55 PM • top

Crabby,
“(fill in with favorite simile)”
For me, it"s ” like a duck on a junebug.”  If you’ve ever seen such an actual encounter, It’s hilarious. Waddle, poke, jab, miss, Quack, waddle, Quack, jab, miss, quack, quack, waddle…...
Maybe we should start a list. And, BTW, add me to Sarah’s groupie list.
john1-

[112] Posted by john1 on 09-30-2007 at 01:04 PM • top

Bad, bad Greg.  No treats for you.  You Naughty Blogger go to your reeducation session immediately.  And stop that snickering RIGHT NOW!!!

[113] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 09-30-2007 at 01:42 PM • top

michael cudney,

You’re over-analyzing things. The only way you can visit SF and come away thinking “all testosterone blazing,” is to have spent WAY too much time in the extreme, hyper-feminine wing of the Episcopal church. You and Jake’s girls need to get out into the real world more often. You know… experience more diversity.

[114] Posted by Greg Griffith on 09-30-2007 at 02:05 PM • top

I have to admit I have followed this debate with interest, mostly as the second the topic of defence is raised our not so Worthy Opponents scream blue blazes.

So here is my first question to those at Jake’s site.  How many of you have served as a Chaplain in the Military or Police Force?  I am willing to bet nor many.  I think the answer from my ordained friends here would be somewhat different, combined with the fact that probably more than one used the GI Bill to pay for seminary.  Why does this matter?  It matters becasue we tend to understand our flock becasue many of them come from a similar background.  It is no accident I think that the Left is scared of the conservatives becasue we have so much background in the military and law enforcement.  We have all taken a vow to “defend’ either the Consititution of the USA of for me and probably a few other “the Sovereign’s Majesty.”  Preserving and defending many things is our way of life and the liberals do not realize that not only are we defending the ‘Faith once received’ but also our way of life, for the joke’s about brown shirts are not that far from the truth. 

Already we are having less and less say what our children are taught in schools.  They are even taught that homosexuality is ok despite Biblical proscription not withstanding the medical facts that it will kill you or lessen your life by 50%.  I used to smoke but the second the doctor proved to me it was killing me I quit.  The Primates told the HoB this was killing the communion.  The HoB is back to being school children smoking behind the bicyle sheds bullying those who aren’t in the ‘cool group.’  I would suggest they are the bullies.  What a bully fears most is when the bullied has ultimatley had enough, and our joking was an expression of that.

Mostly because since the HoB Meeting and what most view as the dismal faliure of their responce the ante has most certainly been upped with the Common Cause Patners saying enough is enough.  By indications of what we have on record from Bob+ all methods honorable and dishonorable are going to be added to 815’s arsenal, and that is very, very sad for all.

It is sad that we have to feel the need to defend ourselves, almost to the point of doing that one thing most of us who have done it, pray we never have; to take up arms to defend our way of life.  That is what the reference to Small band of paratroppers was.  I doubt that Jake knows that all airborne troopers are taught to form small groups upon landing till they all link up then ulitmately form small groups again to do what they are trained to do and that is distupt enemy operation behind the lines by taking and holding things away from them to deny them the use of such.  It is called attacking being the best form of defence:)

I do feel sorry for those over at ‘that other site’ really don’t get it that we will not allow false teaching to be rammed down our throat.  Since TGCC has declined to participate as a Bible believing province they are scared stiff that we will seek protection from a true bishop who does not threaten his flock but nutures them as he vowed to do.

I’ve said my peace (deliberate pun).  I escaped TGCC’s clutches in 2000 and want to see a separate province so we can all be at peace.  It is obvious we are never going to agree and neither side wishes to have the others point of view rammed down their throat, so peace may best be allowed for he by letting those who wish to leave, leave and with property if the majority so chose, they paid for it, and paid the clergy salaries, so it is theirs despite what some dubious internal rule says.

“O Lord, Thou knowest how busy I must be this day. If I forget Thee, do not forget me”

The Prayer of Sir. Jacob Astley, 1st Baron Astley of Reading.


Alasdair+

[115] Posted by Alasdair+ on 09-30-2007 at 02:15 PM • top

Ft. Worth appears to be holding up quite well.  I predict growth for that diocese no matter where they may end up. 

Our own parish in the diocese of Dallas has accurately reported our ASA, membership, and giving.  (It shows that housecleaning has taken place!)  We are growing spiritually as individuals and as a congregation, and now we may be getting to a place where we can welcome newcomers and seekers, and once again grow numerically in membership.

[116] Posted by Jill C. on 09-30-2007 at 02:15 PM • top

I’m so sorry!  The above was posted in the wrong thread.  Mea culpa!

[117] Posted by Jill C. on 09-30-2007 at 02:18 PM • top

Here I’m dress to head off to worship ... I should behave myself ... but ... I didn’t flee the temptation .... ahhh ... I’m caught ... oh well ...

“If Christian males do not man up soon, the Episcopalians may vote a fluffy bunny rabbit as their next bishop to lead God’s men,” Driscoll sneered.

Okay ... I’m off to repent of my sins now ...

[118] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 09-30-2007 at 02:20 PM • top

Ms. Hey:

Low-quality groupies you have there, Greg.  Were I to have groupies I’m sure mine would be far superior . . .

Well, they certainly could be.  But you will have to put some effort into it.  Grade A groupies aren’t just going to fall into your lap.

First of all, you need to branch out.  Why not leave these Stand Firm lightweights behind and start your own blog?

How’s this for a title: “An Undercurrent Of Malignant Narcissism.” 

Does that work for you?

No loaded firearms, just a classic Machiavellian approach to making sure your trigger finger stays on the pulse of the Anglican Communion.

And where else should it be?

Imagine the server crashing several times a day while tens of thousands flock to your site, and lonely old men in bathrobes hit the “refresh” key repeatedly with bloody nubs as they await the latest pronouncement from Her Hey-ness?

But it’s up to you, Missy!

Lose the “Goody Two Shoes” routine and you could become enshrined in infamy on revisionist blogs all across the Internet, with groupies streaming in by the hundreds.

Or hang around here carrying water for a bunch of chumps who fail to appreciate your greatness, just because you don’t know how to use an AK-47.

Uh . . . you don’t know how to use one of those, do you?

[119] Posted by episcopalienated on 09-30-2007 at 02:25 PM • top

Why thank you,

Greg’s Groupies = Tao, Father Jake, Michael Cudney

Sarah’s Groupies = bigjimintx, john1

[120] Posted by Sarah on 09-30-2007 at 03:17 PM • top

Episcopalienated,

RE: “Lose the “Goody Two Shoes” routine and you could become enshrined in infamy on revisionist blogs all across the Internet, with groupies streaming in by the hundreds.”

I’ve always said that I’m really a moderate.  Just think, at the StandFirm blog, I am really a sweet, gentle, dolphin-like, inclusive, affirming, communal Episcopalian.  ; > )

RE: AK-47 . . . I do not need all of those bullets. Only one suffices for me.  ; > )

[121] Posted by Sarah on 09-30-2007 at 03:19 PM • top

count me as a sarah groupie

[122] Posted by art+ on 09-30-2007 at 03:26 PM • top

Now see, things are looking quite bleak for Greg.

Greg’s Groupies = Tao, Father Jake, Michael Cudney

Sarah’s Groupies = bigjimintx, john1, art+

My suspicion is that numerous other raging revisionists are actually Groupies of Greg . . . and I think that bodes ill.

Ominously,

Sarah


; > )

[123] Posted by Sarah on 09-30-2007 at 03:28 PM • top

Sarah Groupie…..

[124] Posted by DaveB in VT on 09-30-2007 at 04:17 PM • top

ODC,

We’re JC Groupies, too.

But, ya gotta admit, Sarah…. wink.

[125] Posted by bigjimintx on 09-30-2007 at 04:34 PM • top

bigjimintx,
Nope, I only worship the Father, the Son, & the Holy Spirit. No human is worth worshiping. Admiration…that’s another thing. But as a very wise priest told me once, “Even those whom we admire and love will eventully let us down, break our hearts, and hurt out feelings, but Jesus Christ never will.”

[126] Posted by TLDillon on 09-30-2007 at 04:47 PM • top

Sarah Hey:

I’ve always said that I’m really a moderate.  Just think, at the StandFirm blog, I am really a sweet, gentle, dolphin-like, inclusive, affirming, communal Episcopalian.  ; > )

Well, I’m glad to know that you weren’t put off by my silly little jokes.  Actually, my admiration for you is unbounded.  Doesn’t matter what, if anything, you can do with an AK-47.

Although . . . even I may have to draw the line at “dolphin-like.” wink

Now if you’ll pardon me, I have to go bandage my fingers.

[127] Posted by episcopalienated on 09-30-2007 at 08:42 PM • top

Count me as a Greg groupie.  The man does not suffer fools gladly.

[128] Posted by CarolynP on 09-30-2007 at 09:29 PM • top

Sarah Hey all the way!


(I always thought I was her number one fan, but every time I mention her name here in Birmingham, someone always says THEY are her #1 fan ....)

LOTS of fans here…

[129] Posted by HeartAfire on 09-30-2007 at 09:57 PM • top

At the risk of shifting this thread back to its earlier topic (vice guns, guts and groupies, its newer direction), I do find myself wondering about whether 815 has sufficiently thought through its beloved Denis Canon, or if it not just something the PB came up with after a lot of Beers…

I am canonically, if not physically, resident in the the Diocese of South Carolina, an historic diocese filled with historic churches.  Another phrase for “historic churches” is “<u>really</u>, <u>really,</u> expensive-to-maintain churches”.  Should the vast majority of the clergy and laity feel that there were no longer any choice but to “walk separately” from TEC, would TEC rely fight for the ownership of the multiple properties, many on the Historic Register (meaning they can’t be torn down to build condos)?  Do they have a clue as to what the cost of upkeep might add up to?  In many cases, entire congregations would leave en masse (or at Holy Communion, after Mass); in others there might be a few members who’d opt to stay in TEC.  There are a very few parishes which might stay in TEC, but the vast majority of the diocese is orthodox.

If a single parish in Massachusetts or Olympia wanted to leave TEC, it’d be easy for the bishop to insist on keeping the property, and then to shuffle folk around to keep the building open and the light bill paid.  Places like the Diocese of South Carolina are a different story.  Does TEC really want to take on the expense of maintaining a diocese full of elderly, historic church buildings, which they have emptied?  Or will the money people at 815 throw their hands in the air and tell the South Carolina rebels to keep their church buildings (thus creating a precedent they really don’t want set)?  Just the city of Charleston itself has some fifteen parish churches, some of them pre-Revolutionary War, of which perhaps two or three would stay with TEC.  Who is going to pay the maintenance on all those 200 year old buildings?  Certainly not the members of the few parishes remaining in TEC—they’ll be struggling to cover their own expenses, having probably had some “defections” to the orthodox.

The complications of having an entire diocese separate from TEC will make for an interesting legal mess, too.  815’s stance has been that all parish properties are held in trust for the diocese.  In my (Anglo-Catholic) understanding of Church polity, I’m fine with that—“Where the Bishop is, there is the Church”.  It’s why most parishes maintain a bishop’s ‘throne’, despite his only filling it once a year or so.  For TEC to try to argue that the Diocese in turn holds all that property in Trust for the national church, though, opens them to the logical conclusion of their own argument—that TEC then in turn holds it in trust for the Anglican Communion (the next step up the “hierarchical chain”).  I can hear the lawyer: “Your honor, yes, the parish church actually belongs to the Diocese, so the Diocese owns the church building’s property, and the Diocese belongs to the national church, so the national church actually owns all the diocesan property, and yes, the national church does belong to the Anglican Communion, but don’t pay any attention to that last part—it’s just a formality.”

Yeah, right.
Do they really want to risk a judge giving the Archbishop of Canterbury the opportunity to sell the building at 815 2nd Avenue?  That’s <u>not</u> an historic building, but it’s sure a valuable piece of real estate!

[130] Posted by Conego on 10-01-2007 at 04:29 AM • top

Intercessor :

Right on ODC..I am more concerned about SpongeBob guarding the Crabby Patty recipe than the rant and reflection of Mother Jake.

LOL!!  That was worth reading the whole thread for!

Re: Re-posting this thread

Whatever for?  I mean how lame is it to be going to someone else’s blog and steal comments off of it so you have something to talk about?  I mean isn’t that a new LOW in bloggdom? 

Is the General Convention Christianity so bereft of anything of worth that you must try to create interest that way?  It’s pitiable.

No wonder Jake has to talk about ‘snake oil’ - because he really is peddling nothing as worth something.

[131] Posted by Eclipse on 10-01-2007 at 07:43 AM • top

Looks like she is going to be the PB that everybody remembers for suing everybody and wrecking the church.

[132] Posted by Zoot on 10-01-2007 at 09:29 AM • top

OK, I confess. I don’t think groupie is quite the right word. I am a Sarah junkie. If I don’t get my daily Sarah fix, I get real grumpy.

the snarkster

[133] Posted by the snarkster on 10-01-2007 at 01:38 PM • top

OK, I made the mistake of looking at Jake’s poor excuse for an article:

All I could really think of is Jesus’ words to the Pharisees “straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel”

1.  Here is a story about the “”“”“”“”“”“Presiding Bishop”“”“”“”“” of the General Convention Church BULLYING a retiring bishop and threatening him - (checking checking checking - not satire REALITY)

2.  All Jake can do is whine that Greg is being silly and saying he has a gun.  (checking, checking checking - not reality SATIRE)

This means Jake either DOESN’T GET IT or is just really pathetic.

Jake, you are pathetic - Anglican Cats have voted and found this to be the overwhelming verdict.

PS I say “That’s it!  I’m going to spank you”  to my kids when we are playing - they laugh and I pretend to ‘spank’ them and they pretend to ‘spank’ me back.  (By the by, we NEVER use that as a discipline option… so spare me)

Evil!!! Child abuse!  IT can’t be… It can’t BE - that we could just be TEASING??????????????????????????????  What a concept, eh?

You seriously need to get a life - or find something better to do with your time OR you know, feed the poor, help someone - in short, anything is better than hyperventilating over such trivial things…

I pity you.

[134] Posted by Eclipse on 10-01-2007 at 05:53 PM • top

This means Jake either DOESN’T GET IT or is just really pathetic.

Eclipse….Both! And so is his female counter part on a pink site called telling secrets. Both are cleless and pathetic…I just have to laugh!

[135] Posted by TLDillon on 10-01-2007 at 06:00 PM • top

oops! I meant clueless! Just part of my charm :>)

[136] Posted by TLDillon on 10-01-2007 at 06:01 PM • top

Listen, ODC - telling secrets pink lady IS Dolores Umbridge - don’t let her fool you into thinking she’s just another bizarre liberal blogger - she’s just working for her boss Cornelius - I mean Katherine - Fudge - I mean Shori. 

EPISCOPAL DECREE NUMBER 200034!  No Parish WILL be able to leave without the repress permission of the HIGH INQUISTOR and her INQUISITORIAL SQUAD (Depo bishops - I nominate B. Brookhart as Crabb).  Non-compliant Parishes will NOT be allowed to take their buildings and will be branded ‘Anglican schismatics’.

[137] Posted by Eclipse on 10-01-2007 at 06:25 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.