Total visitors right now: 101

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Tick, tick, tick goes the clock, waiting for the publication of a “clarification.” 

Quick, someone wake up Canon Kearon.  Perhaps Schori can just buzz him on the special beeper she gave him for just these occasions.

[] Posted by Going Home on 11-09-2007 at 02:20 PM • top

Despite Bishop Howe’s inexplicable intransigence of late, it would be my hope the dio of CFL would take Venables’ sensible way forward.  Alas, ++Howe’s obeisance to 815 stands as a significant obstacle to my little dream world…

[1] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 11-09-2007 at 02:24 PM • top

I again hope that ++Williams is on board….but what does it mean for those who are being cannon-balled by Schori, Beers & 815 with threats of presentment charges of abandonment and trying to maintain that their church properties belong to TEC? There needs to be a clear statement from the ABofC on this issue if he is indeed on board with this propsal.

[2] Posted by TLDillon on 11-09-2007 at 02:28 PM • top

In keeping with laudable and true Catholic tradition, Rowan made it clear in the letter that diocesan autonomy is paramount. The Southern Cone solution also offers a means of maintaining unity while allowing a degree of separation within that unity. But it does demand a new frame of mind from archbishops and bishops, one that permits a new form of structure, with extra-geographical boundaries. This will be resisted, for reasons of ecclesiological tradition. But I do have to ask, if doctrine can be changed unilaterally, why not structure? It seems to me the latter is and should be the lesser ‘sin’, as sin it will certainly be deemed by some to be.

This statement and comment by Ruth Gledhill is both sensible and true.  It highlights the heart of our differences.  Doctrine is far more important than canonical or polity issues.  It is after all
our relationship with Jesus Christ as a matter of personal belief and commitment that places us within the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - NOT - (to quote another Anglican document) “bums on pews.”  Form and structure, even tradition, must follow belief and doctrine.  It cannot be the other way round.  Please tell 815 as they have not got it yet.  I do pray for the 815 folk to develop a “new frame of mind.”

[3] Posted by Fr Ian on 11-09-2007 at 02:36 PM • top

Anathasius returns, Bp Howe is an enigma. It is clear that he does not want to lead his diocese into a battle that they won’t win. And he knows that Florida law doesn’t favor him. However, if the trail is blazed successfully by Pittsburgh, etc., I wouldn’t put it past the good bishop.

Fighting the 4 or more departing dioceses would cost the TEcorp millions. Even if they won, it would be a Pyrrhic victory. KJS has no sense, but DBB is no fool. Maybe reason will rule the day?!?!?!?!

[4] Posted by robroy on 11-09-2007 at 03:05 PM • top

This is huge!  Isn’t this huge?  ++Williams is allowing the orthodox diocese in TEC to separate from TEC?

Why are orthodox congregations being treated differently?

Well, I need some time to process this.

In the meantime, everytime I click on the links in the article (“from here” and .”...more”) I get redirected to this page.

[5] Posted by selah on 11-09-2007 at 03:05 PM • top

Posted on the other thread with this story:

Before we dance cartwheels over this news, think it over carefully.  I am not so sure that it represents “good” news.  I am not referring to Venables’ actions - that certainly is good news.

I am referring to Rowan Williams’ response.  This might give him the “out” he needs to avoid taking any further action.  If this permits Rowan Williams to say “well, there, those pesky conservative American bishops are dealt with, now let’s move on” where will that leave us?  My belief is that Rowan will only take action when it becomes too painful for him not to take action.

Now, perhaps, this might turn out to be good.  Perhaps Rowan is finally wisening up to the fact that the Anglican Communion is falling apart and that he had better stop putting his head in the sand.  But these are a lot of “maybe’s”.

But I do NOT regard this development as in any way constituting real leadership by Rowan Williams.

[6] Posted by jamesw on 11-09-2007 at 03:12 PM • top

Again, what about the faithful in recalcitrant revisionist dioceses?

[7] Posted by Zoomdaddy on 11-09-2007 at 03:18 PM • top

Even if realignment is allowed, it still does not address and resolve the property issue.  TEC will continue to use that to threaten dioceses and parishes to keep them from leaving.  I cannot see TEC/815 EVER giving in on that issue regardless of any realignment forced on them by the Anglican Communion.  That issue will be fought out in the courts for years to come.

[8] Posted by fsbill on 11-09-2007 at 03:28 PM • top

If the ABC announces, clearly, that he accepts Venables’ actions, and also would accept orthodox parishes “moving” into the jurisdiction of orthodox bishops, then that would represent a fairly good resolution to the current crisis, at least in ecclesiological (did I spell that right?) terms.  Looking at the ABC’s past comments I think it is entirely possible that this is where he is headed although I’ve been disappointed by the ABC before and wouldn’t count on anything clear from him until I’m reading the release from his office.

Assuming that Canterbury took this action, PB Schori would be rendered basically irrelevant, the only folks who would matter at 815 would be the lawyers—and their jobs would be a lot more difficult.

But I would also say that this has to be a two-step process—both relief for orthodox dioceses and then relief for orthodox parishes.  Otherwise we wind up with geographic pockets of orthodoxy and a lot of parishes left at the mercy of radical bishops, and that would not be acceptable.


[9] Posted by Wolverine on 11-09-2007 at 03:32 PM • top

BTW: I think they meant to link to this:


[10] Posted by Wolverine on 11-09-2007 at 03:37 PM • top

Hopefully we will be saying: South Carolina meet the Southern Cone; Southern Cone meet South Carolina!


[11] Posted by R S Bunker on 11-09-2007 at 03:55 PM • top

Hopefully we will be saying: South Carolina meet the Southern Cone; Southern Cone meet South Carolina!

I will pray with you for this, but I really don’t think that it is a reality. Bishop-elect Lawrence will not move from TEC as long as TEC is part ofthe Anglican Communion. He pretty much stands in the same type pf shoes and on the same path as Sarah Hey.

[12] Posted by TLDillon on 11-09-2007 at 03:58 PM • top

BTW….My above post is not meant in any way an offense. There are those called to stay and fight the battle from within and there are those of us to are called to go and do other work the Lord has for us to do.

[13] Posted by TLDillon on 11-09-2007 at 04:00 PM • top

I like what Wolverine wrote. I find it cautiously optimistic.

I like being cautiously optimistic.

[14] Posted by selah on 11-09-2007 at 04:03 PM • top

“sensible way forward.”

OK everybody, now let’s scrutinize just what “sensible” means.  It means capable of being sensed; of a kind to be felt or perceived; capable of receiving sensory impressions.  It does NOT mean Rowan approves, endorses, supports, commends, agrees, consents, sanctions, authorizes, allows, permits, or receives (to use Diocese of Virginia distinctions) the plan.

[15] Posted by Chazaq on 11-09-2007 at 04:36 PM • top

jamesw, you are a wise man…a second hand, ambigous quote…in a September meeting…is not an endorsement comign from a man who has previously made it crystal clear he wants everyone to stay in TEC and find grace among the heresy.

However, the fact that the quote appears to some in the US as an endorsement means that a “clarification” is likely being drafted.

Tick, tick, tick…

[16] Posted by Going Home on 11-09-2007 at 04:47 PM • top

Selah, Zoomdaddy, et al, here’s a blurb from Pittsburgh’s Res 1 that was just passed, which suggests that its diocesan borders might be extensible to other parishes, if it passes again next year.  I don’t know if the other APO diocese are contemplating a similar provision.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the former Section 2 of Article I of the Constitution of the Diocese of Pittsburgh be, and it hereby is, amended and restated in its entirety as Section 3 of Article I to read as follows:

The Diocese of Pittsburgh embraces all those counties of the State of Pennsylvania known as Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Cambria, Fayette, Greene, Indiana, Somerset, Washington and Westmoreland. Additionally, for reasons found satisfactory to any Convention of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, parishes outside of the boundaries of the aforementioned counties may be considered for admission into union with the Diocese of Pittsburgh, provided that they meet all other requirements set forth in the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese of Pittsburgh for canonical admission.

Also, what if a reasserter parish in a reappraising diocese were to align with the Common Cause Partnership, as if it were an ecclesiastical jurisdiction?

[17] Posted by Connecticutian on 11-09-2007 at 04:52 PM • top

I don’t know precisely what ‘sensible way forward’ means as reported, but I do believe that the ABC cares passionately for the Communion and for the orthodox in the US both inside and outside TEC - check out again his letter to +Howe; also for the 2.5m members of TEC.

I don’t know how he looks from where you are but he is a wonderful ABC to us and has recently visited the middle-east, built bridges with the Rabbis of Israel overcoming long-standing suspicions, engaged with the Orthodox faith and the other churches and domestically fought for our values with an increasingly secular and hostile culture.  On top of which he has put an enormous amount of effort into the TEC issue, one not of his making, and one which I am pretty sure would have defeated any other ABC.

Things are shifting fast.  It’s not for me to guide you but I will continue to bear with him.

If anyone wants something really useful to do, pop over to BabyBlue’s blog and join in the Prayers needed for the litigation Truro, Falls and the other Virginia churches are facing next week

[18] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 11-09-2007 at 04:53 PM • top

“Sensible” is a high compliment in Brit-speak: it isn’t as bland an adjective as it seems against the backdrop of American hyperbole.  A sensible fellow is a fellow to be emulated.  A sensible proposal is one that is worthwhile and admirable for its reasonableness.  This doesn’t mean that Canon Kearon won’t be issuing a clarification once his grand mal seizure abates and he’s off the shrill trans-Atlantic call that he’s undoubtedly been on.  But “sensible” is certainly not as it stands an inconsequential word to choose, coming from a Brit.

[19] Posted by VaAnglican on 11-09-2007 at 05:02 PM • top

for whatever reason, the “here” at the beginning of the article, and the “more” at the end do not do anything.

[20] Posted by Rev. J on 11-09-2007 at 05:07 PM • top

Is there any one place you can go (other than the Beers war room) for status of all the litigation TEC is involved with?  I have lost track.  Is there an attorney among us that could put a blog together that would track this?

[21] Posted by Maxwell on 11-09-2007 at 05:33 PM • top

Canon Kearon,
Prepare for the arrival of a “Howler.” Incomingggggggg!!!!!!!!!

[22] Posted by Fr. Christopher Cantrell+ on 11-09-2007 at 05:43 PM • top

Sensible seems like an endorsement - +KJS will have a hard time going nuclear on the breakaway Bishops if they have the tacit approval of +++Canterbury.  And the seceding Bishops already have their Lambeth invites.  I give Bishops Minns even odds on getting one based upon the last +Nigeria statement- though if he gets one so will +VGR.  Perhaps a grand compromise is afoot (or at least about to be foisted upon TEC).

[23] Posted by chips on 11-09-2007 at 05:56 PM • top

I doubt if an ‘escape’ to the Southern Cone will stop this issue arising there sooner or later. It’s only a matter of time. Societal attitudes toward homosexuality in much of South America are actually more liberal than in the US. For example, the Pew Global Survey asked if ‘homosexuality was a way of life that society should accept’:

USA - 51% Yes 42% No (2002)  49% Yes 41% No (2007)
Argentina - 66% Yes 26% (2002)  72% Yes 21% No (2007)
Bolivia - 55% Yes 40% No (2002)  44% Yes 49% No (2007)
Chile - 64% Yes 31% No (2007)
Peru - 45% Yes 49% No (2002)  51% Yes 43% No (2007)

You would have been ‘safer’ sticking with:

Kenya - 1% Yes 99% No (2002)  3% Yes 96% No (2007)
Nigeria - 5% Yes 95% No (2002)  2% Yes 97% No (2007)
Uganda - 4% Yes 95% No (2002)  3% Yes 96% No (2007)

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

This is huge!  Isn’t this huge?  ++Williams is allowing the orthodox diocese in TEC to separate from TEC?

I don’t think that’s quite right. Williams doesn’t “allow” anything - he’s merely there (in his own understanding) to guide the process along.

At times he reminds me of a 6 year old self who would stand longingly at arcade games and pretend to play while the machine did its own thing.

[25] Posted by David Ould on 11-09-2007 at 06:30 PM • top

Thank you for your remarks, Pageantmaster. 

Your hopes are mine.

[26] Posted by Seen-Too-Much on 11-09-2007 at 06:32 PM • top

To several who are asking about Parishes in other dioceses.

Everyone seems to be aware that the Diocese of San Joaquin is having our “second” reading of Constitutional changes in December - and if it passes - we will be the first out of the gate. BUT there is more…

Also up for its second reading is a consitutional amendment eliminating our diocesan bounaries. I don’t know if DFW or DPitt is doing that. So… I think everyone might be able to consider the implications for themselves. Can something good come out of California?

Peace to all… And please pray for Bishop John-David and the Diocese of San Joaquin.

John Riebe+

[27] Posted by John Riebe+ on 11-09-2007 at 06:40 PM • top

Dear John Riebe+, The fact that y’all are voting to eliminate your diocesan boundaries is very welcome news indeed because it allows you to go and plant churches in spiritaully dead (from an Anglican sense that is) parts of our country.

[28] Posted by physician without health on 11-09-2007 at 06:48 PM • top

Thank you Seen-Too-Much

[29] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 11-09-2007 at 06:58 PM • top

The issue was raised,

“Also up for its second reading is a consitutional amendment eliminating our diocesan bounaries. I don’t know if DFW or DPitt is doing that.”

Fort Worth

Existing text:

We, the Clergy and Laity of The Episcopal Church, resident in that portion of the State of Texas, constituting what is known as The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, do hereby ordain and establish the
following constitution:

Proposed text:

We, the Clergy and Laity of The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, do hereby ordain and establish the following constitution as duly amended:

Please notice that the proposed language makes no reference to any particular geography.  I’m on the committee which penned this language and I assure you the absence of a geographical reference is filled with significance. 


The Rev. Dr. R. William Dickson
St. Andrew’s Parish, Fort Worth

[30] Posted by Bill+ on 11-09-2007 at 07:15 PM • top

Also up for its second reading is a consitutional amendment eliminating our diocesan bounaries. I don’t know if DFW or DPitt is doing that. So… I think everyone might be able to consider the implications for themselves. Can something good come out of California?

Thank you Fr. Riebe! And my answer to your question above since I am a parishioner here San Joaquin…is <i>Why yes! We the good people of the Diocese of San Joaquin come out of California and we are an awesome bunch of Conservative Orthodox Christians who love unconditionally but follow the written Word of God and are always here to lend a helping hand and pray for the masses of God’s people all over the world.

[31] Posted by TLDillon on 11-09-2007 at 07:25 PM • top

I hope that this will ease the way for Pittsburgh, Fort Worth to leave ECUSA with a minimum of pain and expense and tranfer to an evangelical province.  However the process of secession from ECUSA has already begun, and it has begun regardless of RW’s ‘sensible solution’!!!  As far as RW goes, I find it hard not to feel continued contempt for him.  His is the minimalist’s action or rather non-action since he lends nothing to the secession other than this weak ‘sensible solution’.  His hope, I believe, is to thus guarantee the attendance at Lambeth of the Southern Cone, minimize the orthodox ‘outcries’ in the States and further leave the African provinces isolated.  My dearest hope is that ++Venables will take the departing dioceses and, along with the Africans, South Asia Indian Ocean and West Indies, leave Canterbury and other liberal provinces to walk their own path.  We know the direction that is being taken by ECUSA and the CofE is less and less its own master and is increasingly subordinated to a highly liberal and secular government.

[32] Posted by Bill C on 11-09-2007 at 07:32 PM • top

VA Anglican—“Kearon—grand mal seizure”—ROFL, but with a mouthful of wine. I’m okay now; still chuckling.

[33] Posted by Gator on 11-09-2007 at 08:08 PM • top

For clarification of where Bishop Iker may stand - innocent as doves

[34] Posted by Branford on 11-09-2007 at 10:18 PM • top

“Our plan is not only to disassociate . . . from the Episcopal Church, but to officially constitutionally reaffiliate with an existing orthodox province of the Communion that does not ordain women to the priesthood. These conversations are very far along, but cannot be announced until the province that is considering our appeal has made the final decision,” the Bishop said.

This cannot be right! AB +Venables province does not ordain women to the priesthood but, only to the Diaconate same as Bishop +Ikers.
Am I missing something here?

[35] Posted by TLDillon on 11-09-2007 at 11:26 PM • top

ODC - I think you’re right - the Southern Cone does not ordain women to the priesthood, only to the diaconate. So that might be the province +Iker is talking about.

[36] Posted by Branford on 11-09-2007 at 11:58 PM • top

VaAnglican,  thanks for the clarification.
I’ve always found it amusing that “sensible” cna mean “excellent” while the word “brilliant” to Brits means only “good,” “nice,” “thoughtful,” etc.

[37] Posted by HeartAfire on 11-10-2007 at 07:48 AM • top


[38] Posted by HeartAfire on 11-10-2007 at 07:48 AM • top

Thank you, PAGEANTMASTER for asking for prayers for Truro, The Falls Church and the rest of the churches in the Anglican District of Virginia and for providing the link to bb.  Each day, I will begin with prayers at the Truro Chapel and then step across the street to the courthouse where the trial will be held. I will be in the courtroom every day of the trial so that I can be present in the midst of these happenings to uplift all of our churches in prayer. 

This is about so much more than losing property and slots in the church graveyard.  (Truro has no graveyard.)  This is about the overwhelming mission and outreach these combined churches perform in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.  I wished, as I sat in the Prayer and Praise service last week which was a part of our recent Alpha Conference, that ++Schori and Beers could have been present.  The church was packed, (probably 700-800 there); hands were raised high to our Lord; the sanctuary was bursting forth with hymns of praise, prayers of healing and intercessory prayer. You could feel the presence of the Holy Spirit.

If we all lose the properties: these edifices which have been the homes and the springboards for spreading the Word, establishing missions, and caring for those in need, both locally and internationally, so be it.  The Lord will lead the way.  But there is something deeply flawed by an organization, in this case TEC, that is willing to siphon millions of dollars from the work for the Lord into lawsuits to prove a point which could well turn out to be an invalid point. (We pray that the court will determine that Virginia law substantiates our position.) Win or lose, TEC will never be able to regain the ground they have lost through this and other errant behaviors, not the least of which is their casual, cultural, apostatical approach to Scripture.

Christ be with us.

[39] Posted by Petra on 11-10-2007 at 11:56 AM • top

Dear Petra
I am so impressed with what you have all been doing and for your faithfulness and I am deeply ashamed at the failure of my church and its structures to stand up for the work that Christ is doing through you.

Many are watching and praying for you and as you say the work that you have started will continue into the future, of that I am certain.  It is a deeply corrupt and un-Christian foe that you face at this time but God is always faithful and he will hold you in his hand in prayer.

I think it is time for all of us to stand up for Jesus, don’t you?

God bless


[40] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 11-10-2007 at 05:07 PM • top

Dear Pageantmaster
Thank you so much for your kind and supportive post.  I was deeply touched and will pass it on to my fellow parishioners.
In Christ

[41] Posted by Petra on 11-10-2007 at 06:40 PM • top

Petra - Please do with my prayers for you all.

[42] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 11-10-2007 at 06:53 PM • top

David Ould wrote:
At times he reminds me of a 6 year old self who would stand longingly at arcade games and pretend to play while the machine did its own thing.

That’s a pretty good image.  And the really sad thing is, the ABC actually does have a couple of tokens, he just hasn’t gotten up the nerve to put them in the slot yet.


[43] Posted by Wolverine on 11-10-2007 at 08:56 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.