Total visitors right now: 104

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Bishop Iker Calls Schori’s Claims of Offering to “Engage in Dialogue” False

Monday, December 17, 2007 • 6:00 am

“I, for one, have never received any such offer or invitation from her - not by letter, not by telephone, not by email, nor by any other means. In fact, the only direct communication I have ever received from Katharine since she took office over a year ago was the very public, threatening letter that she sent me prior to our Diocesan Convention last month. She has had all kinds of time to make such an offer; it hasn’t happened. All I’ve received from 815 are threats and ultimatums.”


On December 14th, The Archbishop of Canterbury released his 2007 Advent letter, in which he proposed that “professionally facilitated” conversation be started between the leadership of the Episcopal Church on one side,  and the dioceses at odds with that leadership on the other.

Later that day, Bishop Jack Iker of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, one of the four dioceses that have taken action to separate - or prepare themselves to separate - from the Episcopal Church, released this statement in which he wrote:

[The Archbishop] then goes on to call for “professionally facilitated conversations between the leadership of The Episcopal Church and those with whom they are most in dispute” in the hope of somehow gaining “a better level of mutual understanding.” This hope is in vain. TEC does not negotiate with those with whom they are in dispute; they litigate. Numerous meetings have produced no acceptable solution for the minority to remain with integrity within TEC.

That same day, Episcopal Life Online posted this article on the Archbishop’s advent letter, and quoted Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as saying:

“While I have repeatedly offered to engage in dialogue with those who are most unhappy, the offer has not yet been seriously engaged. Perhaps a personal call from the Archbishop will bring to the table those who have thus far been unwilling to talk.

Having observed the actions and statements of Presiding Bishop Schori on one side, and Bishops Schofield, Ackerman, Duncan and Iker on the other, I was surprised to read that “repeated offers” had “not yet been seriously engaged,” so I contacted Bishop Iker and asked him about the Presiding bishop’s statement.


Greg Griffith: In this ENS article, the Presiding Bishop says, ‘While I have repeatedly offered to engage in dialogue with those who are most unhappy, the offer has not yet been seriously engaged.’ Why have you declined the Presiding Bishop’s invitation to discuss the crisis?

Bishop Iker: I seriously question the veracity of her claim that she has “repeatedly offered to engage in dialogue” with her opponents. I, for one, have never received any such offer or invitation from her - not by letter, not by telephone, not by email, nor by any other means. In fact, the only direct communication I have ever received from Katharine since she took office over a year ago was the very public, threatening letter that she sent me prior to our Diocesan Convention last month. She has had all kinds of time to make such an offer; it hasn’t happened. All I’ve received from 815 are threats and ultimatums.

Greg Griffith: Katharine Schori describes the people who received those “repeated” invitations - presumably you, in addition to Bishops Schofield, Duncan, and Ackerman - as “those who are most unhappy.” What do you think leads her to characterize you as ‘unhappy’?

Bishop Iker: In all honesty, I really resent being characterized by her as part of a group of “those who are most unhappy.” That is a put-down, pure and simple. To dismiss those who disagree with you as just a little group of unhappy people is hardly the way to invite respectful conversation. People who know me (as Katharine surely does not) would not characterize me as unhappy.

Greg Griffith: The lack of an invitation to talk aside, do you plan, if invited, to participate in further discussion? Can you envision any discussion the outcome of which would alter your future plans?

Bishop Iker: An invitation from Katharine at this point is going to be received as a token gesture and as too little, too late. Also, we must realize that the ground has shifted dramatically, as has the focus of what is to be discussed. A year ago, it was alternative primatial oversight. This was rejected. In March, it was the pastoral scheme from the Primates’ Meeting in Dar es Salaam. This too was rejected. Now we are talking about the reality of dioceses separating from TEC and realigning with an orthodox Province. That being the framework for future discussions, I am willing to cooperate with the Archbishop of Canterbury’s proposal in his Advent Letter for “professionally facilitated conversations” that will “clarify options” before us. However, we would only enter into such discussions as equal parties with the 815 authorities, not as suppliants petitioning for some form of relief. A negotiated settlement for separation seems to be the best way to proceed.


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

“A negotiated settlement for separation seems to be the best way to proceed.”

As good an outcome as that would be, I’m afraid I don’t see it happening. Bishop Schori has made quite plain her intention to litigate. Barring some sort of sea change, I think that’s what 815 will do.

Also, I’m not quite sure that’s what the Archbishop meant by facilitated meetings.

I have a blog thingy

[1] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 12-17-2007 at 07:16 AM • top

Do I remember correctly that some of the bishops - I thought Bishop Iker was one of them but I seem to be mistaken - met with PB Jefferts Schori in New York shortly after she came to New York but decided not to meet again?  I think barking at the dog in the manger will not make it move. It remains to be seen whether the Common Cause bishops meeting this week will be able to construct another manger.

Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC

[2] Posted by TomRightmyer on 12-17-2007 at 07:31 AM • top

Tom, the manger is well under construction.

[3] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 12-17-2007 at 07:38 AM • top

The meeting in NYC was by invitation of ++Williams, not ++KJS, to address the issue of APO that was initiated at GC06, afterwards the PB came up with the Primary Vicor scheme. Reports from Sept ‘06 was that it was an attempt by the ABC to find a way forward but the talks stalemated (+Iker interview here).

[4] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 12-17-2007 at 07:54 AM • top

Greg,

Thanks for this posting.  And thank you for going directly to the source and making it available to us.  THis is the kind of stuff that makes Standfirm a credible blog site.  Great work!

[5] Posted by Dante on 12-17-2007 at 08:11 AM • top

Strong, persistent, gracious, and truthful.

I would again commend everyone to Bp Iker’s convention speech over at Anglican TV (Thanks, Kevin). “Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be men of courage; be strong. Do everything in love.” 1 Corinthians 16:13-14.

[6] Posted by robroy on 12-17-2007 at 08:26 AM • top

Good job, Greg.

I suppose that KJS is referring to the offer of Williams for the original—and failed—talks in New York City.  But that was brokered by Williams, and pretty much a ridiculous affair, at the end of the day.

[7] Posted by Sarah on 12-17-2007 at 08:30 AM • top

What I find conistently amazing about TEC officials is their inability to comprehend that it’s EASY to check and see if they actually are telling the truth.  This is true locally as it is nationally.

First we have Beers (wasn’t it?) stating SSB never go on in his diocese…

then KJS doing this… both easily refuted.

I guess when you are Supreme Bishops Rulers of The Enlightened Church - little rules like honesty don’t apply to you.  Reminds me of the Queen of Charn.

[8] Posted by Eclipse on 12-17-2007 at 08:37 AM • top

Eclipse, that was Bruno. But Beers being a diocesan bishop is kind of funny to think about. But I agree that that TEC leaders make outrageous statements blissfully thinking they won’t be called on it. The most famous is KJS’s assertion that she did not agree DeS, a lie which is admitted in a court of law under oath.

And one meeting called Williams certainly does not equal KJS’s assertion, “I have repeatedly offered to engage in dialogue.”

[9] Posted by robroy on 12-17-2007 at 08:47 AM • top

I’m shocked—shocked!!—by the implication that Mrs. Schori may be arrogant and veracity-challenged!  Why, we here in Nevada never noticed ... <font size=-1>ahh, umm, never mind, err ...</font>

[10] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 12-17-2007 at 09:57 AM • top

Also, I’m not quite sure that’s what the Archbishop meant by facilitated meetings.

Think mediated child custody discussions between
divorcing parents. A non-emotional, non-involved
professional can often facilitate an agreement that
would otherwise not happen.
In the case of KJS and others, it would be advisable to have a court reporter and a video camera in use to record EXACTLY what was said by whom.

[11] Posted by Marie Blocher on 12-17-2007 at 10:30 AM • top

I wonder whether any Dioceses will apply to affiliate with the CoE (grenade!!!!!!).

};->

[12] Posted by Ed the Roman on 12-17-2007 at 10:52 AM • top

Somewhat off-topic—Over at Jake’s there is a posting dealing with the canons regarding abandonment of communion—Jakites are very upset that Bp Schori has not moved summarily to depose Bp Schofield, although the canons say that requires a two-month period in which the bishop in question can renounce his renunciation.

Jake says that the progressives are constrained by canons, while we orthodox treat them as so much garbage.  Is anyone keeping a record of when and how the progressives have either violated the canons or overlooked a canonical offense in those under their authority?  I know that the progressives use the canons when it benefits their cause, and overlook them when they do not—but I do not have particulars.

[13] Posted by AnglicanXn on 12-17-2007 at 11:14 AM • top

AnglicanXn

For starters

1. Open communion.

2. consents for the bishop coadjutor of Virginia.

3. and apparently, according to Sauls, permitting same sex blessings.

[14] Posted by wildfire on 12-17-2007 at 11:38 AM • top

to add to Sarah’s comment above, does the Archbishop think that we are too stupid to remember that he tried this before?
Let’s not forget the New York Meetings in Sept 2006 that Iker and Duncan went to that we’re “professionally facilitated” by the Archbishop’s right hand man Kenneth Kearon.  They were called by the ABC, for pete’s sake!
We’ve done this once before and it did’nt work.  Why would it work, now?  and what is the Archbishop thinking?
Rowan continues to step in it.
see for yourself:
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_80010_ENG_HTM.htm

[15] Posted by Tony Romo on 12-17-2007 at 11:45 AM • top

One thing that strikes me is 815’s method of communication to its bishops that it is in disagreement with—via public letters and articles.
Not with personal, one-on-one phone calls, letters, meetings, etc. 
THis seems to be a very dysfunctional form of leadership, one that adds to the angst of the sitution and precludes any hope of working out a method of leaving TEC peacably.
More fuel to the fire, on Ms. Schori’s part. Unless you’re wanting to add fuel to the fire.  But why?  This kind of stuff only backfires.
Jane, Edwins wife

[16] Posted by Edwin on 12-17-2007 at 12:43 PM • top

I Like Iker.  grin

[17] Posted by Connie Sandlin on 12-17-2007 at 12:52 PM • top

Since robroy thanked Kevin on this thread, I would like to point out that Kevin still needs to raise $390 for his expenses to cover the Common Cause meeting that starts tomorrow!! in Orlando.  http://www.anglicantv.org/ 

Connie

[18] Posted by Connie Sandlin on 12-17-2007 at 12:57 PM • top

Greg - thanks for posting this.

Don’t worry, Bp. Iker, anybody with half a functioning brain knew full well that neither KJS nor any other of TEC’s ruling heirarchy has ever bothered to engage you in serious dialogue.  Well, unless you define “dialogue” as really meaning “dialogue to discuss the terms of your unconditional surrender.”

Speaking about Rowan Williams’ call for facilitated conversations, we should pay close attention to what was actually written:

I wish to pursue some professionally facilitated conversations between the leadership of The Episcopal Church and those with whom they are most in dispute, internally and externally, to see if we can generate any better level of mutual understanding. Such meetings will not seek any predetermined outcome but will attempt to ease tensions and clarify options. They may also clarify ideas about the future pattern of liaison between TEC and other parts of the Communion.


(Emphasis added by me)
So, clearly RW is not simply proposing a repeat of the earlier meetings between Iker, Duncan et.al., but rather between TEC’s ruling heirarchy and Iker, Duncan, Venables, Akinola, Kolini, Orombi, et.al.  And what’s more, one of the things to be discussed might be TEC’s liaison with the rest of the Communion.  I think that this proposal puts much of RW’s earlier comments into perspective.

I think that these could be very useful discussions and I would encourage all the orthodox to take part.  And I think that Iker already has it down what needs to be discussed.  Basically, I see RW here as attempting to create the environment where something very similar to the DES Communique’s pastoral scheme is negotiated out by the very parties themselves (thus preventing KJS from pulling any more of her wordgames on what “Yes, I assent” means).

[19] Posted by jamesw on 12-17-2007 at 03:01 PM • top

I had not quite noticed these words - If these talks are to take place prior to Lambeth then what impact would “the future pattern of liaison between TEC and other parts of the Communion” have on Lambeth itself. This opens quite an avenue for “discussion” - one much more expansive than may have been intended. I would think agreeing to these meetings and having them take place ASAP would be helpful. Who would the proffessional facilitator (mediator?) be?

[20] Posted by Paul PA on 12-17-2007 at 03:51 PM • top

Edwin wrote

This seems to be a very dysfunctional form of leadership, ….

Edwin, I am compelled to ask one simple question. To phrase it bluntly, when and where have you (or I, for that matter) ever seen an explicit requirement that am Episcopal Bishop have any leadership skills whatsoever?

This is by no means to say that none of them do—the recently webcast conventions of both DioFtWorth and DioSanJoaquin clearly belie such an assertion. I only mean to suggest that in my 36 years in the Episcopal Church I have yet to see any documentary (i.e., published, written, enscribed, engraved, scrawled in pencil on a scrap of paper, etc.) evidence that having leadership skills is a mandatory requirement for elevation to the episcopacy.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

[21] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 12-17-2007 at 04:31 PM • top

jamesw

I agree with your take on this.  After re-reading this letter several times over the weekend, I have come to the conclusion that the ABC really hasn’t moved from his position last summer on the necessity for a “two-tier” communion, a misnomer of course but one that makes his point.  If you leave out the bits in the middle of the Advent letter and focus on the foundational analysis at the beginning and the actions to be taken at the end, this comes through quite clearly.

At the outset, he defines a “full relationship of communion,” which becomes the framework for everything else he says.  One makes a point of defining a full relationship only if one also has in mind a partial or impaired relationship.  So we are quite clearly dealing at the outset with “two tiers.”  From the definition that follows. It is equally clear that ECUSA fails the first element of the definition of full communion concerning common understanding of Scripture.  RDW then argues, unpersuasively IMO, that failure on this point does not mean a complete breakdown of ministry and mission.

There then follows lengthy discussions of New Orleans, Lambeth, Windsor and “more radical” dioceses, boundary crossings, etc.  Everyone’s attention, certainly mine, was focused on these sections at the beginning, but they probably distract one from seeing the overall plan, which is nothing more than what he said before.

This becomes apparent at the end.  Right before the language with the two action items is this language, which may be the most succinct summary of his view we’ve had:

But direct contact and open exchange of convictions will be crucial. Whatever happens, we are bound to seek for fruitful ways of carrying forward liaison with provinces whose policies cause scandal or difficulty to others.  Whatever happens, certain aspects of our ‘relational’ communion will continue independently of the debates and decisions at the level of canons and hierarchies. 
Given the differences in response to The Episcopal Church revealed in the responses of the primates, we simply cannot pretend that there is now a ready-made consensus on the future of relationships between TEC and other provinces.  Much work remains to be done.  But – once again, I refer back to my introductory thoughts – that work is about some basic questions of fidelity to Scripture and identity in ministry and mission, not only about the one issue of sexuality.  It is about what it means for the Anglican Communion to behave with a consistency that allows us to face, both honestly and charitably, the deeply painful question of who we can and cannot recognise as sharing the same calling and task.

The future of ECUSA is “liaison,” not full communion.  He wants this arrived at not through expulsion or even discipline, but through charitable discussions and voluntary arrangements.  I doubt he will succeed, but I don’t think he has given up.

[22] Posted by wildfire on 12-17-2007 at 06:30 PM • top

Dear Martial Artist,
It’s Jane, Edwin’s wife, and in answer to you question:
First of all, I’ve never seen any “list” of requirements for a bishop, other than the Prayer Book, which states , in the Preface, that bishops “carry on the apostolic work of leading, supervising and uniting the church.”
Later, in the Examination, the bishop-elect is told “With your fellow bishops you will share in the leadership of the Church throughout the World.”
and again, in the Consecration, the consecrating bishop offers prayers that the new bishop will “wisely oversee the life and work of the Church.
I suppose these kind of words lead me to believe that bishops should have leadership skills.
Sincerely, Jane, Edwin’s wife

[23] Posted by Edwin on 12-17-2007 at 07:06 PM • top

I’m disappointed that Bishop Iker doubts the PB’s veracity.  This shows that he does not understand that his “truth” is only one of many “truths” one can life into, each of them pluriform.  Only if one accepted the very outmoded notion of there being one truth would this make sense.  For goodness’ sake, if we believed that we’d have to believe that Jesus was the only way to the Father—and we can’t have that sort of retrograde religion now, can we?

[24] Posted by VaAnglican on 12-17-2007 at 07:20 PM • top

Requirements for a bishop:
1 Timothy 3:1-3 -
1 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task. 2Therefore an bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.

[25] Posted by Connie Sandlin on 12-17-2007 at 07:35 PM • top

What is the difference between Russia and the US?  Ans….warning shots!  In Russia they shot you first as a warning to others.
TEC’s way of communicating is litigation.  KJS’s communications are merely announcements that judgment is beginning to fall. IMHO

[26] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 12-17-2007 at 07:40 PM • top

Mark: Yes, we are thinking along the same line.  I think that critical questions coming from RW’s letter do not have to do with Lambeth invitations and the like.  Rather the critical questions will be:

1) when does the negotitations begin, and what will their timeframe be?
2) who will be involved?
3) what happens if TEC refuses to negotiate, or fails to negotiate in good faith?
4) who is appointed to the commission mentioned in the second recommendation?
5) is the second recommenndation intended to “motivate” TEC to take the first recommendation seriously?

I think that this approach would have had a much better chance of working had it been tried 2-3 years ago.

I think now that unless RW is prepared to cut out TEC’s legal feet from under them (as per Craig Goodrich’s observations) by explicitly delegitimizing TEC’s claim to be part of the Anglican Communion, I don’t think that TEC will seriously negotiate.

I also think that RW realizes that the crunch time is upon us now, and that he only has 7-8 months to pull the rabbit out of the hat, or else it is game over for the Anglican Communion as a Communion.

[27] Posted by jamesw on 12-17-2007 at 07:54 PM • top

In all of this, the thought that keeps recurring as I read the initials, “RW”, is Toys, with RW (Robin Williams), and I keep wodering just how he is going to save the day.  I’m sorry, this has just gotten to be a bit too much for my old grey matter to accomodate.

[28] Posted by Fr. Chip, SF on 12-17-2007 at 08:10 PM • top

Jane, Edwin’s wife,

My question was half-rhetorical, half-ironic. I should have included a winking smiley. My apologies.

There is no definition of leadership entailed in the process. It is assumed (incorrectly in my opinion) that someone appointed to the office can lead. Unfortunately, very few of the questions I have seen asked of candidates for the episcopacy have been of any usefulness in determining whether the candidates were possessed of the most basic understanding of what constitutes leadership skills.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

[29] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 12-17-2007 at 10:26 PM • top

Mark McCall wrote:

At the outset, he defines a “full relationship of communion,” which becomes the framework for everything else he says.  One makes a point of defining a full relationship only if one also has in mind a partial or impaired relationship.  So we are quite clearly dealing at the outset with “two tiers.” From the definition that follows. It is equally clear that ECUSA fails the first element of the definition of full communion concerning common understanding of Scripture.  RDW then argues, unpersuasively IMO, that failure on this point does not mean a complete breakdown of ministry and mission.

I think the thought there is that the mission and ministry of TEC can’t be considered completely broken down because some of the TEC bishops willingly make the three “common acknowledgements” that define full communion at the beginning of the letter. I think if there were no bishops left at all who could be considered to be in full communion, the response would be different. The ABC writes: “The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that interventions are not to be sanctioned. It would seem reasonable to say that this principle should only be overridden when the Communion together had in some way concluded, not only that a province was behaving anomalously, but that this was so serious as to compromise the entire ministry and mission the province was undertaking. I think there are two difference between the situation described here as justifying interventions, and the current conditions in North America: first, there is no concensus of the Communion as a whole on whether TEC is completely anomalous, and second, part of TEC (the Windsor/Camp Allen bishops) is definitely not anomalous.

[30] Posted by kyounge1956 on 12-17-2007 at 10:27 PM • top

Speaking of the facilitated conversations, ACI has a new piece up tonight in the course of which is the following statement:

Our understanding is that effort has been made to contact the Presiding Bishop on numerous occasions to arrange a meeting, such as is referred to in the Advent Pastoral.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

[31] Posted by wildfire on 12-17-2007 at 10:28 PM • top

kyounge1956

That is an interesting take I hadn’t thought of.  I had assumed that he meant that even for dioceses and bishops that did not meet the first condition, their ministry and mission was not completely broken, and, accordingly, interventions were not warranted.  If he meant instead, as you say, that ECUSA as a whole is not entirely broken due to the presence of Windsor dioceses, his point is more persuasive.

[32] Posted by wildfire on 12-17-2007 at 10:44 PM • top

On leadership and communication skills (neither of which are in abundant supply in TEC) I want to know what happened to the principle of nolo episcopari; that is, to be a bishop you shouldn’t want to be one. The best bishops (+Akerman, +Schofield, + Iker, + Duncan, even + Wolf) see themselves as servants first; one wonders if the PB was more a servant (greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven, servant of all etc) and less a corporate directrix if we would not get on better. She signs herself “Your servant in Christ” but it would be nice if + Iker (or anyone else who doesn’t agree with her) could show evidence of that “bending over backwards to accommodate dissenters” she kept promising the media she was going to do. And of course the same with the lower episcopate, who seem to be constitutionally averse to taking the gracious way forward.

[33] Posted by Andrewesman on 12-17-2007 at 10:52 PM • top

Thanks, Connie, for pointing out the need for Kevin at Anglican TV to cover Orlando. I contributed but it is not being reflected in the thermometer. Oh well. Kevin truly is changing the Anglican world! I hope that our friends here realize that and contribute. It is ironic that we have Bp Smith to thank for waking up the tiger in Kevin. We should probably send Bp Smith a thank you note. That would be a bee in his bonnet.

[34] Posted by robroy on 12-18-2007 at 12:50 AM • top

Thanks to jamesw and Mark McCall for a measured reading of Williams’ letter.  However, I think it’s too little, too late.  Much will depend on who the facilitator is, what the agenda is, and whether TEC officials go to the meetings in good faith.

On bishops, in TEC over recent decades what seems to have been required is men (and women) skilled in nurturing and counseling.  In general men who are leader-of-men types have not been going into ordained ministry.  Iker and some others are obvious exceptions, but they are not normative in TEC today.

[35] Posted by Katherine on 12-18-2007 at 02:39 AM • top

Iker and some others are obvious exceptions, but they are not normative in TEC today.

More’s the pity. The Church of England was birthed by saints and heroes (of both sexes). We need them again, if we are not to be strangled by time-servers and careerists.

Launcelot Andrewes ora pro nobis!

[36] Posted by Andrewesman on 12-18-2007 at 04:10 AM • top

I had to laugh at +Iker’s response to the second question about being “unhappy”.  On the several occasions I have met with him, I’ve never seen him unhappy.  Wait, no….I did see him not happy at one point, the funeral of our rector’s mother.  But at that time no one was very happy.  I don’t think that’s what KJS meant though…

[37] Posted by Courageous Grace on 12-18-2007 at 02:45 PM • top

good article Greg and nice that you went directly to the source to get his comments.  Now if only you can do the same with regard to the ‘compromise’ dispute . . .  smile

[38] Posted by anglicanhopeful on 12-19-2007 at 09:09 AM • top

In order to get someone to sit at the table and negotiate an agreement, you first need to have something the other party wants.  And in order to have a negotiation in “good faith”, both parties first must be honest and of good character.

So, what’s all this about sitting down with TEC and negotiating a SETTLEMENT with them?  TEC talks out of both sides of their mouths - their leadership is not honest OR of good character.  If they were a business, you would NEVER choose to enter a legal agreement with them, even if it potentially made you lots of $, because THEY CANNOT BE TRUSTED.

So, what does the ABC have that TEC wants?  To be invited to Lambeth?  To stay in communion with Canterbury?  To have tea with the Queen?  Doesn’t this pale in comparision to having lots of valuable property that can be sold to further fund their pro-homosexual agenda (and, by the way, this is just the tip of the iceburg…)?  Why would TEC be interested in negotiating anything? 

Anyone?  Anyone?  Bueller??

[39] Posted by B. Hunter on 01-02-2008 at 06:02 PM • top

Rats…that’s icebErg…sorry…

[40] Posted by B. Hunter on 01-02-2008 at 06:04 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.