In fact, in a rather odd twist Fr. Woodward claims that the leaders of TEC are actually “reasserting” the “traditional teachings” of the Episcopal Church over and against the maliciously destructive accusations of the triple-headed beast (the ACC, the Network and the Church of Nigeria). Here’s his first paragraph:
One of the most frustrating things about being a moderate in The Episcopal Church is the constant need to respond to various bizarre charges made against you by groups like the Anglican Communion Network (ACN), American Anglican Council (AAC) and allied groups. Those groups have now been joined by leaders in the Nigerian church who are organizing a mission to cleanse our church of its traditional teachings...
This reminds me of something Dr. William Witt wrote on one of the Stand Firm comment threads. Most revisionists have a historical memory that begins thirty years ago. That is the only explanation that fits Fr. Woodward’s claim of “moderation” and his use of the word “traditional” to describe the current doctrinal stance of the Episcopal Church.
By “traditional”, as we shall see, Fr.Woodward means that the “catechism” at the back of the 79 prayerbook is still the official teaching of the church, that the Church still recites the Creed, and that TEC still “celebrates” the resurrection.
The problem, however, is an ancient one. “You honor me with your lips while your heart is far from me.”
“Possessing” a prayerbook with an orthodox(sort-of) catechism, “reciting” the Creed, and “celebrating” the Resurrection means very little if, in fact, you reject the content of the catechism, the mock historical claims of the Creed, and turn the Resurrection into a metaphor.
Fr. Woodward’s argument is that the orthodox take the most extreme examples (Spong et al) and use them to mischaracterize the whole body of the Episcopal Church.
The problem with his argument, as we shall see, is that if indeed voices like Spong’s and Borg’s are marginal rather than representative, why O why has there been so little opposition to them? If, in fact, TEC as a whole truly holds to the content (rather than just the form) of the Creeds etc you would expect at least some rigorous and sustained opposition to teachers like Spong and Borg to arise not just from the triple headed beast, but from more “moderate” quarters in the Church.
But instead of opposition, these teachers are given praise, pulpits, and prominence by bishops (and presiding bishops) from north to south, east to west. Dr. Borg is nothing short of a rock-star in the Episcopal Church.
Compare the love and adoration ECUSA heirarchs heap on Dr. Borg and Spong with the near universal disdain and vitriol heaped on bishops Iker and Duncan and you will see the heart of ECUSAn leaders. The Episcopal Church has set her face against Christ and his Church
This series of articles will clarify the lines between heresy and orthodoxy, truth and error, the Episcopal Chruch and the Church founded by the apostles and prophets, the line obscured and then denied by Fr. Woodward in his apology.



One of our GC deputies is trumpeting the victory of “moderates” over “both extremes” at Columbus...but this same deputy, at a pre-GenCon meeting, referred to the reasserters/Windsor Compliant wing of the church as Nazis (he didn’t use that word...he just said that “Those people sit around singing Deutschland ueber alles.")
Now, I can tell you for a fact that he isn’t calling the reappraisers “commies” or the LGBT by any derogatory street terms. The equity just isn’t there, as shown in Matt’s initial comments and evidence. The “moderates”, as Brad Drell pointed out the other day, tend to be institutional reappraisers. Ultimately, they and the secessionist “TEC” reappraisers hold the same values, and are simply arguing over timing and legalities. Both detest the orthodox.