Ft. Worth, Sowing, and Reaping UPDATED

Yes, I have been rather quiet as I warned I might.  But having followed the travails of the Diocese of Ft. Worth for most of the life of this long lived blog, I should say something about the property dispute finally being resolved with the U. S. Supreme Court declining to hear an appeal of the Texas Supreme Court decision in favor of the ACNA Diocese of Ft. Worth.

There were a few congregations once in the diocese that aligned with The Episcopal Church in the dispute.  After the case was resolved, they had to vacate the church buildings.  Living Church, as they often do, has one of the better accounts of that.

All Saints, as usual, was among the worst actors, stripping the church before they left.  But St. Stephens Wichita Falls (Yes, I guess even Wichita Falls has a handful of libchurchers) tried to out do them by even taking the pews.  It was breathtaking.

I say “was” for a judge has since said they can’t do that and at least some of the stolen property has been returned.

I do have to restrain myself in opining on this for I am well aware that All Saints, perennial libchurch spokeswoman Katie Sherrod and company have been bad actors for decades.

But I will say this.  The departing libchurchers merit no sympathy no matter how many crocodile tears they shed.  If there had been a good faith negotiation, I am confident Bishop Iker and the diocese would have been glad to let St. Stephen’s, All Saints, and the like leave with the parish properties.  But no, The Episcopal Church under the Lady of Perpetual Litigation Katharine Jefferts Schori did not have “good faith negotiation” in their vocabulary.  They went scorched earth and tried to take all the property.  And All Saints, Sherrod and other libchurchers supported that policy.  Further they had over a decade to pull back and settle instead.  (I suspect that the courts were slow in part to provide opportunity to settle, but that is speculation on my part.)  But no.

So they get to have it their way.  Now what they tried to do to the orthodox majority of the Diocese of Ft. Worth is happening to them.  It sounds downright Biblical.  To be more Biblical, they would have to pay fourfold.  Reaping what one sows can be a . . . difficult experience.

Meanwhile, I am thanking God that He is just.  And I am trying not to engage in ungodly gloating.  I really am.

----

Photo courtesy of ACNA and Living Church

----

UPDATE: I have been reminded just how much All Saints, St. Stephen’s and ilk have only themselves to blame.  The orthodox Diocese of Ft. Worth on their own accord offered parishes that wanted to do so to stay with The Episcopal Church with their properties.  That even though TEC was showing no quarter.

This from the Standing Committee of the orthodox Diocese of Ft. Worth back in 2009:

On April 14, 2009, the newly formed diocese of Fort Worth, along with representatives of The Episcopal Church (TEC), filed a lawsuit in a Tarrant Count, Texas, court. The suit names Bishop Iker and the five-person Board of Trustees for the Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth as defendants.

As you might remember, at our 2007 diocesan convention we passed a revised canon outlining a process that could be used if a parish disagreed with the course of the diocese. At the end of the process, if reconciliation were not possible, the canon provided that the church property would be released to the congregation. Even after our 2008 convention, where we ratified our decision to separate from TEC by an 80 percent majority, none of the congregations wishing to remain loyal to The Episcopal Church asked for that procedure to be used.

However, the facts allowed the Bishop and the Standing Committee to investigate, and at the end of our investigation, the properties of Trinity Church, Fort Worth, and St. Martin in the Fields, Keller, were deeded to their respective congregations. At the same time, two other parishes - St. Christopher's in Fort Worth, and St. Luke's in Stephenville - were contacted. They had outstanding building loans which were made in the name of the Diocese. The Diocese offered to release their properties to them if they would renegotiate the loans and remove the Diocese from their notes. St. Luke's renegotiated their note and had their property deeded to them. As soon as we hear from St. Christopher's, we will do the same for them.

We've done everything we can think to do to make a settlement with any congregation that wants to stay with TEC. Bishop Iker and the Standing Committee have no wish to take property from those churches that do not wish to remain with us.

Which begs the question why did St. Stephens and All Saints and company not take the offers even while other parishes did?  I am told it was because they wished to assist The Episcopal Church in their lawsuit in taking it all.  They were in a better position to so assist in that predatory lawsuit if they stayed in the diocese.  But whatever their motives, they have only themselves to blame for what has befallen them.  The Diocese of Ft. Worth bent over backwards to accommodate them graciously.  St. Stephens and All Saints spurned that grace and trampled it under foot.  

They had best learn from their just defeat under secular judges and prepare for the final Judge.  But I am not holding my breath for those fools so to do.

BOOZE – It’s What’s for Dinner!

Ah yes, what would a pre-consecration dinner in the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland be without BOOZE – and lots of it!

The timeline, which the Diocese of Maryland said Monday it had added to its Web site, says the head of the national Episcopal Church was made aware that Cook may have been drunk during her installation celebration. Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori was the leader of the Sept. 6 service that consecrated Cook, or made her a bishop [or something].

Bishop Eugene Sutton — who oversees Episcopalians in much of Maryland aside from the D.C. suburbs — suspected Cook was “inebriated during pre-consecration dinner,” the timeline says, “and conveys concern to Presiding Bishop. Presiding Bishop indicates she will discuss with Cook. Cook consecrated.”

You’re darn right she was consshhecrated!  You can’t separate an Anglican from her BOOZE, and that goesth double for Heather Cook!

Katharine Schori and Heather Cook and ALL (hic) good Episcopalians agree!  BOOZE – It’s what’s for dinner!

Our Lady of Perpetual Litigation Declines a 2nd Term

The Presiding “Bishop” of THE Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori has announced that she will not seek a second term.  Perhaps she thought she had done enough damage already.

If so, she certainly won’t admit it.  Instead…

In her letter to the church, the Presiding Bishop cited the accomplishments of her tenure noting first her “relational work”, which was “fundamental to the reconciliation we seek in Christ.  As bridges are built, more and more people can begin to cross the divides between us, and God’s dream begins to take flesh in a more just and peaceful world.”

Her citing her “relational work” towards “reconciliation” is beyond laughable.  Other than her heresies, the hallmark of her tenure has been vindictive litigation against parishes and dioceses that could no longer conscientiously stay in her apostate “church.”  She well earned the moniker, Our Lady of Perpetual Litigation.  She increased the lawsuits engaged in by TEC at least five times.

She even torpedoed amicable negotiations toward settlements, preferring to sue instead.  The most famous instance of this was in the Diocese of Virginia.  Bishop Lee was close to a settlement until Schori barged in.  In his words at the time, “there is a new sheriff in town.”

Her heresies and arrogance sped the demise of The Episcopal Church.  People have flooded out.  Five dioceses have left.  The last of those five, South Carolina, she practically forced out by an absurd and patently dishonest deposition of Bishop Mark Lawrence.  Oh, have I mentioned all her depositions of the faithful?

Yes, I could go on.  But Katharine Jefferts Schori has indeed done enough damage to The Episcopal Church already.  May she enjoy her retirement.  A very warm destination awaits.

Fr. Marcus Kaiser: An Open letter to the Board of Trustees of Nashotah House

Fr. Marcus Kaiser has written a courageous letter that is very helpful in understanding what has happened at Nashotah House in recent weeks.  Stand Firm has posted it in its entirety.  Anyone concerned about Nashotah House should read it.

I hesitate to comment further because I view the Nashotah House situation from a distance.  And Kaiser’s thoughts obviously are of far more import than mine.  But with those caveats . . .

I think the change of Schori itinerary is a good one and acceptable.  Visiting the campus, engaging in “academic” discussion, and giving a eulogy do not present her as a teacher of The Faith the way preaching at a Eucharist would have.  At the same time, her status as the head of a denomination that has students at Nashotah is respected.

Nevertheless, the Dean, Bishop Salmon, still has a lot to answer for.  The letter indicates he went beyond the board’s consent in his original invitation to Schori to preach at chapel.  He greatly damaged trust and Nashotah’s standing with the orthodox.  Yet he has not yet issued an apology.

An apology is called for.  And trust must be restored even if that may require his resignation or dismissal. 

But that leads to another problem.  Fr. Kaiser’s letter reveals the Board of Trustees has serious issues, perhaps to the point of being dysfunctional.  Kaiser writes that Board dysfunction endangers both Nashotah’s accreditation and standing with ACNA.  And he is concerned Nashotah may be on the road to becoming a “TEC-only” seminary which would be disastrous.  Both the seminary and opportunities for orthodox candidates for Holy Orders would be greatly diminished.

The letter makes clear that the commendable change in Schori’s visit has not pulled Nashotah House out of its crisis.  As Fr. Kaiser concludes, prayer is indeed called for.

Misconduct Charges Filed Against Katharine Jefferts Schori

Can you say, “It’s about time”?  Misconduct charges have been filed against TEC Presiding “Bishop” Schori.

I’ve skimmed the charges, filed by the American Anglican Fellowship (AAF), and they look right on target.  But I’ll let readers read and make their own judgements.

Of course, there is a snowball’s chance of these charges going anywhere but the circular file.  But that does not absolve churchpeople from their responsibility to hold apostate and abusive clergy accountable for their predations.

And in case one thinks these charges were filed for publicity or propaganda purposes, look at the date in which they were filed – December 19^th, 2013.  AAF has been quiet about this and is coming out with the charges now only because of a leak which necessitates setting the record straight.

So kudos to the American Anglican Fellowship for stepping up and doing what others should have done years ago.

Justin Welby Did See and Authorize Statement Praising Schori

I have not posted about it here, but many of my informed readers are aware that a statement was issued under Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby’s name praising TEC Presiding “Bishop” Katharine Schori for her “compassion” and putting her forth as a role model no less.

The statement was so divorced from the reality of her ravenous persecution of the faithful that some suggested said statement was issued by Lambeth bureaucrats without the explicit approval of Welby.

But Lambeth has since shot down that theory.  Peter Ould has passed on that they were “incredibly quick to tell me that ++Justin had seen and authorised the statement.”

And it is an outrageous and offensive statement so to praise such an apostate willful persecutor of the faithful as a compassionate role model.  I most certainly am outraged.

Long time readers know I was no fan of Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury.  But Justin Welby may use up my last straw faster than Dr. Williams.  (And, for the record, Rowan used up my straw in September 2007.)

The Episcopal Church Welcomes Hates You

Remember all that talk about unity and “reconciliation” we used to hear from Episcopal libchurchers? At least as far as Presiding “Bishop” Schori is concerned, it was utter bull crap.

She (and many/most other libchurchers) does not consider orthodox Christians worthy of reconciliation and fellowship but worthy of exile or worse.  A lovely example of that is her opinion of Bishop Mark Lawrence:

I tell you that story because it’s indicative of attitudes we’ve seen here and in many other places.  Somebody decides he knows the law, and oversteps whatever authority he may have to dictate the fate of others who may in fact be obeying the law, and often a law for which this local tyrant is not the judge.  It’s not too far from that kind of attitude to citizens’ militias deciding to patrol their towns or the Mexican border for unwelcome visitors.  It’s not terribly far from the state of mind evidenced in school shootings, or in those who want to arm school children, or the terrorism that takes oil workers hostage.

To put “tyrant” or “school shootings” or “terrorism” even in the same sentence with Bishop Mark Lawrence boggles the mind and displays a delusional hatred of the orthodox.

Face it.  When it comes to those in control, if you are a robust orthodox Anglican Christian, The Episcopal Church doesn’t welcome you any more.

The Episcopal Church hates you.

On The Episcopal Church Attacking the Diocese of South Carolina

The new --Schori puppet Disciplinary Board for Bishops of The Episcopal “Church” (TEC) has declared that the Bishop of South Carolina has abandoned TEC.  This triggers provisions previously passed by the Diocese which now take it out of TEC.  So, in effect, Presiding “Bishop” Schori has kicked the Diocese of South Carolina out of her Unholy “Church” . . . and will now send in her lawyers to attempt to seize all the diocese’s assets, of course.

Given that the Bishop of SC, Mark Lawrence, has taken great pains to keep South Carolina in TEC while upholding the Faith and guarding the integrity of his diocese and parishes, I find this attack shocking.

But I probably should not be shocked.  As Sarah Hey points out, Schori and company are a vindictive bunch, “utterly amoral, bullying, and controlling.”  And, back in 2006, I asserted time and again that there is no safe place for the orthodox in The Episcopal Church.  Now I am proven right . . . again.

Christopher Johnson suspects the presenting issue was that +Lawrence acted to allow parishes to protect their property.  Given the sheer greed and vindictiveness of --Schori, that might be so.

Although I would have questioned trying to stay in The Episcopal Church as the Diocese of South Carolina has, they have done us the service of showing us just how implacable TEC has become.  Bow down to Great Whore of 815 and all her abominations, or else.

Stand Firm and the AnglicanCurmudgeon have followed this matter closely and surely will continue to do so, and I defer to them for more in-depth coverage.

Seminary Gives --Schori’s Church-suing Lawyer an Honorary Doctorate

Does the brazenness of The Episcopal Church know any bounds? Its General Theological Seminary has awarded David Booth Beers an honorary doctorate.  That’s right.  He is --Schori’s lawyer in suing the faithful and kicking them out of their properties.

And that’s the very reason he was awarded the degree:

David Booth Beers, Esq. is a noted attorney and Chancellor to the Presiding Bishop. He is of counsel to the law firm Goodwin Proctor where he has an extensive national and international practice in the non-profit sector. He has led the legal effort of the Episcopal Church to safe guard the rights and property of the church, dioceses and parishes from the plans of those who have broken away from the church and yet attempted to take church property with them. He has worked closely for many years with the Church History faculty of the Seminary in his support of the church and enjoys wide and deep respect. He is an active layman in St. Patrick’s Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Washington.

I could rant and carry on about what an outrage it is so to award suing the faithful.  But perhaps I should instead remind myself that it could be worse.  I mean at least an Episcopalian seminary is not yet led by, say, a worshipper of Moloch, right?

Oh.  Never mind.

Schori’s Easter Message sans Jesus

Presiding “Bishop” Schori’s Easter Message is out . . . if one can call it an Easter message.

There is much mention of, you guessed it, the UN Millennium Development Goals.

But there is not a single mention of Jesus.

I did not know Jesus is the one who must not be named.

As Peter Ould points out, Schori’s Easter is an “Easter without Jesus.”

What can one say about such a “church” and such a “bishop” except . . .

Anathema.

An Appalling Ruling in Virginia

I am not familiar with all the arcane details of the legal dispute between The Episcopal “Church” and the seven Anglican CANA/ACNA parishes in Virginia. So I hesitate to get into legal commentary on this. I’m sure the Anglican Curmudgeon will dive into that in due time.

But I must say am appalled by yesterday’s ruling. I know at least Falls Church and Truro Church predate The Episcopal Church. And I seriously doubt they in any way have ever signed over their property to that organization.

My prayers are with those congregations. Their foundation is Christ, and they will long outlast Schori and her lawyers. But the loss of these properties cannot be an easy thing.

And what does the Episcopal “Church” gain? Properties they can hardly hope to use adequately with the bills that come with them. And some of the properties are difficult to sell due to historic graveyards and no telling what other use restrictions.

And that after TEC could have benefitted from generous settlements.

This lawsuit was almost pure vindictiveness. Anathemas are in order.

Abomination of the Week

The Celebrant did his best to follow the godly example of the Presiding Bishop and ignore the vomit on the frontal.


Thanks to Bad Vestments for bringing this to our attention . . . I think.

Our Lady of Perpetual Litigation

I should say I am not the first one to dub the Presiding “Bishop” of The Episcopal Church, Katharine Schori, Our Lady of Perpetual Litigation. But better late than never.

A detailed series on her and TEC’s litigious ways over at the Anglican Curmudgeon inspires me. And she has so pushed the abundance of litigation that it almost seems unfair to blame the rest of The Episcopal Church. This following fact is particularly eye-opening:

Frank Kirkpatrick, professor of religion at Trinity College, wrote in a survey article in 2008 that "there were, as of December [2007], 55 [Episcopal Church] property disputes in one state or another of resolution around the country." (You may find a listing of those lawsuits in this post from August 2008, and see also the latest report from the American Anglican Council.) Of those fifty-five lawsuits, I estimate that ECUSA itself was a party to about half of them. Thus from the five lawsuits to which it was a party as Bishop Griswold ended his term in November 2006 (the Pawley's Island case in South Carolina, the three Los Angeles lawsuits, and a case involving St. James Church in Elmhurst, in the Diocese of Long Island), the number increased by five times in the first full year of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori's term.

One instance comes to mind. The then Bishop of Virginia, Peter Lee, seemed close to an agreement with congregations departing from his diocese . . . until . . .

Katharine Jefferts Schori stepped in. According to sworn testimony given in court proceedings, Bishop Lee told the leaders of the departing congregations that "there is a new sheriff in town." Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori directed him to sue the congregations and not let them leave with their property.

There is little question the wave of litigation was her policy:

There are no records in the minutes of the Executive Council during this period to show that it was ever consulted before any of these multiple filings in the name of the Church took place; as quoted in the previous post, the Presiding Bishop held the view that only she personally, and neither the Council, nor even General Convention, had any authority over litigation. Thus she simply gave her Chancellor free rein -- and ECUSA's legal bills began to mount exponentially.

Many of my knowledgeable readers are well aware of how litigious Schori is. I thought I was thus informed as well. But the extent of how much she has pushed litigation not only on the orthodox but on The Episcopal Church itself astounds. TEC is among her victims as well.

Again, the Anglican Curmudgeon is patiently examining Schori’s litigiousness in great detail.

CONFIRMED: ++Canterbury has asked Schori to withdraw from Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion

In the midst of one of his erudite and painstaking posts, the Anglican Curmudgeon confirms “through an independent source” the report I passed on to you on Monday – the Archbishop of Canterbury has indeed asked Katherine Schori to consider withdrawing from the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion. But that is not all. She may have been also asked not to attend the next Primates Meeting.

. . . according to reports received by the Rev. George Conger (which I have confirmed through an independent source), the Presiding Bishop's Chancellor, David Booth Beers, told some ECUSA bishops gathered for the Living Our Vows training session at the Lake Logan Episcopal Center in North Carolina (held from May 24-28) that the Archbishop had conveyed to the Presiding Bishop a private request that she withdraw from her position on the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion, and not attend the next Primates' Meeting. It would thus appear that since there was a letter delivered, the request either was in the letter itself, or else the letter asked Bishop Jefferts Schori to listen to what Canon Kearon would say to her in private. (The latter option, if true, would permit spokespersons on both sides of the Atlantic to deny that any "written request to step down" had been sent.) But Chancellor Beers left no doubt: the request was made. And whichever way it was made, it also would seem, to put it mildly, that the request was not well received.

You think? For more titillating details of just how unpleasant matters have become, read the whole post.

But again, it is confirmed that Katherine Schori has been asked to withdraw from the Standing Communion of the Anglican Communion. In addition, it is reported she has been asked not to attend the next Primates Meeting.

Schori’s Mitre

The sharp eye of Christopher Johnson has picked up a very interesting tidbit from the Presiding Heretic’s missionary trip to England. It turns out the Archbishop of Canterbury gave the usual permission for her to preach in his domain, but attached unusual conditions – that she not carry a bishop’s crosier or wear a mitre.

Perhaps, he was playing by the book in that the Church of England does not yet have women bishops. But it sure looks like playing by the book to send a signal.

--Schori complied . . . by carrying the mitre into Southwark Cathedral instead of either wearing it or leaving it at the hotel. Juvenile.

With Mr. Johnson, I am wondering if ++Rowan has finally had enough of her and her church.

BREAKING: ++Canterbury Asks --Schori to Withdraw from Standing Committee?

This could be big:

The Archbishop’s Pentecost letter is the public half of a campaign to rein in the Episcopal Church, The Church of England Newspaper has learned, and follows a private letter delivered to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori asking her to consider withdrawing from active participation on the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.

A letter from the Archbishop is believed to have been given to Bishop Jefferts Schori at the April 17 consecration of the Bishop of Connecticut, Dr Ian Douglas. Neva Rae Fox, a spokesman for the Presiding Bishop said she could not comment as she was not present at the Connecticut consecration. Dr Williams’ office would neither confirm nor deny the story, citing its policy of not commenting on the Archbishop’s private correspondence.

The public discipline already announced is significant mainly in that it is a shift in ++Rowan’s policy in dealing with The Episcopal Church. But if he has gone further and asked --Schori to consider withdrawing from the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion . . ., like I said, that would be big and hardly a token move. It might even be the beginning of the end of The Episcopal Church’s involvement in the Anglican Communion. Yes, I think this could be that important.

George Conger is a very reputable and reliable reporter. But I would nevertheless like to see confirmation before going all in on this story, hence the question mark in the title.

Hat tip to Baby Blue.

Yes. Actual Sanctions Against The Episcopal Church

When we noted the unhappy tone of --Schori’s response to ++Canterbury’s Pentecost letter, we speculated that she had already been informed that his missive was not merely more words.

Although I am not privy to the exact moment Her Apostasy was informed, it indeed turns out that His Grace’s words actually have teeth. Kenneth Kearon has informed TEC that certain of their representatives are booted off Anglican Communion bodies:

Last Thursday I sent letters to members of the Inter Anglican ecumenical dialogues who are from the Episcopal Church informing them that their membership of these dialogues has been discontinued. In doing so I want to emphasise again as I did in those letters the exceptional service of each and every person to that important work and to acknowledge without exception the enormous contribution each person has made.

I have also written to the person from the Episcopal Church who is a member of the Inter Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order (IASCUFO), withdrawing that person’s membership and inviting her to serve as a Consultant to that body.

Certain intervening provinces, namely the Southern Cone, may also be in danger of sanctions. We’ll leave that issue aside for the moment.

Now, some may say that the sanctions against TEC are no big deal and dismiss them as too little, too late. However, they do mark a transition. No longer is the Archbishop of Canterbury engaging merely in more conversation, more concern, more indaba. He is actually imposing sanctions with the door open for more.

It is yet to be seen how much Dr. Williams will follow through on discipline. But he finally is engaging in actual church discipline. And that is significant.

Schori (and I) Respond to ++Rowan’s Pentecost Letter

Some of my patient readers may be wondering if I am sullenly ignoring the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Pentecost letter. I am not. But I was so preoccupied this past weekend that I did not even become aware of it until the past two days. So kindly excuse my tardiness.

However, the delay may be providential. For TEC’s Presiding Heretic Schori’s response, in its own way, sheds more light than I possibly could on the Pentecost letter. To say she doesn’t like it would be an understatement. That suggests ++Rowan’s missive may have more teeth than we have come to expect from him.

A close reading of the letter reveals that may indeed be the case. The money passages:

And when a province through its formal decision-making bodies or its House of Bishops as a body declines to accept requests or advice from the consultative organs of the Communion, it is very hard (as noted in my letter to the Communion last year after the General Convention of TEC) to see how members of that province can be placed in positions where they are required to represent the Communion as a whole. This affects both our ecumenical dialogues, where our partners (as they often say to us) need to know who it is they are talking to, and our internal faith-and-order related groups.

I am therefore proposing that, while these tensions remain unresolved, members of such provinces – provinces that have formally, through their Synod or House of Bishops, adopted policies that breach any of the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion and recently reaffirmed by the Standing Committee and the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) – should not be participants in the ecumenical dialogues in which the Communion is formally engaged. I am further proposing that members of such provinces serving on IASCUFO should for the time being have the status only of consultants rather than full members. This is simply to confirm what the Communion as a whole has come to regard as the acceptable limits of diversity in its practice.

That appears to be real actual sanctions. ++Rowan then briefly informs, “Particular provinces will be contacted about the outworking of this in the near future.”

It appears from her response that --Schori has gotten that call . . . and that it was not a pleasant one.

Further, ++Rowan appears to leave the door open to further sanctions from the Primates:

I am aware that other bodies have responsibilities in questions concerned with faith and order, notably the Primates’ Meeting, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Standing Committee. The latter two are governed by constitutional provisions which cannot be overturned by any one person’s decision alone, and there will have to be further consultation as to how they are affected. I shall be inviting the views of all members of the Primates’ Meeting on the handling of these matters with a view to the agenda of the next scheduled meeting in January 2011.

Therefore, like Matt+ Kennedy, although I am *Anglican understatement alert* not a tremendous fan of the current Archbishop of Canterbury, I am pleasantly surprised by this letter. It appears the man may be actually capable of saying, “Enough.”

Yes, I am indulging in the wild and wishful speculation that His Grace may think the Episcopal Church has finally gone beyond the boundaries that his grace can accommodate. I still would not exactly bet on that. But I may indulge myself and burden you with further useless speculation later.

In any case, --Schori’s response is pushing me to respect Dr. Williams again . . . somewhat . . . for now. And that is quite an accomplishment on her part.

Other notable (and fun) responses to the Presiding Heretic may be found at MCJ and Baby Blue.

CofE Synod Wimps Out on ACNA is Very Anglican.

As you perhaps can tell from the headline, I do not share ACNA leadership’s cheery assessment of what transpired at Synod. I do understand their desire to be positive. It would not be very polite to say, “Thanks for nothing, pommy church!” And the Synod could have in turn told ACNA to go away. They did not.

But let us follow Matt+ Kennedy’s admonition to engage in exegesis, not isogesis and look at what actually passed.

The original motion by Lorna Ashworth was modest:

“That this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America.”

As she noted during debate, all that motion would have done was express a desire for communion. It would have had little if any binding result (except REALLY tick off --Schori and company, of course).

But that was *ahem* too bold for the Synod. So they gutted the resolution with an amendment. Therefore the final resolution that passed was the following:

“That this Synod, aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada,

"(a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011."

The passed resolution does not even deign to express a desire for communion. It only affirms ACNA’s desire – whatever that means, says this is oh-so complicated, and kicks the issue to 2011.

Thus Synod punted on even expressing a desire for communion with ACNA.

I can think of several adjectives to describe that. “Anglican” seems appropriate at the moment.

Granted, I am a bit grumpier than some (but not Christopher Johnson). Other views may be found here.

Schori Does ACNA a Favor?

There are reports that TEC Presiding Heretic Katharine Schori is in England to try to influence the Church of England Synod against recognizing the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).

If so, I say . . . thanks!

I really have difficulty seeing her lobbying being well received. The Episcopal Church already has a reputation both for not giving a damn about the Anglican Communion and for pushing its weight around within it beyond its declining numbers. And much of the current divisions within the Church of England itself are fomented by Episcopalians who have moved to England and taken influential positions, particularly in the universities. I suspect at least some in Synod are quietly fed up with that. I am sure few in Synod see themselves in need of more guidance from the Episcopal Church.

So I think Schori’s presence in England will actually help ACNA, reminding many in Synod of the need for ACNA and giving opportunity politely to tell her to buzz off by voting to recognize ACNA. (And that even if she throws Episcopalian $$$ around.)

But that is only my take. If anyone has further insight into this situation and how it is being received, feel free to comment or contact. I am watching Synod with great interest.