March 25, 2017

October 8, 2010

Church Times: ++Ian Ernest will not attend Primates’ Meeting if PB is present

This is a big blow. ++Ernest is on the more moderate side of the conservative spectrum and has been one of the most loyal primates to the Archbishop of Canterbury. From the Church Times

The Archbishop of the Indian Ocean, the Most Revd Ian Ernest, has confirmed that he will not attend the meeting, due to take place in Dublin, 25-31 January.

Archbishop Ernest said last week that he had written to the Archbishop of Canterbury in the summer to convey his distress at the election in the United States of the Rt Revd Mary Glasspool, a partnered lesbian, as Bishop of Los Angeles. He had urged Dr Williams to exclude Dr Jefferts Schori from future Primates’ Meetings.

“There were conditions attached in that letter,” he said last week, “and I can confirm I will not attend if those conditions are not fulfilled.”

Dr Jefferts Schori has already con firmed that she will attend the meeting.

Primates of the Global South are expected to meet this month to discuss whether they will refuse en masse to attend…more

Share this story:

Recent Related Posts



Uh . . . this is a Really Big Story.

To me, it’s the biggest story of the year, so far, in Anglitania.

I always loved Mouneer—just loved his whole way of doing things.  He was always “in the middle” of the Global South Primates.

It was not a surprise to me that he, in a methodical, thoughtful way came to the conclusions that he has.

But Ian Ernest is to me a bit more of a surprise.  From an institutional standpoint he is far more loyal than Archbishop Mouneer.

So this . . . this is a big deal.

[1] Posted by Sarah on 10-8-2010 at 10:42 AM · [top]

The constant breaking of trust means that at least some moderate/institutional folks will walk off.  And to have a Primate do so is, as Sarah says, big news.

Tradition, ideology or high order values are formidable bonds, but simple bad behavior can undo them.  Closer to home, think of Schoir and Bennison.  Ideologically the same, but the relationship is trashed by all the acting out.

Too many manipulated meetings, words that don’t mean what they mean, broken promises, etc. etc. will cause people to give up on the “process.”

[2] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 10-8-2010 at 11:05 AM · [top]

Wow.  Subscribe.

[3] Posted by old lady on 10-8-2010 at 11:15 AM · [top]

I am rather surprised at the Church Times comment that David Anderson’s idea is “a bizarre suggestion.”  It seems to me that it is a perfectly reasonable suggestion to call for all primates to attend the Primates Meeting, then immediately vote to exclude KJS and FH (such a vote likely to pass), and that if RW sabotages such a plan for the GS and allies primates to leave the official meeting and convene separately.  Granted, the way he set forth his idea was somewhat ill advised (why would he reference “voting someone off the island” or use the phrase “remove by force of numbers” - suggesting violence to some - when he could have said “vote to request her to absent herself”).

Nevertheless, whether the primates follow Anderson’s suggestion or whether they just stay home, this is a huge story as it would signal FOR THE FIRST TIME, that the moderates in the Communion have refused to play Rowan’s games of “everyone attend”.

[4] Posted by jamesw on 10-8-2010 at 11:17 AM · [top]

Preventing Mrs Schori and Fred from experiencing the consequences of their actions is immoral and unnecessarily cruel in that they are not being allowed to learn and grow. As with anyone else, cause and result are important teaching tools. The lack of boundaries shown by the AC toward them has only encouraged them in their wrongheaded thinking and actually enabled them to run off the rails. Those whose wooly-minded ideas of ‘generosity’ and ‘restraint’ resulted in the current institutionalized chaos and dysfunction need to repent and get a backbone.

[5] Posted by A Senior Priest on 10-8-2010 at 11:35 AM · [top]

It is awe-inspiring to look back across the battlefield of the last several years, and see the wreckage that RW has left in his wake.  Not one single Instrument of Unity remains standing.  They have all be reduced to smoldering hulks, scorched and gutted, and lifeless.  And to think that RW accomplished all this while trying his very best to achieve the opposite outcome.  What else remains but for the Chorus to sing of the tragedy of Rowan Rex - the man who brought about his terrible fate by the very actions he took to avoid it.

You residents of Anglitania, our native church, look on this man, this Rowan, the one who understood that celebrated riddle. He was the most intelligent of men.  All theologians who witnessed this man’s intellect were envious. Now what a surging tide of terrible disaster sweeps around him.  So while we wait to see that final day, we cannot call a mortal being happy before he’s passed beyond life free from pain.

And who remains amidst the ruin to gather the remnants of the Communion to herself?  Who sits like Sauron in Mordor and laughs?


[6] Posted by carl on 10-8-2010 at 11:36 AM · [top]

Does anybody know when the GAFCON Primates Meeting is?

[7] Posted by Ed McNeill on 10-8-2010 at 11:40 AM · [top]

RE: “It seems to me that it is a perfectly reasonable suggestion to call for all primates to attend the Primates Meeting, then immediately vote to exclude KJS and FH (such a vote likely to pass), and that if RW sabotages such a plan for the GS and allies primates to leave the official meeting and convene separately.”


Heavy heavy sigh.

Sighs and weepings and gnashings and rending of the hair.

Such a “vote” would certainly *not* pass.

Guys—have you looked at the list of Primates lately?

Please just look—LOOK—read carefully the list of Primates.  And *then* write down on a sheet of paper which ones you think 1) are orthodox, and 2) are strong and non-institutional and 3) have the willingness to actually vote KJS out of the meeting.

HINT: South and North India do not meet those three criteria, although they are orthodox.  They are even more institutional than Ernest.  Japan, ditto.  And on and on and on and on it goes.

It is *NOT* repeat *NOT* possible to acquire a 20 to 18 vote, and even if it were, is that really the best way for this to go down?  18 Primates in one room, with the ABC and Schori and Fred, and 20 in another room?

What on earth—what in heaven’s name, does that accomplish?

And of course, the reality is that it would be 22 in one room—RW and Schori and Fred, etc. —and 14 or whatever in another.

[8] Posted by Sarah on 10-8-2010 at 11:47 AM · [top]

I’ve gotten the impression that ++Ernest has been moving closer to the other Global South primates.  Perhaps they have been more supportive of him than Westerners like ++Rowan.  Perhaps he finally came to the realization that ++RW’s promises of Communion discipline have been hollow and ineffectual.  Whatever the reason, I could agree more that this is BIG news. 

What’s almost as striking is that there appears to be a concerted pattern of non-participation emerging in the Global South.  Or at least setting their own terms for participating and then bowing out if/when ++RW or the ‘Western powers’ fail to comply. They are acting in consort to show, publicly, that the ABC is not presiding over a true Communion but rather over a small, sectarian and heretical Western club of the like-minded.

[9] Posted by Steve Lake+ on 10-8-2010 at 11:49 AM · [top]

A Senior Priest (#5)

Consequences of their actions? What a quaint notion.


[10] Posted by Positive Phototaxis on 10-8-2010 at 12:44 PM · [top]

I agree with Bp. Anderson.

The Anglican Communion is not hierarchical. ABp. Williams hath not the authority to allow so-and-so to attend the meeting if the other Primates assertively demand in advance that so-and-so not attend. The other Primates should, and must, show up in force.

And if so-and-so doth show up anyway, the Primates certainly have the authority and power to request that so-and-so be escorted to the door by security guards and shown the way out. Perhaps KJS and FH might play a round of golf, and commiserate at one of Dublin’s fine pubs.

If that cannot be done, then the faithful Primates can walk out, go play a round of golf, and then have their very own Primates’ meeting at one of the pubs. There, they can decide on a name for their new branch of Christianity.

Since the listening process is over, this seems to be a lose-lose situation for ABp. Williams. However, excluding so-and-so from the meeting would seem to be the lesser of evils if church unity and healing are at all important to him.

[11] Posted by Ralph on 10-8-2010 at 01:01 PM · [top]

This ‘playing at bowls’ with Schori and Friends has got to come to an immediate end….now!  And I include RDW in that coterie of ‘Friends.’  The sooner the GAFCON primates meet, the better.

[12] Posted by cennydd13 on 10-8-2010 at 01:28 PM · [top]

GAFCON has met this week.

[13] Posted by francis on 10-8-2010 at 02:11 PM · [top]

It’s about time a line is finally drawn. Many Christians have waited for someone to stand tall and say enough is enough. It’s like oil and water…her (Schori’s beliefs)her morals / values and mine will never meet. We’re right and she’s wrong ! It’s been 7 years for Pete’s sake !

[14] Posted by DOS on 10-8-2010 at 02:20 PM · [top]

Sarah at #8 has it spot on. And also note that the Global South Primates is another group to Gafcon- more of a concern to ABC. They are a much larger group, and include many of the more moderate Primates, most of whom attended Lambeth. If they decide to act as a block and boycott the Primates Mtg, that would be the strongest indication of a split in the AC to date. In Singapore they demonstrated a strong mind of their own (not always of the same mind as the Gafcon primates), but unlikely to travel to Ireland if they think it will be an expensive waste of time and money. In any event, they certainly will not play the sort of games +Anderson suggests (which displays an alarming misreading of GS culture on Anderson’s part).

[15] Posted by Tim Harris on 10-8-2010 at 02:34 PM · [top]

Tim Harris:  Thanks for your insight into the GS culture (i.e. the GS primates not being willing to play the “power politics” games which would be required to do what Anderson suggests).  That is a most excellent point and one that I think we Westerners are too often ignorant of.

Sarah:  Clearly, before the GS primates would attend, they would need to take stock first to ensure they had the votes to act.  If they didn’t, then, as you say, it would be dumb.  I confess to not analyzing the likely primatial votes, but thought that a majority would have agreed to request KJS and FH to absent themselves considering the clear moves towards SSB’s, SSM’s and gay and lesbian bishops in their Provinces.

So, I decided to look up and do a rough analysis.  Looking at the list of Provinces, here is my figuring:

The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand & Polynesia
The Anglican Church of Australia
Igreja Episcopal Anglicana do Brasil
The Anglican Church of Canada
Iglesia Anglicana de la Region Central de America
The Church of England
La Iglesia Anglicana de Mexico
The Scottish Episcopal Church
Anglican Church of Southern Africa
The Episcopal Church
The Church in Wales

The Church of Bangladesh
Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui
The Church of Ireland
The Nippon Sei Ko Kai (The Anglican Communion in Japan)
The Anglican Church of Korea
The Church of the Province of Melanesia
The Church of the Province of Myanmar (Burma)
The Anglican Church of Papua New Guinea
The Episcopal Church in the Philippines

The Anglican Church of Burundi
The Church of the Province of Central Africa
Province de L’Eglise Anglicane Du Congo
The Church of North India (United)
The Church of Pakistan (United)
The Church of South India (United)
The Episcopal Church of the Sudan
The Church in the Province of the West Indies

The Church of the Province of the Indian Ocean
The Episcopal Church in Jerusalem & The Middle East
The Anglican Church of Kenya
The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion)
L’Eglise Episcopal au Rwanda
Church of the Province of South East Asia
Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur de America
The Anglican Church of Tanzania
The Church of the Province of Uganda
The Church of the Province of West Africa

So Sarah is probably right.  We’d need ALL of groups C and D, plus a few from group B just to get a majority, and a bare majority isn’t really terribly useful.  It is unlikely that such a number could be gotten from this group if Rowan does as expects and does his predictable manipulations.

[16] Posted by jamesw on 10-8-2010 at 03:33 PM · [top]


Not one single Instrument of Unity remains standing.  They have all be reduced to smoldering hulks, scorched and gutted, and lifeless.  And to think that RW accomplished all this while trying his very best to achieve the opposite outcome.

I wouldn’t assume that Rowan was trying to achieve the opposite outcome at all.  I think that for the Primates Meeting and Lambeth Conference, he quite intentionally sought to gut them of any power they might have had.  And as for the ACC, I also think he quite intentionally supported the double-secret new ACC constitution that effectively renders the ACC the appendage of the new Joint Standing Committee.

It is my opinion now that Rowan quite deliberately destroyed the other Instruments of Communion because they were threats to his power in the Communion.  Rowan wants a strong visual pretense of “unity”, and absolutely does NOT want any other group in the Communion to have any power to do anything.

Note that this isn’t to say that Rowan is the puppet of KJS and TEC.  He may not be happy with what TEC is doing, but he certainly doesn’t want anyone other then himself to be deciding on what, if anything, happens to TEC.

[17] Posted by jamesw on 10-8-2010 at 03:40 PM · [top]

Either go to the meeting and confront Schorri, Hilt and their ilk; or declare the communion dissolved and set up an alternative structure. The communion is no more; that is obvious to anyone with eyes to see. I am sick to death of this constant posturing.

[18] Posted by taz on 10-8-2010 at 04:26 PM · [top]

Subscribe.  (Again.  I accidentally hit the wrong link and took myself off.)

[19] Posted by old lady on 10-8-2010 at 04:52 PM · [top]

Sarah is right; there are not the votes to exclude TEC’s PB.

Jamesw, that is an excellent list. There are a couple under catagory (c) that I would not expect to vote to expel the PB in the end. Even Central Africa is very much in doubt at this point. I can’t imagine any of the (b) catagory voting to with the GAFCON group (the irony of the (b) group is that they are by and large tiny Provinces) So I think you would end up with just 16 or so in favor of expulsion.  Any resolution watered down enough to garner enough votes for passage would be meaningless.

Given these dynamics, there are no good options for orthodox Primates. Sure, by attending a Primate might, perhaps, slow (but not stop) resolutions or actions that tend to further bolster the revisionist agenda. But at this stage attendance would give credence and legitimacy to what has happened up to this point, and will divert the faithful Primates from more productive work.

The latter point is the most important to me. For the orthodox Primates, what is the best use of time and resources to advance the Gospel?  For church leaders who have cherished their participation in the governance of the Commmunion at large, it must be very hard to reach the conclusion that they have reached a dead end, and the most faithful stewardship option is to turn in a different direction.  But we are promised that when God closes one door, he opens another.

[20] Posted by Going Home on 10-8-2010 at 05:16 PM · [top]

How about a vote to add to the Primates Meeting agenda a report from the PB on any efforts by her or TEC to comply with the requests in the Dar es Salaam Communique?  With a similar request to one of the Covenant Communion bishops?  Or, a North American bishop of the Global South’s choosing?


[21] Posted by miserable sinner on 10-8-2010 at 05:26 PM · [top]

Taz, I think you have a point.  I see no sense in beating around the bush any longer, and we might as well get it out in the open.  The time for wordy ‘conversation without end’ is past, and it’s time for action.  We need to make that point crystal clear to the primates.

[22] Posted by cennydd13 on 10-8-2010 at 05:27 PM · [top]

The only thing that surprises me is that everyone is surprised.  Earlier in the year he wrote a letter to the ABoC, published on the web, including SF

I also support Archbishop Henry’s call for a Primates meeting. I also will only attend this meeting on condition that we as Primates be consulted first before the agenda is finalised, and on condition that the Primates of TEC and the ACC are not present.

So why is anyone surprised that he is keeping his word?  Did anyone expect him to do otherwise?
Rowan wrote his own letter to the Anglican Communion after the Glasspool “consecration” saying that TEC would be removed from bodies responsible for the faith and order of the Communion, which the Primates are charged with, and has now broken his word.  That, however, is no reason to expect the GS bishops to break theirs.

[23] Posted by tjmcmahon on 10-8-2010 at 06:29 PM · [top]

I think that james w’s list at #16 is helpful, although I am not as pessimistic as his conclusions.  I won’t bore everyone by setting out why again but my reasons can be read in my comments which conclude here.

I think we are at a time of decision and urge US conservatives to give up criticising one another or thinking that either a fedcon or comcon solution will prevail.  Any hope of movement forward relies on people uniting if there is any prospect for our church.  Please pray for the Global South churches and primates at this time and in particular for those of courage like AB Ian Ernest.

[24] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 10-8-2010 at 07:20 PM · [top]

To begin, let me say that I am very grateful for the comments above, the discussion to this point has been wonderfully instructive. I began being in agreement with Bishop Anderson, though after reading what has been posted, I now find myself in agreement with ++Ernest.

As for the calls for the provinces to leave the communion and form another organization, I believe that to be an incredible mistake. The revisionists have played the “Time Card”, and now I believe it to be our time to play it. Here is some food for thought, employing [16]Jamesw’s list and Wikipedia.

1) TEC- Including all members added through baptism and reception, TEC still looses 700 members a week. In a denomination where the ASA is less than 65, you are looking at loosing more than one congregation of people a day. In a province of only 7200 congregations, if trends continue, they will run out of people in about 20 years. By most any way of counting, TEC will not exist in 50.

2)The Anglican Church of Canada- with an average Sunday attendance of around 250,000 people and dropping at a similar rate to TEC, I doubt Canada will be around anywhere near 50 years. In all likelihood, the ACC and TEC will unite “for joined mission in North America” relocating their main offices to 815 2nd Ave, and this province will be no more. It’ll be gone in 20 years max.

3)The Anglican Church of Mexico- Wikipedia names 12 self-supporting parishes in the province. You heard that right, 5 dioceses have 12 parishes between them. Each of those parishes are English speaking, and located in high tourist areas. The province is not self-supporting, and survives on grants from TEC. As TEC collapses, so does it’s revenue, and it’s ability to financially support other provinces, like Mexico. Once the well at 815 dries up, so does this province. 30 years.

4)Brazil- With Recife gone to the Southern Cone, they lost a good chunk of their membership. Most discouraging because it was the one diocese (of nine) that was growing (and still is). Brazil is likewise not self-sustaining, and pays it’s bills through grants from TEC. With failing membership and as TEC becomes increasingly unreliable for financial support, the province will inevitably collapse. 30 years.

5) The majority of the provinces that support TEC are also financially supported in a small or large part by TEC. When TEC can no longer financially support them, a time approaching sooner, rather than later, the rest of the Communion can pick up the slack, or the provinces will disband or merge with other provinces, the latter being more likely. When TEC goes, so does the majority of the provinces in Category A of Jamesw’s list (great list, by the way Jamesw, thank you so much for putting it together!). And you don’t have to be David Virtue to see that TEC is dying, and won’t be around much longer. Neither will Group A.

Because of this, we don’t need to create a new communion and let the Anglican Communion die, we just need to let those parts of the Anglican Communion die that have chosen the Way of the Death. God will take care of the revisionists, we just need to be about the mission of the Gospel. In brief, because we are on God’s side, Time is on ours.

Yours in Christ,

[25] Posted by Jacobsladder on 10-8-2010 at 07:40 PM · [top]

PM in 24 makes a number of good points.  I think that some of the GS dynamics are not what they once were.  Note, for example, that among the first Provinces or Primates to recognize ACNA were SE Asia and Burma.  ++Chew of SE Asia is often recognized as a moderate in Communion affairs (although I think JamesW rightly puts them in the conservative column) and Burma (which he has in the “unknown” column).  While communion with TEC and ACNA are not necessarily mutually exclusive, it might not be a far stretch to suggest that most Churches in communion with ACNA would not be supportive of the TEC PB and her blatant seizure of power.
  It has occurred to me that the recent seizure of power by KJS and the Standing Committee have left the Communion with a governance not unlike the UN.  The reshaped communion has a council drawn from all over the world which takes votes that no nation is really obligated to follow (GeneralAssembly/ACC), a figurehead leader who has influence but little actual power (Secretary General/ABoC), and is ruled, essentially, by a small group, (the Security Council/Standing Committee) which actually makes all the critical decisions with little heed to the other governing bodies or the majority of the nations.

[26] Posted by tjmcmahon on 10-8-2010 at 07:45 PM · [top]

25- Some time back I did a bit of statistical analysis.  The largest diocese of TEC is Haiti, which is actually (by TEC standards) quite conservative- although KJS has sent in her most able revisionist missionaries in the guise of disaster aid.  Haiti has been growing.  If Haiti keeps growing at the rate of the last 10 years and TEC keeps declining, in about 20-25 years Haiti and the CP dioceses combined could be larger than the rest of TEC, and in 28 years, Haiti will be more than 50% of the membership of the province all by itself.
Of course, they will still only have 0.9% of the representation at GC.

[27] Posted by tjmcmahon on 10-8-2010 at 07:54 PM · [top]

I’m with Taz and Cennydd.  Orthodox Anglicans have better uses for our time, money, and energy than continuing to pretend that there is any rational basis for expecting the morally and intellectually corrupt Episcopal Organization and their financially dependent clients to repent and return to anything even marginally recognizable as classical Christianity.  We should be about the Lord’s work and let Rowan and the rest of the dead bury their dead.

[28] Posted by Brize on 10-8-2010 at 10:05 PM · [top]

Uh, make that last comment of mine a response to #23 (tjmcmahon), not #22.

[29] Posted by KingDavid on 10-8-2010 at 10:55 PM · [top]

My post to #23 does not seem to have appeared.  I had agreed that, after Abp. Earnest’s comments at the S-S Encounter in Singapore, it was clear how he would stand on this issue.  I would expect Mouneer Anis to make the same decision.  It was enlightening to me to read all the statements that were published from the Encounter—and to hear the talks posted on the Global South website.  I thought they showed a big shift in attitudes since the Gafcon origins, and I’m not so sure the Global South is as divided as has been claimed.  Only a few (two of three) of the provinces’ spokespeople sounded out of sync with the orthodox. I thought that Encounter sounded like a turning point for the whole GS and pointed forward in important ways.

[30] Posted by KingDavid on 10-8-2010 at 11:06 PM · [top]

subscribing for now…

[31] Posted by Intercessor on 10-8-2010 at 11:53 PM · [top]

25, you assume a uniform rate of decline to zero.  Seems to me it’s far more likely that there will eventually be a plateau, at which TEC will continue to exist as a niche, liberal organization.

[32] Posted by DavidH on 10-9-2010 at 06:20 AM · [top]

Perhaps they could bring up the various options - she leaves, etc. - but then look for a compromise position.

+KJS is qualified like no one else in the Primates Meeting to provide information regarding the deepest problem of the Communion (as I see it).  This is a problem of a lacking Christology, or in some cases, even of “another gospel”; because of things which the PB has taught in the past, and given her position as Primate, I believe it’s safe to say that the entire Communion suffers a condition of apostasy.  This of course is not entirely the “fault” of the PB, nor do I believe that the PB intended this - the whole Communion is to blame; we have allowed things to slide this far.  The PB believes whatever she believes due to many intertwined conditions for which the Communion is responsible.  She also, of course, has her own personal responsibility; but this might not be an issue which the Primates should address.

It is also not a problem only within TEC, though in TEC it is most prominent, and TEC demonstrates the greatest passion for advocacy of apostasy through its choice of a Presiding Bishop as its chief representative to the whole of the Communion.  What we learn about TEC could also be applicable to other provinces of the Communion.

Though +KJS should not be partner for discussing what we can do about this, she can at least provide some valuable information.  We have been utterly careless with regards to the phenomenon of apostasy, and despite our reputation for scholarliness, have done little or nothing to study this phenomenon.  This needn’t necessarily lead to some kind of hard-handed crack down or “witch hunt”; it’s like the study of pathology in medicine, pathological psychology, or criminology - it gives us an idea of the phenomenon we are speaking of, the symptomatology, what might motivate it, and how it might spread.  It may even allow the Communion to better respond justly - i.e., not too harshly - and adequately - i.e., not engaging in measures which are harmful and do not bring about the intended aim.

What we could learn from +KJS is:
on a personal level -
how would she describe her state of faith when she first began attending church?  And later?  When she first felt called to ministry?  Did she ever believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ, or consider it to be essential to who He is with respect to us?  Did she ever want to have this belief?  What motivated her in coming to the conclusion that it was not important?

Did she ever feel let down by her church?  What were the things which wounded her the most, which wounds were most difficult to recover from?  Did she ever feel disappointed by God, and if so, what happened at this time?  How did persons in her church try to help her?

Would she have considered the validity of the creeds more if her bishop had warmly encouraged this?

Did she ever admit to another clergy person a crisis of faith or doubt, and what was the response?  What attitudes or state of faith did this response lead to?  Did she judge this response as helpful to her personally, and helpful to the faith?

Which examples of Trinitarian belief did she find most compelling?

Did the church ever fail in its duty to her in failing to be loving when providing teaching or correction?

Has she ever felt that she would like some form of spiritual formation or discipleship which could help her in issues of faith?

Did she ever engage in things which she later felt contributed to problems with faith in Christ?

Did her responsibilities as a church leader ever make it difficult to grow in faith, or did she ever feel challenges which lead her to be more entrenched / more passionate about certain viewpoints?

What are her greatest challenges to daily personal repentance / reading of scripture / prayer?  Which things are most likely to make it difficult for her to have time to do these things, or motivate her to spend her time on other things?

on a leadership level -
How did it come about that so many congregations use the “Living the Questions” when this has been described by Christian Century as a “mirror image” of fundamentalism?  (the series is basically advocacy for denying the creeds and other such things dressed in “scholarship” - there are “good” videos, but e.g. at one point Dominic says that persons who believe that Christians should believe that Jesus walked on the water have a “genocidal germ.”  The passion of this advocacy of denying Christian belief thus goes so far as to embrace speech which is clearly designed to provoke fear and hatred of Christians).

Why is Church Publishing providing and promoting a Marcus Borg video?  (there are strong ties between +KJS and Marcus Borg)

Which types of missionary action could partners within the Communion engage in which would be likely to improve faith in Christ within the Episcopal Church, or inspire parishes / dioceses / the national church to refrain from bringing another gospel into the church?

[33] Posted by Wilf on 10-9-2010 at 06:32 AM · [top]

Sorry, in the above I launched into “part” of the compromise position without stating it: i.e., that as long as she is present, the Primates make the most use of her as a resource on the state of Christology within TEC and for learning how churches come to the point where prominent leaders are motivated to bring a different gospel into the church.  This way, the whole Communion could benefit from her presence at the Primates Meeting, and agree on her usefulness there.

I do hope that the Primates can see how, with our emphasis on sexuality (which is important), we have missed something which is infinitely greater in importance (the crisis in Christology); which is so important that it calls to question whether the Communion is, at the moment, doing more to fulfill its mission, or to oppose its mission.

[34] Posted by Wilf on 10-9-2010 at 06:41 AM · [top]

After a self-imposed absence for over 2 months, I’ll venture a brief comment here.  First, I especially thank Tim Harris in New Zealand for his important observation that the proposal of +David Anderson is highly unlikely to appeal to the GS leaders (too crass and uncouth in an American way).  I suspect the seminary dean is right.

Second, I welcome jamesw’s helpful breakdown of how the various primates might be expected to act (in his #16).  Of course, there is room for disagreement here, since we are speculating and the list of primates is constantly in flux.  For example, I’d say that the change in primates in Central America (from the horrendously liberal bp. of El Salvador to the brave and conservative bp. of Guatemala) puts that primate (not necessarily the whole province) in the strongly conservative camp (D).  And I’d say that ++Daniel Deng Bul’s courageous witness at Lambeth in 2008 would make him far less inclined in an institutionalist direction than james thinks. 

But those are minor quibbles.  Overall, I think his conclusion is correct.  The votes probably aren’t there yet to exclude ++KJS and ++FH.  Yet.  That day may not be far off, but currently the primates only meet every two years.

Finally, I welcome TJ’s reminder that ++Ernest had already made it clear that the presence of the treacherous American and Canadian primates was a deal-breaker for him, and that he wouldn’t attend if they did.  The two big questions now are these:

1.  Who will follow his example?  Especially, what will ++John Chew do??

2.  Who are the new “moderates” still trying to work within the system, and when will they realize that this is a futile endeavor?  If even the ACI now recognizes that the Instruments have been gravely compromised and must be reformed, is it really hard to believe that many more primates have also reached that no-brainer conclusion than we might suppose?

So that leaves me with just one question haunting me.  Back in 2008, GAFCON was organized as an alternative to Lambeth.  So, granted that major GS meetings have already occurred in Singapore (April) and Entebbe (August), will there be an alternative meeting of orthodox primates who refuse to go to Dublin?  I sure hope so.

David Handy+

[35] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 10-9-2010 at 08:23 AM · [top]

DavidH writes, “25, you assume a uniform rate of decline to zero.  Seems to me it’s far more likely that there will eventually be a plateau, at which TEC will continue to exist as a niche, liberal organization.”

True, sort of. The TEClub which is being actively purged of its conservative members and soon will be exclusively “inclusive” does not occupy an exclusive niche. The UCC has a 10 year headstart (and it is aging and declining even faster than the TEClub!). So they have a hodgepodge of competition: the MCC and the UU’s both have about 50,000 and are declining. How many are in the pool that these “progressive” churches are competing for? I would estimate that unless there are some mergers (and even if there are) that the plateau would be about 100 to 200 thousand. The properties that Ms Schori is so desperately clutching on to are becoming millstones and they will see membership dwindle faster because money is spent on old building upkeep rather than outreach.

[36] Posted by robroy on 10-9-2010 at 08:40 AM · [top]

I think we need to look at the various statements that have come from the GS since Lambeth 2008, and especially those that have come since the Glasspool “consecration.” We have seen a remarkable degree of compromise within those statements, and while in some cases, there are two or three “dissenters” out of 12 or 18 churches, a remarkable degree of unanimity. In the most recent case, the Churches of Southern Africa and Central Africa were quick to issue statements that their representatives dissent from the statements was NOT the official stance of their Churches.
  The point of these various statements is being missed, I think, by many in the West.  Most of us (me included) focus on “what did they say about TEC?”  If you read the entire documents, all those Churches share a deep commitment to Jesus Christ and the Great Commission, and taking the Gospel to all the people of their own Provinces, and to the world.  Which is, and always should be, their primary focus, and should be ours as well.  Whether they remain in communion with Canterbury 6 months from now, indeed all of the politicking going on among western Anglicans as the PB wrests power over a few declining churches away from the ABoC, is of less importance to them.  They will, I think, ignore whatever the apparachiks at Lambeth and 815 have to say, regardless of whether they attend the faux meetings or not.  They will not be bothered with the heretical Standing Committee, or an Archbishop of Canterbury who likes to talk on infinitely without resolving questions about the shape of the table, or what to have for lunch, much less address Church discipline.  They have more important things to do.  Henceforth, communion with a given bishop will not be determined by his or her provincial affiliation, or some artificial “all in communion with the see of Canterbury” standard, but on the basis of the teaching of said bishop.  GS churches will maintain full communion with orthodox bishops, clergy and laity wherever they are- Africa, Asia, CoE, Australia, TEC… but will not compromise the Gospel for the sake of garden parties and conferences with heretics.

[37] Posted by tjmcmahon on 10-9-2010 at 09:09 AM · [top]

Barring any sales of TEC properties to other denominations or religions, those buldings that KJS cherishes so much are more likely to fall into ruin or end up as nightclubs or be converted into shelters for the homeless (which in itself is not a bad idea).  She certainly won’t be able to repopulate them with believing conservative Episcopalians, because they’re a fast-disappearing breed.

[38] Posted by cennydd13 on 10-9-2010 at 09:14 AM · [top]


Because of this, we don’t need to create a new communion and let the Anglican Communion die, we just need to let those parts of the Anglican Communion die that have chosen the Way of the Death. God will take care of the revisionists, we just need to be about the mission of the Gospel. In brief, because we are on God’s side, Time is on ours.

I disagree with this thinking. This is like expecting a body part infected with gangrene to drop off and leave the rest of the body untouched.This sounds a lot like testing God rather than continuing to call out heresy and call for repentance while also preaching the Gospel.

[39] Posted by Fr. Dale on 10-9-2010 at 09:22 AM · [top]

FWIW, Mark Harris+ makes the very bold and courageous proposal that TEC remove itself from the Anglican Communion.

The article begins with a rather colorful claim from Colin Coward that 8% of Primates and 10% of CofE bishops are gay.  He moves on to speak the importance of solidarity and refusing to take part in things where his brethren are not welcome to take part.  And the conclusion is that the thought of TEC’s removing itself from the Communion should be taken seriously.

The article:

My thought: blessed are the peace makers.

If TEC removes itself from the Communion, it will burn fewer bridges, and its own press releases and descriptions of its motivations will be more significant.

If it does not, some will see it as a “victim,” but the reasons for undesirability of its continuing with the Communion will also be more significant in world-wide news, as well as continued discussion about what happened.  Things such as TEC’s Christology in its pastoral theology, the likely fraud in the election of the PB, and other such things which firmly remove it from normative Christian practice will continue to be relevant in the ongoing debate regarding TEC’s victim status.

If it withdraws itself, it has more of an opportunity to open a new chapter, without these things hanging over its head.

If this happens, I hope for the sake of all who remain within TEC, that it is recognized that the argument that endorsement of homosexual practice brings with it Christological apostasy is enormously strong, given the combination of these within TEC; and that the church recognizes that repentance and change is necessary regarding the Christology before the usual practice of making florid statements on inclusion and bigotry is resumed.

[40] Posted by Wilf on 10-9-2010 at 11:16 AM · [top]

#33, the reason that KJS was included at Dar (where she was not expected initially) was that the Archbishop said she could answer to the objections of the rest of the Communion.  But we see how much good that did!!  I certainly agree with you that Christology is the greater issue between KJS/TEC and the orthodox.  I wish that all the orthodox had reacted less to the sexuality issues than to the doctrinal ones, but they are so deeply intertwined that it is almost impossible to separate them. (Yes, we do separate them too much.)

[41] Posted by KingDavid on 10-9-2010 at 02:16 PM · [top]

Using Schori to help us understand what it means to be Anglican is analogous to using the first barbarian conqueror of Rome to understand what it means to be Roman.  Rome was finished, and so is this communion.

[42] Posted by paradoxymoron on 10-9-2010 at 02:32 PM · [top]

Do you remeber the movie “A weekend at Bernie’s”? The protagonists in that movie spend the weekend trying to conceal Berine’s death by posing his corpse in various lifelike poses.  That movie comes to mind every time there is one of these gatherings of the communion or pronouncements of one of the instruments of unity.  It seems that there is a great deal of effort expended to pose the Anglican Communion in some lifelike pose to deny reality of its passing.
If formal structural separation is too much for the primates, perhaps the GS primates and those associated with them could just continue ignore the rest of the old Communion as they have essentially done with Gafcon. But it is generally best to amputate the gangrenous limb to save the healthy parts of the body.  I fail to see how we can call waht we have now a communion when signifiant portions of its membership are not in communion with each other.
Does all this preoccupation with the “polity” of the communion, really advance the cause of Christ; or is it just inside pool?

[43] Posted by taz on 10-9-2010 at 02:49 PM · [top]

#40 Wilf, 
This is not so much a Christological or even a theological problem.  It is a simple submission, obedience and humility problem.  It is problem of human will, agenda, pride, feelings, thoughts and desires being valued and wrongly placed above GOD’s Will and Word.  We have to repent and surrender our sins and our sinful fallen nature and be born again in order to see and enter the Kingdom of God.  (John 3:3-21, John 14:15-21, John 15:10-14)

[44] Posted by St. Nikao on 10-9-2010 at 02:59 PM · [top]

KingDavid #41
The reason there was not the reaction to the problems with doctrine which surfaced much earlier is that there was not the access to communication we have now.  The questions of Christ’s divinity, literal resurrection, virgin birth, etc. were raised decades ago, but were not broadcast to the wider church.  These were first questioned by people like Spong back in the 60s, I believe.  I did not hear about them until the 80s and then only because I was in the Diocese of NY, one of the more liberal dioceses, and we accidentally hired a liberal priest who had no experience and therefore was very candid about his beliefs and how widespread they were in the church.  That caused my husband and me to investigate.  But there was no internet.  We had to go by word of mouth.  We left our church and found a more orthodox ECUSA church, but after a while another couple and we started a Reformed Episcopal mission, which ultimately failed.  But most people still did not realize what was happening and stayed where they were.  Maybe today it would be different.  Maybe.  Maybe it would have nipped the whole thing in the bud before the liberals had totally taken over the institution.

[45] Posted by old lady on 10-9-2010 at 03:08 PM · [top]

Like others, I have found Jamesw’s analysis helpful and on the whole realistic. In my view, little is likely to eventuate from the meeting itself. Every care will be taken to ensure the meeting will be firmly in the hands of the ABC and the agenda will be unlikely to be set aside. There is little will among the Primates themselves to repeat the tension and angst of Dar.

If anything of special significance is to emerge, it will happen outside the meeting, and in a context where the GS Primates can speak their own mind more robustly. The main contender for this is the GS Primates meeting this month - taken on an individual basis, Jamesw’s analysis and Sarah’s scenario is almost certain to prevail. If, however, the GS Primates can gather a significant grouping to act in a bloc (only two or three are not seriously concerned with the direction of TEC), then potentially the GS Primates within Jamesw’s groups B,C and D could come together with some sort of collective resolve. Whether this would be in terms of agreeing to boycott the meeting, or some agreed approach to the meeting itself is uncertain.

There are a lot of ‘if’s’ here, and I still think it is most likely there will be a gradual process of disillusionment if not disinterest in such forums rather than a concerted boycott. Many would much rather put their time and energy elsewhere, such as the Lausanne Conference in J’burgh. However, I think the GS Primates meeting is very worthy of special prayer and all things considered, the forum of most interest in the shape of communion things to come.

[46] Posted by Tim Harris on 10-9-2010 at 03:30 PM · [top]

Mark Harris’s idea will gain no traction; the Communion apparatus lends credence to TECs innovations and is a platform for its expansion. TEC will not leave voluntarily, and will not be expelled or involuntarily relegated to secondary status. 

I have yet to see someone set forth a clear vision for the orthodox Christians here.  Continuing to play in a rigged game is futile and ultimately enhances the revisionist agenda, IMO.  For the faithful Anglican provinces, remaining in the Communion, but just ignoring TEC, Canada and what goes on at Canterbury, can’t be the answer.  On the other hand, it is unclear whether more than a handful of Provinces would be willing for formally leave at this stage, and I suspect for legal reasons some ACNA leaders would prefer that any formal departure be delayed until certain cases play out.

[47] Posted by Going Home on 10-9-2010 at 03:51 PM · [top]

32] Hey David H,

You’re right, I do assume that. I think it’s also a good assumption, for one big reason. There are two ways TEC declines, the first is that people choose to leave it for something else. Catholic, Lutheran, Non-demon, Anglican, Atheist, whatever, they choose to leave for something else. The other is Death. There will come a time when membership losses owing to choice will plateau, I have no doubt, but death comes for us all. In TEC, the average age of a parishoner is 65, so in 20 years, literally, half of TEC’s membership will be dead. Loss of membership owing to death will only increase as time passes and members get older.

TEC isn’t evangelising, and with the average member being past the age of child bearing, numbers lost will not be replaced. I don’t think it at all unrealistic to assume that membership will drop to Zero. Though to be honest I think several mergers will happen long before that occurs, perhaps with the ELCA, and the Anglican churches of Mexico, Canada and Brazil, but eventually their numbers will reach zero. I don’t think it’ll last more than 50 years.

39] Fr. Dale,

I’m not suggesting we stop calling out against Heresy, nor should we stop calling for repentance. I think we should do exactly those. However, we don’t need to do that from outside the Anglican Communion. In fact, I think that to leave the communion is more of an impediment to those works. For example, does a man care more about what the woman thinks before, or after she files for divorce?

Furthermore, I don’t imagine that the heretical provinces will simply fall off the body leaving the rest untouched. I imagine that TEC will make it a priority to touch as much of the Anglican Communion as they can before the end, and probably be quite successful at it. We need to be about a similar mission. You can count on the fact that TEC will do as much damage to the communion as possable. Because of this, we need to be aware of it, and prepared for it. There is much to do to be ready for the days ahead.

Yours in Christ,

[48] Posted by Jacobsladder on 10-9-2010 at 07:26 PM · [top]

“As for the calls for the provinces to leave the communion and form another organization, I believe that to be an incredible mistake.”

Fair enough, but where does the idea come from that ANY orthodox primates intend to leave the Communion? I am stunned this keeps coming up. Seven primates and prominent leaders from many other provinces met at Jerusalem in 2008 (Gafcon) - they resolved to stay within the Communion. The Global South meeting in the first half of this year resolved to stay within the Communion. The All Africa conference less than two months ago resolved to stay within the Communion.

How plainly do these people have to say it before we will get the message?!

[49] Posted by MichaelA on 10-10-2010 at 10:52 PM · [top]

Sorry, I hit ‘send’ too early. I just wanted to say that I appreciate that there are individuals in the west who would like orthodox Anglicans to disassociate from the Anglican Communion and start something new. Of course they are entitled to their opinion.

I just wanted to point out that none of the orthodox Primates have ever indicated an intention to do so. Not one, that I can think of.

[50] Posted by MichaelA on 10-10-2010 at 10:57 PM · [top]

Like tjmcmahon, I am not surprised at this development, and I don’t understand why anyone else would be. It would be more surprising, given his previous public statements, if ++Ernest had decided to go to Ireland.

++Ernest was chairman of the All Africa Conference in August. He was the one who co-ordinated a conference where TEC observers had to sit among the hoi polloi, while ++Duncan of ACNA was given a seat on the podium with ++Ernest, ++Orombi and ABC. That conference also passed a unanimous resolution castigating TEC for apostasy.

So, isn’t ++Ernest’s current action/statement precisely what we should have expected from him?

[51] Posted by MichaelA on 10-10-2010 at 10:58 PM · [top]

Congratulations to Stand Firm - neither T19 or Virtue Online seem to have picked up this story yet. This is not meant as a criticism of any other site, just congrats to SF for putting it up quickly.

(Thinking Anglicans have picked it up, but they have buried it deep in a general article - I suppose its not the sort of news they like to read!).

[52] Posted by MichaelA on 10-10-2010 at 11:11 PM · [top]

Micahel, I was sure I had read this on Ti9 so I cheaked.

Posted same day as SF on T19 - perhaps earlier depending on which time zone the time stamps relate to.
Not that this matters….
John Sandeman

[53] Posted by obadiahslope on 10-10-2010 at 11:23 PM · [top]

Oh well, got that one wrong….!

Not that I’m complaining - the more blogs that carry the story the better.

Obadiahslope, I note you tried to send me a PM on Stand Firm a couple of weeks ago. For some reason, I can’t access my PMs on SF - I get notified that they have been sent, but I can’t access them. Send any PMs to me on T19 instead, that works fine for me.

[54] Posted by MichaelA on 10-10-2010 at 11:35 PM · [top]

It was something so important that it has disappeared from my memory….

John Sandeman

[55] Posted by obadiahslope on 10-11-2010 at 12:58 AM · [top]

If Rowan was half as smart as we give him credit for being, he would have set up the agenda like this-
Opening address by RW.
Break up into small groups-
  Group A- Discuss developing circular Indaba
      TEC, ACoC, NZ, Aust, Wales, Scotland, Brazil, Mexico, Central America

  Group B- Discuss future of Anglican Communion
      Everybody else

After 3 days, RW reads Group A Communique to Group A, and Group B Communique to worldwide media.

[56] Posted by tjmcmahon on 10-11-2010 at 06:53 AM · [top]

tjmcmahon, that’s brilliant!

[57] Posted by Wilf on 10-11-2010 at 09:47 AM · [top]

Thanks for the ideas and analysis so far. My point is that whatever the orthodox primates decide to do, they need to do it in a coordinated way. If they boycott, they all boycott. If they go and try to exclude TEC, they do it together. The half boycott of Lambeth 2008 sent mixed messages - that some are willing to still engage, while others want to boycott and pursue alternative structures.

I lean towards the orthodox Primates attending this Primates’ Meeting, for 2 reasons:
1) It is TEC who have departed from the orthodox faith, not the orthodox provinces.
2) The battle isn’t lost in the Primates’ Meeting the way it is in the ACC. The ACC is a lost cause, but the Primates’ Meeting is the only instrument where the orthodox can get a useful outcome.

I agree the numbers are tight. Most of the provinces that disagree with TEC, but aren’t willing to take confrontational action, are in the Asia/Oceania area. Why not get Archbishop John Chew to contact his colleagues in India, Bangladesh, Burma, Pakistan, PNG, Melanesia, Hong Kong, Japan and Korea, and try to convince them to support excluding TEC from the Meeting? If that won’t fly, what about a motion recognising ACNA as part of the Communion, and calling on the ACC to begin the official processes of recognition. If we can’t exclude TEC, let’s include ACNA.

If neither of those look hopeful, it’s probably best to boycott, because nothing useful will come out of it. But whatever they do, it’s vital they form a united front and do it together.
Andrew Reid

[58] Posted by spicksandspecks on 10-12-2010 at 02:56 AM · [top]

The half boycott of Lambeth 2008 sent mixed messages - that some are willing to still engage, while others want to boycott and pursue alternative structures.

Was that a problem? After all, it was the true message - at that point, some were willing to still engage and others were willing to boycott. I see that as a very useful message to convey, because it gets across to the others that there is still room to repent.

The boycott of Lambeth 2008 has made a deep impression, for a number of reasons. Firstly, many “fence-sitters” were shocked - it helped to rouse them from their slumber; Secondly, it was a significant number of boycotters - over one quarter of the invitees (remembering that bishops are invited individually and directly - Primates have no involvement

[59] Posted by MichaelA on 10-12-2010 at 06:15 PM · [top]

Sorry, I hit “send” too soon.

I wanted to also say that I think if a Primate in council with his bishops considers that he cannot in good conscience attend the Primates meeting, then he should not attend - regardless of what anyone else does.

Many provinces are in “impaired communion” with TEC. As I understand it, those provinces have a pretty clear idea of what they mean by impaired communion: they won’t have communion with apostate leaders, but they reserve the right to take communion with members who do not share in the apostasy - hence +Laurence and +Howe being welcomed at the Global South conference earlier this year.

That being the case, how can primates from those provinces in good conscience go to a meeting attended by KJS, given that primates at a meeting always take communion together (and so they should)?

I think that even a partial boycott will send a clear and positive message, the same as at Lambeth 2008: The Communion is broken, and only firm, decisive and RIGHT action by ABC can save it in its present form.

[60] Posted by MichaelA on 10-12-2010 at 06:34 PM · [top]

58 and others.
I am inclined to think that we should stop giving the GS primates advice on what to do, and instead let them meet and decide what to do, and then tell us.  They are in a much better position to judge the state of the Communion and the state of their own Churches.  We should prepare ourselves to follow the orthodox bishops of the Communion rather than telling them what they need to do.

We must also remember that several of the Primates have taken very strong positions on the presence of TEC at the Primates and other meetings.  I do not anticipate that ++Mouneer Anis, ++Orombi, or ++Earnest will do other than to act in accordance with their previous statements, nor the Gafcon primates, for that matter.  Although I would not say that “not going” is their only option.  However, if they happen to be in Ireland, what would be the point of going to meetings that include churches with which they are not in communion?

Personally, I kinda like the separate room idea.  Let ++Rowan play butler and run back and forth between the Anglican Primates and the Standing Committee Primates.

I also think we should stop referring to the absence of bishops from Lambeth as a boycott.  Prior to the Lambeth conference, agreements were made that were not kept by the ABoC and TEC, among others.  Therefore, the bargain was broken.  One might as well say that the ABoC “boycotted” them as that they “boycotted” his tea party.

The cost to Nigeria and Uganda would have been very great had they attended (remembering that they don’t have billions in invested assets throwing off interest to pay the costs).  Given that Lambeth’s agenda was specifically designed to be pointless, spending the money on the mission of the Church made a lot more sense.  Had those Churches had millions of $$ to waste on 2 week paid vacations for their HoBs, perhaps they would have attended, and just not gone to any meeting that violated the terms of Dromentine, Nottingham and the Windsor report.  But, since that was all the meetings, they would have gone for the purpose of tea with the Queen.

[61] Posted by tjmcmahon on 10-12-2010 at 06:40 PM · [top]

Perhaps I misunderstood what I read at the time of Alexandria, but I think the Primates did NOT take communion together at that meeting (some people have stated that this was due to ++Rowan not wanting to be embarrassed by a poor showing at an official invited Eucharist- but I’ve never heard that from a Primate).  At Dar, ++Peter Akinola was not in attendance at the official Eucharist due to illness (back problems, as I recall) and indeed several of the Primates did not receive communion due to the presence of the PB, during the official communion service.  No doubt, of course, those primates held a separate Eucharist before or after.

[62] Posted by tjmcmahon on 10-12-2010 at 06:57 PM · [top]

When looking up Dar, one comes upon the words that might have saved the Communion, had someone done what he said he was going to do at the press conference:

Well if you bear with me while I try and explain what is admittedly a slightly complicated concept. The Presiding Bishop has declared willingness to entertain the notion of a Primatial Vicar. What you have here is the model that those bishops within the United States who have declared their willingness to abide by Windsor and so forth should be given the right to nominate a person who will act in the terms that they recognise as constituting and offering adequate pastoral oversight. To that person the PB will delegate certain power, but that person will be responsible to the council, the Pastoral Council that will be set up, as a means of communications with the Primates as a body. Now operating under the canons and constitutions; that’s a difficult one to be clear about.
++Rowan Williams

One notes that the link to the Archbishop’s webpage now causes a 404 error- page not found. No doubt it has been moved to a new location on the server and someone forgot to post the forwarding link at the old address.

[63] Posted by tjmcmahon on 10-12-2010 at 07:10 PM · [top]

tjmcmahon at #62,

and indeed several of the Primates did not receive communion due to the presence of the PB, during the official communion service

That reinforces my point, does it not?

[64] Posted by MichaelA on 10-12-2010 at 08:51 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. 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 explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. 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 which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.