March 26, 2017

June 1, 2013

One Rule for Thee; a Different One for Me

Episcopalians should remember the nine bishops who were subjected to proceedings under the new Title IV disciplinary canons for having the temerity to file papers opposing the Presiding Bishop’s official position in U.S. courts that ECUSA is “hierarchical.”  Your Curmudgeon criticized those proceedings severely at the time, because the Presiding Bishop acted as chief complainant, prosecutor, judge and jury throughout.

The proceedings ended in an “Accord,” which stated the terms upon which the charges were settled. However, the Accord itself remained confidential at the time, under both the provisions of Title IV, and the Agreement to Mediate signed by all parties to the Conciliation that took place in Richmond, Virginia in January of this year under the direction of Prof. John Douglass. Specifically, I can now disclose (see below) that the Agreement to Mediate provided:

-Statements and documents generated in the process of Conciliation are confidential unless otherwise agreed by all parties and the Conciliator;
-Confidential materials and communications are not subject to disclosure or subpoena in any judicial, administrative or disciplinary proceeding ...

The Accord was reached at the close of the Conciliation, but agreement had to be secured from all the Complainants and Respondents (the nine bishops) who did not personally attend the Conciliation. Finally, in accordance with Canon IV.14.5, the Presiding Bishop (whom Title IV places in charge of disciplinary proceedings against her fellow bishops) had to agree (or disagree) with the Accord within thirty days after all parties and the Conciliator signed it.

Some alert readers may remember that Bishop Dan Martins of Springfield, one of the nine respondent bishops, put up a post at his blog shortly after the Conciliation, which he attended. The post recorded his experiences with the process, and the fact that an Accord had been reached.  But because not all parties, nor the Presiding Bishop, had yet signed the Accord, he was asked to take it down, and did so promptly —pursuant to the express terms in the Agreement to Mediate, quoted above.

Under Canon IV.14.12 (b), the Presiding Bishop is to give “notice” of the Accord to the Ecclesiastical Authority in each Diocese of the Church, as well as to the Primates and Archbishops of the provinces in communion with ECUSA, and other officials. Notice of the Accord, however, is not necessarily the same thing as revealing its actual text. In order to preserve confidentiality, one would expect a simple communication of the fact that the Accord was reached, and of any sentence pronounced as a result of it. (Here the Accord did not provide for any sentence.) And one certainly would not expect that any such communication would go further than the specific recipients named in the Canon.

Notwithstanding the confidentiality provisions in the Agreement to Mediate, and in Title IV itself, the Office of the Presiding Bishop issued a press release on March 8, 2010 which included the full text of the Accord! Indeed, it turned out that the very text of the Accord called for its “publication ... as required by Canon IV.14.12 (b)” (my emphasis). Paragraph 10 of the Accord stated (again, with my emphasis added):

The Parties and their agents reaffirm, attach and incorporate herein by reference the Agreement to Mediate executed on or about January 8, 2013, and specifically reaffirm that the provisions regarding the confidentiality of the Conciliation process as described therein remain in effect hereafter, except for the publication of this Accord as required by Canon IV.14.12(b).

Required? Required?? As a canon lawyer of some long standing, I have to say that I would never have agreed to this language on behalf of my clients. As stated above, the most that Canon IV.14.12 (b) requires is that “notice” of the Accord be communicated officially to specified officials within the Church and the Anglican Communion—but not to the public at large, through a press release.

After the Presiding Bishop issued her press release with the full text of the Accord, Bishop Martins put up a post explaining why he agreed to its terms. He did not say anything more of substance, however,  about what went on in the Conciliation itself, since Paragraph 10 required him to maintain the confidentiality of those proceedings.

I noted at the time that some of the other provisions of the Accord text seemed designed to undercut the earlier statement made by the nine bishops and their colleagues as “Communion Partner Bishops”.  Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Accord stated:

6. Respondents acknowledge that the 2009 Bishops’ Statement on the Polity of the Episcopal Church is likely a minority opinion.
7. Respondents affirm that the authority of a diocesan Bishop is limited by the Dennis canon (Canon I.7.4).

(N.B.: Indeed, the latter statement is particularly poignant in light of the subsequent ruling by the Orange County Superior Court, which I discussed here.)

However, given the confidentiality provision which expressly continued in effect after publication of the bare text, unaccompanied by anything more, I did not see a way in which the Church could seek to use the Accord in any future proceedings.  And now, as I have only recently discovered, the Agreement to Mediate, which was incorporated into the Accord, provided that the document could not even be produced pursuant to a subpoena! (See the language quoted above.) There was to be a one-time publication of the text, and apparently both sides had agreed that such publication would be the end of the matter.

Well, was I ever wrong! I can now report that it appears the Church’s litigation strategy took precedence over the terms to which all parties, including the Presiding Bishop, had agreed upon by signing the Accord with its incorporated Agreement to Mediate. Or, perhaps more accurately stated, the Accord was designed and intended by 815 from the outset to be used by the Church in litigation, in defiance of its express terms.

Why can I now say this? Indeed: only because in the recent Quincy trial, the full Accord (with its attached Agreement to Mediate, and concurrence in the Accord signed by the Presiding Bishop) was offered and received into evidence as Exhibit 204B. So I now have a copy, as does every attorney who participated in the trial—and Judge Ortbal and his clerk have it, too. (Out of respect for the bishops who were falsely induced to sign it, I decline to publish or quote it to any further extent than I have already above.)

Well, who offered the full Accord into evidence, in violation of its own terms? I can assure you that we (the attorneys for the Diocese of Quincy at the trial) did not obtain a copy of it from our witness, the Rt. Rev. Peter Beckwith, who was the Bishop of Springfield before Bishop Martins, and who was one of the bishops charged with violating Title IV. And we certainly did not offer it into evidence.

No—by now, you must have guessed. The full Accord document was voluntarily offered into evidence at the trial by ECUSA’s attorneys.  (That would be David Booth Beers, the Presiding Bishop’s own Chancellor, and Mary Kostel, the Presiding Bishop’s “Personal Assistant for Church Litigation.”  They, along with local Illinois attorney Thomas Ewing, represented ECUSA and the Episcopal rump diocese of Quincy at the trial.)

And they offered the document into evidence at the last minute, after the trial had already begun.  This was a conscious decision (what else could have been the reason, after the trial had started?) by the Presiding Bishop’s own attorneys to disregard the language of the Accord in order to impeach Bishop Beckwith’s expected testimony at trial. (For the Accord made the bishops promise not to submit any additional “amicus brief or affidavit”, but it did not prohibit them from testifying in open court—which almost certainly would have run afoul of their First Amendment rights, to say nothing of subjecting the participants in the Accord to a charge of suppressing evidence.)

Once the Accord was made an Exhibit, Quincy’s attorneys knew what their opponents’ plan was: to wait until Bishop Beckwith testified that the Episcopal Church was not “hierarchical”, and then to cross-examine him with his statement that his view was “likely a minority opinion.”  (“Minority” in regard to what? The Accord did not say, in order to provide the impeachers with maximum flexibility in their cross-examination.)

And so Quincy’s attorneys did what any experienced trial attorney would do, faced with such a potentially damaging document. Tad Brenner, the longtime Chancellor of the (now Anglican) Diocese of Quincy, showed the document to Bishop Beckwith during his direct examination—before David Booth Beers could use it in cross-examination (after all, the document was now in evidence before the Court, by stipulation of the parties). And the following colloquy then occurred:

Q. Now, back in April of 2008, you signed a document entitled “The Bishop’s Statement on the Polity of the Episcopal Church.” Do you recall signing that document?
A. Yes. I do.
Q. Did you, additionally, sign an affidavit in this case whereby you affirmed your views as expressed in that document?
A. Yes. I did.
Q. Were any types of complaints or charges brought against you as a result of those actions?
A. Yes. There was.
Q. And when was that complaint initially made? ... Was it roughly the fall of 2012?
A. Yes.
Q. And, if you know, was that shortly before the plaintiff in this case was required to disclose witnesses?
A. Apparently.
Q. Now, that situation was resolved roughly a month ago, is that correct?
A. Yes. ...
Q. And you signed a document called “An Accord,” which is going to be Exhibit 204B. Do you recall signing that document?
A. Yes. I did.
Q. Why did you sign that document?
A. The active bishops, who also were a part of that action, wanted to get on with things and put that behind them. That was a main motivator. I didn’t see anything in it that really was a specific issue. I could—I could read into it enough generality so that I could sign it in good conscience.

That much was intended to, and did, take the sting out of Mr. Beers’s anticipated cross-examination. Chancellor Brenner went on, however, to deal with the other statements in the Accord, and ran into an objection from Chancellor Beers when his questions came too close to minimizing the text of the Accord altogether:

Q. Now, in terms of the other folks against whom charges were brought, were they bishops who had also signed affidavits on behalf of the Diocese of Quincy?
A. Yes.
Q. Or bishops who had signed an amicus brief for the Diocese of Fort Worth?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, there are three statements in that accord, one of them is that the signatory said that the bishop’s statement on polity is, quote, likely a minority view. Do you recall that section?
A. Yes.
Q. What does that mean?
A. Well, to me, it meant if you took the opinions or held a vote in the House of Bishops, it probably would be a minority position.
Q. Today?
A. Today. If you had taken that in ‘92, it would have been a slam dunk. I mean, overwhelmingly, it would have been approved. And the church, as a whole, in my opinion, would embrace that a hundred percent. That’s classic Anglican theology and polity.
THE COURT: Do you have an objection, Mr. Beers?
MR. BEERS: Yes. I do. I move to strike this [as] sheer speculation. There’s no foundation for his opinion.
MR. BRENNER: I think he has given some foundation. This witness has served as a diocesan bishop for a good number of years. He was ordained as a priest in 1961. ...
Q. Let me ask this question: You’ve been a priest for more than 50 years? ...
A. It will be—it will be 50—I will [have been] ordained [for] 50 years [on] June 29, 2014. ...
Q. In terms of your longevity with the [church], do the views expressed in that document reflect the historic views of the church, as you understand them?
A. Absolutely.

So Bishop Beckwith was able to assert clearly that the views of the Communion Partner Bishops were the Church’s traditional views, and imply that the views being advocated in the current lawsuit were claims newly invented for the occasion.

Chancellor Brenner had a few more questions about the Accord:

Q. Now, you also state in that accord that you will not sign any further affidavits or amicus briefs, is that correct?
A. That’s—that was the agreement.
Q. Additionally, there’s a statement that reads something to the effect that “the so-called Dennis Canon applies to diocesan bishops.”
A. Yes, as much as canons apply.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. Well, canons have an application to every diocese and, therefore, every—every bishop that is not—that does not necessarily mean—it certainly doesn’t mean to me that you take it at how it’s being interpreted today.
Q. Is a diocese able to disregard a canon?
A. Certainly.
Q. Have you seen that happen on many occasions?
A. Absolutely.

All in all, this was a very effective de-fanging of the anticipated cross-examination which Mr. Beers would make. The proof, after all, was in the pudding: when it came time for his cross-examination, Chancellor Beers confined it to questions about the recent depositions of various bishops, and asked not a single question about the Accord.

Notwithstanding the fact that 815’s intended scenario did not pan out in this instance, the brutal fact remains: 815 was prepared to jettison the terms of the Accord entirely if it would advance their litigation strategy—regardless of what the Presiding Bishop had signed onto with the accused bishops—and to parade it openly and fully in court

Confidentiality? What does that mean, or matter, to the Presiding Bishop and her attorneys?

Bishop Martins and his colleagues who signed the Accord now have a complete picture of what it means to enter into a pact with the current leadership of the Episcopal Church (USA): “One rule for thee; but a different one for me ...”. (Reading some of the comments at his earlier blog post serves only to drive home this point.)

Is there a remedy for this gross violation of the confidentiality provisions of the Accord? Well, of course there is—on paper. It’s just that any charges lodged, you see, would have to be vetted first by the Presiding Bishop’s designated Intake Officer, the Rt. Rev. Clayton Matthews. And then, any complainant would have to put forward evidence that David Booth Beers and Mary Kostel were acting in accordance with the Presiding Bishop’s wishes (or dare I say: instructions?), and were not off on an independent lark of their own. For as laity, neither the Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor, nor her Special Assistant for Church Litigation, are chargeable under the current provisions of Title IV. (Nor did they sign on to the Accord.)

It’s a rather neat set-up, don’t you think? Get the uneasy bishops to face disciplinary charges, and then soft-soap them with promises of full (well, almost) confidentiality. And then disregard the terms of the Accord entirely, thereby letting the accused bishops know that nothing, absolutely nothing, will stand in the way of intimidating them to whatever extent may be necessary to keep them silent.

In other words, despite your own contempt for the language of the Accord, continue to hold it over them, to intimidate them from attempting to commit such an outrageous act of disloyalty ever again. And if the bishops allow that continuing intimidation to affect their actions, then I pray for them, and for the future of a Church that is in such cynical and calculating hands.

Share this story:

Recent Related Posts



Well done Chancellor Brenner! Thanks Chancellor Haley for posting it here. Nothing like illuminating TEC’s tactics and turning it on them. One thing about Bishop Beckwith’s answer that is not clear to me.

Q. Now, there are three statements in that accord, one of them is that the signatory said that the bishop’s statement on polity is, quote, likely a minority view. Do you recall that section?
A. Yes.
Q. What does that mean?
A. Well, to me, it meant if you took the opinions or held a vote in the House of Bishops, it probably would be a minority position.
Q. Today?
A. Today. If you had taken that in ‘92, it would have been a slam dunk. I mean, overwhelmingly, it would have been approved. And the church, as a whole, in my opinion, would embrace that a hundred percent. That’s classic Anglican theology and polity.

Is Bishop Beckwith saying that “it” (The Bishop’s statement on polity that states TEC is not hierarchal above the diocesan bishop) would have been “a slam dunk”......classic Anglican theology and polity….. back in 92’ in TEC HoB ? If so, I can understand Chancellor Beers   move to strike that comment from the record.  Nice work Chancellors!

[1] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 6-1-2013 at 08:37 AM · [top]

“Cynical?”  Yes.  “Calculating?”  Certainly.  But what’s even more apparent:  Officious, overbearing, slimy?  It is what it is, and now the public knows it.  Do Schori and Company care?  No, they don’t.

[2] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-1-2013 at 09:10 AM · [top]

Yes, SC bcl (#1), you understand it correctly. Bishop Beckwith was making a point about how radically ECUSA’s House of Bishops has changed in just 20 years. In 1992, an overwhelming majority would have approved the Bishops’ Statement as classic Anglican theology and polity; today, only a minority would.

[3] Posted by A. S. Haley on 6-1-2013 at 09:55 AM · [top]

Thank you so much for this update and your work on behalf of Bp. Morales & the diocese.  I was raised and taught the faith by Godly priests and bishops in that diocese and it troubles me that my remaining family has chosen to cast their lot with the Potempkin diocese.

Not being a lawyer, I have a few questions about the tactic with the Accord.  Were you not able to object to the offering of the Accord into evidence?  Could you have challenged their tactic on the basis of the confidentiality terms?  Granted, the actual result may have been a far better decimation of the scheme, but it seems that there was still some greater risk by allowing the use of the document in the first place.

Not that anything further was needed but this is yet more proof that nothing…absolutely NOTHING…is more important to this sleazy harlot than winning.  Facts be damned, rules and canons be damned, agreements be damned…souls be damned.  She must win!

[4] Posted by Nikolaus on 6-1-2013 at 10:03 AM · [top]

Nikolaus (4), we were rather surprised when they offered the Accord, because we thought that it would hurt them more than it would help them. After all, it laid out precisely the moves they had taken to intimidate our witness, Bishop Beckwith, and showed the Presiding Bishop’s own involvement in, and approval of, that process. And Tad Brenner figured that he could use the Exhibit in just the manner he did, in order to take the sting out of anything it said. So, no, we did not object to its introduction. The stipulations about its confidentiality were a matter between the respondent bishops and 815—and now the Court would see just how little regard for them TEC’s attorneys had.

[5] Posted by A. S. Haley on 6-1-2013 at 10:55 AM · [top]

Thank you - you obviously chose wisely.

[6] Posted by Nikolaus on 6-1-2013 at 11:10 AM · [top]

One wonders why TEC allowed this accord to be put into evidence.  Was it as Mr. Haley wrote - to use Bishop Beckwith’s own words for his own cross examination?Did they not figure out that Quincy’s attorneys would use it in the way they did once it was in evidence.  Just so glad Chancellor Brenner figured out what to do. Well done!

[7] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 6-1-2013 at 12:09 PM · [top]

I agree completely with Mr Haley:  The court surely must now see what they’re actually dealing with in the manner in which TEC’s attorneys are behaving with reference to the stipulations.  They will stop at nothing in order to win.  Such despicable practices should be barred from the courtroom tout suite.

[8] Posted by cennydd13 on 6-1-2013 at 12:56 PM · [top]

Now that the 815 team has broken the confidentiality agreement, a question that has been brewing in my mind since the P.B.s disaster of a sermon in Curaçao is starting to gel. “Why would anyone trust these people when it comes to matters of your very soul?”

[9] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 6-1-2013 at 01:09 PM · [top]

UGPewster, nothing on earth would make me trust the PB, or those like her, when it comes to matters of the very soul. God is reminding us that our trust is in Him.

Despite the accord, or whatever ecclesiastic precedents are now taking shape, the PB is no pope or archbishop.

[10] Posted by Ralph on 6-1-2013 at 01:30 PM · [top]

Very interesting.  If the Accord itself had indeed remained confidential unless all parties agreed to its publication, it would have been useless to 815.  If all that was said was “the bishops and complainants reached an accord and there are no further actions” then the nine bishops would not have been humiliated.  The humiliation was a necessary feature; it was important to 815 to get the Bishops on record admitting that their statement is probably a minority opinion and that the Dennis Canon is in force.  It was important to the complainants that the bishops be forced to publicly commend the pseudo-diocese of Forth Worth.

[11] Posted by John Boyland on 6-1-2013 at 01:32 PM · [top]

Could I please ask everyone who is reading these comments to be very intentional about praying for the faithful Anglicans in Quincy and Fort Worth in their trials.  As this article makes clear, we are obviously not wrestling against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers, against spiritual wickedness in high places.  But, this is where the battle will really be won: in the court of Heaven.

[12] Posted by ToAllTheWorld on 6-1-2013 at 03:10 PM · [top]


Prayers ascending from South Dakota.
Lord, in your mercy, hear our prayer.

[13] Posted by Fr. Chip, SF on 6-1-2013 at 04:03 PM · [top]

This “Accord” is a church document, not a legal document, is that correct?  It seems to be that by unilaterally breaching the confidentiality of the agreement the church office has made it non-binding on the bishops who signed it.  It can therefore be entered into evidence at the Ft. Worth trial by Bp. Iker’s attorneys and used as it has been at the Quincy trial, as evidence of attempted witness intimidation by the national office.  It is now part of an official court record and no bishop who signed it needs to provide it to the court to make it public.

These people at 815 have here painted themselves as utterly untrustworthy.

[14] Posted by Katherine on 6-1-2013 at 04:17 PM · [top]

Interesting thought, Katherine. I don’t know if it can be used as evidence in the Ft. Worth trial. The use of this by TEC in the Diocese of Quincy makes it clear that they had no problem breaking the confidentiality in this accord. THAT should be abundantly clear to all. Agreed, many TEC leaders are indeed untrustworthy.

[15] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 6-1-2013 at 04:58 PM · [top]

If I may, I will request prayer for the Diocese of SC. Important events happening here within the next week.  Please keep our legal team in your prayers. TIA.

[16] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 6-1-2013 at 05:01 PM · [top]

They have my prayers.

[17] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 6-1-2013 at 08:58 PM · [top]

increasingly TEC reminds me of the atomic-bomb worshipping mutants in Beneath the Planet of the Apes.  all the pomp and circumstance, with no idea of the destructiveness of the false god they are following.  empty ceremony, music stripped of its spiritual meaning, paving the pathway to oblivion.

[18] Posted by elanor on 6-2-2013 at 09:36 AM · [top]

Agreed, Eleanor. The saddest thing is that THEY don’t know it.

[19] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 6-2-2013 at 02:32 PM · [top]

RE: ” (Out of respect for the bishops who were falsely induced to sign it, I decline to publish or quote it to any further extent than I have already above.)”

I don’t get that, Allan.  How does publishing the full accord entered into the evidence have anything to do with “respect” for the bishops.

I should add that I don’t see that they were “falsely induced to sign it”.  Anybody who has been watching the revisionist activist leaders in our ecclesial entity will recognize that they are corrupt and untrustworthy. There was no need for the bishops to sign the accord and entering into the “mediation” with false expectations—after a decade of behavior to observe and from which to learn, mind you—represents willful blind ignorance and there is really nothing to be done about that, other than recognize the willful ignorance and acknowledge that all the orthodox bishops concerned are very nice people and Christian allies.

[20] Posted by Sarah on 6-2-2013 at 02:56 PM · [top]

Ah, Sarah (#20), you are not (fortunately!) an attorney, who depends for her livelihood on other people’s confidences entrusted to her. Any one of the nine bishops is now free to publish the full document, and of course at least one of them already has a blog for that purpose. But for an attorney (even an opposing attorney) to make public a document which those bishops have not yet (at least) seen fit to publish in full, in the process of declaring it null and void,  would be perceived as pushing them into something they still have not yet decided.  Instead, my task (as I see it, at least) is to be the one of the first to tell them that the Emperor has no clothes, i.e., that their trust in the integrity of 815 was sorely misplaced, and that 815’s breach of the Accord means that it no longer restrains them in any way.

I can say that (as I have just done) as an Episcopal canon lawyer, versed in the canon law.

But I cannot take the next step for them. They will have to do that for themselves. So please pray for them, that they have the strength to stand up to the corruption that pervades the current leadership of the Church in which they are still bishops.

Also, re inducements to sign: again, I cannot presume to speak for them. But the document they signed speaks for itself: apart from a single publication of its contents, all will remain confidential, all charges of disciplinary violations will be dropped, and they will as a consequence never have to fear from 815 again, so long as they remain silent and do not sign any further briefs or affidavits. And the document will not be used against them in any court.

And yet, we now see that 815 had an entirely different agenda in mind when it put forward the Accord. It wanted the Accord to finally muzzle the bishops in question, but (secretly and fraudulently), ECUSA still intended to reserve the Accord for purposes of impeaching those bishops when, and if, they actually testified in court.

The full document, I can assure you, nowhere provides for such a use in court. So the conclusion I draw is that the nine bishops were induced to sign it upon false pretenses. Whether or not they had reason to expect that 815 would not honor the terms of the Accord is irrelevant, because it is in writing, and therefore expresses what everyone agreed to at the time they signed it. And those terms say that it would never be produced in any court proceeding, subpoena or not.

But for 815, as I showed, those words meant nothing. And that is what any attorney knows as fraud, pure and simple.

[21] Posted by A. S. Haley on 6-2-2013 at 05:24 PM · [top]

And one further thought: as I said, I am not the attorney for any of the nine bishops, but here is just a smidgeon of (free) legal advice to any of them who might read this comment:

Demand your money back.

If you, as a participant to the Accord, have even paid one dime towards “defraying” the costs of such a fraudulent process, then any money that 815 or the Complainants might retain as a result of your voluntary compliance with the Accord is unearned. You are entitled to get it all back (with interest at the legal rate, plus possible punitive damages for fraud).

Demand it, I say, and sue them if they refuse. A canon lawyer is not that difficult to find.

[22] Posted by A. S. Haley on 6-2-2013 at 05:38 PM · [top]

RE: “Ah, Sarah (#20), you are not (fortunately!) an attorney, who depends for her livelihood on other people’s confidences entrusted to her.”

Hi Allan—I had thought it was in the public record now. If not, and was submitted confidentially to you then of course I understand your not publishing it.

[23] Posted by Sarah on 6-2-2013 at 05:39 PM · [top]

Sarah (#23), I do not want to mislead you. The document came to me because it was offered and stipulated into evidence at the Quincy trial. But the trial court has yet to issue its final ruling or judgment in the case. Until that happens, those of us who were attorneys at the trial have to obey certain ethical limitations on our ability to make public the evidence that was offered, and to comment upon its significance for the trier of fact. (The parties to the Accord themselves are under no such restraint.)

Once Judge Ortbal renders his decision in the case, I will post the full document at StandFirm. Meanwhile, as I wrote, any of the nine bishops who signed the Accord is free to release its full text, because 815 openly breached the terms upon which it was agreed.

[24] Posted by A. S. Haley on 6-2-2013 at 05:47 PM · [top]

Fascinating, Allan—thank you so much for your insights on all of this.  But for you we’d never know this stuff.

[25] Posted by Sarah on 6-2-2013 at 05:51 PM · [top]

Not sure why anyone would be shocked by TEC’s leadership.  They have SUED over 80 people/dioceses in the last few years.  They have spent millions of dollars donated to the church that should have been used to reach out to those who don’t know Christ.  They don’t care at all about right/wrong, only about furthering their agenda. 

In short, they are typical liberals.  The ends justisfies the means…

[26] Posted by B. Hunter on 6-3-2013 at 03:48 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.