A.S. Haley on the ACI Bishops Statement and Email Leak Kerfuffle

Posted by Kendall Harmon

Viewed as a political prize, however, the Church ceases to be a Church. Its mission is being determined by politics rather than under the governance of the Holy Spirit. So long as the battle rages for the prize, the fiction that it is a Church has to be maintained at all costs, because no one who could affect the outcome must realize what is at stake. And with the publicizing of views like those expressed in the Bishops' Statement, the risk is now great that the momentum so carefully accumulated over the years will be seen for what it is: nothing more (or less) than a political attempt to take over a money machine.

And that is why the Bishops, the ACI and its lawyer have received the treatment they did. Only those who are plotting already can regard the publication of such a power-renouncing statement of subsidiarity as "an unprecedented power grab by anti-gay bishops who will assert they are not bound by the Episcopal Church's governing body: General Convention."

The spectacle of taking over a church politically, of even speaking in terms of a church "power-grab", is so antithetical to the essence of a church that in the end it must be self-defeating.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - EpiscopalAnglican IdentityEpiscopal Church (TEC)General Convention TEC Conflicts

12 Comments
Posted April 27, 2009 at 8:01 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. New Reformation Advocate wrote:

As usual, the Anglican Curmudgeon has managed to summarize a very complex issue with great clarity and gone straight to the heart of the problem.  And he’s absolutely right.

“Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned,” or a bunch of leftists thwarted.  Or as the Gospel of John puts it:

“And this is the judgment, that light has come into the world, and people loved the darkenss rather than the light, because their deeds were evil.  For everyone who does evil hates the light…”  (John 3:19-20a).

A. S. Haley better watch out.  This kind of brilliant and lucid expose of the nefarious tactics of the LBGT faction is likely to generate the same kind of ferocious anger and backlash that we’ve just seen vented in such ugly fashion against the CP bishops and the ACI.  Their crime: speaking the truth, and opposing the all-important “progressive” agenda.

It’s a joy to watch a razor-sharp mnd at work like this, cutting through all the confusing verbiage and spinning spewed forth on all sides and incisively laying bare the essence of the problem, with the skill of a great surgeon wielding his scalpel.  Way to go, Counselor!  A. S. Haley is more than a cranky old curmudgeon.  He’s a brave champion for truth in a very, very sick denomination that prefers lies to truth, and is so totally confused that it mistaken sin for righteousness, and vice versa.

David Handy+

April 27, 10:54 am | [comment link]
2. Ian+ wrote:

The LGBT’s anticipation of GC ‘09 reminds me of Lord Vader’s anticipation of the completion of the Death Star in Star Wars 4 (i.e. the very first one made). And their hopes for its usefulness seem to be on a par with Vader’s.

April 27, 11:09 am | [comment link]
3. Chris Taylor wrote:

The ACI document merely articulates the theory of diocesan independence already being tested in the courts by four dioceses (San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, Fort Worth and Quincy).  There is NO reason to believe that TEC will respond any differently to the ACI statement than they have to the four dioceses that have already put this issue to the test.  Since most of the so-called Communion Partner Bishops, who have been hailed by ACI for so long (and with such little evidence to justify it), are such a loose and amorphous bunch, to say nothing of being a totally overwhelmed minority in TEC, it seems unlikely that this document will have any long run significance.  There’s a small handful of CP Bishops still in TEC who are genuinely godly and who will probably end up in ACNA.  Most of the so-called CP Bishops are totally committed to the institution of TEC, and they will never leave.  I think the Curmudgeon is correct that the GC this summer will probably reveal to many good folks the absolute futility of the “inside” strategy.  The courts will determine the degree to which dioceses are genuinely independent in terms of American law, not the document from ACI.  In terms of the relationship with the global Communion, meaningful connections with TEC seem destined only to continue in steep decline while the future for ACNA seems increasingly hopeful.

April 27, 1:12 pm | [comment link]
4. Sarah1 wrote:

RE: “There’s a small handful of CP Bishops still in TEC who are genuinely godly and who will probably end up in ACNA.”

One has to laugh.  The way we’ll be able to tell the “genuinely godly” CP bishops will be if . . . [drum roll] they end up in ACNA.
; > )

RE: “Most of the so-called CP Bishops are totally committed to the institution of TEC, and they will never leave.”

Sure.  Like Lipscomb.

Uh, wait, no.  He was an institutionalist—but went to Rome.

How about Steenson?

Er, never mind.

April 27, 2:32 pm | [comment link]
5. Chris Taylor wrote:

How about your bishop Sarah, +Henderson?  That’s more whom I had in mind.

April 27, 2:38 pm | [comment link]
6. robroy wrote:

“Most of the so-called CP Bishops are totally committed to the institution of TEC, and they will never leave.”

What I see from this statement, is that “they might never leave”, but there are some that are willing to risk being kicked out.

April 27, 4:32 pm | [comment link]
7. Sarah1 wrote:

Chris Taylor—he is not a CP bishop.

And thus would not qualify under either of your statements.

To clarify further, I do expect some of the CP bishops to leave or be kicked out.  But not for the ACNA.  The only person I would exclude, I think, from speculation about that is Springfield who was not [and perhaps is not still—someone in the know will have to clarify] on the CP list, but rather on the old Network bishops list.

April 27, 5:50 pm | [comment link]
8. Chris Taylor wrote:

Sarah, part of the problem with the CP Bishops is that there is no definitive list of them!  Some sign some things, some sign others.  I’ve seen +Henderson listed as a CP Bishop, but perhaps he is not.  ACI seems to be the guardian of this very secret list of “CP Bishops.”  Perhaps you have inside information that ACI does not consider +Upper South Carolina a CP Bishop.  The very fact that there is no definitive list, I think, indicates one of the serious problems with this group (namely, to what extent are they really a group at all?).  Anyway, could you share with us the source of your information that Bishop Henderson is definitively NOT a CP Bishop?  Has the bishop himself said so, did an ACI source tell you he isn’t, etc.  Even better, if you have a reliable and complete list of CP bishops, would you share that?  Thanks!

April 27, 9:09 pm | [comment link]
9. Sarah1 wrote:

RE: “Sarah, part of the problem with the CP Bishops is that there is no definitive list of them!”

I’m not at all certain what you mean.  Episcopal Life listed them back in June of 08 and they were announced by CP and listed in numerous other vehicles as well.  And of course, one might check their website.  So far, the list has added two bishops, and lost none from that article in Episcopal Life.
http://communionpartners.org/?page_id=17

RE: “I’ve seen +Henderson listed as a CP Bishop . . . “

No, he has never been so listed.  You may be confused with the much broader group that formed three years ago of “Windsor Bishops” which were the bishops who were intending to adhere to Windsor.  CP appears to be a narrower group with the additional goal of determining to resist the agenda of Jefferts Schori, etc.

RE: “ACI seems to be the guardian of this very secret list of “CP Bishops.”

Well . . . only secret to those, I suppose, who don’t listen or read much of TEC stuff or aren’t really all that interested in precision about such matters.  Which is perfectly understandable—those who are gone are understandably not very interested.

RE: “Perhaps you have inside information that ACI does not consider +Upper South Carolina a CP Bishop.”

Um—it’s been well well publicized who they are.  Again, on numerous blogs and in numerous media vehicles.

RE: “The very fact that there is no definitive list, I think, indicates one of the serious problems with this group (namely, to what extent are they really a group at all?).”

There are certainly problems that I could name and have—but the lack of a list of who they are is not one of them.

April 27, 10:09 pm | [comment link]
10. Chris Taylor wrote:

Okay Sarah, how about The Right Reverend Peter H. Beckwith, is he in or isn’t he?  He signed the recent statement, but isn’t on the list you refer to.  How about The Right Reverend William C. Frey, is he in or out?  How about The Right Reverend Edward L. Salmon, Jr.?  The Rt. Rev. John C. Bauerschmidt didn’t sign, but he’s in, right?  Same with The Rt. Rev. Geralyn Wolf, right?  Hard to keep track of who’s on first with this group!  Are the old Windsor Bishops now defunct, or do they have a website too with a list?  +Duncan Grey—which list is he on?

April 27, 11:07 pm | [comment link]
11. Sarah1 wrote:

Lol.

No, Chris Taylor, it’s not hard at all.  You just are trying real hard, that’s all, to make something of something that you know nothing about, despite its being out there all over the blogosphere.  You got shown up—ENS knows who the CP bishops are, T19 and SF and hosts of other websites have listed them, and for cryin’ out loud, they have their own website too. 

You’re going to have to think of something else to complain about other than “oh no—where is the list of CP bishops”—why not return to your old song and dance in your first comments?  Here, I’ll do it for you:

“Only the really really godly CP bishops will come join the organization I want them to.  And none of the rest of them will leave.  But if they do—of course it will be for the godly ACNA.”

But as for Bishops Beckwith and Bishop Frey and Bishop Salmon . . . I don’t think there’s a rule that “there shall be no non-CP bishops signing on to statements against Schori’s reign.”

I’m not certain why you throw in Duncan Grey—you’re welcome, I suppose, to go out and carefully compare the CP bishops list—now that you know about their website—with each and every bishop of The Episcopal Church.

And there’s certainly no rule that states “all CP bishops shall sign on to all statements against Schori’s reign.”  So that takes care of Wolf and Bauerschmidt too.

You’re not precise, you are ignorant in this matter, Chris Taylor, and you are well publicizing that ignorance on this thread, which is certainly your right.  And the unfortunate reason for it all, Chris Taylor, is that you just can’t get over your anger and frustration at people—bishops, clergy, and laity—staying in TEC.

Feel free to carry on.  I’m confident that you can continue here on this thread, but I’ll be enjoying myself elsewhere.

April 28, 7:59 am | [comment link]
12. magnolia wrote:

from my experience with the priests around here they just don’t want to leave; either their buildings or their power and control over the endowments because they are afraid they will lose it all via the courts. there is no ‘inside strategy’ and the letter means nothing; there aren’t enough of the orthodox to make any kind of difference, they are just a squeak amongst all the liberal roaring. beyond that why did Wimberly sign it? he let Integrity celebrate eucharist every week at the cathedral in houston! and all his minions supported religious pluralism and ss marriage. still do. ask most priests in TEC in texas and they will likely ignore or use stammer and delay tactics about questions of any orthodox subjects.

April 28, 6:34 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.




Next entry (above): Episcopal Church resembles ‘Peace Corps in ecclesiastical drag’

Previous entry (below): RNS: Berliners’ Votes to Decide on Option of Religion, Ethics Classes

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)