“the leadership of the Episcopal Church will never leave you alone, remember that.” 

That’s a quote directed to those leaving as well…

“the leadership of the Episcopal Church will never leave you alone, remember that.”

Ain’t that the truth.

Why is she doing this?  She is greatly expanding the tole of the HoD President.  George Werner was never doing this kind of stuff.

And note, Brian, that she has her very own chancellor.  ; > )

When did that begin?

Secular courts have no business “enforcing cannons”.

“I will tell your story to other people in other dioceses where there is angst over the diocesan leadership,” she said.

I wonder if she means diocese like Connecticut or Virginia or Los Angeles, where there is LOTS of “angst over the diocesan leadership”, but only by the wrong kind of people, who obviously don’t matter anymore, except as targets for lawsuits.

The canons provide for a chancellor for both the PB and the HoD president (I.1.1(b))  Maybe we just never noticed because (a) the HoD by itself is not very important and (b) only recently have we heard such strident claims to the supremacy of “democracy”, making the HoD relatively more (self-)important.

TEC has never been a democracy.  It come closest to the governing form of a republic.  However, in a republic, representatives are to REPRESENT the desires of those who elected them.  In TEC, delegates are to vote as led by the Holy Spirit. 

Must be a different Holy Spirit leading TEC…...

# 3 - it’s quite clear why she did this:

Anderson and Johnson urged Episcopalians who are opposed to decisions made by Rio Grande’s leadership to make their voices heard by means of building coalitions in the diocese to influence elections and actions at convention. One member of the audience said that “we cannot take effective action … because we are out-numbered.”

This is absolutely chilling.  Did Ms. Anderson conduct this pot-stirring meeting with Bp. Steenson’s permission? With his knowledge?

This whole article is worth reading in full.  There is much here that reflects that increasing vastness of the chasm between reasserters and reappraisers.

One thing I found very striking is that in spite of a plea cited earlier in the article to believe Bp. Steenson when he says he does not want to take Rio Grande out of the diocese,
At the same time, she urged, “when Bishop Steenson tells you that he is not going to remove the Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande out of the Episcopal Church, try to believe that.”

a few paragraphs later, Anderson seems to be accusing “diocesan leaders” of deceit:
Anderson told the attendees that their desire to remain in the Episcopal Church reflects the majority view in the Church, despite what they might be being told from diocesan leaders.

To have this kind of accusation, made by ECUSA’s #2 leader, put in print in ECUSA’s official news publication is just incredible.  This is not some blogger making such a claim folks.  This is the HOD President going on record in ECUSA’s official publication suggesting the Dio. Rio Grande leadership is lying to its members. 

Wow.  We have truly crossed the rubicon.

Well, if all 275 in attendance were from the 21 parishes, that makes about 13 per parish—not an impressive number (unless one is from a dying revisionist parish, where that might be the ASA).  They seem at pains to stress how huge the numbers there were, with out any realization that, well, it ain’t so impressive.  Some evangelicals have that many in their church nurseries, I suspect.  This was, as Karen B. perceptively notes, the 815 leadership coming into the diocese to say simply: your bishop is a liar, and—see my lawyer here?—we will sue if the diocese does anything.  No doubt more of this is coming, but I would think Bishop Steenson should be heartened that so few in his flock went to this gathering.

If the numbers of attendees to the HoD and her chancellor, correctly exhibit the reappraiser-reasserter split in the diocese, the 21 parishes are 35% of the diocese.

In any case, it is truly indicative of how deep into anger and division TEC has fallen. An apparatchik reappraiser of authority within TEC, feels that it is perfectly fine to come into a diocese to give a talk within which, she calls the diocesan a liar and basically tells her audience, NOT to believe him. 

This isn’t just thoughtless, rude behaviour.  It is an opening salvo of the new conflict which is now being openly engaged.  It is the Fort Sumter of TEC vrs orthodox Anglicans.  Secession has begun but until the cannons fired on the flag in Fort Sumter, no overt acts of aggression took place so an odd, tense peace continued.

Now, that peace has been shattered.  Orthodox in TEC have clear choices:
1) Duck for cover and keep hoping that it will all pass them by, or
2) Send politely worded, strong letters of protest to 815 et al, and get on with business as usual, or:
3) Get the heck out of TEC, set up business under new management and leave the agony of a dying institution behind.

If the numbers of attendees to the HoD and her chancellor, correctly exhibit the reappraiser-reasserter split in the diocese, the 21 parishes are 35% of the diocese.

I don’t think we can draw that conclusion at all.  There were representatives from 21 parishes present.  They could well be the minority of opinion within each of those parishes for all we know.  All we can say is that 35% of the parishes had at least one person show up…

ASA for Rio Grande is about 6,000, out of a membership of maybe 14,500.  Active membership of the diocese is, what? maybe 8,000.

275 is:
4.6% of 6000,
3.5% of 8,000, and a bit less than
2% of 14,500.

This is absolutely chilling.  Did Ms. Anderson conduct this pot-stirring meeting with Bp. Steenson’s permission? With his knowledge?

She really doesn’t need any permission.

RE: “She really doesn’t need any permission.”

Very true.  Hopefully the orthodox strategic group in that diocese is also bringing in good speakers and holding some rah rah meetings.

The other thing that strikes me upon further reflection is that this type of talk is being given in and published about* Rio Grande, which has been one of the most moderate of the Network dioceses, not joining the APO request, for example.  We all know the guns are aimed at Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, Quincy, San Joaquin, Springfield.  But to beat the drums of war as it seems to me that Anderson has done in this way in this particular diocese I suggest evidences some kind of desperation, or viciousness, or recklessness, I’m honestly not sure which.  But certainly the effect cannot be but to increase the polarization and antagonism and to make a split a certainty.  Poor Bp. Steenson.  He had been one of the bishops who was working hardest to find a theological solution for a reasonable way forward.  He has to feel he’s had the rug pulled out from under him. (It’s a bit like what 815 did to Peter Lee.)

——
*Note: it would have been one thing to have the meeting; it is something else entirely to publish this kind of attack language and public record of 815’s strategy to stir up dissent in this diocese in this way. 

I’m reminded of Matthew 10:27—“What I tell you in the dark, say in the light, and what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops.”  and Luke 8:17—“For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light.”  Indeed things that were once secret are being made known and are being shouted from rooftops, as it were.  I’m thankful for this kind of clarity on many levels.  But it still is acutely painful.

I think that what has 815 worried is that +Steenson might let those who wish to depart go in peace - or negotiate favorable settlements.  A strong Bishop could parley his continued allegience or acquiesence to 815 in exchange for letting those of his flock get clear.

Was Bonnie Anderson invited by the diocesan bishop?  Did she ask for his permission to enter the diocese’s territory and conduct business?  Did she clear the agenda and remarks for her meeting with the bishop of the diocese?

Maybe so.

A lot of what Anderson said is questionable.

The article reported that “People from 21 of the diocese’s 60 congregations attended the afternoon meeting sponsored by Episcopalians for the Future in the Diocese of the Rio Grande,….” And then reported that “One member of the audience said that ‘we cannot take effective action … because we are out-numbered.’”

Further, “Anderson told the attendees that their desire to remain in the Episcopal Church reflects the majority view in the Church, despite what they might be being told from diocesan leaders. She said that the majority in roughly 45 of the Church’s 7,500 congregations have decided to leave.”

The data available and the arithmetic don’t make sense.  Anderson asserts that in only 45 congregations have the orthodox decided to leave.  That is a lot fewer than reported by others.  The statement by the revisionist/progressive person from the diocese that “we are outnumbered” indicates that in the Diocese of the Rio Grande that the revisionists/progressives are a minority.

It was also reported that “Both during the June 30 meeting and again the next day during an adult-education discussion at St. Michael and all Angels, Anderson and Johnson urged Episcopalians who are opposed to decisions made by Rio Grande’s leadership to make their voices heard by means of building coalitions in the diocese to influence elections and actions at convention.

What is Bonnie Anderson doing in the Diocese of the Rio Grande?  Stirring up dissension within the diocese?

Bonnie Anderson is a lay person.  How dare she, a staff flunkey of the presiding bishop, encourage a minority within a diocese to challenge the authority of an ordained, elected and consecrated diocesan bishop of ECUSA within his own diocese.

Such challenges, if they at all appropriate, in an episcopacy, must come from a bishop in an episcopal position senior to that of the diocesan bishop or from an appointed council of his peers.

That means either Schori or a duly appointed council of other diocesan bishops.  But it seems to me, that in this situation, Schori has sent a lay person to do the work of a bishop.

What a disgraceful sham.

Was Bonnie Anderson invited by the diocesan bishop?  Did she ask for his permission to enter the diocese’s territory and conduct business?  Did she clear the agenda and remarks for her meeting with the bishop of the diocese?

She has no need whatsoever to be invited.

Bonnie Anderson is a lay person.  How dare she, a staff flunkey of the presiding bishop

Bonnie Anderson is not a member of ++Katharine’s staff.  She has absolutely no reporting to her and is not accoun table to her at all.

Such challenges, if they at all appropriate, in an episcopacy, must come from a bishop in an episcopal position senior to that of the diocesan bishop or from an appointed council of his peers.

What a disgraceful sham.

For a person claiming to be Anglican First, you really don’t seem to know much about the Church

Anderson: “Keep your eyes on the prize, which is the reconciliation of the world through Jesus Christ, whom we love more than life itself”

Just my opinion, but I do not for one minute believe that Anderson believes this statement.  I do believe that it is part of the ECUSAn propaganda offensive, though.

Karen,  About two weeks there was a video of Bonnie Anderson talking about visiting orthodox dioceses.  I watched it it because “old lady” linked to it in a comment at SF.  http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/3690
I cannot get the link to work now, maybe somebody can.  As I recall she mentioned that she had been working with Bp. Steenson to set up this visit and he had been very cooperative.  I hardly think this is what he had in mind!

Bonnie also visited Pittsburgh and San Joaquin.  She told them the same thing - TEC would not abandon them; they should not feel alone etc…  You think there’s a strategy here?

Sarah, Anderson’s Chancellor, Sally Johnson was instrumental in the Title IV Task Force (remember the failed attempt to discipline the laity?)  She was also at the recent Executive Council meeting.  Interesting that the President of the HoD travels with her lawyer these days.

As many of you know, there is a phenomenon in group dynamics called “group think” wherein the group in power is so inbred they make decisions that are increasing irrational.  Behavioral psychology can demonstrate that people in groups make far riskier decisions than would any individual in the group on their own. 

It seems that the “tiny minority” of orthodox protestniks is causing some stress at 815 and its annex, The Standing Committee…

She really doesn’t need any permission.

Well, no, legally not, but courtesy, not to mention charity, would have at least informed the diocesan bishop of such a meeting. And perhaps she did.

It is, perhaps, becoming more clear that this isn’t about charity - which is to say, it isn’t about Christ. It’s about Power and Legalisms. If I can do it, I may do it. The effectiveness of what I do justifies my actions. This is simply school-yard bully tactics. Whether she acted legally, Ms. Anderson has acted badly.

It is, perhaps, becoming more clear that this isn’t about charity - which is to say, it isn’t about Christ. It’s about Power and Legalisms.

That’s been clear to us reappraisers for a long time

One attendee, Dennis Prichard, the bishop’s warden at St. Philip’s Episcopal Church in Belen, New Mexico, said afterward that if Episcopalians heeded Anderson’s reminder of Jesus’ call for people to love one another “we would not be in the place we’re in.”

Warden Prichard speaks the truth.  If the reappraisers really loved out LGBT brothers and sisters, they would never seek to accomodate their sinful behaviors.

Anderson also appealed specifically to gays and lesbians in the audience, asking them “to not leave this Church.”
“Hang in there with us,” she said. “We’re going to get this right.”

That in itself is pretty scary.  It’s a done deal, if she can say this.

Johnson said that while the wider Episcopal Church will support faithful Episcopalians in such places as the Rio Grande, “folks on the ground” must be ready to take the initiative and not expect the Episcopal Church leadership to file lawsuits. She added that she was not advocating litigation, saying it is “not the most Christian way to decide things. However, she said, “sometimes we need the assistance of the secular courts to enforce our canons.”

When’s the last time Rome asked a secular government to enforce its own canons?  What nonsense.

She also reminded the audience that the Anglican and Episcopal churches were born in dissent.

How DARE she compare what 815 and the HOB is doing now to what Henry VIII and his progenitors did to kick Rome out of England.  What an abuse!  Did Henry ever move away from Scripture?  ARRGH!
What faith is she representing?  Is she offering this sort of outreach and counseling to the Orthodox stranded in Reappraiser Hell?  I’m betting not.
KTF!...mrb

Response to #20.

“She has no need whatsoever to be invited.”
Oh, tell me why this is so.

“Bonnie Anderson is not a member of ++Katharine’s staff.  She has absolutely no reporting to her and is not accoun table to her at all.”
ECUSA is an episcopally governed church, presided over by an elected presiding bishop.  Tell me why Anderson is not accountable to the presiding bishop.  Is ECUSA an amorphous body without governance.
And, if Schori can’t control personnel at the national level of ECUSA, how can she presume to have any authority over diocesan bishops or the properties of the dioceses?

“For a person claiming to be Anglican First, you really don’t seem to know much about the Church “
Please explain in adequate detail, your justification for this strange assertion.  And by the way, which church?  ECUSA, churches of the Anglican Communion or churches of the greater Church Catholic?  Which church are you talking about?

That’s been clear to us reappraisers for a long time

So, Brian, you admit that the reappraiser cause is, deliberately and willingly, following the bullies path?  That you will use any means to crush those who disagree with you, those same people having behaved in a most irenic manner to you? You admit that Christian Charity has no meaning to you and no place in your ideology (and methodology)?

“She has no need whatsoever to be invited.”
Oh, tell me why this is so.

Any requirement for “permission” or “invitation” only applies to Bishops entering another Bishop’s Diocese.  It has been that way for over 16 centuries.

“Bonnie Anderson is not a member of ++Katharine’s staff.  She has absolutely no reporting to her and is not accoun table to her at all.”
ECUSA is an episcopally governed church, presided over by an elected presiding bishop.

Wrong.  They are governed by two Houses (Deputies and Bishops) which is similar to the way the US government is designed (House and Senate make up Congress)

Tell me why Anderson is not accountable to the presiding bishop.  Is ECUSA an amorphous body without governance. And, if [++]Schori can’t control personnel at the national level of ECUSA, how can she presume to have any authority over diocesan bishops or the properties of the dioceses?

++Katharine has only those powers granted her by the Constitution and Canons of TEC.  She can exercise authority over those who report to her, but Bonnie Anderson has absolutely no responsibility to her,.  She ids the President of the HoD.  ++Katharine is the President of the HoB.  Can the Majority Leader of the Senate tell the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives what to do?

“For a person claiming to be Anglican First, you really don’t seem to know much about the Church “
Please explain in adequate detail, your justification for this strange assertion.  And by the way, which church?  ECUSA, churches of the Anglican Communion or churches of the greater Church Catholic?  Which church are you talking about?

Well certainly you have absolutely no knowledge of TEC, which means you have no knowledge of the issues at hand.  This is demonstrated in your misstatements above.

Seconf, you have no knowledge of the rules regarding Bishops promulgated at the Council of Nicaea, which argues against you having any knowledge about the Roman Catholic, Anglican or Orthodox Churches.

Maybe you know something about later Protestants?

Anglican First & Brian:
Really don’t want to see this thread become a personal back & forth.

The Council of Nicea promulgated all sorts of canons, as have the other ecumenical counsels. For example, kneeling on Sundays was anathema.

Reply to #29.
Brian, I am well aware that many of the same people who developed the governing structure of the Episcopal Church were also instrumental in developing the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.

Because of their revolutionary fervor in the late 1700s, they saw fit to create an Episcopal Church that is not episcopal.  The net effect of that fervor was to give the laity non-episcopal legislative authority in matters of theology and doctrine.

While the legislative authority of the laity in matters of ecclesiology may be acceptable in an episcopally structured church, the rule of the masses in matters of doctrine and theology, i.e., laic legislative authority, is akin to the students running the school house and setting academic standards.

Executive authority in an espiscopally governed church must come from the episcopally appointed/elected ordained clergy.  Deacons, presbyters and bishops.  Otherwise the church is not episcopal.

Lay legislators may decide matters of church rule, but lay legislators should never determine doctrinal or creedal matters.  That’s why we have clergy.  And that part of the cause of ECUSA’s current problems. 

So if Bonnie Anderson is a creature of the legislative part of ECUSA, then she should stick with legislation.

She should not interfere with the executive governance of a diocese.
She is not clergy and therefore is not qualified to try and compete with an ordained bishop who is trying to govern his diocese.

Sorry Elves, I didn’t see your admonition until after I posted my comment.

Actually Anglican First, no problem at all with your above comment.  It addressed substance rather than anything personal about Brian, so it’s fine.  But thanks for the concern.

Which one is it Ms Bonnie?  I don’t both of these statements can be true at the same time.

Paragraph 10 - The diocese’s leadership and a HANDFUL of its congregations have opposed recent decisions by the Episcopal Church.
Or
Paragraph 14 - One member of the audience said that “we cannot take effective action … BECAUSE WE ARE OUT-NUMBERED.”

She added that she was not advocating litigation, saying it is “not the most Christian way to decide things. However, she said, “sometimes we need the assistance of the secular courts to enforce our canons.”

I hope that chancellors of faithful parishes and diocese in “hierarchical” states mark this well.  Next time TEC argues that a court must not entangle itself in religious governance by ruling on property, you can remind the court that TEC’s own chancellor is entangling them already!  Not to beat a dead horse, but again, this is EXACTLY the point the CT6 were hoping to make in federal court, but the judge refused to hear the case, which has the precise effect of “assistance of the secular courts to enforce our canons.”

Canon law can and does change, she said, but it must be followed until and unless it is changed by General Convention.

Such as Canon I.17.7, right?  Where are the presentments for “open” communion?  Where are the lawsuits providing “the assistance of the secular courts to enforce our canons”???  Oh, only the Dennis Canon requires assistance, I see.

Does everyone not understand that the House of Deputies is independent of the House of Bishops? The members sometimes call it the “senior house,” since it is 3 years older. Incidentally, the reason they are called “deputies” and not “representatives,” “delegates,” or “messengers” is a 220-year-old tradition that they are selected to exercise independent judgment and cannot be bound to follow direction from their constituents.

As recently as the early 1970s, the Deputies were the dominant house in General Convention, primarily because they had to adopt the triennial budget before the Bishops could consider it. The Deputies’ Program and Budget Committee has been dominated by laity since the 18th century. In practice today, the budget is drafted by Executive Council and rubber-stamped by both houses, but that is a recent development.

Historically, clergy and laity have alternated as President of the House of Deputies (the President and Vice-President must be of different orders), so Ms Anderson’s role as a lay person sharing authority with the Presiding Bishop is hardly unique. In fact, it is inherent to the notion of a church governed by a bicameral synod. I understand that some people may desire to belong to a church that is both led and governed by bishops. If so, TEC is not and has never been that church and they should never have considered membership in that body.

Devotion to this principle is not just a legacy of the American Revolution. Ever since the 1st Lambeth Conference in 1867, Anglicanism has ideally been “led by bishops but governed by synods with lay representation.” Obviously, many Christians disagree with that notion, but one has to wonder why they don’t join some other denomination rather than trying to change this one into something that it was never intended to be.

Dale, I understand your general point, but to what extent is the HoD “independent” of either the HoB or the GC or the EC?  What significant actions can it do apart from the others?  The church is an organization, to be sure, and it requires rules of governance, obviously; but it is a special sort of organization, being an ecclesiastical body.  Bishops have a scriptural and tradtional role of authority over the laity (not boundless, certainly).  “Overseer”, and all that.

You say, and I suppose I agree, that she shares authority with the PB… but as you know, even the PB’s authority is rather limited, and those of the HoD Prez even more so.  So what aspect of this authority do you see being exercised by a presentation like this one?  Which of her enumerated duties was she carrying out?

So if Bonnie Anderson is a creature of the legislative part of ECUSA, then she should stick with legislation.

She should not interfere with the executive governance of a diocese.
She is not clergy and therefore is not qualified to try and compete with an ordained bishop who is trying to govern his diocese.

The “executive governance” of a Diocese is done by the Standing Committee.  Bonnie is not making doctrinal or creedal declarations.

So what aspect of this authority do you see being exercised by a presentation like this one?  Which of her enumerated duties was she carrying out?

Well, it is not a matter of authority or enumerated duties.  She was invited to speak by a group of Episcopalians about matters that affect them.  Nothing more.  It is odd for her to be this active and up-front with individuals, but we are in an odd time.

Maybe Bonnie’s taking lessons from Cheney - she’s either legislative or pseudo-executive as it suits her.

—-
comment edited.  And let this not become diverted to a US Politics thread please!

Sorry about that last post - I usually don’t flame. I guess this whole thread has my dander up. The orthodox in ECUSA are being processed to death and it’s time for the Lord to come in and overturn the moneychangers tables. Come, Lord and overturn our lives and stir up your Spirit that we may live and not die!

—-
thanks for your apology Doug.  For obvious reasons we deleted the extreme flame part of your previous comment

36 is right on.  That’s why I don’t pay too much attention to the lawyerly types.  TEC is NOT governed by any form of law.  The reappraisers are in control of the machinery and they follow the Canons when they want to and ignore them when they want to.  GC has all power except when it doesn’t.

It is quite clear that the orthodox no longer have any future in TEC.

The voting records of the DRG at GC, Convocation, Standing Committee and Diocesan Council reveal an orthodox majority composed of people from all three streams.

It is the action of the ++ABC inviting all the consecrateors of +VGR that has demoralized all that believed in the Windsor process. We in the DRG will vote on APO at Convocation and it will probably pass. It may well be moot.

Many see the key meetings being that of the Windsor bishops and the HoB. If there is no PC & primatial vicar. or an acceptable alternative, I know many that will quietly wait until the GS clarifies the options. Now is the ringing time of the sound of silence.

Yep, yep.  20/20 is pretty-much looking like 20/NEVER

Is not the issue of GLBT folks a matter of doctrine?
And if so then what business does Ms. Anderson have telling those folks that ECUSA is going to be getting it “right” since she is a layperson?  How is she not, in effect, making a declaration of doctrine when as an official of the church she is presenting the doctrinal change as a sure thing?
Also how is a layperson coming to any diocese and fomenting rebellion and advising on tactics for taking over not overstepping the bishop?
Just curious.

But see, #41, the Lord isn’t going to come in and overturn the moneychangers tables. That would be too clear, too simple and would, at last, take away the important freedom of the will. No,no, this is left to us, as it should be, to fix or make a mess of. Christ has given us a set of standards which are askew to the world’s customary business, and we are left on our own to decide how to apply, how to refuse, how to survive, if survive we will, and what we are willing to pay for it. This is why we need God’s mercy, not because of Adam and Eve, but because the world’s business is a bloody, brutal business, and we often are forced to do what we should not do for a greater good than our personal wellbeing. Tough games, these. But you can’t not play. Christ said all sorts of strange, semi-incomprehensible things in the beatitudes; but what he didn’t say was “Blessed be the losers, for they will win in Heaven what they didn’t have the courage to fight for when they were alive.” Larry

I was actually thinking about both John 2:16-17 and John 17:14 when I wrote this. Not so much a passive waiting as an active “take up the Cross and follow”. Finally, the other scripture that seems relevant to the Current Unpleasantness is 1 Kings 18:16-40. I’m praying for change-of-heart and redemption of our Worthy and Misguided Adversaries, but I do expect that the “severing” of the AC will proceed much like this. It comes to each of us to decide which side to choose. (Also, pouring buckets of salt water on the offering is really participating in it.)

Let’s try this again… don’t know why the hyperlinks didn’t work (it looks like the escape characters were stripped when I submitted). You’ll just have to look up the passages yourself

I was actually thinking about both John 2:16-17 and John 17:14 when I wrote this. Not so much a passive waiting as an active “take up the Cross and follow”. Finally, the other scripture that seems relevant to the Current Unpleasantness is 1 Kings 18:16-40. I’m praying for change-of-heart and redemption of our Worthy and Misguided Opponents, but I do expect that the “severing” of the AC will proceed much like this. It comes to each of us to decide which side to choose. (Also, pouring buckets of salt water on the offering is really participating in it.)

we fixed the previous comment.  Yes it is very annoying the way the comments handle HTML.  Bulletin Board code appears to do the trick.  We’ll post another tech entry on that Thurs or Fri

Doug, if you’re reading this, thanks to a clever commenter, we’ve figured out that bulletin board code (as opposed to HTML) works best in the comments.  For links:
[url= the link ] the name [/url]

thus for T19 it looks like this:
[url=http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/]Titusonenine[/url]

It appears to work even for links with spaces or arguments, like those Scripture verses.

An Episcopalian in the Rio Grande Diocese wrote to me

“I am very grateful for the visit of Ms. Anderson and her chancellor, because it helps the people here to understand what life in the new TEC will be like”

and I hope other Episcopalians will come to the same realization (even if some 30+ years too late).

When I review the original article along with Karen B’s and Wm Tighe’s comments, I am reminded of the fact that +Steenson has sought to temper the current debates which Anderson merely inflames with “despite what they might be being told from diocesan leaders”. It is becoming readily apparent, with Anderson’s inflamatory rhetoric and with Schori’s radicalized pronouncements, that 815 is driving forward with a win-or-lose strategy. If Anderson’s visit does not provoke +Steenson into some reaction in order to show that he is not the pawn of 815 for the benefit of satisfying the more separatist parts of his diocese (e.g. St Clements, El Paso), then I’d be somewhat surprised. Essentially, Anderson’s visit merely slapped the hand that was extended in an attempt at retaining some sort of amity within ecusa. No amount of bad bishop-good bishop dissimulation (e.g. “when Bishop Steenson tells you that he is not going to remove the Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande out of the Episcopal Church, try to believe that” vs the prior quote) can hide this effort of 815’s.

Reply to comment #51.
Tom, you’ve ‘nailed it.’

The Rev. Tom Woodward, rector of St. Bede’s Episcopal Church in Santa Fe, called the meeting a “rallying point” and a chance for people to share the “basic joy of being Episcopalians and not have to apologize for it.”

Too bad people aren’t excited about the basic joy of being a Christian.  The church might have a chance of growing.

i was at the Albuquerque forum with Bonnie Anderson & Sally Johnson.  Yes, +Jeffrey was aware weeks earlier that Ms. Anderson would be speaking in the Diocese of Rio Grande.  During +Jeffrey’s visitation at our parish several weeks earlier, it was announced and discussed freely.  I never witnessed +Jeffrey express anything other than gracious blessing of the meeting.

In fact, I’ve heard from folks at the Cathedral that it was + Jeffrey himself who assured that a prominent announcement of the forum was included in the June diocesan newsletter.

During Ms. Anderson’s visit, I also never witnessed her say or do anything that could be construed as unsupportive of +Jeffrey’s leadership;  quite the contrary, she encouraged attendees to trust in his leadership.  Of course, I suppose it’s possible to twist statements that are taken out of context to mean anything, but that wouldn’t be the reality of the forum i attended. 

I understand that she tried to set a meeting with +Jeffrey before the forum, but he was already unavailable.  Instead she met with our Canon to the Ordinary, Fr. Perko.  Reportedly their meeting was respectful and pleasant.  At least that’s what folks in the diocese are saying, and Bonnie also publicly spoke fondly of the meeting.

I’ve been amazed at what folks are reading into the ENS report of her visit.  The conjecture I’ve seen bears no resemblance either to the event that I attended, or to Ms. Anderson & Ms. Johnson’s conduct throughout the event.

They came at the express invitation of people within the diocese who wish to remain with TEC; attendees ranged from conservative through moderate to progressive.  At least that was my impression from about an hour’s total socializing in the parish hall.  People traveled from as far as four hours away to participate.  This from 1pm to 4pm during a blistering New Mexico 100+ degree day.  A substantial portion of time at the event was spent in prayer, singing, and discussing mission opportunities. 

Ms. Anderson and Ms. Johnson were here with the apparent blessing of the rightfully elected and consecrated diocesan Bishop.  They never implicitly nor explicitly ‘incited’ any disregard for diocesan leadership, as I have seen alleged in some comments, here and elsewhere.  They did encourage reaching across perceived divisions, and our shared calling to Christ’s service even amidst our disagreements.  Any assertions otherwise are simply misguided wishful thinking, promulgated by people who weren’t even there.

#54
“Ms. Anderson and Ms. Johnson were here with the apparent blessing of the rightfully elected and consecrated diocesan Bishop.”
ignores this thread’s prior points that Anderson essentially accused +Steenson of misreporting the truth. That is a very serious accusation for the leader of the HoD to say about a diocesan.  In ignoring the substance of the prior thread, your post shows an willingness to bend reality to your own preconceived conclusions.
What did you expect Canon Perko to do during his own meeting? Tar and feather Anderson if he disagreed with her? Your citation of a formal appointment means nothing other than that such a meeting occurred.
Another interesting factoid which your post reports is that the afternoon high for a summertime New Mexico day surpassed 100 F. Gee willikers, who would ha’thunk it! I suppose the meeting might have been shocking if it had been held outside in the direct sun, but from the cited photo, it was obviously held in the air conditioned church.

Air conditioned?  Yes, i suppose so, but with so many people packed in it was still hot in there.  Fans & bulletins were waving most of the afternoon.  The point i was making about the heat is that folks put on nice clothes & travelled hours in that heat to be there.  Also, it’s not air conditioned outside the church, where many gathered before, during breaks, and after the event because of the crowding.

Where & when did Ms. Anderson accuse +Steenson of misreporting the truth?  Can you cite specific statements she made during the meeting to support the (false) witness you’re bearing against her?  Do you think the one quote you cited was the only supportive thing Ms. Anderson said in reference to +Jeffrey?  If memory serves, you’re quite mistaken.

As to my supposed ‘willingness to bend reality to my own pre-conceived notions”, perhaps.  It’s obviously a common human failing.  But i must ask, where you there?  I was able to maintain an open mind when i first met +Jeffrey, despite what some detractors of his had told me.  I found him to be a wonderful man; very supportive, pastoral, insightful, and filled with the Holy Spirit, imo.  What makes you think that I wasn’t able to maintain an open and critical mind when observing Ms. Anderson?  I tell you, there just didn’t seem to be any nefarious motives there at all.

Then again, if you’re predisposed to seeing the boogyman where you expect to find him, i guess you will, and no amount of opinion from a fellow Christian who was actually present at the event would change your mind.  Perhaps you’re right - but i think not, and i certainly didn’t make up my mind either way before attending.  I went out of curiousity, and am just surprised that what’s being made of the event bears little resemblance to the event I witnessed.

The elves appreciate the feedback and commentary from Amphikalein who was present at the meetings.  That’s helpful.

If what he/she says about the tone and content of Bonnie Anderson’s remarks is accurate, however, the question to raise might be whether ENS reported it accurately or put an unnecessarily provocative and confrontational “spin” on the story, because as reported, the story did make it sound like Anderson was “stirring things up.”

There is also the fact that conflict and sharply divided loyalties skews our perspective of events.  Let’s just think about Bonnie Anderson’s reported statement (trying to paraphrase from memory here) “the Episcopal Church will never leave you alone.”  For reappraisers, that may have come across as encouragement.  For reasserters, that may have sounded like a threat.  Conflict colors what we hear.

So, this elf asks commenters to accept Amphikalein’s testimony at face value, and welcomes any others who can give an eye-witness account as to what was said.  We also ask Amphikalein and other supporters of Bonnie Anderson and 815 to acknowledge the reality that the ENS article read to many reasserters as if Anderson was being confrontational and sowing doubts about diocesan leadership’s trustworthiness.

This has to be quick, cause I’m in the midst of a pile of work.  I can’t say that I feel the ENS article was a great piece of journalism.  That’s one of the reasons I spoke up here.  I think the way the article was written in a way that certainly permits readers to assume a confrontational tone that I didn’t hear during my attendance at the event.

I’m a supporter of Bonnie Anderson and 815?  I don’t think that’s a fair statement.  I’m just speaking up about what I saw & heard at the forum the ENS reported on. 

I don’t support someone because of their supposed status or position in TEC, (CANA, AMiA, ACN, etc.) or because of what others say about them.  I prefer to judge their words and actions with my own ears & eyes, that’s all.  If/when I witness Ms. Anderson saying or doing something I don’t agree with, believe me, I’ll be speaking out about that, too.  It’s just that in this instance, in the context of the Albuquerque meeting, what’s being said about her doesn’t jive with what I witnessed.

Thanks #58.  Apologies if I seemed to make unqualified assumptions about your support for 815 / Bonnie. 

In #57, I probably should have written “We also ask Amphikalein and/or those who support of Bonnie Anderson and 815 to acknowledge the reality…”

That would have helped avoid seeming to classify you as being on some side of the debate and created more separation.  Sorry for the confusion. Your comments really are important as an eyewitness and much appreciated.  Thanks for chiming in!

Many many people I have had conversations with do believe that Bishop Steenson will not attempt to pull the diocese out of the Episcopal Church. The real big distrust here is in the Diocesan Council and the Standing Committee. I think that these are the “diocesan leaders” that she is referring to.

R