“Loyalist Episcopalians in dioceses affiliated with the Anglican Communion Network feel isolated and lack access to important information to help them plan for their future, said Bonnie Anderson, president of the House of Deputies, during brief introductory remarks to Executive Council, Oct. 26 in Dearborn, Mich.”
===============================================
“In recent years Executive Council has met three times a year for four days at a time, but last year the council voted to shorten the majority of the meetings by one day out of concerns for stewardship of church resources.”

Where has the money gone?  Lawsuits?

Somehow I just can’t bring myself to tears over this little tid bit of news.

“Disaffiliation raises legal issues relating to property and episcopal leadership, which were summarized in an Oct. 16 plea for help written by Fort Worth Via Media member Katie Sherrod.”

So in the mind of Ms Anderson, does the ‘set’ of “Fort Worth Via Media” members speak for the ‘set’ of all “Episcopalian loyalists” in Fort Worth?

Or, is the ‘set’ of all “Episcopalian loyalists” in Fort Worth composed just of the ‘set’ of “Fort Worth Via Media members?”

Loyalist Anglicans have had similar experiences for some years now. While it is interesting that Dr. Anderson is finally catching up, I have my dounts whether anything will change the minds of the neo-Puritan majority in the Episcopal Church.

Isn’t that sweet. She is concerned about few liberal parishes in conservative dioceses. She jaunts around the country sewing seeds of dissension in those dioceses. But, how about the conservative parishes in liberal dioceses?

How much better for TEC and all of us if, instead of being in denial, the church would take steps to ameliorate the situations of both the “Anglican Loyalists” and the “TEC loyalists.” We don’t have to be enemies unless we choose to be so.

This, again, points out the problem of “rushing ahead” with change.  Did Ms Anderson and the rest of TEC think that every one was going to sit on thier hands and and go “Oh Well??  Introducing change is difficult and hard in any organization and always causes disruption.  The way this change was handled is a case study in how not to promote change.  I am sad for the disruption and discomfort in people this Episcopal innovation produced, but it is entirely predictable.

It’s very simple, actually (so one wonders about the larger agenda of such pandering; but the Executive Council leadership seems to be in a season of allowing dramatic emotional appeal to rule their agenda and decisions—which is not even good Church business).
However, if Ms. Anderson would care to have these “loyalists” (what a dismissive term) get in touch with me talk to me about it, I’d be glad to assist them in their fears and needs.

RGEaton

Not sure what Anderson’s problem is; ecusa has consistently said that if some diocese, say A1, leaves for other pastoral venues, then ecusa would declare the see vacant and reorganize diocese A2 in its place. This argument is truly a ‘sky is falling’ issue for an ecusa “loyalist”. The only interesting question is in which states A1 would retain the parochial real estate and in which others A2 and ecusa would retain title. But that is a question for the lawyers, and beyond the competence of the likes of Anderson.

Gee, Bonnie, isn’t the MAJORITY politically ALWAYS right?  At General Convention, only?

Great laugh, though!  Thanks!

The hypocrisy, or the ignorant stupidity, of Mrs Anderson’s concern is stunning.