tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post3546470936013311120..comments2024-02-19T07:24:42.397-08:00Comments on Anglican Curmudgeon: Part III of The Constitutional Crisis in ECUSA: "If You Want Our Voice, Then We're Giving It to You"A. S. Haleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-55280593550586407732010-10-19T16:07:39.955-07:002010-10-19T16:07:39.955-07:00Very good point re similarities between the U.S. g...Very good point re similarities between the U.S. government and ECUSA “government”. I would say; however, that isn’t interesting that what 815 is doing is very parallel/similar to what the Obama administration is doing. What we have is 815 and Shori rewriting “laws” as they go along to satisfy the minority; 815 is gradually giving the PB more powers and when anyone dares to oppose them or disagree with them (be in re same sex marriage, women’s ordination or anything theological), there is a smear campaign and of course they bring in the attorneys. Both 815 and the Obama Administration are examples of the famous line about the frog in the pot of hot water. 815 spends more time and money suing individual Dioceses and parishes for property which they (815) has never contributed to nor holds title too; they spend time preaching about mother earth and global warming rather than bringing people to Christ through the Gospel. It’s no wonder TEC ASA numbers constantly drop year by year. It’s the same in the Obama world – spend more time going after your political enemies rather than making wise decisions to create jobs. Those are the only parallels between ECUSA and the federal government. <br /><br />This is especially true considering today's 4th lawsuit against Bishop Iker. Yet another desperate attempt to silence those who don't agree.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-6284113844448758012010-10-19T01:17:31.764-07:002010-10-19T01:17:31.764-07:00Keith Töpfer, even the positivists recognized that...Keith Töpfer, even the positivists recognized that law from a superior body trumped that from an inferior one. They simply claimed that all of the power to legislate was embodied in the people's chosen legislatures, and that "morality" as such could provide no source for law. Hence the law was whatever a majority in the appropriate legislature enacted.<br /><br />The current role being played out by ECUSA in the courts does not go as far as a claim of legal positivism -- which in this context, would amount to a repudiation of the 21st of the 39 Articles, by claiming that revealed truth is whatever a majority of orders in General Convention decides it is.<br /><br />But you are entirely right in saying that even a General Convention of the Church does not have the authority to contradict Scripture. The latter constitutes God's revealed word to us; a majority has no power to change revealed truth.<br /><br />So, yes -- this topic will increasingly become the subject of contention between the two groups.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-85057597572028633752010-10-19T01:02:10.110-07:002010-10-19T01:02:10.110-07:00Jim Doe, your latest comment takes the discussion ...Jim Doe, your latest comment takes the discussion to an entirely new plane. I had not, until I read your comment, related the current troubles to the situation just before the Elizabethan Settlement, but I can see your point, as well as that your point deserves a separate post of its own.<br /><br />As for the forthcoming decision in Fresno -- yes, I hope it will provide a meaningful check on ECUSA's unwarranted claims that it, as a voluntary association of member dioceses, is greater than any of them, and may make the association "involuntary" by insisting that once you join as a diocese, you may never leave.<br /><br />The decision of the Court of Appeal in Fresno will be followed in short order by decisions from courts in Pennsylvania and in Texas. While ECUSA has to win all three to preserve its arguments intact, the dioceses have to win only once to undermine the sham "hierarchical" theory (as to dioceses) for all future cases. In short, I do not see how ECUSA can win on the battleground it has chosen.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-32063602269666550792010-10-17T18:09:56.411-07:002010-10-17T18:09:56.411-07:00Unless I misuse the terminology which follows, we ...Unless I misuse the terminology which follows, we have here, in the microcosm of TEC, a telling analogue of what has been happening in the United States (and most of the rest of the industrialized world) since at least the very early 1960s. It is the triumph of <i>positive legal theory</i> over the <i>Rule of Law</i>.<br /><br />The <i>Rule of Law</i> requires, among other things, that all laws must treat any entity brought before the bar as equal to any other such entity accused of the same actions. The law may not discriminate. If a law does not apply equally to all, then it is not consistent with the <i>Rule of Law</i>. Positive legal theory as it has been explained to me, enshrines the idea that the law is whatever a majority of the legislature, absent a veto from the executive, says is the law, irrespective of whether or not all persons subject to the law are treated identically. If I have misidentified the correct terminology, I am confident that our host will rectify my error, but I suspect he will be in general agreement with the undesirability of the sort of approach to law that abandons the <i>Rule of Law</i>.<br /><br />If my understanding is correct, what we are seeing, writ on the small scale of TEC, is what we should probably increasingly expect to see occur in the secular laws. It is repugnant to me—the law will no longer be blind, nor just.<br /><br />F. A. Hayek wrote fairly extensively about the deleterious consequences of positive legal theory as early as 1963, and the results for the nation will likely be not less, but rather more, deleterious than they will be for the Church.<br /><br />Pax et bonum, <br />Keith TöpferMartial Artisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11679584221923893460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-6115307204546587072010-10-17T17:45:59.501-07:002010-10-17T17:45:59.501-07:00Thank-you for your response. I still think you...Thank-you for your response. I still think you're a little hard on liberals, but I take your point. And I stand corrected on "ad hominem."<br />On the main issue, I note with great interest Northwest Bob's comment and your response. This looks like a race to see whether Bp Lawrence can successfully challenge the PB's new-claimed authority before he becomes the victim of it. As I've said before, I'm new to this, but it seems to me that a much larger and more fundamental problem faces ECUSA and the Worldwide Anglican Communion: the breakdown of the Elizabethan settlement itself, which, please correct me if I'm wrong, is kind of the foundational understanding of the whole Anglican communion. Under this "latitudinarian" formula, as I understand it, opposing sides, whether Catholic and Calvinist in Elizabeth's time or conservative and liberal today, must agree to respect each other's right to exist and remain within a tolerable distance (not easy to define) from a common set of beliefs. If either side tries to suppress the other, the settlement breaks down. This was one of the causes of the English Civil War. Today, we have a different kind of war. At our national level, we see a liberal bloc exercising parliamentary and constitutional power to suppress their opponents, conservatives -- even other liberals -- who maintain that a common set of beliefs must center on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and that love and social justice must follow from that, not replace it. The PB and her supporters have thought this suppression would be successful because they have not imagined that anyone would actually seceed from ECUSA and their authority, much less set up a new province. So they went to war to bring the rebels into line. As Charles I and William Laud used an army, the PB has enlisted an army of lawyers. Meanwhile, the majority of Episcopalians, conditioned to a live-and-let-live attitude in theology, are seeing in Bp Lawrence's experience the viability of that attitude while trying to maintain for one's own diocese fidelity to Anglican teachings. But liberal power under the PB insists on behaving like a cancer, and Bp Lawrence and many thousands of faithful Episcopalians are its host. Finally, they will only survive, and the Anglican Communion with them, by cutting out the cancer, in reverse in this case; ie, by cutting themselves out of it, as ACNA has already done. In the end, the Anglican Communion will survive, its commitment and fidelity to its Lord intact, and ECUSA will die, or, God willing, find a cure when it is ready for one and rejoin the healthy body.<br />Until then, Mr. Haley, do you see the upcoming decision of the court in Fresno as having implications for Bp Lawrence, perhaps in the options available for him? As Northwest Bob said, we in ACNA certainly would welcome him with open arms!Jim Doehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12988187669027712717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-34320359235277198202010-10-17T13:43:30.621-07:002010-10-17T13:43:30.621-07:00Having watched the Upper SC convention yesterday a...Having watched the Upper SC convention yesterday agree to this and any future Title IV change, I remain amazed at how many voting in these conventions do not understand the problems they might create in the future. <br /><br />I applaud the DSC for having studied the changes so well. <br /><br />Lest anyone forget, the laity missed being subject to these rules by a hair. They can be added easily by some future GC.Undergroundpewsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10182191422663119484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-43585060164302693062010-10-17T11:23:19.443-07:002010-10-17T11:23:19.443-07:00St. Nikao, the answer to TU&D's question m...St. Nikao, the answer to TU&D's question may be found in the <a href="http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/2010DiocesanCovenantCommitments.pdf" rel="nofollow">latest compendium of diocesan commitments</a> as published by ECUSA's Finance Office. <br /><br />As you can see on page 2, South Carolina gave no money to the national Church in 2009, and is budgeted to give just $40,000 in 2010 (0.7% of its income).A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-81394025244452335282010-10-17T11:17:56.117-07:002010-10-17T11:17:56.117-07:00Jim Doe, you are welcome; thank you for coming her...Jim Doe, you are welcome; thank you for coming here to comment. <br /><br />The love of fuzzy logic is not a negative attribute, and I did not mean for it to sound that way. A lot can be done with fuzzy logic, as I explained <a href="http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2009/03/fuzzy-logic-and-church-we-know-i.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />All I am saying is that those of us who feel obligated by logic to be consistent should not expect the same of those who prefer to live by the rules of fuzzy logic. Nor should the latter be surprised when they are called to account for their lack of logic in situations which fairly demand its use -- such as in the application of canons to administer ecclesiastical discipline.<br /><br />Such a failure can cause great trouble for the Church, as I discussed in <a href="http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2009/04/fuzzy-logic-and-left.html" rel="nofollow">this earlier post</a> (and see also <a href="http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/08/on-gulf-that-separates-us.html" rel="nofollow">this post</a>). While there are lots of uses for fuzzy logic, one place it does not work is in applying written laws.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-41169252798199963942010-10-17T09:49:56.136-07:002010-10-17T09:49:56.136-07:00It seems to me (not an attorney, though a parent o...It seems to me (not an attorney, though a parent of two) that it is high time to present a case against the current regime abusing canons, taking powers that are not lawfully given them and violating written doctrines - whether there is a majority vote to do so successfully or not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-36880225493593880942010-10-17T08:48:02.211-07:002010-10-17T08:48:02.211-07:00It has angered the agenda-gospel folks that +Lawre...It has angered the agenda-gospel folks that +Lawrence and DioSC will no longer compromise or play reindeer (or rainbow) games with them, such as Doctrine Determined by Democratic Vote, Compromise, Compliance, Dialogue, Diversity, Tolerance and Generous Orthodoxy, etc.<br /><br />However, a valid and important question was raised by TUaD at MCJ:<br />Does the Diocese of SC still contribute financially to the support of 815/TEC/GC and thus to the promotion of their false gospel?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-76455871039897587812010-10-16T20:37:04.891-07:002010-10-16T20:37:04.891-07:00Northwest Bob, it is too early to prognosticate as...Northwest Bob, it is too early to prognosticate as to the future of the Diocese of South Carolina. They have made it clear that --unlike the other four dioceses which have also amended their governing documents -- they are not doing so with the intent of being unable to continue as a diocese in ECUSA. Instead, they are taking the proper route to call ECUSA to account for its unconstitutional acts in General Convention 2009.<br /><br />If the Presiding Bishop chooses to escalate matters, by claiming the power to "inhibit" Bishop Lawrence under the canons, then we will have a test of whom the Church will elect to follow: a rogue Presiding Bishop, or a godly diocesan bishop who is doing the best he can to protect his sheep from the depredations of a wolf in sheep's clothing. "By their fruits shall ye know them."<br /><br />If Bishop Lawrence stands his ground, then any "deposition" of him by the HoB ought to be capable of challenge for the nullity that it is -- since he will not, by any act of his own, have "abandoned the communion of this Church." Instead, he will have done his utmost to stay within that Communion.<br /><br />If ECUSA and its PB nonetheless maintain that the decisions of its PB may not be questioned in any court, then it will have exposed its hypocrisy for all to see. At that point, ECUSA's membership will shrink to just those who are completely comfortable with the "exclusiveness" of ECUSA as defined by the acts of its Presiding Bishop, and the so-called "inclusive" Church will have defined its identity by its exclusion of those who disagree with it. <br /><br />That step will, once and for all, expose the Church's inherent hypocrisy: while professing to welcome all and sundry, it in reality welcomes only those who agree with those who have taken control of it.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-51966344109928401392010-10-16T14:41:55.606-07:002010-10-16T14:41:55.606-07:00Thank-you for an especially lucid explanation of a...Thank-you for an especially lucid explanation of a complicated issue. I am new to this church and have come to depend on your presentation of the facts and clear logic, especially as they touch on legal matters, for helping me find my way through these dense and contentious matters. But, alas, I am a liberal on many issues, and I have to wonder why you would interrupt such a brilliant and cogent argument by such an ad hominem attack as "the proposition would make sense only to liberals, who are not confined to the strictures of logic." The comma here is important, as I'm sure you recognize. Surely your argument stands too well on its own two feet to need this excursion outside the "strictures of logic."<br />But other than that, I will continue to depend on you as the gold gtandard of reason and truth in trying to make sense of our present circumstances, and I sincerely pray for your success in San Joachin, where I and my parish have so much at stake in the ourcome.Jim Doehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12988187669027712717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-82604131024973877212010-10-16T13:59:12.258-07:002010-10-16T13:59:12.258-07:00Since there is no mechanism to resolve unconstitut...Since there is no mechanism to resolve unconstitutional canons or behavior on the part of Her Most Reverendship, the logical out come of thie DSC Convention is this. HMR will let her kangaroo out of his cage to convene an abandonment of communion court. +Mark will be inhibited for said abandonment. DSC will be forced to withdraw from TEC and re-elect +Mark as Bishop. Having no where elso to go, DSC will join ACNA where they will be welcomed with open arms and hearts. HMR will install one of her lackeys as Bishop of the rump Diocese of SC and file several nuisance law suits just to chew up time and money, one of her favorite activities. <br /><br />Please tell me I am wrong.<br /><br />Yours in sorrow once again,<br />NW BobNorthwest Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12628175652567391109noreply@blogger.com