Wednesday, 15 March 2006

more about the questionnaire authors

Updated Saturday 18 March
I can now also link to the Church Times report of last week:
Pat Ashworth Carey group looks to set up rival US province.

The following announcement issued by Lay Episcopalians For the Anglican Communion gives some insight into the purpose of the recent questionnaire.

No website yet for LEAC as far as I know, but the local parish church of Jim Ince is All Saints Chevy Chase.

Meanwhile, the Presiding Bishop wrote to all his colleagues about the questionnaire, see this article from the Living Church: Survey, Archbishop Carey Draw Presiding Bishop’s Ire which also reports on an interview with Mr Ince.

A professional statistician explains why an anonymous survey has technical problems.

Invitation to traditional Christians who wish to stay in the Anglican Communion

IT’S ACTION TIME! Save more than a remnant. Please help now!

Lay Episcopalians For the Anglican Communion (Not affiliated with any parish church.)

presents rescue initiatives assisting clergy-led efforts impeded by bullying revisionist bishops:

“Action Now: A Plan to Save Our Church”

In Memorial Hall, All Saints’ Church, 3 Chevy Chase Circle, Chevy Chase, MD

TUESDAY, March 21
7:30-9:00 p.m.

and

SATURDAY, March 25
10:00-11:30 a.m.
(Duplicate events)

BACKGROUND: Leaders of clergy-led traditional Episcopal organizations — Anglican Communion Network, American Anglican Council, Anglicans United — and faithful foreign bishops are publicly and repeatedly appealing for powerful, new, dedicated action by laypersons. The unmet need: education and fearless communications exposing the Christian gravity of revisionist errors and agendas. Clergy cannot lead this, because of a gruesome pattern of professional and economic reprisal by revisionist bishops run amok.

ECUSA’s presiding bishop and his fellow schismatic leaders failed to heed admonitions from Anglican primates whose membership represents more than 75% of worldwide faithful. That caused suspension of the American church from the Consultative Council of the Anglican Communion. We are out of communion or have impaired communion with most of the Anglican Communion. (Affiliation with the Anglican Communion Network gives some a sense of comfort, but historic ties are torn.) Schism is imminent. We can save a million Anglican innocents trapped in ECUSA, heading for Unitarianism.

With GC’06 coming, the new Lay Episcopalians for the Anglican Communion (LEAC) is executing a plan for believing parishes to remain in a cleansed ECUSA. Failing that, we will rescue, in Anglican Communion safety, Episcopalians in “THE SILENT MIDDLE 80%,” many now innocently trapped in their pews as ECUSA heads for Unitarianism.

Learn about and help D.C.-based LEAC’s important, positive programs. Invest your time and talent in your church’s survival, with partners in faith. Bring along orthodox friends.

Our American Church in extremis needs your talent and free time now. Pick your niche:

MAKE TIME FOR: PRAYER PROTOCOL, LEADERSHIP/STEERING/ PLANS, ACTION-PROJECT LEAD, PR, WEBSITE/NEWSLETTER/WRITING, ADMIN., PHONE/LIAISON, CLERICAL, RESEARCH. Join a big, loving,vital, historic team!

Can’t come but need info? Call or email Jim Ince: (240)485-7357/j.ince@earthlink.net
(These meetings are about a national movement, NOT specifically about All Saints’.)

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Wednesday, 15 March 2006 at 7:47am GMT
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: ECUSA
Comments

Is that the sound of someone causing division I hear?

Posted by: Tim on Wednesday, 15 March 2006 at 9:06am GMT

There are just a couple of tiny things that get under one's skin here.

First, to be pernickety about form, despite what the Living Church or LEFAC people say Lord Carey is just a Bishop - the Arch bit lapsed when he moved out of Lambeth Palace.

Second, why do this? It's not as if Runcie tore around the joint stirring up trouble for his successor, so why does Lord Carey feel the need to do this? Given that he planted the bomb in the first place, it's rich to to see him encouraging the fallout. Will Tony Blair do the same for Gordon Brown when the time comes?

Posted by: k1eranc on Wednesday, 15 March 2006 at 11:28am GMT

Good sleuth-work, Simon. Thanks for bringing more about this group to light.

Hardly a surprise, I must say. But it's useful to have one's gut reaction confirmed by facts.

It was obvious from the get-go that no one had anything to gain by this questionnaire but the groups working for realignment. Any bishop with half a brain would have binned it after the reading the first paragraph of the cover letter.

This group has chutzpa, I'll give them that. I hope they have the good sense to be embarrassed that they've been caught playing a deceitful game (I'm not holding my breath).

I wonder if they sent one to Gene Robinson?

Posted by: Christopher Calderhead on Wednesday, 15 March 2006 at 11:37am GMT

Not the sound of someone causing division, but more trying to manage it.

Posted by: Alan on Wednesday, 15 March 2006 at 12:31pm GMT

I did respond on the "Magic Statistics" web site (linked above) out of my limited research experience. However, I thought I would share my last paragraph:

"In any case, without attributing direct ill will to LEAC, I think this effort is misplaced. Individual bishops have not been "opaque." They've been speaking openly in addresses to diocesan conventions, in their pastoral letterrs, and in their actions regarding the AAC, ACN, and unhappy parishes and clergy at both ends of the spectrum. As a body the House of Bishops has not been opaque, but procedural. The House of Bishops, in our polity, cannot speak for the Episcopal Church, except in a very limited sense. Only General Convention can speak for the entire Episcopal Church. Thus, whatever regrets or confirmation may be felt by those who were bishops three years ago, and whatever hopes or concerns may be felt by new bishops, the actions that will make clear their current thoughts will be those taken in Columbus in June."

I didn't want to attribute ill will because I had not read the statement of intent found on this post. Let me suggest, Alan, that this is stronger than simply managing division. One can manage either to minimize damage or to maximise effect. This group is embracing division, and seeking to maximize the effect. I can only believe that they intended their survey to contribute to that effort.

That leads to a second reason now that I believe their efforts are misplaced. I still believe reconciliation ought to be our goal, even if it turn out to be impossible. I think embracing division, then, is misplaced effort, when we might instead be trying to listen, and see any resulting division as evidence of the fallenness of creation, even if some of us do end up with what we think we want.

Posted by: Marshall Scott on Wednesday, 15 March 2006 at 4:26pm GMT

"With GC’06 coming, the new Lay Episcopalians for the Anglican Communion (LEAC) is executing a plan for believing parishes to remain in a cleansed ECUSA."

"Believing" parishes in a "cleansed" ECUSA ?! "Believing" as determined by whom ? Jim Ince of Chevy Chase, Maryland ? His cronies in the AAC/"Network" ? The epistemic arrogance of this one sentence is positively breathtaking, and I won't even go into how creepy being "cleansed" sounds...

"Failing that, we will rescue, in Anglican Communion safety, Episcopalians in “THE SILENT MIDDLE 80%,” many now innocently trapped in their pews as ECUSA heads for Unitarianism."

If this wasn't so sad, I'd almost laugh at the picture this portrays. A priest I know has likened Jim's wording here to an image of a church full of Forrest Gumps, quietly eating from their box of chocolates as impending DOOM approaches them unawares ;)

And as for this horrible excuse for a "survey" - if I had turned in such a proposal for a research project in graduate school, my professors of statistics and research methods would have driven me out of the building with pitchforks and torches :)

Posted by: David Huff on Wednesday, 15 March 2006 at 6:19pm GMT

That LEAC announcement is inflammatory stuff. May I ask how it came into your hands?

Posted by: StatGuy on Wednesday, 15 March 2006 at 6:57pm GMT

If you hadn't documented this, Simon, it'd be hard to believe "LEAC" was real...

"Cleansed"??? In the early 21st century, they can use the word "cleansed" (describing the removal of one "defiled" population, by another "pure" one), without any self-consciousness whatsoever? (Maybe the LEACers are paying tribute to that other noted religious "Cleanser", the dearly-departed Slobodan Milosevic? :-/)

Posted by: J. C. Fisher on Wednesday, 15 March 2006 at 7:33pm GMT

Marshall:

I appreciate your hopes for reconciliation. However, no one yet has been able to suggest an intermediate position acceptable to both sides. Traditionalists insist that the U.S. and Canada toe-the-line in terms of the Communion's position on ordaining and marrying practicing homosexuals. The other side insists that it be free not to toe-the-line now and in the future. As far as I can tell, there could not be a starker contrast and two more irreconcilable positions. But, if you have some ideas I'd be happy to hear them. I hope they go beyond the usual "let everybody be free to do their own thing" rhetoric.

Steven

Posted by: steven on Wednesday, 15 March 2006 at 7:37pm GMT

Actually IMNSHO the best description for this so-called survey is "bush-league" although I don't know if that usage is common in Great Britain.

Posted by: Tim Stewart on Wednesday, 15 March 2006 at 10:41pm GMT

k1eranc writes:

"First, to be pernickety about form, despite what the Living Church or LEFAC people say Lord Carey is just a Bishop - the Arch bit lapsed when he moved out of Lambeth Palace."

While I would agree with k1eranc's comments about Lord Carey's constant and irritating attempts to foul his successor's nest, I'm not sure about this bit. I think that the practice of a retired Archbishop calling himself just "Bishop" is one of those fashionable Uriah-Heapish faux-humble tics which the C of E has recently developed. I much prefer the practice of our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, who refer to Abp Couve de Murville, for example, as "Archbishop Emeritus of Birmingham".

Posted by: Alan Harrison on Thursday, 16 March 2006 at 12:12am GMT

Steven:

My understanding has long been that the Via Media was a broad highway, and not simply the white line down the middle. Granted, there have always been shoulders off to which one could fall; but the Anglican position was, to use a more recent analogy from American politics, a "big tent" position. So, should reconciliation really require an "intermediate position" with which almost all would be uncomfortable?

"Let everybody be free to do their own thing?" There is a risk, always, in recognizing our freedom in Christ. Truly, "not all things are useful." However, Gamaliel was right: we discover what is truly useful by staying in conversation, watching over long periods of time, and discovering what seems to express God's action in the world. For some that may be too slow or too muddled; but isn't some continuing work, even with some discomfort, not worth the effort if we are to see Christ in one another?

Posted by: Marshall Scott on Thursday, 16 March 2006 at 12:33am GMT

One way to ensure Synod votes the right way is to "cleanse" the church of unsuitable parishes and/or their leaders.

Posted by: Cheryl Clough on Thursday, 16 March 2006 at 3:18am GMT

Are traditionalists "toeing the line"? Foreign bishops are pillaging parishes in the U.S. on a regular basis. Or do the traditionalists get to define which parts of the Windsor Report must be adhered to, and which parts can be ignored?

Posted by: Jake on Thursday, 16 March 2006 at 3:45am GMT

Alan H-
The form of Archbishops of Canterbury and York dropping the Arch bit on retirement is not "one of those fashionable Uriah-Heapish faux-humble tics which the C of E has recently developed", although has become more common given the rarity of them retiring prior to the last century. At the very least, I suspect the custom of de-Arch-ing the Archbishops dates back as far as Randall Davidson, who, despite a great deal of illness & unlike his predecessor did not die in office, seems to have initiated the custom of retirement to the peerage. In relation to Canterbury and York the title of Archbishop is described in Debrett's Correct Form as an honorific, and points out that Archbishops emeritus (emeriti?) only exist in the Catholic Church, although American usage also differs on this point from the Church of England.
At a mind numbingly semantic level, it's something of a consolation to remember that Lord Carey has already been taken down a notch or two just by retiring. But this does not make his tactics since retiring any less risible.
Of course, being pernickety over semantics as if they mattered might lay one open to accusations of moving the deck chairs while the Titanic sinks, although they do make for such a consolation as the water rises.

Posted by: k1eranc on Thursday, 16 March 2006 at 12:07pm GMT

Lord Carey's comments in this article seem at odds (very much at odds) with the tone of the questionnaire:

http://www.commercialappeal.com/mca/local/article/0,2845,MCA_25340_4544956,00.html

Posted by: Prior Aelred on Thursday, 16 March 2006 at 2:44pm GMT

Marshall:

So, stripping away the fine sounding rhetoric (my compliments), the answer is: everyone should be free to do their own thing. Alternately, the "shoulders" of the road are so far away from the center of the road that the distinction becomes meaningless--EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING IS PART OF THE ROAD (or probably more appropriately part of "the WAY"). In either case, the end result is the same, and the proposed solution is the same: just apply more of that good ol' Anglican fudge. Hmmm. Well, it's always worked in the past--why not one more time! LOL

Steven

Posted by: steven on Thursday, 16 March 2006 at 3:59pm GMT

Quoting from LEAC's Manifesto:
With GC’06 coming, the new Lay Episcopalians for the Anglican Communion (LEAC) is executing a plan for believing parishes to remain in a cleansed ECUSA. Failing that, we will rescue, in Anglican Communion safety, Episcopalians in “THE SILENT MIDDLE 80%,” many now innocently trapped in their pews as ECUSA heads for Unitarianism.

Gracious! Cleansed? Well, All Saint's neighbor ECUSA church, St Alban's (of which I am a member) could use some cleansing, but of the Lysol, Mr. Clean and Bon Ami type. Nor are we "innocently trapped in our pews" and above all, we are nowhere near being Unitarian.

Might I remind Mr. Ince that we are all one in Christ Jesus and that all of us stand in need of prayer? And we all ask God each Sunday to "cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."

I find the idea of a "cleansed ECUSA" to be an Orwellian vision.

Posted by: Diana Smith on Thursday, 16 March 2006 at 6:04pm GMT

Diana: "I find the idea of a "cleansed ECUSA" to be an Orwellian vision."

That's the first time I've heard of heaven likened to Orwell. ;)

Posted by: Neil B on Thursday, 16 March 2006 at 6:57pm GMT

Steven:

Well, thanks for the compliment on my writing and word use. I understand you don't find my point compelling.

Yes, I do believe the way is quite broad. Looking at the history of all those who have understood God to be One in Three, and Christ to be fully divine and fully human, I find quite a wide space. I have noted elsewhere that the Anglican Communion through the Lambeth Conference or through ecumenical dialogue has come to recognize an agreed Christology with both the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Copts, Armenians, et al) and the Ancient Syriac Churches(the so-called Nestorian Churches - the Assyrian Church of the East et al), who will, due to history and translation difficulties, not recognize each other. (You can find the documents for the former on the Anglican Communion Ecumenical Affairs pages; and the latter in the actions of Lambeth 1920 on those web pages.) If we are agreed among ourselves on Trinity, Christology, and that Scripture "contains all things necessary to salvation," can we not at least do as well among ourselves as we can with these other ancient communions?

Posted by: Marshall Scott on Thursday, 16 March 2006 at 7:33pm GMT

And you guys are actually worried about this little group? One thing I've observed over the years with the conservative contingent in the ECUSA is that it is all sound and fury, signifying nothing. I fail to see how this endeavor will be any different. I am especially amused at this:

"The unmet need: education and fearless communications exposing the Christian gravity of revisionist errors and agendas. Clergy cannot lead this, because of a gruesome pattern of professional and economic reprisal by revisionist bishops run amok."

There have been conservative Anglican journals, pamphlets, magazines, brochures, "direct action" fundraising letters, newsletters, (and now blogs) for the last 35 years. And these guys will succeed where the others failed? I won't hold my breath.

So, babies, stop throwing your silly little hissy-fits over the seeming sinister spectre of your fevered imaginations: the coming purge of the ECUSA trailblazed by the goose-stepping blackshirts otherwise known as the Parish of All Saints, Chevy Chase. Not only will there be no purge even if they were so inclined, any attempt to dislodge the liberal ascendency in the Washington Diocese and the ECUSA as a whole will inevitably be a miserable failure. But, hey, if they want to knock themselves out trying, then bully for them.

Posted by: Patrick Rothwell on Friday, 17 March 2006 at 5:18am GMT

Marshall:

The answer to your question is no. You are comparing apples and oranges, or perhaps more accurately, apples and hemlock. There will not be agreement within the Anglican Communion on these issues for the very same reason there will not be agreement between the Anglican Communion and any of the aforenamed churches (plus the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches) on these issues.

Sorry, but as a comparison intended to imply both a similarity of conflict and a similarity of solution this fails miserably. For the reasons, I would suggest you refer to the RC or Orthodox responses to the current crisis in the AC. (I will not answer with more specificity, having been adjured to avoid certain verbiage in describing the nature of the issues lest the feelings of sensitive souls on this board or elsewhere be offended).

Steven

Posted by: steven on Friday, 17 March 2006 at 3:46pm GMT

Jake said:
"Are traditionalists "toeing the line"? Foreign bishops are pillaging parishes in the U.S. on a regular basis. Or do the traditionalists get to define which parts of the Windsor Report must be adhered to, and which parts can be ignored?"

Why not? They do that now with scripture, and they are of course, always right! Ah, the power of possessing "absolute truth".

Posted by: faithwatch on Friday, 17 March 2006 at 4:05pm GMT

Hmm, "cleansed"... washed ? I wonder whether LEAC are thinking that the following passage has some relevance to the evolving situation in ECUSA (the more liberal reader should be warned that the following passage may offend sensibilities):

"I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you." If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers! The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Cor 5:9-6:11)

Posted by: Dave on Saturday, 18 March 2006 at 4:26pm GMT

Junk translation, Dave: it's *your choice* to go w/ this junk, instead of a credible translation, which offends. Not Scripture!

Posted by: J. C. Fisher on Sunday, 19 March 2006 at 4:56am GMT

Dear JCF, That's from the NIV version - probably the translation used most CofE churches nowadays - certainly not junk! I don't think that you will find anything significantly different on most translations (I checked some) except maybe the LOMV (Liberal Offenses Modified Version).

Posted by: Dave on Sunday, 19 March 2006 at 1:02pm GMT

Yes, NIV is indeed used in many parishes of the CofE, although NRSV is more widely used I suspect. NIV seems to be preferred by many evangelical parishes, though I have never understood why.

Posted by: Simon Sarmiento on Sunday, 19 March 2006 at 1:15pm GMT

The NIV is really very bad (as I have told Dave a dosen times). It's a non paraphrase ony in method ;=)

And it's certainly not "international".

The language of the Septuagint is technical/theological; specific, not general and abstract.

So consequently is that of 1st century NT scriptures.

This means that such generalízed abstract concepts as "sexually immoral" are not found in the Bible, only in sloppy translations.

Pórnois specifically means "men who use sacral prostitutes", which refers to other cult, not to sex... It's the 1st Commandment; Don't have, don't worship, don't serve!

The same goes for a host of other Greek words used by the Septuagint translators to convey specific Hebrew theological concepts but by 2nd Millennium "translators" to convey Alexandrian philosophical teachings on gender, sperm, salvific abstinences, and so on.

Logically this means that the Bible must be saying other things instead of the things it cannot say...

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Sunday, 19 March 2006 at 1:32pm GMT

Simon, you now *know* why! (Not that "evangelical" is synonymous w/ "anti-gay conservative", but there is tragically large overlap...)

Despite being called "New *International* Version", the NIV is an overwhelmingly (U.S. of) *American* creation, fully partaking of all the extremities of contemporary U.S. Evangelical Christianity (I use that last term loosely). Published right around the time Anita Bryant was first muck-raking in the States about the "Gay Menace", it is a frankly tendentious (not to mention *modern*) invention, NOT a faithful translation of God's Word in the Old and New Testaments. Anglicans around the world should smell the NIV coming a mile off, and demand a Biblical translation w/ a pedigree of scholarly integrity---even the KJV (or "Authorized Version") is better! >:-/

[FWIW, I prefer the NRSV for close study, and the REB for prayerful immersion]

Back on-topic: any bets the LEACers rely on the NIV?

Posted by: J. C. Fisher on Sunday, 19 March 2006 at 7:31pm GMT

Dear JCF, Simon et al, I was thinking about the Corinthian church's tolerating a broad range of sexual behaviours etc and lawsuits among the church (and St Paul's rebuking of them on those issues) as much as particular sins in the sin list.

Maybe the ECUSAn context is also similar to that which existed in Corinth then?

Posted by: Dave on Monday, 20 March 2006 at 7:05am GMT

According to a book I read about Bible translations, one of the specific purposes of the NIV translation was to bolster an evangelical understanding of key scriptural texts, one of the most important being to mistranslate "almah" as "virgin."

Posted by: Prior Aelred on Monday, 20 March 2006 at 3:53pm GMT

We get your point, Dave: "logs/splinters" back atcha. :-/

Posted by: J. C. Fisher on Monday, 20 March 2006 at 6:01pm GMT

The one thing that always troubled me about the NIV is the odd use of "scare quotes" around words like clean, unclean, and sinners. (See Mark 7:1-21; Luke 5:30, 7:34, and especially Luke 15:1.) I am not sure what the translators are trying to convey by this, but it strikes me as sort of creepy -- as if Jesus didn't associate with real sinners, just people the Pharisees thought were sinners. I can't help but picture a lector making Dr. Evil quote-mark hand gestures as these words come up.

Posted by: Tobias S Haller BSG on Monday, 20 March 2006 at 8:21pm GMT

Com'on guys ! If you read the 1 Cor 5:9-6:11 in the NRSV the *overall* message is almost identical - sexual behaviour is far from a matter of indifference (the more liberal reader should be warned that the following passage, even from the NRSV, may offend sensibilities):

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons— not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? God will judge those outside. ‘Drive out the wicked person from among you.’ When any of you has a grievance against another, do you dare to take it to court before the unrighteous, instead of taking it before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels—to say nothing of ordinary matters? If you have ordinary cases, then, do you appoint as judges those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to decide between one believer and another, but a believer goes to court against a believer—and before unbelievers at that? In fact, to have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud—and believers at that. Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Posted by: Dave on Tuesday, 21 March 2006 at 6:40am GMT

Well dear Dave,

The NRSV isn't necessarily right because the NIV is wrong. Both are post Dynamic Equivalence ;=)

Remember that some of us read this in Greek...

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Tuesday, 21 March 2006 at 12:29pm GMT

Dear Göran, I refuse to post 1 Cor 5:9-6:11 again in Greek ! ;=)

Posted by: Dave on Tuesday, 21 March 2006 at 10:43pm GMT

Thank goodness for that, Dave.
Any other comments please relate them directly to the subject of this item, i.e. the activities of LEAC.

Posted by: Simon Sarmiento on Tuesday, 21 March 2006 at 11:06pm GMT

Sarah Dylan Breuer has a report from inside an LEAC meeting up at her website:
Inside LEAC.

Posted by: Anna on Tuesday, 28 March 2006 at 6:09pm BST

The link didn't show up-- Dylan's piece is at http://www.sarahlaughed.net/gracenotes/2006/03/inside_leac.html.

Posted by: Anna on Tuesday, 28 March 2006 at 7:50pm BST

Dear friends,

The link to Sarah Dylan Breuer's article "Inside the LEAC" did not come up using Anna's link. I got to it through an email link today to The Witness magazine:

http://thewitness.org/article.php?id=1045

I hope this works for y'all.

Lois Keen, Priest
Diocese of Pennsylvania

Posted by: Rev. Lois Keen on Wednesday, 29 March 2006 at 7:33pm BST

I see LEAC has published its survey results. They're here:

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-31-2006/0004330631&EDATE=

And by the way, the PR release points to a web site which makes LEAC's agenda pretty clear ("Bold Rescue action supporting the orthodox") It's here:

http://www.layepiscopal.org/

The survey PR says that they got 27% of the 298 bishops solicited to respond anonymously, and their "pro-bono opinion research professionals" assured them this was a "good sample". Their self-selected bishops voted 57.5% and 56.25% to oppose same-sex blessings and Gene Robinson's consecration, and based on this LEAC felt justified to headline their piece, "Episcopal Bishops, If Voting Secretly, Would Oppose Church's Stance on Homosexual Agenda Items Adopted in 2003, a Lay Poll Reports".

What nonsense! The most traditionalist 27% of Episcopal bishops answer a survey, and they can only get just over half to support LEAC's agenda? I think the survey strongly suggests precisely the opposite of what they trumpet: that the overwhelming majority of Episcopal bishops, if voting secretly, would vote against LEAC's agenda.

At least LEAC is admitting what it's trying to do, rather than pretending to be a non-aligned group of moderates. Even Lord Carey must be a little embarrassed by this!

Peace,

Mark.

Posted by: Mark on Friday, 31 March 2006 at 2:18pm BST

NIV enthusiasts may be interested in this post by Bigbulkyanglican
http://bigbulkyanglican.typepad.com/bigbulkyanglican/2006/04/niv.html

Posted by: Simon Sarmiento on Wednesday, 12 April 2006 at 6:31pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.