Baines carelessly repeats the schismatic talking point that TEC is deposing "conservative bishops."

In truth, the bishops who have been deposed have not been disciplined because they are conservatives but because they have left the church.

It's amazing how many otherwise intelligent people cannot grasp that very simple but important distinction.

Bishop Nick Baines strongly criticizes the "tactics" of GAFCON supporters:

"Misrepresenting those with whom disagreements are serious is not on. Manipulating people in order to achieve one’s own political goals is unacceptable. The end do[es] not and cannot justify the means and subterfuge cannot be justified biblically even if some feel (as more than one person has put it to me) that ‘any means are justified when you are fighting a war’."

I welcome his forthright statements, and wish he were not still the victim of deceptions and misrepresentations. Alas, he is.

He states that the "deposition of conservative bishops in TEC is wrong (as well as unbelievably inept tactically)."

But the four American bishops who have been deposed have not been deposed for "being conservative." They have been deposed for unilaterally transferring their allegiance to the Province of the Southern Cone, without seeking the consent of their own Province or National Church, in defiance of, and with explicit contempt for, Church tradition dating back to the Council of Nicaea. Far from being "conservative," they represent, politically and theologically, the most reckless and radical strain of the authoritarian Right in the United States.

I step back now and await the utterly predictable arrival of the ACNA/GAFCON trolls who will shrill that because naughty TEC "appointed" a gay bishop, anything whatever they do is all right with God. Of course such comments will illustrate perfectly the unbiblical, "ends justify the means" behavior that Bishop Baines rightly condemns.

Bishop Baines mentions the deposition of certain bishops by the Episcopal Church. These bishops were not deposed because they held conservative beliefs. Many bishops in the Episcopal Church do. They were deposed because they had publicly stated that they no longer belonged to the Episcopal Church. To bmake a secular analogy, we didn't find them and deport them, we cancelled their passports after they renounced their citizenship. If there is a way to make sure that those who have publicly stated that they no longer belong to our Church do not continue to exercise authority in our Church and control over its assets short of (or other than) deposition, I am all for it. But I don't know whether such a way exists.

Thank you Charlotte for picking up the same passage as myself.

Jesus is the atoning sacrifice, the one who intervenes to avert's God's wrath from those who deserve it. It is time to clarify that covenant with Jesus further. God continues to honor that covenant, and those souls who partake in deception, violence, repression, theft, adultery, attempted genocide will find grace with Jesus and a heaven in which they can hide. The covenant with Jesus means that God will not unleash the full force of the wrath against such souls.

That said, there are no restraints on how God chooses to relate to that heaven. So the heaven for such Christians now has the same level as restrictions as the heaven for similar Satan worshippers (and multiple "heavens" can and will be made as and when required for such genocidal maniacs).

Further, the covenant with Jesus demands that God does not unleash the full force of God's wrath. There is NOTHING in that covenant to demand that God intervene to protect Jesus' minions from their own aggression. So if Jesus and his worshippers want to commit global genocide and impose a long-lingering suffering death upon all this planet's occupants. God will not intervene.

Nor is God required to give another planet that is more "suitable" for Jesus or his minions. If this one wasn't good enough for them, then they have rocks in their heads, it was one of the most beautiful and alive in all of creation.

God can and does affirm that God is responsible for ALL of Creation, and suitable dwellings are found for all souls, even if some are highly restricted to avoid them hurting others.

In the John 5 passage, Jesus later states "“But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set." At this time, it is not just Moses who is not pleased. Go back and read what has not been fulfilled in the bible (start with the smaller prophetic texts and then go to the larger ones). Females are particularly miffed: the female cherubim of the ark, the Daughter of Zion, Cheva, the matriarchs. The males who actually know these females, know how angry they are, and that God is also not pleased with 2000+ years of misogyny, insults and repression. Something Jesus was meant to fix and mislead them into believing he would when he promised gentleness to the Daughter of Zion if he was made messiah.

Honest he is about gays at Gafcon.

"Christian hope is not rooted in theology or dogma or even ethical consistency. Christian hope is rooted in God – the God who holds up wounded hands in a resurrection body and refuses to let death, destruction, manipulation, misrepresentation, conflict or anything else have the final word. I think St Paul hit on something similar.' - Bishop Nick Baines, on 'Fulcrum' -

What a precise and wonderful exposition of what the Gospel is really all about. In the end, none of us is 'worthy' of redemption, but God, in Christ, has already redeemed and continues to redeem us. To declare that we cannot share the Eucharist with one another is probably our most appalling betrayal of the fact that none of us is without sin. To 'cast the first stone' is to set one's self outside the parameters of the Gospel inclusiveness that should mark us as Christians.
"They'll know you're my disciples by your LOVE".

...and nowhere does Nick Baines say that TEC Bishops have been deposed for being conservative. He simply notes that all of them are.

For a while I used to post on the Anglican Mainstream website to try and enter into dialogue with conservatives: sadly all I got was knee-jerk reactions, stock responses, and abuse. There is a danger that similar knee-jerk reactions are appearing on Thinking Anglicans, which I think is a shame. Already, I detect a considerable amount of ill-judged language that borders on abuse ('Trolls', Charlotte?)

We could all do with much more careful listening and thoughtful responding: much as Archbishop Rowan and the Lambeth Conference model. Otherwise, the dialogue of the deaf that is where we are in the Communion at the moment will continue.

Yes, "trolls," Simon B. We've had a good many here, but they are not trolls if they are actually interested in dialogue.

I am curious about one statement in your post, Simon B. How do you read the phrase "the deposition of conservative bishops"? I think the literal, grammatical reading, in the absence of any other qualifier, is: "the deposition of bishops for being conservative." But that is not why they were deposed. Therefore the phrase misrepresents TEC's actions.

Some in the C of E (e.g. "Pageantmaster," on "Stand Firm," who seems to be somebody big in London) are publicly calling for Communion discipline of the US Presiding Bishop, because she has deposed the four US bishops who unilaterally affiliated with the Province of the Southern Cone. So this is a potentially serious misrepresentation and should be corrected.

I did not say that Nick Baines intentionally misrepresents TEC's actions himself, but since he says he has been deceived by Evangelical misrepresentations and manipulations in the past, I do say he is not yet fully undeceived.

Jim Naughton, I want to make a public appeal to you.

Would you consider going on the Fulcrum Forums to correct misrepresentations of TEC's actions, as you find them? You would seem to be in an ideal position to do so.

Simon B is probably right to suggest that I'm too bilious to do it myself.

Fulcrum has shown itself to be open to differing views, unlike (for example) Anglican Mainstream (I wouldn't have wasted my time, actually, Simon B.)

While we are at it, here's a new misrepresentation, from Nick Mackenzie, on the "Religious Intelligence" website (http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=3618):

"The Anglican world is about to be plunged into a new crisis over sexuality as the American Diocese of Colorado ordained an openly gay and partnered priest yesterday.

"Under terms agreed between member Churches of the Anglican Communion, there is a moratorium on ordaining further openly gay people, but Bishop Robert O'Neill (pictured) ordained Mary Catherine Volland, along with three others, to the priesthood at St. John's Cathedral on Saturday."

If Nick Mackenzie means, by "terms agreed," the Windsor Report -- then he is misrepresenting its terms.

Is his a knowing misrepresentation? Nick Mackenzie is the one to answer that. But it has been a very common misrepresentation, ever since the Windsor Report carelessly used the phrase "ordination of bishops."

Nothing in the Windsor Report forbids ordaining open and partnered lesbian and gay persons as priests. Yet it is continually misrepresented as having forbidden member churches to do so. If it had, it would have made a complete hash of Anglican tradition and ecclesiology -- but I don't believe Evangelicals care. After all, to them, we are nothing but a convenient boat to fish from.

"nowhere does Nick Baines say that TEC Bishops have been deposed for being conservative. He simply notes that all of them are."

But their theology is IRRELEVANT to their deposition, Simon B! The above commenters at TA have simply (correctly) noted the actual *grounds* of their deposition: not conservative theology, but schismatic, vow-breaking ACTIONS.

The SMEAR that TEC is deposing/inhibiting/persecuting people for their theology, is one that we Episcopalians are naturally touchy about, from bitter experience of being painted w/ this Big Lie. It's not "knee-jerk" on our part if, when we see the Big Lie in print AGAIN, we rush to disprove it *immediately*.

Lord have mercy!

Well thanks to Bishop NB for noting that the core ethical demonstration of the conservative realignment Anglican campaign has sadly been its reliance on dubious ends justify means rationales - especially in support of false witness against neighbors who think or inquire or discern alternatively, as well as continued support for preaching that any alternative believer indicators are sufficient to prove that alternative Anglican believers have broken the trust held in global common such that they then fully deserve whatever realignmet believers might decide to say about them or do towards them.

Again to beat the fact horse which is dead on arrival at too many realignment Anglican believer camp sites: Bishops are being deposed (and in Colorday, at least one prominent conservative former rector investigated by the district attorney office) not mainly because of conservative views per se as because of bad behavior conducted in varied mixes of intentional bad faith and ever worse (probably illegal in some instances) conduct.

We must somehow face the facts which even the good bishop tries to dull and soften: conservative believers these days simply do not innately and automatically live in, nothing but sheer and utter good faith trust towards everybody else (against whom they so delightedly bear false witness, and to whom they so constantly preach they are reaching out).

Conservative ethics and theologies cannot claim a pre-existing higher ethical ground, just because they intentionally believe in a closed-sealed divine revelation which turns over the only higher ground they presuppositionally discern available, to themselves alone.

In even the worst olden days when, say, being rabidly antigay was taken completely for granted as sodomites were tortured and burned, this typical realignment believer stance would have been criticised for its overweening pridefulness. The torturers at least had to pretend they were sinners, too, even though they deeply preferred themselves as straight folks, the only good sort. Not to forget the current realignment's clear love for bearing presuppositional false witness against all sorts of people (Start with queer folks, ripple out from there?), and not to mention its love for ends justifies means ethics (especially when campaigning against its fav target people).

Alas, not much good news left in that mix, I fear.

Best to move on, openly and open-endedly and freely. Just as we see Colorado and Los Angeles doing now, and just as we will slowly but surely see TEC doing. Next?

It does seem, on balance from the comments here, that perhaps Bishop Nick Baines, and certain other 'conservatives', could be misrepresenting the grounds on which the 'conservative Bishops' of TEC (as well as other conservative theologians in both Canada and the USA) have been 'let go'.

It should by now be quite clear that those who have been officially barred from ministry in TEC and the Church of Canada left those Churches no other option - in view of the fact that they have declared THEMSELVES to be no longer under the legitimate jurisdiction of their parent Churches.

This FACT must be taken into consideration when employing disputational tactics on the perceived *injustice* of their situation. In fact, justice has been done; in that the Churches concerned have now officially recognised the schismatic intent of the departing dissenters. End of story.

Charlotte, does anyone actually take Religious Intelligence seriously?

It strikes me as the Fox News of the religion beat: pure right wing spin.

(How else can one describe a story claiming that the recent California Supreme Court ruling represents a defeat for the Diocese of Los Angeles?)

JPM, yes, there are people who take Religious Intelligence seriously. Quite a few do where I live (Dio. of Central Florida). George Conger, who wrote the story I believe you are referring to, is no slouch as a reporter, whatever presuppositions he may bring to his work. But then quite a few people watch Fox News too. It was the top-rated cable news channel in the US for quite a while.

Thee and I may not do either, but (with respect, JPM) I am reminded of the old story about the academic liberal who expressed surprise that Richard Nixon had won re-election to the presidency: "How could that be? Nobody *I* know voted for him!"

"I am reminded of the old story about the academic liberal who expressed surprise that Richard Nixon had won re-election to the presidency: "How could that be? Nobody *I* know voted for him!"

Considering Nixon's and his henchmen's attempts to shred the Constitution, his attacks on the press, his enemies list, and, as we now, know, thanks to his secret taping, his antiSemitism and penchant for foul language, perhaps you could have picked a better example.

Of course, until the last eight years, I thought The Trickster was the worst threat to the Constitution we'd ever have, which only proves how fallible my political instincts are.

It wasn't an academic liberal in that story: it was Pauline Kael, the film critic for The New Yorker.

At any rate, Religious Intelligence strikes me as more a mouthpiece than a journalistic enterprise, and Conger's presence there strengthens that impression rather than mitigate it.

Spin, spin, spin. I suppose it might impress some people.

Cynthia Gilliatt, I think you've misunderstood the point I was trying to make. Let me try again, if I can. It wasn't my intent to indicate support for Richard Nixon, or Fox News, or Religious Intelligence, for that matter.

But it is a fact that, in 1972, enough people voted for Richard Nixon to crush the McGovern candidacy. It is a fact that a great many people in the USA at present swear by Fox News and believe what it tells them. So: they were and are wrong. Very well. Our job is to persuade them of that. Simply disdaining them for their beliefs won't do the job.

If I may get back to Bishop Nick Baines's original remarks, which started this whole thing:

He speaks accurately when he says that the Church of England Evangelical party has been deliberately misrepresenting the actions of the Episcopal Church. For some time now, TEC has been victimized internationally by these smear campaigns. They are clever smear campaigns, good propaganda, and they have been successful at manipulating people into anti-TEC attitudes. Maybe no one you or I know, but still --

I don't think the Episcopal Church ought to disdain answering these smear campaigns. I think it ought to be countering slanders with clear and forthright truth. Don't let's keep on living inside our cozy liberal bubbles. Eventually (we are finding out in the United States, now) they come for us, too.

"I don't think the Episcopal Church ought to disdain answering these smear campaigns. I think it ought to be countering slanders with clear and forthright truth. Don't let's keep on living inside our cozy liberal bubbles. Eventually (we are finding out in the United States, now) they come for us, too."

I DID misunderstand your oroiginal post - thanks for your patience with me. And I think you are dead right in what I've quoted. Had the Dio of VA acted quickly and firmly early on, we might not have to spend a bunch of money trying to keep Minns et alia from stealing our property.

In my defence, I do tend to react viscerally to The Trickster's name. I once saw a tee shirt that said "I don't care if he's dead; impeach the #@#%!! anyway!" I almost bought it.

"Already, I detect a considerable amount of ill-judged language that borders on abuse ('Trolls', Charlotte?)"

You're right, of course, and I am one of the more obviously guilty. Yet we DO have trolls, we have had numerous conservatives come on this site, even protesting that they are seeking honest dialogue. But it doesn't take long to see that they are far more interested in venting their anger at those they consider to be their oppressors and and repeating over and over all the reasons they feel hard done by with actually little inclination to engage in meaningful dialogue. We all have a tendency to that, it's a part of the Fall, after all, and as Christians we are called away from that, and also from the idea that just because someone is attached to shooting his mouth off on blogs and getting all nasty and unpleasant, and that's certainly descriptive of me, that doesn't mean that everybody in that camp is the same way. I am extremely guilty of this, it's been pretty obvious. This may have been Charlotte's time to fall to the temptation to release the anger. I've done it too, but a quick look back at the archives of this site will show that, while it may not be a good thing, from a Christian persepctive, to talk like that, (I'm reminded of the blessing our priest usually gave at the end of Evensong, that contained the line "render to no man evil for evil"), it is certainly understandable.

I think it worthwhile noting that the very liberal Bishop Charles Bennison of Pennsylvania is on the cusp of being deposed...

Cynthia, thanks for your response (I share your visceral feelings, by the way) -- and Ford, thank you for yours. Not for the first time, you're a role model. Back to work for me on rendering no man evil for evil!

"Not for the first time, you're a role model. Back to work for me on rendering no man evil for evil!"

Oh my, I fear if you go following my example, we'll both end up in the ditch! And, while I might often be reminded of that old blessing, it doesn't mean I'm all that good at putting it into practice.