Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Plots [ECUSA]
Midwest Conservative Journal ^ | 4/25/2005 | Christopher Johnson

Posted on 04/25/2005 7:54:17 PM PDT by sionnsar

So California Episcopal Bishop William Swing is on his way home from the last House of Bishops meeting when he runs into South Carolina Bishop Edward Salmon.  Seems Swing and Salmon are like this[clasps index fingers] and they got to talking:

In the Houston Airport after the last House of Bishops meeting, I had a brief chat with my long-time and dear friend Ed Salmon, the Bishop of South Carolina. Both of us earnestly hope that a day of candor will come in the House. Ed and I are on opposite sides of the gay-lesbian issues, but we agree that the Episcopal Church would be better served if bishops asked basic questions of each other and were accountable in telling the truth to each other.

He welcomed my first question, “What is the Network really about?” His answer: It is, first of all, anchored in the Episcopal Church. To paraphrase, he stated that it was an organized way for Episcopalians who disagree with the General Convention 2003 homosexual decisions to offer mutual support, to have their voices heard, and to stay in community with the Anglican Communion. That sounds reasonable. In a House of Bishops where over ninety percent of the conservative, liberal, and moderate diocesan bishops are in good standing with each other, perhaps it is tolerable to have a network of bishops who opt out. The body might be able to abide this fracture for a time.

Unfortunately, they both had planes to catch so Swing couldn't ask other questions he wanted answers to.

1. Why do you usually avoid House of Bishops meetings? And why will you not go to the altar rail and receive Communion alongside your sister and brother bishops?

Because talking to an apostate brick wall is a waste of time no matter how often you use phrases like "sister and brother bishops."  And taking Communion with people of an entirely different religion makes some people uncomfortable. 

2. Rumor has it that you receive lots of money from private foundations and give it to support African bishops who, in turn, will attack the Episcopal Church. Is there an audit of your receipts and disbursements? Could I review it? What are the goals of the foundations that financially support you? What African bishops receive your money? What American Episcopalians whom you know are on the staffs of African bishops?

I still haven't figured out why "private foundations" would want to sink all that money into an organization as irrelevant as the Episcopal Church.  Piskie opinion means less than squat these days.  Bishop?  Rumor has it that ECUSA dioceses are losing a lot more jack than they're letting on.  Is there an independent audit of ECUSA diocesan financial statements so that conservatives can get an honest look at just how much money a practicing homosexual pointy hat is costing ECUSA?

3. If the bishops of the Episcopal Church are not invited to Lambeth Conference 2008 but the Network bishops with Bishop Robert Duncan as head are invited, will you attend?

Probably, since if they are invited, the Third World won't show and the Anglican game will be officially and finally over.  But Swing figures in for a paranoid penny, in for a paranoid pound. 

4. What are the names of Network bishops who have consulted lawyers to ascertain the possibilities of someday separating “Network properties” from “Episcopal Church properties?”

5. In what situations around the USA is the Network in conversation with individual congregations, strategizing as to how the congregation can leave the Episcopal Church, take its assets, and join the Network?

6. It is stated that Bishop Duncan is on record as promising “to wage guerilla warfare on the Episcopal Church.” Is this true? Also on the House floor he has been accused of paying lay people of his diocese to go to a neighboring diocese to try to persuade conservative members to leave the Episcopal Church and join the Network. Is that true?

Although Old United Religions Initiative is more of a realist than some of his leftist associates...

When I carry around these questions in my heart and don’t speak up, I live with the assumption that the Episcopal Church is in deep denial. We stand quiet while forces within our body seem intent to destroy this body. Yes, most of the Anglican world is furious with us. That’s not the point. We knew they would be furious. We knew also that many Episcopalians would find our stance to be intolerable. Good people would leave.

That doesn't hide the fact that there's a Sinister PlotTM out to destroy the Episcopal Church.

But what we didn’t count on was what seems to me to be the Grand Plan. Funding by silent, wealthy ideologues, the Grand Plan would produce a sexually pure, globally recognized alternative Episcopal Church with Robert Duncan as Presiding Bishop. A revolution of staggering significance appears to be unfolding in our midst led by hirelings who were put in office to be shepherds. In the past we could always count on loyalty among bishops. Today we can count on disloyalty to the Episcopal Church among a few bishops. Or so it seems. All the while we are mute and excruciatingly polite.

"In the past, we could always count on loyalty among bishops" when Episcopal bishops shared a common religion.  Not to put too fine a point on it but they no longer do and haven't for some time.  Loyalty to the Episcopal Church was a virtue when the Episcopal Church preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  But since August, 2003, when the Episcopal Church declared in convention that it would no longer let the Word of God get in the way of its entirely political goals, loyalty to ECUSA is not source of pride but of shame.  If there actually is a Sinister PlotTM to replace the Episcopal Church, all true Christians must pray that it succeeds.

TOPICS: Mainline Protestant
KEYWORDS: angpost5; ecusa

1 posted on 04/25/2005 7:54:28 PM PDT by sionnsar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ahadams2; Alkhin; Peanut Gallery; tellw; nanetteclaret; Saint Reagan; Marauder; stan_sipple; ...
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.

FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (typically 3-7 pings/day).
This list is pinged by sionnsar and newheart.

Resource for Traditional Anglicans:

Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15

2 posted on 04/25/2005 7:54:56 PM PDT by sionnsar (†† || Iran Azadi || Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar
I followed the link over to Swing's letter and almost cracked up laughing at the ending.

"Perhaps there are good and honest answers which will prove my fears false and point out that I have maligned innocent bishops in my silent heart. In that case I would readily apologize. But in the meantime while no one is speaking to tell the truth, a lot of us are left only to sniff an aroma and surmise the source of the smell."

Give that man a Beano pill.

LOL, he'd previously admitted in this letter that he knew that the HOB vote for Robinson would cause problems, and now he's mad because the problems were much worse than he guessed. It's somewhat like a thief saying that he only carried in a knife to rob a store and the store-owner had no right to pull a gun on him.

3 posted on 04/25/2005 9:14:58 PM PDT by xJones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar
We stand quiet while forces within our body seem intent to destroy this body.

Yep, and those forces would be the ones that decided that elevating a non-celibate homosexual to the episcopacy was more important than Lambeth 1.10, past resolutions of the ECUSA's General Convention, and the rest of the Anglican church.

Yes, most of the Anglican world is furious with us. That’s not the point. We knew they would be furious.

Yes, but you seriously miscalculated that they would be so furious that they would actually do something about it. The miscalculation stems from the misapprehension that homosexual behavior is morally equivalent to heterosexual behavior, and that the scriptural arguments against the former are similar to, and would be treated equally, as the scriptural arguments against admission of women to holy orders. This probably stemmed from a blind spot developed by the desire to have homosexual behavior be accepted.

Fooled you. Or, more accurately, fooled yourself.

We knew also that many Episcopalians would find our stance to be intolerable. Good people would leave.

They are. Of course, they want to take the parish property and other assets that they and their ancestors spent so much time and effort developing. Why anyone would think that the "Dennis Canon" would justify anything else is beyond me.

In the past we could always count on loyalty among bishops.

Which is how we ended up where we are now. But ...

Today we can count on disloyalty to the Episcopal Church among a few bishops.

Bishops owe their loyalty to the Word of God and their priests and parishioners. The ECUSA is a tool to accomplish spreading the Gospel. It is not an end in itself. When the tool becomes malformed and is no longer useful for it's intended purpose, you either repair it, reforge it, or dispose of it and get a new one.

4 posted on 04/26/2005 9:10:30 AM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson