Posted on 07/18/2005 2:06:25 PM PDT by sionnsar
I also attended the meeting last night (Sunday, July 17) with Bishop Smith and offer my report (and then a brief observation).
Dr. Witt did a masterful job of presenting our questions and concerns but, as has been reported elsewhere, the Bishop clearly did not want to answer our questions. Rather than explain his actions, he continued to responds by saying "we all need to take baby steps together." When he was pressed, the closest he came was when he said, "the gap had grown too large." He never explained the gap, or whom it was between. Bishop Smith was asked to explain the reasons for his actions repeatedly and had two hours to answer. He did not.
The Bishop should be forced to explain the three devastating actions he took last week.
First, the Bishop decided to close down St. John's with no warning given, no dialog attempted, no discussion offered. He didn't send us a letter; he didn't call. Why wouldn't he have wanted to discuss any concerns he had prior to closing us down? What was he afraid might happen? This hostile approach is a breach of ethical, social, and maybe even canonical standards. Bishop, why didn't you talk to us before taking hostile action against us?
Second, the Bishop and his troops drove to St. John's, unannounced, changed the locks on all the doors, seized our computers and our rector's records and posted a guard. Changing the locks is the clearest manifestation of a policy of exclusion. But this is more than just excluding us from our parish home; this is an act of hatred and all of you can conjure up historical precedents for these types of tactics. Bishop, why did you sneak in like a thief and lock us out of our parish home?
Third, the Bishop appointed a new parish priest, Susan McCone. Lat night, Susan was described as affiliated with an organization that promotes a liberal feminist agenda and asserts that homosexual unions are the equivalent of heterosexual unions. She did not deny it. Choosing to send Susan to St. John's, which the Bishop concedes is a conservative parish, seems like either the ultimate insult or a purposely-incendiary step. Either way, it is a shame Susan has to be a tool in this man's game. Bishop, why would you send an extremely liberal priest to a strongly conservative parish?
Andrew Smith was asked these three questions over and over. He never answered. And now we can all see that he didn't answer because there is no acceptable answer; this is pure meanness and unfortunately sheds a true light on the blackness in his heart. It is not just about his hatred of Mark Hansen; this is about power. It is about punishing those that don't agree with you. This is about Andrew Smith's ego.
And I promised an observation. Any one with a passing knowledge of history recognizes the pattern above: lack of warning about intentions to harm, stealth attacks with Gestapo tactics, followed by installation of a puppet government. These are the hallmarks of all despots since the beginning of time. And like all of them, Andrew Smith thinks he hears God talking to him, telling him to grow his power, crush any who get in his way, and not worry about explaining his actions to those he hurts. All of civilization's worst dictators and despots heard the exact same voice giving them the exact same advice. No surprises here.
But watch yourselves. You may be a threat to his power too.
Affectionately,
Your Neighbor
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
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.