So, your point is to have these folks experience the “full cost” of what they have done. Extracting the full cost sure sounds like revenge for me. So, how much are we going to spend to bring this full cost experience to people? How, exactly, is this the mission of the Church?

Do you really think the Presbyterians and every other denomination that has split didn’t have the same name calling, misinformation and every other piece of garbage you would state that we’ve had over the last twenty years? I believe they did from the folks I have talked to recently about such splits. Moreover, in my own legal career, I’ve had a fair number of religious wars cases outside our denomination in my charge. I can tell you that the things of which you complain are not unique and DO NOT PUT OUR SITUATION OUTSIDE OF THE REALM OF WHERE IT IS FAIR TO NEGOTIATE TO END THE CONFLICT.

Oh, this isn’t revenge, this is “tough reconciliation?” Well, to me, this is just litigation. My question is what are we getting for our money here, legal mercenary that I am? I still say we could net out more financially and spiritually through negotiating, but, I realize you are mad and all about this tough reconciliation bit, as you have been ever since I read your first post on the HOBD Listserv.

Where, exactly, did Jesus say we are to practice tough reconciliation and extract the full cost of people’s actions from them? I can say this – I surely hope the Lord will be more merciful with me rather than extract the full cost of my sins from me, and I hope the world will do the same. On that note, I do have to say I have found Judge Cole’s recent posts of interest regarding Borg and Crossan which, to say it nicely, lessens the importance of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice. I find the parts about joining with Christ in his mission and ministry in the world very good, but I question the need to downplay or eliminate the atonement in order to get there. What is the point of downplaying the atonement? Isn’t the atonement a good thing?

You might ask, why do I ask this question in the middle of the discussion of property litigation?

To ask this question: are you without sin? This is the question Jesus asks us all; the same question he asked of the crowd about to stone the woman caught in adultery.

Or, as a little Indian guy once said, “An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.” Extracting the full cost of people’s actions from them will make us all bankrupt.

Jesus paid the price for whatever sins you would accuse the ACN or the AAC or me or whoever committed. Jesus paid the price for your sins too. We all need to act as such. If not, we need to quit playing church, because we aren’t.

In any event, we’ve dialogged enough to know we aren’t going to change each others’ minds, but perhaps our posts have given something for folks out there to think about. I’ll give you the last word, as I’m giving you my response to your next post in advance, which is the ultimate act of Coon Ass tolerance: “Dat’s you.”


  1. 1 InNewark March 3, 2008 at 3:17 am

    May the Lord bless you, Brad, for your consistent witness in such a hostile place, and may He be praised for giving you the strength to do it.

  2. 2 carl March 3, 2008 at 12:24 pm

    Oh, this isn’t revenge, this is “tough reconciliation?”

    So the idea is to make conservatives pay full cost in the hope that they will realize their mistake and return to TEC? Do they honestly think that will happen? Or was this just eyewash to get past the charge of revenge?


  3. 3 Tregonsee March 3, 2008 at 2:35 pm

    There are certainly many churches who have not acted out of fear of The Wrath of TEC, and in fact have implicit or explicit policies of maintaining the pew potatoes in ignorance. The TEC church I used to attend, Our Lady of Laodicea, is one. I may have missed one, but so far as I know, there has not been a single parish which, after having been bested in court, said “OK, we will go back to TEC’s apostasy because we really can’t stand to part from our buildings.”

  4. 4 Hoya March 3, 2008 at 7:27 pm

    Now, now. Every one knows that people can leave but parishes cannot.

    A parish is a building that worships. A diocese is a groupd of worshipping buildings.

    I’m in favor of naming any replacement Anglican entity in North America after St. Lawrence. Now there was a saint who knew about the Church’s real treasure.

    P.S. — St. Lawrence was a deacon. When ordered by an invading force to give them the treasures of his church, he went into the streets, gathered the poor and the sick, and said, “These are the treasures of the Church.” Surprisingly, the invaders didn’t receive his news with enthusiasm, nor with any sense of humor. He was martyred.

  5. 5 Scott+ March 4, 2008 at 2:37 pm


    I looked up the Selected Entity Name: THE DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN MISSIONARY SOCIETY OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA on the New York web site. It shows no agent listed. What goes?

  6. 6 descant March 5, 2008 at 8:48 pm


    Serve the secretary of state since no agent is listed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: