Reed Dearing of Macclenny put senior St. Peter’s warden Sue Krall, also of Macclenny, on notice that it must vacate the property after services on Sunday. Mr. Dearing, a former local credit union executive and longtime Jacksonville area banker, said he would collect the keys and conduct an inventory ”” and that he was acting on authority of Bishop Johnson Howard.
“We obviously declined the ”˜request’ to take leave of the property at this time and in fact asked the Sheriff’s Office to watch the church building and prevent anyone from unlawfully entering without our permission,” said Ms. Krall in a memo this week to church members.
She characterized the “18-hour notice to depart” by Mr. Dearing as “less than gracious and certainly not in the spirit of working with fellow Christians…”
Ms. Krall termed Mr. Dearing’s ultimatum a surprise in light of a recent meeting with the diocese chancellor during which St. Peter’s sought 3-6 months for “a more planned, organized and reasonable departure.”
Mr. Dearing, for his part, backed off after St. Peter’s deacon Mike Webb requested time to re-set another meeting with the bishop’s representative and perhaps Rev. Howard. He was also confronted by Ms. Krall and Lin Taber of Glen St. Mary, whose family has been longtime members and benefactors of the church under both names.
“I was appalled it was carried out the way it was,” said Mr. Taber. “We want a reasonable amount of time and we still hadn’t heard anything official [from the Episcopal diocese] about vacating.”
The Episcopal church is one of the oldest denominations in Baker County, and before the Yellow Fever epidemic in the 1880s had a very prominent presence here. The former St. James was constructed about 50 years ago, though the property was deeded to the church in 1941.
Right before Christmas week – yet another good one for the PR campaign. One could dress Bishop Howard as the Grinch.
And didn’t the Grinch steal Christmas masquearding as a Christian bishop?
Heartless. Shameless.
Soulless.
And for years I’d been hearing how the institution formerly known as ECUSA was a “thinking person’s church” and a place for people “with class”. Uh-huh. Mr. Howard and his minions have given yet another example of how far removed from the Christian faith the institution formerly known as ECUSA has drifted. Nothing should surprise us now,
If you’re going to be a martyr, you have to be willing to pay the price of being a martyr.
Pitiful ……
Merry Christmas from your local TEC Diocese….
Thank you Bisop Duncan for your less than Christian actions and those of TEC. Our prayers are with those at St Peters…..The church has left us…..and for such lack of trust with those lay and clergy of your diocese that remains Orthodox is the reason we made our decision to leave our local parish and your diocese.
We shall begin our worship with our Brothers/Sisters in Christ at the New Grace Anglican Church in Orange Park (south of Jax) where there is trust and celebration of the scriptures….
Our prayers are with all who remain and those who made the decision to depart.
Green Cove Springs, FL
Very sad.
As the song goes, “They will know we are Christians by our love”…
Right, smuggs? Your posts are always oozing with love…
Ref# 8….Sorry, I meant Bishop Howard, not Bishop Duncan (too many blogs for this feeble mind)
Several years ago I opined on T19, at the onset of ECUSA’s legal attacks against orthodox Anglicans, that ECUSA is fatally confused regarding the strategic impact of its legal actions.
If ECUSA’s strategic goal is to have an ‘inclusive’ church that will give a long-term sense of ‘acceptance’ to GLBT persons seeking ‘inclusion’ of their active non-heterosexual life style, then ECUSA in its efforts must seek to maintain and even ‘grow’ its membership. Otherwise, ECUSA will become just another religious sect that will not grow, probably shrink, and which will not be sought out. It nwill not provide that south after sense of ‘acceptance.’
People are not drawn to those who would rather use a court room than ‘talk things over’ and who are known for conducting aggressive litigation.
Most people seeking a Christian church are looking for a body that bases its faith on Scripture and traditions that go back to the time when believers were temporally close to the Truth taught by Jesus Christ. They are looking for other people who share common spirtual beliefs/values based upon that “Truth’ and which are led by clergy who provide them with spiritual ‘food’ based upon that “Truth” and not secular politics. Certainly not secular politics that have led to acrimonious controversy, institutional uncertainty, law suits and schism.
“If you’re going to be a martyr, you have to be willing to pay the price of being a martyr’ —Smuggs
So we will.
And if you’re going to be truly reconciling and inclusive, you have to be willing to pay the price. ECUSA reconcilers are so set on their own way and bent on their own will that they will end up another moribund, dwindling liberal Protestant churchlet.
Maybe I am a pragmatist, but I think it would save everyone a lot of litigation to just abide by the name on the title of the deed. If it says ECUSA, then its ECUSA’s, if it says the Trustees, its the Trustees.
That or a big game of paper, rock, scissors.
“Like several others in the Jacksonville area, the Anglicans continued to use the [b]former Episcopal buildings and property[/b].”
Well, if they say so. Sounds good to me.
Keeping thinking that, Ire. Your former diocese was welcome to stay and not consecrate non-celibate homosexuals or bless same-sex relationships. That’s the inclusive part. And you can be welcomed back. That’s the reconciling part. But this “moribund, dwindling” part of your post, TEC has been hearing that refrain for time knows when and yet, here we are, after all these years. And although neither of us will be around long enough to tell (you’re no doubt older than I), I bet that the Episcopal Church far outlasts the Soutern Cone’s presence in the US.
Quite the bet there Smuggs, since Venables himself has said it’s only a temporary measure until the orthodox Americans form their own structure.
See [url=http://www.acn-us.org/archive/2007/12/separate-structure-next-week.html]http://www.acn-us.org/archive/2007/12/separate-structure-next-week.html[/url].
It will be interesting to see whether Common Cause can get it right – based upon AMiA’s early successes – a new orthodox Anglican juridiction has a great potential. The trend line for TEC has been bad all of my life and is worsening during a period of US population growth. Based upon the acrimony and impending departures and a bad age demographic base – TEC is nearly certain to get a lot smaller over the next decade – as +KJS says they tend to prefer not to reproduce. Things may go badly for the Orthodox – but at least their is Hope and the excitement of a new beginining.
#16, as you say: But this “moribund, dwindling†part of your post, TEC has been hearing that refrain for time knows when and yet, here we are, after all these years.”
However, the remnant existing now, is at best, only 1/3 of the high water mark ECUSA reached in the early 1960s of over 6 million folk.
What happended to them, eh?
I would posit that they left, and continue to leave, dur to the remorseless string of disruptive, non-Christian acts and statements by the leaders of the church. First, it was Pike, the WO being snuck through in the dark of night, then the 1979 prayer book & the 1982 hymnal, then Spong’s & Righter’s heresy, then VGR, then Feminist liturgy to worship Gaea and the female body, then EpiscoDruid and EpiscoMuslim priests, then open communion, then TEC priests and bishops who privately comment on their disbelief of the Nicene Creed.
Of course, TEC is still in existance. So it will for some time to come, as it has a huge endowment to play with.
But, where are the new people? Mission outreach and evangelism is getting it done for TEC just now, is it? The place is thriving across the board, eh? Parishes are not being closed then?
GC originally gave their word that those who could not for conscience sake, ordain women as priests, be allowed to refrain from doing so. Now however, GC has done a 180, failed to keep their word and so now, WO is mandatory in TEC.
Based on this track record, just how long should folk expect that your statement: “…welcome to stay and not consecrate non-celibate homosexuals or bless same-sex relationships.” will stand as official TEC policy?
Hmm?
Your former diocese was welcome to stay and not consecrate non-celibate homosexuals or bless same-sex relationships. That’s the inclusive part.
Gee, smuggs, does that inclusive part extend to letting them not ordain women? I didn’t think so. How long before the same demand for justice is extended to mandating all dioceses to “recognize” the dignity of homosexuals? 2009, 2012?
I hate it when I find my posts redundant. 🙂
Hathaway, surely you know that the canons are quite clear that one cannot discriminate against women. The canons are also quite clear that one cannot discriminate against sexual ORIENTATION. BEHAVIOR is not mentioned and I think that this was done on purpose. Thus dioceses that choose not to ordain non-celibate homosexuals can maintain their position based on the canons and those that do decide to ordain non-celibate homosexuals can. So there you go! Inclusive. To quote you: “Gee.”
[blockquote] until the orthodox Americans form their own structure. [/blockquote]
And then they’ll be as well known as some of those other splinter groups. No dice.
Smuggs,
Behavior is not mentioned in the canons, NOW.
Things always can change. That’s the only constant these days in TEC. I mean, c’mon, you’ve got a bishop whose behavior can’t be impeached, can it? So why shopuld his behavior continue to be a bar against ordination? It’s only just, right?
And you have only been bullsh*ting us with your inclusive line, right?
The canons also say that only baptized Christians can receive the eucharist in an Episcopal church… but how often have we seen that ignored? TEC is very selective as to which canon it will obey and which it will ignore.
Of course, the General Convention can always (and has in the past) amend, delete, add or modify any canon to suit its purpose.
That’s the problem with elevating canon over Scripture:
It has a foundation of shifting, sinking sand.
Jim Elliott
“TEC has been hearing that refrain for time knows when and yet, here we are, after all these years” —Smuggs
Yes, present, dwindling, and increasing moribund.
ECUSA revisionists have been saying for decades that the church needs to take its agenda from the world, throw the excess baggage of Christian orthodoxy overboard, and—by offering its own version of elite secular culture—stand ready to welcome a huge influx of politically correct new members. It hasn’t happened and it won’t.
ECUSA dwindled steadily during the 1980s. It dwindled steadily during the 1990s. And it has dwindled ever since, with membership loss accelerating since GC 2003 even in ECUSA’s official statistics.
Your boast, Smuggs, comes down to this: that you are not yet extinct.
Smuggs, have you ever been in the midst of Anglicans who wholly embrace Scripture and tradition, who have truly witnessed the blessings/miracles of charismatic belief and who completely embrace the Sacrements passed on to the church by Jesus Christ, His disciples and the early church fathers?
Have you ever witnessed the invocation of the Holy Spirit and His miracles of tangible and provable healing?
Do you realize that the personal Salvation of each of us through Christ depends first on belief and then on a soul-felt change in personal behavior that is consistent with one’s acceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior?
Smuggs, it is not my place to judge, but I perceive that your ‘smugness’ comes from a defective understanding of our Savior Jesus Christ.
Your boast, Smuggs, comes down to this: that you are not yet extinct.
“I can’t be mortal. I’m not dead”.
The theological equivalent of “I can’t be broke. I still have checks.”
RE: “. . . “moribund, dwindling†part of your post, TEC has been hearing that refrain for time knows when and yet, here we are, after all these years.”
Heh heh heh . . . a very rich rich statement there. ; > )
RE: “Hathaway, surely you know that the canons are quite clear that one cannot discriminate against women.”
Uh, right — like Hathaway said . . . “Gee, smuggs, does that inclusive part extend to letting them not ordain women?” And as it’s been pointed out, those canons were changed, as will be the canons regarding “orientation” . . .
But as Hathaway also pointed out, the whole “inclusion” thing is just a silly rhetorical fraud anyway.