Kendall Harmon: Lambeth Questions (IV)

Earlier we noted a blog entry from the Bishop of Lichfield about Lambeth 2008 in which he said:

We are told that in the lawsuits in America between parishes and their dioceses it is the dioceses who are the defendants and the conservative parishes who are the accusers.


This led one of our blog readers to write the bishop to correct this misinformation. As A. S. Haley has shown comprehensively, the facts are entirely the opposite of this assertion cited by the Bishop of Lichfield.

We now know from conversations with bishops at Lambeth that this was not something isolated to the Bishop of Lichfield, but that other bishops at Lambeth were given this misinformation as well. This raises disturbing questions, namely, who were the TEC bishops giving out this misinformation? And perhaps more important: can we look for reappraising blogs and leaders who claim to care about justice to denounce the injustice of spreading untruths like this at a once a decade bishops meeting? Who were the bishops providing this misinformation and why were they doing so? Can we look for them to come clean and apologize?

And perhaps most importantly, can we look for a denunciation from the national leadership of this unchristian practice at a Christian meeting? TEC often prides itself on its “prophetic” witness, but a close reading of the prophets shows that almost nothing concerns them more than dishonesty and lack of truth–KSH.


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, * By Kendall, * Culture-Watch, Episcopal Church (TEC), Lambeth 2008, Law & Legal Issues, TEC Bishops

29 comments on “Kendall Harmon: Lambeth Questions (IV)

  1. TACit says:

    An important, worthwhile post.
    (“TEC often [b]provides[/b] itself on its “prophetic” witness, ……” [b]prides[/b]?)

  2. AnglicanFirst says:

    “We now know from conversations with bishops at Lambeth that this was not something isolated to the Bishop of Lichfield, but that other bishops at Lambeth were given this misinformation as well.”

    “Misinformation” is a polite word for outright lies.

    If ECUSAn bishops participated in such “misinformation” or ‘abetted’ the ‘misinformers’ then what can be done about their dishonest acts?

    The first step, is to explicitly identify them by name and then to ‘call out’ their names to the entire Anglican Communion in the most feasible public manner. This glare of publicity will reveal the duplicitous dihonesty of those guilty revisionist bishops for all to see.

    The dishonesty of ECUSA’s revisionist movement has been apparrent to those ‘with ears’ and ‘with eyes’ for quite some time. It is amazing that only a few bishops within the Communion have publically ‘called’ the revisionists on their lies.

    I for one, at some risk to my career, have publically refused to do business with cleverly manipulative and sometimes blatant liars from within my own professional community.

    Maybe its time for the Communion’s honest bishops to shun the ‘misinformers.’ Maybe its time for “no more Mister Nice Guy.”

  3. Creighton+ says:

    Don’t hold your breathe….

  4. Sick & Tired of Nuance says:

    Well, if the Arch Bishop of Canterbury has [i]any[/i] integrity, he should be at the front of the line using all of his resources to correct this false impression, identifying the perpetrators, and publicly rebuking them for their lies.

    [blockquote][i][b]Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.[/i][/b]
    1 Tim 5:20 [speaking of Bishops discipline][/blockquote]

    Holding breath now…starting to fell faint…turning blue…spots in front of eyes…vision blurring…going dark now…aaaagh…………

  5. Sick & Tired of Nuance says:

    That’s “feel faint”.

  6. Sick & Tired of Nuance says:

    For that matter, the Bishop of Lichfield should be shouting loudly that he was deceived and naming the name[s] of those who lied to him if he has any integrity.

  7. Sarah1 says:

    The same folks who said we weren’t doing same sex blessings, and the same folks who claimed they were “conservative.”

  8. pendennis88 says:

    Has the Bishop of Lichfield responded? Has he corrected his blog? Or perhaps could he have known it was untrue when he repeated it? It would be nice of him to clarify.

  9. Sarah1 says:

    What should really warm all of our hearts though is that we know that they know that:

    1) doing same sex blessings ain’t good
    2) being “conservative” is
    3) and suing parishes is frowned upon.

    Hence . . . the lies saying otherwise.

  10. Sick & Tired of Nuance says:

    Sarah, you have a beautiful mind.

    Thank you.

  11. Albeit says:

    Why are we surprised given the pitiful spiritual state of TEC these days?

  12. Jeffersonian says:

    Let’s be charitable here: Maybe these bishops aren’t lying, maybe they’re sick and can no longer tell truth from falsehood. That would go a long way in explaining the state of TEC these days. Let us get these men and women the help they need.

  13. libraryjim says:

    Sick & Tired,
    Your spelling errors can be forgiven as you were typing while holding your breath and feeling faint. 🙂

  14. Undergroundpewster says:

    If we leave the word “lawsuit” out of the statement we start seeing a basic truth,
    [blockquote]”dioceses who are the defendants and the conservative parishes who are the accusers.”[/blockquote]
    Dioceses are defending their strange new teachings, and conservative parishes are accusing the Diocesean leaders of abandoning the faith of our fathers.

  15. RalphM says:

    As KJS has demonstrated repeatedly, “TECtruth” is whatever she says it is… TECtruth allows canons to be misapplied and ignored. TECtruth allows scripture to be misinterpreted to fit the agenda.

  16. miserable sinner says:

    +Litchfield states:
    [i]”And so it goes on—over this and many other topics. For each disputed area both sides have a reasonable case and are convinced that the other side has got hold of a caricature about them.[/i]


  17. Ian+ says:

    Reminds me of the leadership at All Saints’, Pawley’s Island, SC, who allegedly, repeatedly said that Bp Salmon of SC was suing them so that the diocese could hold on to parish property, which is of course untrue.

  18. dwstroudmd+ says:

    Truthiness is not the same as truth. I am sure that there was lots and lots and lots of truthiness at Lambeth by ECUSA/TEC/GC/EO-PAC bishops and support staff and VGR and Susan Russell and the whole vanguard of truthiness. On the same plane of truthiness as Davis MacIllya as exposed by non-Episcopal tenders when attacked in return for truth. You know, the usual trustworthy truthiness of the PB, the GC, the EC, and all the folks continuing on the gay agenda fulfilment which is this day’s gozpel.

  19. Athanasius Returns says:

    Canon Harmon, I feel badly that answers to your questions have not been forthcoming in the 8 or so hours since your original post, so, I’ll boldly glimpse into the revisionists’ world of shadows.

    [blockquote]who were the TEC bishops giving out this misinformation? [/blockquote] This side of glory, we’ll never know.

    [blockquote]Who were the bishops providing this misinformation and why were they doing so?[/blockquote]

    This side of glory, we’ll never know.

    [blockquote]Can we look for them to come clean and apologize?[/blockquote]

    No, if previous behavior is an indicator of ongoing intent and future action.

    [blockquote]can we look for a denunciation from the national leadership of this unchristian practice at a Christian meeting?[/blockquote]

    No, if previous behavior is an indicator of ongoing intent and future action; however, this is where your rhetorical query ought to be posed directly and formally to 815 and Lambeth. AnglicanFirst has an excellent point there.

    Here, above all the other examples of revisionist mendacity is a clear instance that so demonstrates their abject lack of scruples even to those unaware of the details of the Anglican “troubles”.

  20. BabyBlue says:

    I was asked about this by one of the English bishops when I was at Lambeth. He took me aside and asked me if we had sued first – that this was what they were being told during the Lambeth Conference. I made it very clear to him that TEC and the Diocese of Virginia sued us first.

    I have on video Bishop O’Neil of Colorado saying the same type of things at a TEC Press Conference (I don’t think I’ve posted that video – I’ll check tonight). In fact, he said it to me personally after the press conference as well, when I asked him a few more questions. I immediately told him that this was not true and I should know – I was one of the ones personally sued by The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia and I haven’t sued anyone. That stopped him short.


  21. Jeffersonian says:

    So, we have one of the retail distributors of TECrapola identified, and it really shouldn’t shock anyone. Bob O’Neill seems to be operating at the same level of integrity as always.

  22. Athanasius Returns says:

    OK. This is bad enough a CCP and/or GAFCON official ought to make a public request for TEC to come clean, and to censure the liar(s).

  23. Baruch says:

    #20 This is hardly the first time O’Neil has been caught lying. Perhaps as KJS’s not-so-secret agent #000 it is a basic part of his training.

  24. Don Armstrong says:

    Baby Blue…even George Carey tried to get Rob O’Neill to sit down to attempt reconciliation with our parish and with me…but Rob refused.

    He refused to meet also with representatives of a group of 450 parishioners who signed a petition asking to visit with him…saying he didn’t meet with factions…all the while he was meeting regularly with a small liberal group who wanted to impose their minority position on the parish.

    So his claim of attempts to meet with us to reconcile simply are not true. His anger and cruel statements in the meetings my attorney and I had with him were stunning.

    And to make the point one more time…we simply asked the court for relief after he, inhibited the rector (me) based on untrue accusations, froze church bank accounts and trusts, and announced that he was replacing the vestry…he then sued the parish, individual members of the vestry and parish, and me.

  25. Pb says:

    After all, liars are a part of the diversity of God’s creation and they should be included in all levels of church governance. That is what I learned from my dialogue.

  26. Christopher Johnson says:

    You’d think actual Christians shouldn’t be able to lie through their teeth that effortlessly.

  27. palagious says:

    Part of the TEC talking points, no doubt. However, it begs a larger question. Why are Bishops of the CoE so poorly informed about the affairs of their denomination? Is the internet not available in the UK? With all this information at one’s fingertips, to include the actual legal case history and findings, it staggers the imagination to believe the “bat blindness” of some of these Bishops. Bishops from African Provinces seem to have a grasp of the situation with far less access to information.

  28. teddy mak says:

    #20, 21, 23 in re Rob O’Neill
    The absolute effrontery of this man who, among all of the TEC abusers of legal process is the most stark example, is mind numbing. Just when you think he cannot commit worse outrages, he rises to the occasion by lying at a world conference of bishops. Unbelievable.

  29. Sidney says:

    Oh please – enough of the sanctimony. The only reason any parish isn’t ‘accusing’ is that they’ve got the property.

    To put this argument to rest, the dioceses should just break in to the breakaway churches, occupy them and change the locks to prevent the reasserters from using those buildings. Might even post armed guards there to back it up.

    My guess is that you’d see plenty of conservative parishes becoming ‘accusers.’