Wow. Stunning duplicity. Fantastic find by someone with a great gift for attention to detail. Glad this came into the light. No not surprised, but yes still saddened.
I find this passage from Proverbs coming to mind. Such hypocrisy will rouse God’s hatred. And I pity anyone against whom it is kindled. I know all too well the deadly snare and the death to one’s soul caused by deceit. It was a sin I struggled with for years before the Lord graciously helped me to repent and learn to find freedom in Him. I am grieved to see TEC trapped in the enemy’s snare and publicly promoting deceit.
Prov 6:16-19
There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.
(NIV)
Wow. Stunning duplicity. Fantastic find by someone with a great gift for attention to detail. Glad this came into the light. No not surprised, but yes still saddened.
I find this passage from Proverbs coming to mind. Such hypocrisy will rouse God’s hatred. And I pity anyone against whom it is kindled. I know all too well the deadly snare and the death to one’s soul caused by deceit. It was a sin I struggled with for years before the Lord graciously helped me to repent and learn to find freedom in Him. I am grieved to see TEC trapped in the enemy’s snare and publicly promoting deceit.
Prov 6:16-19
There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.
(NIV)
Repeating my post on BB and the Curmudgeon:
[blockquote]
Humpty Dumpty: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.
Alice: The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things.
Humpty Dumpty: The question is: which is to be master – that’s all.
[/blockquote]
john1
Should TEC find it necessary to institute civil court proceedings against Bp. Duncan or the Pittsburgh standing committee (or San Joaquin, for that matter), one might guess that the court will find this a most interesting dichotomy.
“Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!”
-Sir Walter Scott, Marmion
Baruch: David Booth Beers may just be making the best arguments he can for the positions his clients are taking. If Beers is taking the lead on the legal advice he is giving the PB (i.e. recommending the current course) then I think he ought to face a malpractice suit. But I think it much more likely that the PB is commanding Beers to come up with legal rationalizations for her actions, and Beers (whether or not he is egging her on) is coming up with the best rationalizations he can.
I second what jamesw (#9) said.
Remember, lawyers are paid to represent their clients, not themselves. They should be able to muster arguments for the positions of their clients. They may advise their clients on certain courses of action, but they cannot force them. DBB may have urged +KJS to settle. We will never know. But once her course of action is set, it is DBB’s responsibility to argue for it as strongly as possible. So, I don’t see DBB as the hypocrit here. TECUSA is the major culprit when it demands “whole membership” to be interpreted one way when it suits them and another when it doesn’t.
Kudos to A.S. Haley for exposing this extraordinary forked-tongue fandango.
Beers may well have recognized that someone would see and pounce on this inconsistency. Might that explain why ECUSA conceded this aspect of the Virginia case?
“David Booth Beers may just be making the best arguments he can for the positions his clients are taking” [#9]
Maybe so. But as chancellor of ECUSA, Beers is not simply a secular lawyer, not just the presiding bishop’s hired gun.
No church official is free to tell outright lies about the meaning of church canons. The KJS-Beers reinterpretation of the deposition canon is so unfounded, so preposterous, that it amounts to an outright lie.
Beers bears moral responsibility for how he as a church official expounds (and urges KJS to expound) church rules.
Is anyone surprised?
Wow. Stunning duplicity. Fantastic find by someone with a great gift for attention to detail. Glad this came into the light. No not surprised, but yes still saddened.
I find this passage from Proverbs coming to mind. Such hypocrisy will rouse God’s hatred. And I pity anyone against whom it is kindled. I know all too well the deadly snare and the death to one’s soul caused by deceit. It was a sin I struggled with for years before the Lord graciously helped me to repent and learn to find freedom in Him. I am grieved to see TEC trapped in the enemy’s snare and publicly promoting deceit.
Prov 6:16-19
There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.
(NIV)
Wow. Stunning duplicity. Fantastic find by someone with a great gift for attention to detail. Glad this came into the light. No not surprised, but yes still saddened.
I find this passage from Proverbs coming to mind. Such hypocrisy will rouse God’s hatred. And I pity anyone against whom it is kindled. I know all too well the deadly snare and the death to one’s soul caused by deceit. It was a sin I struggled with for years before the Lord graciously helped me to repent and learn to find freedom in Him. I am grieved to see TEC trapped in the enemy’s snare and publicly promoting deceit.
Prov 6:16-19
There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.
(NIV)
Repeating my post on BB and the Curmudgeon:
[blockquote]
Humpty Dumpty: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.
Alice: The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things.
Humpty Dumpty: The question is: which is to be master – that’s all.
[/blockquote]
john1
Should TEC find it necessary to institute civil court proceedings against Bp. Duncan or the Pittsburgh standing committee (or San Joaquin, for that matter), one might guess that the court will find this a most interesting dichotomy.
“Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!”
-Sir Walter Scott, Marmion
Maybe this explains why TEC is no longer persuing this line of argument in the Virginia cases?
RandomJoe: Bingo!
Janus.
Could it be used for dis-barment? One can only hope perhaps including a defrocking of guess who!
Baruch: David Booth Beers may just be making the best arguments he can for the positions his clients are taking. If Beers is taking the lead on the legal advice he is giving the PB (i.e. recommending the current course) then I think he ought to face a malpractice suit. But I think it much more likely that the PB is commanding Beers to come up with legal rationalizations for her actions, and Beers (whether or not he is egging her on) is coming up with the best rationalizations he can.
I second what jamesw (#9) said.
Remember, lawyers are paid to represent their clients, not themselves. They should be able to muster arguments for the positions of their clients. They may advise their clients on certain courses of action, but they cannot force them. DBB may have urged +KJS to settle. We will never know. But once her course of action is set, it is DBB’s responsibility to argue for it as strongly as possible. So, I don’t see DBB as the hypocrit here. TECUSA is the major culprit when it demands “whole membership” to be interpreted one way when it suits them and another when it doesn’t.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Kudos to A.S. Haley for exposing this extraordinary forked-tongue fandango.
Beers may well have recognized that someone would see and pounce on this inconsistency. Might that explain why ECUSA conceded this aspect of the Virginia case?
“David Booth Beers may just be making the best arguments he can for the positions his clients are taking” [#9]
Maybe so. But as chancellor of ECUSA, Beers is not simply a secular lawyer, not just the presiding bishop’s hired gun.
No church official is free to tell outright lies about the meaning of church canons. The KJS-Beers reinterpretation of the deposition canon is so unfounded, so preposterous, that it amounts to an outright lie.
Beers bears moral responsibility for how he as a church official expounds (and urges KJS to expound) church rules.