Various Online References to SEAD

P C T I I Newsletter #2

Summer 1993

Second Start

On hand for events of Brighton ‘91, Dr. Christopher Hancock co-chairs with Dr. David Scott an organization known as SEAD (Scholarly Engagement with Anglican Doctrine) which last met March 15-17, 1993 at Virginia Theological Seminary. Endorsed by Archbishop Carey, SEAD is composed of seven study groups: Anglican Studies, Biblical Studies, Ethics, Evangelism, Theology, Spirituality, and the Church’s Pastoral Ministry. For further information, contact one of the chairs through 704-370-6234 fax.

http://www.pctii.org/pctii2.html

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2004/1/13/ACNS3737

Anglican Communion News Service

North American conservatives and global South Anglicans seek discipline of ECUSA

Posted On : January 13, 2004 1:19 PM | Posted By : Webmaster
ACNS: ACNS3737
Related Categories: USA

Archbishop Drexel Gomez, Primate of the Province of the West Indies, was among the speakers who stirred the "Future of the Anglican Communion" conference meeting January 8-9 in Charleston, South Carolina, with calls for disciplinary action against the Episcopal Church, USA, (ECUSA) for its stance on homosexuality and the interpretation of scripture and tradition. "In Anglicanism today there does not exist a mechanism for dealing with our problems," said Archbishop Gomez. "The time has come to introduce such a mechanism into our common life."

The Revd Peter Walker of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University, described a growing "archway" of interest between Anglicans of the global South and North American conservatives, which he said becomes stronger each day, regardless of any future involvement by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams.

"This is the picture I have in mind," said Mr Walker. "The question is whether Canterbury will be the keystone of the arch, or will it be left out."

The Revd Christopher Green, vice-principal of Oak Hill Theological College in London, declared, "There are very senior figures among evangelical circles in Great Britain who would like to say to you [traditionalist Episcopalians], 'Elect your own Presiding Bishop and force Rowan Williams to choose.'"

"By the end of 2004 there may be a situation on the ground" of provinces terminating communion with ECUSA that is so extensive that Dr Williams will have no choice but to deal with it, said the Revd Ephraim Radner, one of the speakers.

Mr Radner, a former missionary to Burundi who is now rector of Church of the Ascension in Pueblo, Colorado, and a senior fellow with the Anglican Communion Institute, said, "The more important thing is not the case against the Episcopal Church but who we are as an Anglican Communion. The reality of discipline is not some legal issue, it is an aspect of life in communion."

Up to date

The conference, held at historic downtown St Philip's Church, was sponsored by the Anglican Communion Institute, recently formed from the merger of the Colorado-based Anglican Institute and SEAD (Scholarly Engagement with Anglican Doctrine), headquartered in Charleston.

It was attended by a mixture of scholars, conservative activists, and ordinary clergy and laity hoping to get some idea of what lies ahead for the church.

The agenda and conference title, which had originally been "Claiming Our Anglican Identity," were changed in light of recent developments, to make it as up to date as possible, said the Revd Christopher Seitz, president of the Anglican Communion Institute. Mr Seitz, professor of Old Testament at St Mary's College at St Andrew's University, Scotland, was formerly professor of Old Testament at Yale Divinity School.

Disregard of theology

A panel of Anglican scholars from the US and Great Britain presented lectures to add to what they said is a growing body of theological literature purporting to demonstrate why it is wrong to ordain homosexuals or to condone blessings of same-sex couples.

"One of our challenges is to disseminate these well-thought-out published arguments" bolstering the traditionalist case, said Mr Radner. "Many people have not heard of this scholarship."

"The authorities in ECUSA are not interested in sound theology," Archbishop Gomez insisted. Leaders of the American Episcopal Church are driven by purely secular agendas, he said, adding, "We must force the authorities of ECUSA to face up to" what he termed are the actual theological issues.

"The battle is on, and we must not allow ignorance to prevail," he declared. He cited as an example of ECUSA's disregard of theology the comment of an unidentified female priest, "God doesn't care what you do, only who you are."

Objective truth

The Revd Thomas A Smail, senior visiting research fellow at King's College, London, delivered a lecture titled "Cappadocia Comes to Canterbury," in which he said the ascended Christ challenges the spirit of the age.

Contemporary culture, he argued, "stops looking for objective truth, but for affirming lifestyle-looking not for the truth but for my truth." But God's judgment continues to be pronounced on what we do, he said. "There is a truth out there not of our making or choosing, to which we are accountable."

Mr Smail insisted, "The radical agenda seizes on talking about the Holy Spirit without talking about Christ; hence no salvation, no redemption."

The Revd David McCarthy, rector of a fast-growing parish in Glasgow, Scotland, described a complex local polity in which some churches own their own property. He said orthodox Anglicans are a persecuted minority in the Scottish Episcopal Church. "We need to stand together internationally. There is a battle within the church. But let's not want the power. Let's be like Jesus. Let's not be like the people leading our church," McCarthy said.

Anglican Church of Canada bishop Anthony Burton of Saskatchewan said Canada is undergoing a much more rapid secularization than in the United States. "It is very difficult for Canadian orthodox Anglicans to discern what practical steps to take," he said.

Looking for ways to proceed

Several participants in the conference said they were there to seek answers as to the church's future direction.

The Revd Richard Brigham, rector of St Andrew's-in-the-Pines, Peachtree City, Georgia, said, "I'm looking for ways in which I and my parish can proceed." He said that he and his congregation are in a minority in the Diocese of Atlanta, where the bishop voted at General Convention to approve the election of Gene Robinson, a priest living openly in a relationship with another man, as bishop coadjutor of New Hampshire.

"We want to establish a relationship with the authentic expression of the Episcopal Church," said Mr Brigham. "Issues of property ownership are crucial right now as well. I think the legal phase is just beginning. My opinion is that title should rest with the local church, but the US courts look upon dioceses as corporations. It's the laity who have been so devastated by this. The bishops who voted aye on Robinson were out of touch with their laity."

The Revd Robert Marsh, chaplain at Episcopal High School, Jacksonville, Florida, said, "It was good to be able to put faces to the names I've read on documents such as Claiming our Anglican Identity, True Union in the Body, and Mending the Net. I liked hearing them articulate their arguments. That was worth the trip. I don't know that I learned anything new about strategy of the Southern Cone folks. I liked it that they changed the agenda to fit where the church is these days."

The Revd M Filmore Strunk, rector of St Margaret's Church, Charlotte, North Carolina, which he characterized as "evangelical Catholic," said, "The thing that most crystallized the conference for me was Seitz saying he realized how Americans are different from the British when he began to try to understand the game of cricket as compared to American basketball, where fouling may be part of the strategy.

"For Anglicanism to work there has to be a deep mutual humility. We're not a curial church but a conciliar church," Mr Strunk went on. "For us to be ourselves, our theology must be done in community, and that's what we broke. We've decided to go our own way in arrogance, thinking we know better than anyone else."

Tom E Myers Jr and Lynn Pagliaro of Charleston, lay members of the steering committee of the Episcopal Forum of South Carolina, a "via media" group hoping to keep the Episcopal Church together, were two men very much in the minority at this gathering. "I don't hear any talk of love here," said Mr Myers. "All that I hear is warlike metaphors and desire for power."

No Communion without discipline

One speaker, retired Berkeley Divinity School at Yale dean Philip Turner, said, "If the primates and Rowan Williams are prepared to exercise some discipline on the American Episcopal Church and the Diocese of New Westminster in Canada, then we will continue to have an Anglican Communion."

He said that a second possibility is development of a federation, "in which no one leaves, but we all do as we please, which is what [US Presiding Bishop] Frank Griswold wants."

A third possible development, he warned, is a north-south split along racial lines, "which would be horrendous."

Peter Walker pointed out that the climate is different now than in 1988, when an earlier Eames Commission studied the implications of the ordination of women to the episcopate and predicted a period of reception of the idea. "The Communion has to understand that we are now in a period of non-reception. We must take the high ground and not give in. We must not get off the ship. This is a very difficult time," Mr Walker observed.

Ephraim Radner suggested that discipline might take the form of a "reduction in status" for ECUSA to the level of observer in the Communion.

"I don't think that the Nairobi proposal is lost," he noted. Recognition of "orthodox" bishops as the sole religious authorities in the church was something envisioned by the Nairobi report, Steps of Discipline, prepared by conservative theologians for the mid-October 2003 special meeting of the primates in London. "It is nonsense that we can do nothing because there are no present structures for action," he declared.

Gomez said, "My own opinion is that discipline should be applied to all bishops who voted aye on Gene Robinson and all who co-consecrated him."

The present crisis "poses a threat to our Catholic tradition," Gomez charged. He said the negative reaction of other Christian groups, in withdrawing from ecumenical talks with Anglicans and Episcopalians, "makes it clear that actions of ECUSA contradict our catholicity."

Awaiting Canterbury Commission report

Most speakers stressed the need to wait for the report of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Commission, appointed by Rowan Williams in late October 2003. Its main task would be to provide advice on dealing with the situation that now threatens to divide the Anglican Communion. It is to begin its work on February 9 and conclude by September 20.

Archbishop Gomez is a member of the Commission, which is chaired by Archbishop Robin Eames, Primate of All Ireland, and has a membership of 17 persons.

Archbishop Gomez told the Charleston conference that the global South does not want to attend any more meetings to discuss sex. "The Anglican Communion stated its position on sex at the Lambeth Conference," he said. "This new commission will talk about structure. We are aware that so much rides on our recommendations."

Asked whether non-Western parties will be willing to wait that long, Archbishop Gomez replied, "I think that our Communion has made a wonderful contribution to the practice of Christianity, and it would be a shame to break it. I don't believe that our brethren in the global South will just break camp and leave, but they are not prepared to compromise. After September, figures such as Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria will want some definite action."

Anglican Consultative Council called racist

"Many of our brothers in the global South resent that the minority North still controls the Anglican Communion and sets the agenda for meetings," said Archbishop Gomez. "We must break the stranglehold of this monster called the Anglican Consultative Council. Many of us feel that cultural sensitivity is lacking at the Anglican Consultative Council in London, that there is a lack of respect of persons. It is impossible to avoid this implication.

"There is the feeling that although we people of color are present, we are not fully accepted. That is painful because we believe we are fully brothers and sisters and want to walk together," he declared.

The Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), established in 1968, is a 69-member representative assembly composed of bishops, priests, deacons, lay adults and youth from all churches of the Anglican Communion. Representation in the ACC is based on church membership: churches with over one million members are entitled to three representatives, those with over 250,000 are allowed two representatives, and those under 250,000 are allowed one representative.

Tensions have surfaced between the ACC, the only one of the four "instruments of unity" in the Communion that includes the laity, and the Primates' Meeting, which the ACC predates by ten years. At the 1998 Lambeth Conference, the bishops asked that the ACC be made up of every primate as well as one presbyter and person from each province, but at its next meeting the ACC declined to make the change, citing budgetary limitations. The decision was said implicitly to repudiate efforts to increase primatial presence on the Council.

Dallas Bishop James Stanton, in a panel discussion, spoke briefly about the newly formed Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, whose memorandum of agreement has been signed by 13 American bishops and which is scheduled to hold a "charter meeting" January 19-20 in Dallas. "It does not yet exist in any identifiable form," he said. "Its membership might exist of bishops, dioceses, parishes, or individuals."

One provision of the memorandum is that the network's moderator, Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan, is directed to "take necessary steps to obtain recognition of the Network from Anglican primates and provinces."

In response to a question about similarities between the American Anglican Council (AAC) and the Network, Mr Seitz replied that the AAC is a group whose work is limited strictly to the United States.

Article from: Episcopal News Service
The Revd Canon E T Malone Jr is a freelance writer living in Chapel Hill, North Carolina

On "core" doctrine: Some possibly relevant soundings

Anglican Theological Review,  Spring 1998  by Hefling, Charles

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3818/is_199804/ai_n8793164/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

http://www.leanderharding.com/blog/david-scott/

David Scott

The Rev. David A. Scott, Ph.D. was born and raised in New England. He graduated from St. George’s School; Amherst College (B.A.); The Episcopal Theological School (M. Th.); Princeton University (Ph.D.). Dr. Scott also studied for one year at Tuebingen University, in Germany. He is ordained in the Episcopal Church. After serving two years as a missionary in Liberia, West Africa, he taught, first at Dartmouth College, then at The Episcopal Theological School, and , for thirty years, at Virginia Theological School, in Alexandria, Virginia, USA. Christian doctrine, Christian morality and Anglican moral theology and their relations to contemporary global culture, were and remain his chief academic interests. In 1989, Dr. Scott co-founded SEAD (Scholarly Engagement with Anglican Doctrine), a nonprofit organization promoting the study and application of classical Anglican doctrine and furthering younger scholars committed to classical Christian orthodoxy. Dr. Scott has traveled extensively throughout the United States, teaching in local parishes and other church centers. As guest teacher, Dr. Scott has taught courses and lectured in Cambridge, England; Tokyo; Hong Kong; and Seoul.

Recently retired, Dr. Scott lives with his German wife in Bavaria, southern Germany. There he is active in the local Lutheran congregation, preaching and teaching. In addition to teaching and writing regularly, Dr. Scott enjoys studying Chinese language and painting in the Chinese style. He is a member of a local sports group and a local hospital-calling group He and his wife travel regularly to the States to visit their children and also travel throughout Europe and Asia.

David Scott
Am Bahnhofplatz 5 A
82418 Murnau, German

davidscott1234@aol.com

Amazon reference to 1997 publication:

http://www.amazon.com/Rule-Faith-Scripture-Canon-Critical/dp/0819217417

http://www.religioustolerance.org/div_epis.htm

Scholarly Engagement with Anglican Doctrine, (SEAD) is a group  composed mainly of conservative Anglican academics. They feel that "Historic Anglicanism contains a remarkable tradition of godly scholarship, learned debate, creative thought and enriching diversity. In our own age this tradition is in jeopardy. Many thoughtful Episcopalians find theology politicized, biblical teaching marginalized, diversity ---and consequently creativity, scholarship and depth of theological reflection--- impoverished." They hope to reverse these trends. ₁₂

12. Scholarly Engagement with Anglican Doctrine at: http://www.stmatts.com/sead/ They can be contacted at:

	Postal address: SEAD, 126 Coming St., Charleston SC, 29403
	Phone: (843) 224-9161
	FAX: (
	E-mail: SEADHarvest@aol.com

http://www.adventbirmingham.org/articles.asp?ID=159

IN DEPTH: SEAD 2001: The Nicene Creed in a Post-Modern World
by Valerie Gartseff

http://listserv.episcopalian.org/wa.exe?A2=ind9903&L=virtuosity&H=1&P=3450

Upcoming SEAD Conference April 8-10, 1999

SEAD is sponsoring a conference April 8-10, 1999, entitled "Praying Our

Faith: Celebrating 450 Years of the Book of Common Prayer, 1549-1999" The

opening address will be given by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. George

Carey. The conference will take place at the Cathedral Church of St. Luke

and St. Paul in Charleston, South Carolina.

In general, the schedule for the Conference includes:

April 8th, Thursday afternoon, 4 p.m.-Pre-conference meditation.

April 8th, Thursday evening, 7 p.m.-The conference begins at 7 p.m. with an

address by Dr. Carey. He will also speak at the closing panel Saturday late

morning.

There will be talks Friday 9am-3:15pm with a lunch break; Saturday 9am-1pm

(conference ends around 1pm)

The talks will include discussion of the theology of Cranmer's collects;

the role of history and tradition in recent liturgical revision; looking at

doctrine as taught in the BCP (using atonement and justification as

examples).

Tapes will be available after the conference.

The SEAD office will be closed over Easter and until after the conference.

thus, registrations must be mailed by March 25, 1999. E-mails sent after

March 30 will not be retrieved until after the conference. Also, hotel

space is almost full.

For more information, or if you have any questions, please contact Tricia

Vaughn, Executive Director of SEAD by telephoning her at 703-461-1739 or

e-mailing her at [log in to unmask]

For more information about SEAD (Scholarly Engagement With Anglican

Doctrine), please visit their Web site at: http://www.vts.edu/sead/

END

http://www.wycliffecollege.ca/documents/Insight_Dec98.html

SEAD event

This past June, Wycliffe College sponsored and hosted the second annual conference of the Canadian chapter of SEAD (Scholarly Engagement with Anglican Doctrine), the movement for "dynamic orthodoxy" which began in the Episcopal Church in the late 1980s. The keynote speaker this June was an evangelical scholar bishop, FitzSimons Allison. Fitz earned his D.Phil from Oxford, and taught Church history at Virginia Theological Seminary and at the University of the South before becoming rector of Grace Church, New York, and then bishop of South Carolina. He is now retired. The following is a highly condensed version of his two addresses.

Take heed! Beware the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of the Sadducees. (Matt. 16:6) This warning is given the disciples in a boat following the feeding of the multitude. Slowly the disciples realize Jesus is speaking of the teaching of the Pharisees and that of the Sadducees. If he meant "teaching" why did he not say so? Why did he use the term "yeast"?

The disciples were aware of the crucial importance of yeast which can ruin bread and spoil wine. I was once shown how a friend makes wine. In a five-gallon glass jug containing water, sugar, grape juice, and yeast, he ran a tube through the stopper and into a glass of water that was bubbling with released air. I asked what the glass of water with the tube in it was for. He explained that it was an "air lock". I asked, "Why don't you just let the air out of the jug?" He explained that since we are surrounded with unseen yeasts, they would ruin the wine and make it undrinkable without the air lock.

Jesus is telling us that the air we breathe is full of destructive and malignant yeast that can spoil and destroy the Good News. This dangerous yeast is the teachings of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The church's subsequent use of creeds and catechisms are the functional equivalent of the air lock. We must only resist the historical temptation to give people the air lock to drink rather than the wine that it protects.

The yeast of the Sadducees
Let us look first at the yeast, the teaching, of the Sadducees. Their teaching denied the resurrection and any sense of rewards, punishments, or accountability after death. Their logic was based on the false premise that material is the only reality. Consequently, in the resurrection life the same conditions must prevail as in the earthly life. Hence, the absurdity of having seven husbands is evidence against the resurrection.

The yeast of the Sadducees is ubiquitous. A modern near equivalent is secularism: this-world-is-all-there-is-ism. The twentieth century has produced unprecedented tyranny and death in the name of hopes that were limited to history. Whatever hope there is for justice and for what is right, according to this yeast, is to be found within history alone. The French Reign of Terror, the Third Reich, and the Communist ideal all had their "gods that failed". The Sadducees' hope persists in spite of its unparalleled record of evil.

If there is no resurrection, no final accountability, then the only moral alternative is "just don't get caught." This yeast is undermining the moral foundation of all cultural institutions. The way out of this Sadducean and cultural decay is, of course, to drink the wine and not the contents of the air lock. The blood we taste as wine is the life of Jesus Christ, outpoured.

The yeast of the Pharisees
The Pharisees believed ardently in the daily and traditional application of the law. The facile dismissal of Pharisees is a sad mistake. Unless they are duly appreciated no substantial grasp of Christianity is possible. Even St. Luke's harsh definition needs to be seen in perspective ("Beware the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy." Luke 12:1). Hypocrisy itself has some virtuous dimensions. If we did not pretend to values, behaviours, and standards that excel our actual behaviour what would happend to civilization itself? The Epistle of James warns us to "bridle" our tongues (1:26). Is this not an exhortation to restrain ourselves from honest expressions of our feelings?

Why then was Jesus so hard on the Pharisees? The most significant picture of the Pharisee in Scripture is perhaps the story of the Pharisee and the tax-collector in the temple. The Pharisee thanks God that he is not like other people, extortioners, unjust, and adulterers. The object of Pharisee religion is to escape condemnation, to feel justified. For contemporary Pharisees escape is by self-esteem. The cult of self-esteem attempts to substitute disclosure and acceptance for repentance and forgiveness. The heavy price paid is the abolition of mercy, the obsolescence of forgiveness, the reduction of justice, and the nurture of self-indulgence resulting in a religion of desperate attempts at self-satisfaction.

Jesus' invitation to all Pharisees, then and now, is, "Come to me, all who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." This is an exceedingly strange thing for Jesus to say since he has just finished the Sermon on the Mount, arguably the heaviest burden and tightest yoke of any religion anywhere at any time. The only way we can understand this apparent contradiction is to look at one of the functions of the Sermon on the Mount. Like many passages in the Gospel, it involves the demand of God's law that prepares us for crucifixion and resurrection.

One of the unfortunate results of placing the sermon immediately following the reading of the Gospel in our new liturgies is that the preacher feels an obligation to preach from what has just been read, and not on the Old Testament or the Epistle. One of the difficulties about this is that the selections from the Gospel are rarely gospel, whereas the Epistle is almost invariably gospel, looking at subjects after what has been accomplished on Good Friday and Easter.

One of the very purposes of the law, and of the Sermon on the Mount, is to consign us all to condemnation. We Pharisees especially need to let down the heavy burden of establishing our self-righteousness and know that our righteousness before God is simply that we have been shown mercy. Some lines that sum up what I believe about the yeast of the Sadducee and the yeast of the Pharisee are found in a very short play written by W.B. Yeats in 1931. Its title is "The Resurrection". There are two main players, a Greek and a Hebrew, and they meet Christ on the day of the resurrection. At the end of the play, the chorus comes out and sings: "Odour of blood when Christ was slain, made all Platonic tolerance vain, and vain all Doric discipline."
Alan Hayes

William G. Witt Says:
January 21st, 2004 at 4:34 pm

I have to admit that I’m a bit nonplussed about Wycliffe’s statements that the leaders of the Network would not affirm the distinctives of Anglicanism–Scripture, Creeds, BCP, 39 Articles–or that its leaders are somehow lacking in proper theological training.

What makes the Network interesting is its overlap with the Anglican Communion Institute. Its leaders are both bishops and theologians. For those uninformed of the history, the ACI is largely the successor to SEAD (Scholarly Engagement With Anglican Doctrine), a group of orthodox Episcopal theologians that have been working together for about fifteen years.

As we discovered at the recent AAC/SEAD theologians like Ephraim Radner, Christopher Seitz, Philip Turner, and Andrew Goddard have been the major contributors to Drexel Gomez’s, Maurice Sinclair’s, Peter Akinola’s, and Gregory Venable’s comissioned documents: To Mend the Net, Claiming Our Anglican Identity, and True Union in the Body.

Our own friend Kendall Harmon is also a long-time participant in SEAD.

Previous SEAD Conferences have been addressed to the relationship between Scripture and the Rule of Faith, (published as The Rule of Faith: Scripture, Canon, and Creed in a Critical Age), the Creed (published as Nicene Christianity: The Future for a New Ecumenism), and the Book of Common Prayer (not published). Before casting aspersons on the theological resources of the Network, one should read these books and the numerous other essays on the Anglican Communion Website: http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.org/ or older essays on the SEAD website: www.seadinternational.com, or Canon Harmon’s own fine essay: “Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Homosexuality”–at anglican-mainstream.net/resources.htm.

Hrumph. ‘Nuff said.

William Witt

http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=43

The case against Don Armstrong

I have been slow to post the Diocese of Colorado's presentment against the Rev. Don Armstrong, executive director of the Anglican Communion Institute, mostly because I have been wary about getting caught up in every incremental development, every charge and counter charge in this increasingly bitter tale. This presentment, however, seems an important enough document, simply to offer it for your persual.

I was surprised to learn on pages 4 and 5 of the presentment that the ACI is a ministry of Grace Church and St. Stephen's, Armstrong's Colorado Springs parish, and to read the diocese's allegation that the checking accounts of the two institutions were used "interchangably."

There is no mention of Armstrong's parish on the ACI's Web site. There is a listing of a high powered board of directors, however, and I am wondering how it will respond if it turns out that the institute that has functioned as a conservative brain trust over the last three years was involved in questionable financial dealings.

My hunch is that they will make not a sound, but I could be wrong.

Posted on April 9, 2007 8:45 PM | Permalink | Digg this

Comments (8)

In case you didn't catch it Jim, the wife of Rev. Ephraim Radner (member of the ACI board), was on the Colorado Standing Committee but resigned a few days prior to the vote for presentment. No doubt it was due to the apparent conflict of interest.

Posted by C.B. | April 9, 2007 11:38 PM

Well, this is certainly a damning document. I wonder if Armstrong will favor us with a rebuttal?

Posted by berggasse19 | April 10, 2007 12:27 AM

Jim - On T19 this morning Chris Seitz, ACI pres., made this comments regarding ACI and the presentment.

"This is confusing to us at ACI. ACI was formed at the January 2004 conference in Charleston, with the dissolving of SEAD, so as to assist several Primates and the work of the AC. Prior to this, there was an ‘Anglican Institute’ at Grace Church. Many of the dates in the Presentment pre-date ACI but could pertain to AI. It is unclear where the confusion is being introduced. Then again, in one newspaper account, it is made to appear that ACI was a victim of this ‘bad book-keeping.’ So until there is more public airing, things remain unclear. The way this has unfolded, the potential for confusion and hurt is maximised in a way that is tragic. C Seitz, President, ACI"

Could it be that the investigators for the diocese were mistaken as to what institute was involved?

Posted by C.B. | April 10, 2007 9:36 AM

I don't know the answer to yoru question, CB. But I do love that the ACI, which has six members, has both an executive director and a president.

Posted by Jim Naughton | April 10, 2007 9:51 AM

The presentment said that entries were for "ACI". If there is some error, I don't believe it is on the part of the forensic autitors. "AI" is different from "ACI" and the auditors would look at it as a if there were two different bank account numbers. To do otherwise is shear folly.

Posted by -frank | April 10, 2007 9:56 AM

Jim - Found an article in the AC News Service dated 1/13/2004 which states that a conference in Charleston was:

"sponsored by the Anglican Communion Institute, recently formed from the merger of the Colorado-based Anglican Institute and SEAD (Scholarly Engagement with Anglican Doctrine), headquartered in Charleston."

Perhaps, the auditors did not feel that there was sufficient evidence to suggest that AI ever ceased to exist, but rather expanded into what it is today.

Posted by C.B. | April 10, 2007 1:11 PM

Just for the record. Grace Church may not be listed on ACI site, but ACI is listed as a ministry on Grace Church's site.

Posted by C.B. | April 10, 2007 3:19 PM

I find myself agreeing with Chris Seitz about the "potential for confusion and hurt." I wonder whether the other members of ACI are even aware that Grace Church has been using a bank account in their name, or in the ways detailed in the presentment? It is wise to tread cautiously here, as no allegations have yet been made against anyone other than Fr. Armstrong. If the alleged mischief is more widespread, that will certainly be made clear in due course.

Posted by Doug Simonsen | April 10, 2007 6:04 PM

http://www.episcopalcafe.com/daily/episcopal_church/the_case_against_don_armstrong.php

Website for sale:

http://anglicaninstitute.org/

Heresy alive and well today, bishop: church should teach, not take others' cues [C Fitzsimons Allison at conference sponsored by Scholarly Engagement with Anglican Doctrine Canada] From: Anglican Journal Date: January 1, 1999 Author: Bettson, Bob More results for: SEAD Scholarly Engagement" | Copyright information Copyright Anglican Church of Canada Jan 1999. Provided by ProQuest LLC.

Heresy is word many Christians would shy away

from in an age where tolerance is seen as a virtue. But

heresy accurately describes many modern ideas about

central Christian dogma, including notions of tolerance

and acceptance instead of repentance and forgiveness,

says a retired American bishop.

Bishop C. Fitzsimons Allison was speaking at a

conference at Wycliffe College, Toronto, sponsored by

SEAD Canada. SEAD stands for Scholarly Engagement

with Anglican Doctrine. The Canadian chapter was

formed in 1997.

The second annual Canadian meeting was attended

by about 60 bishops, clergy, academics and lay people,

and focused on the theme, "The Cruelty of Heresy," the

title of a recent book by ...

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-413322441.html

http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=18845

« Religion and Ethics Weekly Profiles Eboo Patel

Notable and Quotable »

Announcement Concerning the Anglican Communion Institute

We have seen a good deal of speculation and innuendo on the internet and wish to respond with the following statement on behalf of the Anglican Communion Institute.

1. The “merger” of the ‘Anglican Institute’ and SEAD in 2004 was an informal one of effort and workers, not structure or finances. ACI has been a name associated with a ministry of service, not a formal organization. SEAD dissolved, but AI has (we were told) remained incorporated and functions as such, though we have no knowledge of its operations. That is a matter for its own board.

2. ACI is not now and was never incorporated. Its “board” has been a loosely-knit network of sympathetic consultants within our work on behalf of the Communion. There was and is no budget, no compensation, and no formal structure.

3. All ACI-sponsored conferences (there were three – at Grace Church in Colorado Springs, Albany, and West Texas) were covered by fees paid by participants, and by subventions by hosts. ACI was not involved financially in any formal way, but rather provided speakers/teachers and led discussions.

4. Fr. Armstrong raised money to cover some travel reimbursements for ACI-affiliated participants in conferences and meetings, in the same way that rectors frequently find the funds to cover costs for conferences and travel in which they and colleagues are involved. Grace Church also covered the costs for the ACI website. Finally, in one case, there was a small non-compensatory sabbatical grant worked through the local diocese. Much of this money may have been provided by Grace Church directly and is an internal Grace Church matter (and to this extent only represents a “ministry of Grace Church”). Any account labeled “ACI,” “AI” or “ACI/AI” at Grace Church is purely a Grace Church affair, and has no formal, or direct, or informal relationship with the many individuals involved in ACI’s work over the past 3 years, except those at Grace Church.

5. All attempts, benign or malicious, at associating ACI, as an organization or group of people or particular individuals, with the current financial problems at Grace Church are without foundation.

6. We wish Grace Church, Don Armstrong, and the Diocese of Colorado well in sorting out the current conflict in an open, honest, charitable, and just fashion.

In consequence of the legal and ecclesiastical struggles Grace Church and Fr Armstrong are now engaged with, we judge it proper to dissolve our relationship with the web-site and all activities of Grace Church (CANA or TEC), so that the charges of the Presentment and other matters of public trust and ecclesial jurisdiction might be resolved without interference.

We will continue to work on matters related to the Anglican Communion in the same way as previously.

Christopher Seitz, President
Philip Turner, Vice-President
Ephraim Radner, Senior Fellow

This entry was posted on Saturday, April 14th, 2007 at 12:56 pm and is filed under ANGLICAN, TEC/ECUSA Conflicts, TEC/ECUSA, Colorado. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

78 Responses to “Announcement Concerning the Anglican Communion Institute”

Truth Unites ... and Divides Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 1:02 pm

God bless ACI and Seitz, Turner, and Radner. They are servant-leaders of Christ who sacrificially serve with honor, integrity, and are above reproach.

Irenaeus Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 1:20 pm

A clear, specific, and cogent reply to critics.

Frances Scott Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 1:31 pm

I shall miss the web site; it has been to me an island of sense and tranquility in a sea of insanity. I thank God that Don Armstrong and Grace Church made it available. Lord, God, keep these wonderful servants of Yours in Your grace.

Brian Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 1:37 pm

A very smart move by an excellent organization. I hope that their information is presented in another way for all to access.

aci Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 1:38 pm

Given the problems at Grace Church the web has not been used by us for some weeks, but we will rectify that in good time and see to it that recent work that has not been posted, will be. Thank you for your prayers.

Brian Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 1:43 pm

The website does list a Board of Directors:

Collegial Theologians

President
The Rev’d Professor Christopher Seitz

Vice President
The Very Rev’d Dr Philip W. Turner III

Senior Fellow
The Rev’d Dr Ephraim Radner

Fellows
The Rev’d Dr Andrew Goddard
The Rev’d Dr Peter Walker

Executive Director
The Rev’d Donald Armstrong III

Board Members

The Most Rev’d Dr George Carey

(former Archbishop of Canterbury)

The Most Rev’d Drexel Wellington Gomez

(Archbishop of the West Indies )

The Rt Rev’d John W. Howe

(Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida)

The Rt Rev’d Alpha Mohamed

(Bishop of the Rift Valley)

The Rt Rev’d Edward L. Salmon, Jr

(Bishop of South Carolina)

The Rt Rev’d James M. Stanton

(Bishop of Dallas)

The Very Rev’d Dr Paul Zahl

(Dean of Trinity School For Ministry)

The Rev’d Dr George Sumner

(Dean of Wycliffe Seminary in Toronto)

Professor Russell Reno

(Creighton University)

Mrs Elizabeth Cooper

(Charleston. SC)

aci Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 1:45 pm

Its “board” has been a loosely-knit network of sympathetic consultants within our work on behalf of the Communion.

badman Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 1:59 pm

What a mess. The website clearly held the ACI out as a coherent organisation with officers and a board. This statement says it was all a sham, with no coherent organisation and no-one taking any management responsibility, whether on an executive or on a non-executive basis. Since the whole outfit centred on the website, which was funded by Grace Church, it is hard to see how it can be maintained that ACI and the problems at Grace Church are unrelated. The statement that “Any account labeled “ACI,” “AI” or “ACI/AI” at Grace Church is purely a Grace Church affair” is extraordinary.

Ephraim Radner Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 2:24 pm

#8: there is nothing “extraordinary” about this at all. For instance, I sit on the board of a community/ecumenical outreach organization to the hungry of my city. At the same time, my parish regularly donates funds to support this separate community organization. Our parish financials have a line-item named after this organization, through which our contributions are tracked. However, there is no formal relationship between the organization, on the one hand, and the line-item at our church through which we track our contribtutions to it. The line-item is my church’s affair totally and altogether; the organization is run quite separately from it.

This is an exact analogy to the relationship between ACI and Grace church (except that ACI is not a separately incorporated entity). Grace made contributions to the work of ACI, of its own initiative and tracked those contributions as they chose.

As for the accusation of “sham”, I suppose it depends on your assumptions. An “institute”, as I understand it, is simply an organization that promotes something, in this case the theological integrity of the Anglican Communion. It doesn’t need to be incorporated, it doesn’t presuppose a budget or a certain set of meetings with minutes, etc.. A “board” is a council, that in this case orders the work of the organization. And so it does, through mutual discussion, counsel, advice, and — in the case of our written work — comment and sometimes editing. All of this is quite straightforward, and describes quite accurately how ACI has functioned and continues to function.

Robert Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 2:27 pm

I get it. The ACI was another alphabet soup cooked up to appear as a well-funded organization feeding the “faithful” and saving their place at the AC table. It turns out to have been a very thin broth; and now the cooks don’t want to appear to have been complicit in the disappearance of the meat and the vegetables. “We weren’t really the cooks, we were just a loosely-knit network of sympathetic dishwashers.”

Carter Croft+ Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 2:33 pm

Having attended the first two ACI conferences in Colorado Springs, I am deeply appreciative of the efforts this institute has made to encourage Anglicans in the United States. I’m impressed that members of the ACI are meeting the current challenges head on, including the criticisms leveled against it on this blog site.

John B. Chilton Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 2:37 pm

Wah? A current webpage:

http://www.dioceseofsc.org/resource/inst.htm

Institutions of the Diocese [of South Carolina]

The Anglican Institute
601 North Tejon Street
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
….
Scholarly Engagement with Anglican Doctrine (SEAD)
126 Coming Street
Charleston, SC 29403
(843) 224-9161
SEADharvest@aol.com

So ACI is a ministry of Grace Church and St. Stephen’s. And AI is an Institution of The Diocese of South Carolina?

Truth Unites ... and Divides Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Some Paradoxical Commandments for Reasserters (and ACI):

People are illogical, unreasonable, and self-centered.
[Love them anyway.]

If you do good, people will accuse you of selfish ulterior motives.
[Do good anyway.]

Honesty and frankness make you vulnerable.
[Be honest and frank anyway.]

The biggest men and women with the biggest ideas can be shot down by the smallest men and women with the smallest minds.
[Think big anyway.]

People really need help but may attack you if you do help them.
[Help people anyway.]

Give the world the best you have and you’ll get kicked in the teeth.
[Give the world the best you have anyway.]

Peace and Love in Christ and His Word Alone,

Truth Unites … and unfortunately Divides

Anonymous Layperson Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 2:43 pm

The inane rantings of “badman” and now “Robert” display an apalling lack of common sense and contain some nasty efforts to smear ACI . There is nothing unusual about the nature of ACI and its organization. When did ACI claim to be a “well-funded organization”? That is what the tinfoil crowd was claiming, not ACI. Good grief!

The Masked Tortilla Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 2:44 pm

Reminds me a bit of Job’s old friends, I’m very sad to say.

Job 6:21

C.B. Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Rev. Radner - Part of the problem is that SEAD was incorporated. It appears that AI is/was incorporated, but ACI was not - but public did not know that. This is an important fact because looking at ACI’s website it lists a “Board of Directors” giving off the distinct impression that like AI and SEAD before it, it too had a board of people with a fiduciary duty of oversight, who would be approving expenditures and filing the organizations tax returns. In addition, the wedsite made no mention of Grace Church as its sponsor. The talent and motives of the men who are involved in the organization are not at issue, the expectations of accountability are.

Robert Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 3:28 pm

William Witt claims to have been a member of SEAD and his website (http://www.willgwitt.org/aboutme.htm) states:

“I joined with a number of clergy and a handful of laity to form a local chapter of SEAD we called SEAD Northeast. We usually meet in rural New York State. For several years now, a handful of us from several dioceses meet together monthly and one of us gives a prepared paper. When SEAD merged with the Anglican Institute and changed its name to the Anglican Communion Institute, we asked the parent group if we could continue the name. After the name change, we referred to ourselves as the bad SEAD.”

When two corporate entities merge and change their name, the surviving entity remains incorporated. Perhaps there was a lack of attention to formal detail, but I must agree with #16 that it would be better if someone stood up and took responsiblity for what appeared to be a substantial organizational enterprise staffed and run by well-respected people. It would be interesting to know who Dr. Witt spoke to when he talked with the “parent group”.

Brian Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 3:41 pm

I think this is becoming more of an issue than it needs to be. ACI is obviously trying to give Armstrong+ the benefit of the doubt while ensuring people that it was not involved in financial transactions related to Grace Church. The significant problem here is that for whatever reason, ACI was represented to the public as being under the Executive Director (aka Collegial Theologian) whose financial dealings are currently in question. I am a reappraiser. Even though I do not always agree with ACI, I do hold them up as an excellent example of scholarship and a welcome addition to the dialogue in the AC. The problem that they have here is extricating themselves from the public persona that they must have been aware of. On the site, there is a Board of Directors, an Executive Director, free publications and publications for sale. Regardless of the claims of a “loose knit” group of academics (perhaps akin to the Inklings), there is still the appearance of an organization with promotion and income. I believe that calling the ACI a sham or a false group is a substantially unfair categorization. I also believe that the ACI would be doing itself a favor by creating an organized structure in order to deal with these issues. I, for one, wish them well.

Mike Watson Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 4:15 pm

Re #16: “It appears that AI is/was incorporated, but ACI was not - but public did not know that.”

The Episcopal Church isn’t incorporated either. (It has an incorporated affiliate.) Does the “public” know TEC isn’t incorporated? Some do, many don’t. Whether an organization is incorporated or not has significance for some purposes, but not in a way that would support this kind of accusatory “gasp! They’re not incorporated.”

TechSarge Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 4:26 pm

Whatever the outcome of all this, this statement does not place Seitz, Turner and Radner in a good light. It comes across as abandoning an embattled colleague. I don’t think I would want these three as friends.

C.B. Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 4:32 pm

19 - I do not gasp that they’re not incorporated - I gasp that they have no body with a fiduciary duty of oversight as implicated in their website, and apparently no president or vice president with any accountability for financial and or administrative operations of the organization either.

Truth Unites ... and Divides Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 4:34 pm

#20: “I don’t think I would want these three as friends.”

I would!

Walkerhound Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 4:38 pm

To number 20, of the 3 from ACI, I know only Radner personally. He is a wonderful friend, both loyal and honest.

I suspect what has happened here is that Radner et. al. were cruelly betrayed by their “friend” Armstrong, and have, after a struggle, finally had to distance themselves from Armstrong and Grace.

Perhaps we will know more as time progresses.

Sarah Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 4:40 pm

RE: “The inane rantings of “badman” and now “Robert” display an apalling lack of common sense and contain some nasty efforts to smear ACI .”

Ah well . . . that’s kind of a given isn’t it? ; > )

It’s immensely satisfying to see the reappraisers fall all over themselves in an effort to get at Ephraim Radner because they suddenly realized a few months ago that he and the ACI has some influence in international circles.

So first it was the “oooooh, he’s on the IRD board, panic, fire, help!!!” and then when that didn’t fly along came the opportunity to discover the ACI mentioned as a line-item in the presentment and then it started all over again.

Trust me — the presentment thing will pass. . . . And then there will be another “panic, fire, help!!!” cry about something else. They need to do this — because they just can’t afford to let it be that someone whose theology they HATE so much is on the Covenant Design Team.

RE: “There is nothing unusual about the nature of ACI and its organization. When did ACI claim to be a “well-funded organization”? That is what the tinfoil crowd was claiming, not ACI.”

Heh. So true — first it was “yawn, you are a tiny minority” then it was “panic, fire, help — an Evil Wicked Reasserter Organization Full of Horrible Well-Funded and Vast Quantities of Reasserters!” and now it is “hah, a tiny minority” again. ; > )

Not to worry. In a few weeks, or days, or hours, it will be back to “panic, fire, help — an Evil Wicked Reasserter Organization Full of Horrible Well-Funded and Vast Quantities of Reasserters!”

Eric Swensson Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 4:58 pm

Efforts to besmearch ACI seem equivilant to left-wing bloggers and so I imagine we will be hearing Harry Reid weighing in on this, followed by Nancy Pelosi?

John Sung Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 5:07 pm

So it seems that Fr. Armstrong organized them, funded them, published their works, supplied and paid for a website and when he is attacked by his liberal bishop, they jump ship.

I agree with TechSarge, I wouldn’t want them watching my back or being my “friends” either.

Tony Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 5:22 pm

My understanding of the Anglican Institute mentioned above is that it was centered at the St. Louis parish where Ed Salmon was rector prior to becoming Bp. of SC. The Anglican Institute had a number of associated parishes including the one in Colorado Springs and a parish I served. ACI and SEAD are completely different entitities distinct from AI.

James Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 5:24 pm

The Masked Tortilla Says: “Reminds me a bit of Job’s old friends, I’m very sad to say.”

Although I am completely in TEC’s camp, I have to comment on Tortilla’s comment.

remember that Job’s friends walked about 200 miles to visit him in his time of need. How many of your friends would do that for you?

Frances Scott Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 5:32 pm

When one organization separates from another it does not mean that the people involved are separating from each other.

Martin Reynolds Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 5:49 pm

I note someone scoffing like this:

“So first it was the “oooooh, he’s on the IRD board, panic, fire, help!!!” and then when that didn’t fly along came the opportunity to discover the ACI mentioned as a line-item in the presentment and then it started all over again.”

With supporters of this caliber Dr Radner needs no opponents.

Lapinbizarre Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 5:51 pm

Thank you, Robert for #10.

Sarah Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 5:58 pm

RE: “With supporters of this caliber Dr Radner needs no opponents.”

LOL. You are so right — Dr. Radner needs no opponents. But as my comment made clear — he will get them.

Why? Everyone on this blog knows why.

But thanks for noticing my comments Martin Reynolds — they rankled, obviously.
; > )

Sarah Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 6:00 pm

PS: “Scoffing” however, is such the right word, Martin Reynolds — along with mockery, laughter, ridicule, amusement — for the actions of the progressives here.

The neat thing is that the trend is clearly patterned and defined, it will continue, and all of us will get to watch it play out — and know precisely what is happening and why. ; > )

Brian Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 6:38 pm

TechSarge and John Sung

Have you considered the possibility that

a. their connection is indeed “loose”

and/or

b. Armstrong+ is unrepentantly guilty of the Presentment?

What would you do in that situation?

Martin Reynolds Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 6:53 pm

Rankled?

No……

Though, I feel it is sad if that was its intent.

I noticed a part of the comment I quoted because it was incorrect in its assumption.

But, enough of this pointless distraction.

While I see the need for these scholars to put some clear water between themselves and their colleague it does seems they have all been less than careful.

I think Dr Radner’s view of an Institute can hold water. But the clear message of the ACI web pages is that it is a membership organization with “several hundred members and supporters” a “Board of Directors”, an Executive Director and all the rest of the trappings. There seems – at least – an attempt to deceive here. It is obviously intended to mislead and appear to be far more than “six guys and a website”.

It seems to me a poor thing that these scholars, usually so particular about accuracy and careful with nuance should allow their collaboration to be so misrepresented.

As to their financial involvement, it does seem clear that they have had no payment whatsoever from this ACI account and passed on no cheques or donations for its benefit and so would require no account of its activity, or feel responsible for its correct accounting.

Had they in fact received monies from the chequing account carrying the name of the Institute they comprise or had occasion to pass on money for its benefit this would have alerted them to its existence and they would have naturally expected to see full accounts as it was operated in the name of their collaborative identity.

One can only wonder at the ad hoc nature of all this and I am sure that if they did it all again they would choose another path.

Martin Reynolds Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 7:04 pm

I noticed this in the report from today’s meeting at Grace:

Alan Crippen, spokesman for Grace and Armstrong, said he wasn’t quite sure how the ACI could split from the church.

“They just walked away from 85 percent of their funding,” he said. “I don’t know what ACI is without that.”

http://www.gazette.com/articles/armstrong_21250___article.html/church_grace.html

Sarah Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 7:04 pm

RE: “Though, I feel it is sad if that was its intent.”

No intent at all to rankle, so that’s a relief, I’m sure. I just pointed out the strikingly clear pattern that certain [but not all] progressive activists have been trying over the past months once they figured out that the ACI and Ephraim Radner were being listened to and were respected. The back-room rending of clothes and gnashing of teeth must have been incredible — and so this will merely be an interesting pattern to watch over the coming year.

And you’re right — now that the pattern is clear and articulate, it’s merely a pointless distraction.

RE: “One can only wonder at the ad hoc nature of all this and I am sure that if they did it all again they would choose another path.”

Not really.

One does not wonder at all, frankly, if one is a reasserter.

It’s an informal group of scholars called “The Anglican Communion Institute”. It has many supporters [most of the reasserters on this blog, for instance, who read and enjoy their work]. It has done some events of teaching and fellowship. It has a board of directors which serves to advise and edit and comment on publications. It has published some great resources.

I hope they will continue their arrangement under whatever name they call themselves. It’s a good, simple one — and anyone, even a child, can understand the organization of it.

Cathy Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 7:26 pm

#16: “In addition, the wedsite made no mention of Grace Church as its sponsor.”

Over the years, my husband has developed and/or hosted several websites or listservs for friends, churches or non-profits on our personal server pro bono. This was his voluntary use of his gifts to help the efforts of these organizations and/or missionaries. In most cases, his name and role never appeared anywhere on the websites and he received no money, claimed no in-kind donation, etc. He’s just a nice guy trying to use his gifts and help people in the Body of Christ But sounds like you think if he did such a thing without prominently advertising his role, he must be part of a conspiracy of some kind

Margaret Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 7:35 pm

I do wonder if the other side has won — that we have taken our eye off the ball, and instead concentrated on the side-show of Fr Armstrong. What, I wonder, are they up to while we are angsting over this issue?

Brian Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 7:37 pm

From the article Martin posted above:

During his presentation to Grace congregants Saturday, Armstrong said the ACI provided scholarships and grants for continuing education for clergy, and he said the ACI was the mechanism through which the church paid for his childrens’ college educations

Goodness! This is a real mess for ACI.

dave paisley Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 7:56 pm

“I hope they will continue their arrangement under whatever name they call themselves. ”

So, the alphabet soup shell game will continue, then?

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain…

C.B. Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 8:03 pm

38 Cathy -It doesn’t take a conspiracy to create a mess like this - (just, dare I say it, incompetency). Seitz et al. claim they did not oversee the daily operations of ACI, Grace Church handled all the administrative details, Armstrong raised all the money, kept all the books, paid for the website - probably designed it and maintained it as well. Grace Church considers ACi one of it’s ministries. (it’s listed on Grace Church’s website) None of that is reflected in the ACI website itself. In fact, the website, IMHO, gives a different impression entirely. I think if your husband was so intricately involved in overseeing the operations of the organizations, a mention of that on the website of the organization would be warranted

Dave C. Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 8:14 pm

LOL. Sarah, I do think you have this sudden explosion of concern about ACI by some reappraisers nailed. And the more they protest and bluster, the more they prove the accuracy of your assessment.

Candice Hall Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 8:40 pm

Minor points of reference:
The Rt. Reverend Michael Marshall, Assistant Bishop of London, became the founding Episcopal Director of the Anglican Institute in St Louis, Missouri in 1984. The Anglican Institute was registered as a non-profit corporation with the state of Missouri in 1984, but that status has since been forfeited.
[See: https://www.sos.mo.gov/BusinessEntity/soskb/csearch.asp.]
Neither the Anglican Institute nor the Anglican Communion Institute has registered as a non-profit organization with the state of Colorado.
[See: http://www.sos.state.co.us/biz/BusinessEntityCriteriaExt.do ]
Grace Church & St. Stephen’s registered as a non-profit in 1973, and the International Grace Foundation, formerly affiliated with Grace & St. Stephen’s, registered as a non-profit on May 22, 2006.

Janet Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 8:43 pm

We need to pray for the folks of ACI - the Enemy would love nothing more than to have them distracted at this critical time. Seitz, Radner, et. al. probably saw this set up with Armstrong as an ideal situation, leaving them time to concentrate on writing, consulting, etc., not to mention their day jobs. Let us hope their trust in Armstrong was well-founded. They have sacrificed much of these last few years of their lives while most of us have just sat and read about it on the blogs. I for one am praying that God will protect them and bless them for their good work.

costs Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 9:03 pm

I wonder if we added up the ‘person-hours’ behind all the work that ACI theologians did, and paid just ten doillars an hour for five people for three years. Would we be talking anything like the amount reported for which we know that no one was paid anything, except people unassiocuated with ACI? For people associated with Grace Church and others to say that ACI could do nothing without Grace Church is to imply that they were in receipt of funds for all their work. And no one contests that they di not receive one thin dime and instead did this work for nothing but concern for the Communion. We are in a ssrious tragedy. Grace Church is buffeted by all kinds of problems and ACI, inside oif this, is small beer.

costs Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 9:06 pm

Comment 46 is apropos Martin R in 36.

Irenaeus Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 9:33 pm

C.B. [#21] wrote, “I do not gasp that they’re not incorporated - I gasp that they have no body with a fiduciary duty of oversight”

Well, don’t gasp too soon. Fiduciary duties exist in unincorporated organizations (such as partnerships and joint ventures) as well as in corporations.

plainoldlaydude Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 9:40 pm

I think it is important to remember something in this wierd mess. While i would very much disagree with many things the ACI argues, this situation does not take away from the merits of thier arguments in the current coversations in the commonion. Regardless of Fr. Armstrongs dealings with Grace church’s finances, the arguments put forth by his fellow ACI members need to stand on thier own merits.

tress Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 9:55 pm

Brian in #34, what happened to the presumption of innocence? The burden of proof is on the diocese and the bishop, not the other way around.

There is no alphabet soup “game,” there are just a number of organized, thoughful reasserters who are trying to speak out and articulate their faith in ways they believe appropriate. What is remarkable actually is the influence a number of them have had.

stevem Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 9:58 pm

Can people please not be suspicious of betrayal until they have evidence to back it up? The rush to judgment is embarrassing.

tryon51 Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 10:03 pm

“there are just a number of organized, thoughful reasserters who are trying to speak out and articulate their faith in ways they believe appropriate.”

Well said, #50. Chris Seitz writes wonderful books on Scripture, especially the Old Testament, Ephraim Radner has produced terrific material on this blog and elsewhere and serves on the Anglican covenanbt group, Kendall Harmon is regularly quoted in major publications like the Washington Post and the Christian Science Monitor, and some, instead of taking their arguments seriously, trying to change the subject in all sorts of ways.

I appreciate plainoldlaydude in #49 recognizing what needs to be remembered.

C.B. Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 10:09 pm

48 - Are you saying that ACI is a joint venture or a partnership? Glad to hear it. Why don’t you let Seitz know while your at it.

plainoldlaydude Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 10:15 pm

I’m tired, and let me try to say what I mean:

The arguments put forth by the fellows of ACI need to stand on the arguments merits alone; regardless of the orginizations or it’s members personal dealings.

I am deeply disturb by this mess and will keep all in my prayers and thoughts. Regardless of our “side” this hurts the whole church.

LB Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 10:42 pm

I know Ephraim Radner personally. He was one of my (adjunct) seminary professors in years past. Although we hold diametrically opposing views in the current controversies, I can honestly say that I respect his integrity and have never known him to intentionally misrepresent himself. I know Don Armstrong, too. I cannot, in all honesty, say about Armstrong what I have said about Radner.

Irenaeus Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 10:50 pm

John Sung [#26] & TechSarge [#20] adjudge Frs. Seitz, Turner, and Radner guilty of treachery for having the Anglican Communion Institute distance itself from Fr. Armstrong.

Sung, Sarge, and some others may not recognize the grievous threat to the ACI’s mission posed by Fr. Armstrong’s assertion that scholarship money for his children came from accounts labeled “Anglican Communion Institute.” This argument threatens to drag the ACI into Fr. Armstrong’s stewardship troubles.

I have no inside knowledge of the facts here but I want to explain why I regard the accusation of disloyalty as baseless.

Put yourself in the shoes of Frs. Seitz, Turner, and Radner. You carry out part of your teaching ministry in the name of the Anglican Communion Institute. You see the ACI operate informally and with limited resources of its own.

Then you learn that Fr. Armstrong plans to assert that the ACI funded his children’s scholarships. This puts you and the ACI in an untenable position. You had no knowledge of a scholarship program and no control over how Grace Church kept its books (e.g., over what if any money it labeled as ACI-related). But now you see the ACI’s name applied to a large, informally administered pot of money from which Fr. Armstrong has derived particular benefit—which Fr. Armstrong’s critics will call a “slush fund.”

Prudence calls for clarifying the facts and distancing the ACI from Fr. Armstrong’s troubles—just as Frs. Seitz, Turner, and Radner have done.

John B. Chilton Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 11:16 pm

Here’s an outstanding bit of detective work on the AI/ACI:
http://www.sarahlaughed.net/anglicana/2007/04/when_is_an_inst.html

Actually, much more than a bit.

MasonsUnite Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 11:54 pm

Oh dear. The logo for Anglican Institute — a torch!!! — is the same as the logo on the ACI website. Don Armstrong used material from the Anglican Institute to design the ACI website!!! Dylan Breuer deserves a Pulitzer! John Chilton deserves the Lincoln Steffans Investigative Journalism Award! They’ve uncovered the fact that one person worked for two groups!!!! And the ACI people didn’t object! Is there a Grand Jury out there to take this case?

As usual, the Episcopal Church spends its time dealing with the big stuff.

Churchman Says:
April 15th, 2007 at 12:01 am

Does this Anglican Institute have anything at all to do with the Anglican Institute connected with Bishop Michael Marshall, and once upon a time located in St. Louis, Missouri? I do not think they are, but it is a question worth asking, since they have the same name.

Bob (aka BobbyJim) Says:
April 15th, 2007 at 12:23 am

I guess this will be next topic for reappraisers: the Covenant Design Team - a “well-funded organization” is not incorporated and “..they have no body with a fiduciary duty of oversight …. and apparently no ….. accountability for financial and or administrative operations of the organization either.”

By the way, that sure sounds a lot like TEC in my humble opinion.

Bob

Irenaeus Says:
April 15th, 2007 at 12:37 am

Remarkable that the early church could evangelize the world without benefit of corporation. As for fiduciary duty, consider the fate of Annas and Sapphira (Acts 5).

Truth Unites ... and Divides Says:
April 15th, 2007 at 12:59 am

#57. Thanks for the reference. Never been there before. Yow! With everybody throwing stones, mud, smoke, innuendoes, suspicions, gossip, half-truths, accusations… who knows what to believe!?

If this is what it’s like, then it’s no surprise to me then that the Jewish leaders were able to get the crowd to chant “Crucify Him, Crucify Him!” just a few days after Jesus rode triumphantly into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday.

Goodness Gracious!

P.S. I wouldn’t mind seeing a live debate between the two Sarahs. “In this corner, we have reappraiser Sarah Breuer and in the other corner, we have William Buckley-endorsed reasserter Sarah Hey!!!”

Put it on pay-per-view. I’ll pony up $20. My bet’s on Sarah Hey.

Roamin' Roman Says:
April 15th, 2007 at 1:30 am

Truth Unites (#62),

Yow! and Goodness Gracious! indeed. There seems to be a lot more hate and bad blood here than I ever imagined. I personally think Irenaeus (#56) has probably hit the nail on the head.

One blessing of having so much information at everyone’s fingertips is that there will inevitably be far fewer things done in the dark that are not brought into the light.

On the other hand, control of information is powerful, and power can corrupt . . . absolutely!

John B. Chilton Says:
April 15th, 2007 at 3:32 am

#62 - Picking up on your crucifixion theme. Don Armstrong said in his Easter sermon that he feels crucified. Or at least that’s the way I read it.

http://www.graceandststephens.org/Sermons/2007/Easter_Sermon.html

To each his own, but reading the sermon left me feeling ill. On Easter let’s not compare our suffering to the suffering of Jesus.

Martin Reynolds Says:
April 15th, 2007 at 5:11 am

The newspaper article I referenced above now seems to have moved here:

http://www.gazette.com/articles/armstrong_21257___article.html/church_grace.html

William G. Witt Says:
April 15th, 2007 at 7:59 am

The last thing I expected when I read this thread was either that I would laugh out loud or that I myself was involved in the nefarious activities of those rapscallions at ACI and Grace Church.

“William Witt claims to have been a member of SEAD and his website (http://www.willgwitt.org/aboutme.htm) states:

“I joined with a number of clergy and a handful of laity to form a local chapter of SEAD we called SEAD Northeast. We usually meet in rural New York State. For several years now, a handful of us from several dioceses meet together monthly and one of us gives a prepared paper. When SEAD merged with the Anglican Institute and changed its name to the Anglican Communion Institute, we asked the parent group if we could continue the name. After the name change, we referred to ourselves as the bad SEAD.””

It is exciting to know that SEAD Northeast lives on in infamy, a year after our demise. It is even more exciting that someone actually read the AboutMe section on my website, though I do need to update it.

For those who don’t know what SEAD Northeast was: At one of the Charleston SEAD Conferences, a handful of us from New England and the Northeast area were having lunch together, and someone suggested that we should find a way to get together more often than once a year. Thus SEAD Northeast was born. What we all had in common was that we were a bunch of clergy and a few laity with advanced degrees in theology or at least serious interest in theology who met together approximately once a month. One of us would give a paper in the morning, and the rest would respond with huzzahs or catcalls. We would then have noontime prayers and lunch, and spent the afternoon grousing about the dismal state of affairs in the Episcopal Church. Our attendance ranged from around ten to as many as twenty, and people drove from the dioceses of CT, New York, Central New York, Albany, and even a couple from Newark. Oh, yes. We also had a website. The plot thickens.

Here’s the good part. We collected $10 from each participant to buy sandwiches, salads, and soft drinks for lunch. The presenter got a free sandwich. If there was any money left over, the Treasurer held onto it until the next meeting, in which case, if we had low attendance, we’d still have enough to make sure the presenter got a free sandwich. Anticipating possible implications in financial scandal, we wisely decided to keep no records. However, if someone wants to dig up dirt one us, they might contact the local deli owner.

Northeast SEAD stopped meeting because the central organizers scattered to various places. One finished a dissertation and moved. The couple from Newark moved to another diocese. One member got a teaching position at TESM. Another retired and could no longer offer his parish as a possible meeting place. Another priest in whose parish we had met also moved, and his parish was no longer available. I had to move to Arizona for almost a year to help out with family matters, and while I was gone, the clergy couple at whose parish we had met most often also moved to another diocese. If there is a conspiracy here, one might ask: What is it about the Northeast that drives away its theologically educated clergy?

“It would be interesting to know who Dr. Witt spoke to when he talked with the “parent group”.

Ah, yes. The nefarious connection. It went like this. At most local Charleston Conferences, one or the other of us would sit down at breakfast or lunch or be drinking coffee during a break and we’d run into Chris Seitz or Ephraim Radner or Rusty Reno or Phil Turner. The conversation went like this.

Me (or other Northeast SEAD Conspirator): Good Conference.

Seitz or Radner or Reno: Thanks. I think we’ve got some good speakers.

Me: So what’s up for next time?

S or R or R: Not sure. We’re thinking about maybe doing something on Christian Ethics or [fill in the blank].

BTW, how’s it going with your Northeast SEAD group”

Me: Pretty good.

S or R or R: Great.

Me: Thanks. Well, I think I’m going to go in and get my seat for the next session.

S or R or R: See ya.

The one real order of business with the “parent” organization happened when SEAD became the Anglican Communion Institute and we had an email correspondence with Christophe Seitz. It went something like this.

Us: We kind of like the name SEAD. Can we keep calling ourselves Northeast SEAD?

Seitz: Sure.

And now finally, the AHA moment! I grew up in Colorado, was confirmed by Bishop Wm. Frey, and . . . . over twenty years ago dated for a very short period a young Episcopalian woman whose father worked for the very same Colorado College at at which disgruntled Grace Church parishioners are now holding Sunday worship services. Well, you can draw the connections yourself.

One final word. I can think of no people I admire and respect more than Christopher Seitz, Ephraim Radner, and Phil Turner. I have the utmost confidence in their integrity.

Paulo Says:
April 15th, 2007 at 8:03 am

Grace Church and its pastor should sort out this mess soon as possible.

Gullible's Travels Says:
April 15th, 2007 at 12:47 pm

I sorta suspected that Witt was at the bottom of all this. Remember, Witt was in the church parking lot when Bishop Smith changed the locks. So, we can place Witt in Colorado, Charleston, and CT. In every state Witt was loosely connected with organizations that had polity issues. It just all fits together.

Lapinbizarre Says:
April 15th, 2007 at 1:21 pm

Churchman (#59). From what little I have heard of Michael Marshall, he seems an improbable figure in this matter, but the Anglican Institute of which he was founding Episcopal Director in the mid-80’s is, or was, one and the same as the AI which may - or may not - have been absorbed by the Anglican Communion Institute a few years ago. The common thread seems to be bp Salmon, who was rector of the St Louis suburban church (St. Michael & St George) at which AI was originally quartered.

See the first link of #44 above

Craig Goodrich Says:
April 15th, 2007 at 3:20 pm

Sarah #24 — No, no, no, you just don’t see how clearly evil the whole conspiracy is!

Look, we know Dr+ Radner is on the board of IRD, which is a filthy rich organization dedicated to shooting down innocent sick Central American children and funneling clandestine money to — Aaah-Ha! — subversive organizations dedicated to destroying Progressive American Christianity. So obviously ACI was just another front group, and now we have this damaging admission:

Robert #10:

The ACI was another alphabet soup cooked up to appear as a well-funded organization feeding the “faithful” …

So you see, obviously the ACI was yet another conduit for IRD’s reactionary millions, while trying to pretend it was well-funded, but in reality it was just some theological brains and a web site, acting as a secret funnel for the Ahmanson fortune … umm, no, wait a minute, let me get my hat on …

John scholasticus Says:
April 15th, 2007 at 3:30 pm

#68

This must be the first time we’ve ever agreed: WITT is obviously the guilty man (though, equally obviously, he must have had ACCOMPLICES …)

To be continued ….

Truth Unites ... and Divides Says:
April 15th, 2007 at 3:36 pm

#71. JS: WITT is obviously the guilty man (though, equally obviously, he must have had ACCOMPLICES …)

To be continued ….”

Now what? What mud and accusations are going to be thrown out now? Are the reappraisers going to invoke the RICO statutes as I’ve read of them doing before?

How much lower is this going to go? Jesus wept. Over what His Bride is doing.

miserable sinner Says:
April 15th, 2007 at 4:36 pm

Wow! Reappraisers and reasserters now agree that there is no vast right wing conspiriacy?

Does that count as a miracle?

Blessings to ALL,

Robert Says:
April 15th, 2007 at 5:15 pm

Dr. Witt: Thanks for clarifying that the what you have described as the “parent group” of the AI/SEAD meger included Dr. Seitz and Dr. Radnor.

Sarah Says:
April 15th, 2007 at 7:14 pm

RE: “The last thing I expected when I read this thread was either that I would laugh out loud or that I myself was involved in the nefarious activities of those rapscallions at ACI and Grace Church.”

Ah, he uses humor.

But we all know what a dodge that is.

One of the things I note in common between William Witt’s web site and the ACI’s web site is the frequency of the visual image of books.

That’s right — BOOKS.

Has anyone run any reverse-cipher cryptography on those things? I think we can all safely assume that there’s a connection here that needs further digging . . .

CryptoCatholic Says:
April 15th, 2007 at 7:36 pm

Bill W (#66):

As an erstwhile participant in Northeast SEAD, I think you left out the most damning thing: Several of those speakers CROSSED STATE LINES to get those ill-gotten (but very tasty) sandwiches. Surely we can work the Mann Act in here somewhere?

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

John G Says:
April 15th, 2007 at 8:45 pm

The one real order of business with the “parent” organization happened when SEAD became the Anglican Communion Institute and we had an email correspondence with Christophe Seitz.

If SEAD became Anglican Communion Institute why does the Diocese of SC’s website state that it is a merger between Anglican Institute and SEAD?

(I don’t think there is anything nefarious going on as has been alleged in other posts)

w.w. Says:
April 15th, 2007 at 10:01 pm

#68

Good one! I’m still laughing….

A little humor to lighten up some of these threads is a welcome injection.

I wonder if Bp Smith really knew who he was messing with out there on that church parking lot in Connecticut.

Unpretentious, “regular-guy” William Witt is not only a giant in the faith (in plain street clothes) but also a master at articulating it in down-to-earth, yet precisely logical, fashion. We’re blessed to have him as a blog buddy.

w.w.

Submitted by William Witt at 3/27/2004 9:15:54 AM

But the orthdoox have made many valiant efforts to resist the revisionist agenda. The Baltimore Declaration (1991) clearly marked out the heretical theology that was coming to dominate ECUSA. It was ignored or ridiculed. When Philip Turner was Dean at Berkeley he signed the Ramsey Colloquium's "The Homosexual Movement," which led to his ostracism at YDS. Turner, Allison, and David Scott (of VTS) were instrumental in forming SEAD (Scholarly Engagement with Anglican Doctrine) a theological think tank that has evolved into the Anglican Communion Institute. Its younger scholars (Ephraim Radner, George Sumner, Russell Reno, Christopher Seitz, Kendall Harmon) have been denied access to teaching positions at ECUSA's seminaries, but they have been instrumental in consultations with the Primates and are carrying the intellectual baggage in the current struggle.

http://themcj.com/709

http://www.americananglican.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=ikLUK3MJIpG&b=689485&ct=853935

Seitz on Titusonenine:

37. ACI Says:
April 10th, 2007 at 8:10 am

This is confusing to us at ACI. ACI was formed at the January 2004 conference in Charleston, with the dissolving of SEAD, so as to assist several Primates and the work of the AC. Prior to this, there was an ‘Anglican Institute’ at Grace Church. Many of the dates in the Presentment pre-date ACI but could pertain to AI. It is unclear where the confusion is being introduced. Then again, in one newspaper account, it is made to appear that ACI was a victim of this ‘bad book-keeping.’ So until there is more public airing, things remain unclear. The way this has unfolded, the potential for confusion and hurt is maximised in a way that is tragic. C Seitz, President, ACI

47. ACI Says:
April 10th, 2007 at 12:23 pm

As this has come up on another web site: ACI was formed by taking the Board Members from SEAD and dissolving SEAD so as to be able to focus on the demands of the present season. Anglican Institute has nothing to do with ACI, in terms of its origins and history; it was a separate reality and if memory serves, had a life prior to moving to Grace Church. SEAD was operating in Charleston (and Dallas, Oxford and Toronto) and running conferences in that context from 1997-2004. Anglican Institute was also running conferences according to its own mission at that time. Others will know better what AI’s mission and history was and can enlighten. C Seitz, ACI

51. C.B. Says:
April 10^th, 2007 at 3:11 pm

48 – I think there is some question as to whether ACI is a separate legal entity. The problem is that AI was located in Colorado Springs as a ministry of Grace Church with Don Armstrong as the Director. After AI merger with SEAD, ACI was located in Colorado Springs at Grace Church. It is listed as a ministry of Grace Church on it’s website even now, and Don Armstrong as the Executive director. To say that AI and ACI are unrelated is not true. It is quite possible that people at Grace Church including vestry have considered ACI to be the same ministry as AI with an expanded staff.

52. ACI Says:
April 10th, 2007 at 3:25 pm

C.B. — I appreciate your perspective, but ACI is unrelated to AI and that is true, a fact, etc. That others may perceive the matter differently I accept, but that does not change the reality. The main writers and workers for ACI all were involved in SEAD. SEAD formally dissolved. ACI grew out of that. To be sure, Grace Church had a kind of relationship to AI that they judged to be X or Y — they hosted conferences, etc. ACI has not been a conferencing initiative, in large measure because of the work required. None of us have received any compensation, the work is done pro bono out of conviction regarding the Anglican Communion and due to personal contacts that have nothing whatsoever to do with AI. For all we know, AI still exists. I cannot comment on that. C Seitz

55-74.

C.B. Says:
April 10th, 2007 at 4:19 pm

ACI - Thank you for your input. At the time of the formation of ACI, numerous news outlets and other sources including the Diocese of South Carolina referred to the formation of ACI as a merger of AI and SEAD. The Diocese of SC stated in it’s statement regarding a conference on January 8, 2004 - “SEAD and the Anglican Institute have merged to form The Anglican Communion Institute.”

See http://www.dioceseofsc.org/news/future_of_church.htm

Therefore it is puzzling that you say that AI is unrelated to ACI, and that “for all we know AI still exists.” If the formation descriptions are accurate, it does not exist because it merged with SEAD into ACI.

ACI Says:
April 10th, 2007 at 5:10 pm

CB–I am the President of ACI. I was the President of SEAD. I worked there with Philip Turner, Ephraim Radner, Peter Walker, Andrew Goddard, +Drexel Gomez, +Jim Stanton, and others. I simply have no sense of the specific history of AI. We ‘inherited’ nothing from that in our day to day work and I was never involved in AI in any formal sense. I am aware of our actual work at ACI, and 90% at least goes by my eyes, and it is work that happens out of the generosity of those contributing. No stipends are paid, and this costs Grace Church nothing in the strict sense. We have a web site, and that is paid for by Grace Church, as I understand it. AI is unrelated to ACI. I suspect you will appreciate how odd it is for me, as President of ACI, to respond to initials from someone telling me how it is in fact related to AI. And I repeat, I don’t know if AI still exists as I was never involved with it. I DO know that SEAD, which was incorporated, was dissolved in 2004. When I see in a Presentment that the Anglican Communion Institute was involved in book-keeping matters at Grace Church prior to 2004, I am confused. But then, this whole thing is confusing. But I may surmise that what is meant is Anglican Institute; that is for others to sort out. In that strict sense, I repeat, ACI and AI are unrelated. Book keeping related to AI has nothing to do with ACI, nor should it. I hope all of this is resolved to Grace Church’s satisfaction. It is serious business and tragic. Blessings, C Seitz

ACI Says:
April 10th, 2007 at 5:24 pm

And now I see this on Stand Firm (I am not registered there, due to cyber allergies).
From Bill Witt: ‘When Ephraim Radner moved to Pueblo, CO, it was decided to merge SEAD and ACI, largely, I understand, for financial reasons. SEAD had never been profitable, and it was thought that AI and SEAD were to a certain extent duplicating each other’s efforts.’

When at SEAD I planned and ran over 15 conferences and 3 House of Studies. We kept a tight financial ship and of course ‘made no profit’ — we were a not for profit organisation. But we succeeded admirably, to my mind. The problem was how to keep up that kind of pace, without any donor base beyond a few kind and generous Bishops.

Radner had moved to Colorado well before ACI was formed. Our work was simply taking the form of writing and consulting and conferences of a SEAD type were not going to be possible — not least because the entire climate of theological discourse changed, and was shifted into things like Plano etc.

I cannot speak to AI’s programme because I was not involved to any extent. Whether there was duplication is not a judgment I can make.

ACI was encouraged to see the Dar es Salaam communique and we will work as hard as we can to see it implemented. It coheres with all we have tried to do over the past years. Grace Church has joined CANA for reasons they have indicated. We have issued our own statement in respect of that.

Once the work of this year–including a 30 September deadline, an Oxford event on covenant and mission, and Lambeth invitations–is completed, it is likely we will return to the theological work we did previously under the aegis of SEAD. We had published books on Creed and Decalogue and always had in mind completing the work with an event on Lord’s Prayer. We will keep you posted.

With prayers for the Communion at this hard time, C Seitz

C.B. Says:
April 10th, 2007 at 5:36 pm

C. Seitz - I mean to only point out to you the source of my and others puzzlement. It comes from how ACI has been described from the onset - as a merger between AI and SEAD with Rev. Armstrong who was the Director of AI before the merger, becoming the Executive Dir. of ACI thereafter. I do not claim to know more than you do, only what I have read and can readily surmise. I agree that we can not fathom the depths of Grace Church’s bookkeeping on this matter, but nevertheless the Presentment states categorically that ACI is a ministry of Grace Church . Only you would know the extent to which ACI has been supported by Grace Church either financially and/or administratively, but you say you are confused as to how such a statement could be true. I am positing only a small part of the answer - it lies somewhere in the realm of how ACI was initially formed. Blessings to you as well. C.B.

Martin Reynolds Says:
April 10th, 2007 at 5:44 pm

Who keeps the accounts for ACI?

Who is the treasurer?

Who holds the cheque book?

ACI Says:
April 10th, 2007 at 5:57 pm

I have tried to say this several times. ACI is effectively the work of six or so unpaid, overworked, overtravelled colleagues. ACI is the writing and thinking from university and parish academics that goes up on a web-site or in publications of various kinds. There are no salaries. Conferences in the past years (since 2004) were handled as at SEAD (fees), or as guests of a host (Diocese of West Texas and Diocese of Albany). Unlike at SEAD, we do not even have a hard-copy publication to produce. We all have busy day jobs. As for what is now available via a Presentment — we are as in the dark about that as anyone. ACI is not an incorporated entity, like SEAD. Someone once put it nicely, ’six guys and a web-site.’ We counted on donations to support travel and subsistence, and this was handled by the Executive Director. How the costing was entangled with Grace Church, and also with a prior history with AI, is not clear. But I presume in the light of the Presentment, this is going to have to be addressed.

Martin Reynolds Says:
April 10th, 2007 at 6:19 pm

I’m sorry Professor Seitz, I think we are all aware of the few who were doing the work, it just seemed from the blurb:
“With several hundred members and supporters, the Anglican Communion Institute stands for …..”
And a Board of Directors, etc etc .. that there was someting more substantial and formal about this.

I think you have made it clear now.

C.B. Says:
April 10th, 2007 at 6:21 pm

Martin - I would say based on Rev. Seitz’s response “We counted on donations to support travel and subsistence, and this was handled by the Executive Director” - would say probably the accounts were kept by Grace Church, including control of the check book.

Martin Reynolds Says:
April 10th, 2007 at 6:26 pm

I would.

ACI Says:
April 10th, 2007 at 6:43 pm

“With several hundred members and supporters, the Anglican Communion Institute stands for …..” —

I am unsure where this came from, and to what ‘members’ refers. Thank you for pointing it out.

ACI has no ‘members’ I am aware of! We do have some supporters. We also have a lot of enemies, I should think.

ACI is the work of a select number of people who care about the Communion, and work hard for no compensation, except the compensation of trying to preserve something under threat that we love and wish to see thrive.

It is unfortunate that Don Armstrong is implicated (via cyber terms) in a Presentment, and we can only pray that all is resolved and cleared up. Reading the presentment, very little in fact pertains to ACI at all, and what does pertain, appears in fact to do with AI.

I have tried to explain things as best I can from my perspective as a worker in the Communion vineyard. I have no knowledge of what has transpired at Grace Church. I have my own busy life as do all of you. I have done what I could this afternoon to explain how I understand what ACI has been doing and how it has been doing that. I have responded to a Colorado newspaper as well. This is all very sad and unforeseen.

I will continue to pray for a merciful and swift resolution for all. Part of the reason the NT asks that Christians not go to court is that the world gets to see how poorly Christians act. I sense that keenly. I am sorry this has happened but do not know a lot more than many of you. I do know what ACI has done and I am proud of that and I know that those of us working for Communion will continue to do so, and are doing so.

I hope Grace Church and its rector can find a gracious and just outcome. Beyond that, I have no special information. C Seitz

Don Armstrong Says:
April 10th, 2007 at 6:48 pm

Maybe I can shed some light on this particular discussion.

Firstly, to be clear, the diocesan investigators understand very little about the church as a financial entity. I hardly think they understand anything about trusts, clergy taxes and housing allowances, let alone the workings of parish ministries either–so anything you get from the presentment charges is difficult for even us at Grace Church to understand.

AI and ACI are both ministries of the parish but are managed with separate accounts that are audited annually with the rest of the parish ministries.

ACI/AI are funded by private donations–and all money raised for these ministries is always spent specifically for the purposes for which it was raised. None of this has been for salaries, but for conferences and publishing, in most recent years for the sort of work Chris Seitz has described.

Since 2003 until just this past Fall, Grace Church has funded the ACI from its own monies to maintain its independence and so that it would be free from political pressures that outside fund raising naturally involves.

No money disappeared into these ministries, but was used for the purposes it was intended.

The ACI/AI has granted scholarships for a number of theological and educational ventures over the years, but those funds are separate from the working money given for ACI. In other words I raised money specifically for the purpose of supporting these other various educational ventures–which included clergy and lay continuing education, seminary education expenses for third world students, writing projects and the like.

I hope this helps. We have a very honest and good system here to produce what David Bena calls gospel entrepreneurial ventures–and we plan to continue to do this sort of work in CANA.

One thing that I find interesting is that the Episcopal Church actually punishes success, perhaps because success points out mediocrity. I have always wondered why people do not ask successful rectors how they do it, as opposed to suspecting they have done something wrong–but then the Episcopal Church is dying, isn’t it?

Martin Reynolds Says:
April 10th, 2007 at 6:49 pm

Professor Seitz the quote comes from your web pages here:
http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.org/mission.htm

ACI Says:
April 10th, 2007 at 6:52 pm

Thanks, Martin! I have described our work above. ‘Members’ makes no sense at all. When at SEAD, we did have subscribers who paid a small annual fee so we could support our work, and we gave them our publications. ACI has no ‘members’ I am aware of.

Don Armstrong Says:
April 10th, 2007 at 6:59 pm

The members notion is left over from the days when people subscribed to receive conference papers. Over the last four years our papers have been posted for free. Those who originally subscribed have received daily MP & EP booklets on a monthly basis since then.

Martin Reynolds Says:
April 10th, 2007 at 7:03 pm

“Grace Church has funded the ACI from its own monies to maintain its independence and so that it would be free from political pressures that outside fund raising naturally involves.”

Independence free from outside political pressure is indeed something to strive for Fr Armstrong.

Concerned Parishoner Says:
April 10th, 2007 at 7:09 pm

The vestry told the parish at an informational meeting on January 21, 2007 that a loan had been made (the date was not given) to the ACI in the amount of $170,000, and that the loan will be repaid by the ACI at the rate of $10,00 per year.

That loan is reflected in the 2007 Budget.

Martin Reynolds Says:
April 10th, 2007 at 7:20 pm

There is a vast difference “notionally” in a membership organisation and in one that has “subscribers”, but I guess that is all rather academic now.

C.B. Says:
April 10th, 2007 at 7:32 pm

I am still unclear Rev. Armstrong - you refer to the “last four years” papers have been posted for free on the ACI site, but that prior to that members paid for them. My understanding is that ACI has only been in existence for three years. Are you speaking about AI members prior to January 2004? You also state that AI and ACI have separate accounts but then say ” AI/ACI has granted” scholarships. This makes it sound like AI and ACI are the same thing. Consequently, it is not clear when you are referring to AI alone and when you are not.

Martin Reynolds Says:
April 10th, 2007 at 7:54 pm

Christopher, people can be supportive of the Anglican Communion and remain antagonistic to your ideas without becoming your enemies.

I am one.

Sarah Says:
April 10th, 2007 at 8:10 pm

RE: “Christopher, people can be supportive of the Anglican Communion and remain antagonistic to your ideas without becoming your enemies. I am one.”

It’d be nice to think that, as an outside observer of all of this.

Judging by the terrible way that Ephraim Radner was received at the HOB — verified by the reports of various fulminating bishops — and judging by the angry comments about the ACI from various progressive activists and blogs, it will be interesting to see what progressives are not the “enemies” of the ACI.

Prior to some progressives’ startled recognition that the ACI appears to have influence, they could afford to ignore the organization or, at best, condescend to it. But once they realized that the communion as a whole listens to the ACI and recognizes its scholarship — so much so that Ephraim Radner was invited to be on the Covenant Design Committee — the rants began and the long knives came out.

That will only continue and escalate, and I trust that the ACI is prepared for that reality.

http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=18753

http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002349.html

“Thinking Anglicans” from a hostile source:

If 'ACI' is just a website and a handful of people, should it really be calling itself 'Anglican Communion Institute' at all? Does not this title itself tend towards misleading, if not down right deception? Blazoning its fancy coat of arms and the name of the previous Archbishop of Canterbury one is meant to to take it for something prestigious, big, impressive -- and perhaps (almost) offical. Not to mention the references to other big cheeses of the anglican firmament (Gomez, Akinola etc).....

So we have just another website hyped-up to mislead. All ready to replace the real AC website, in due course perhaps ? And perhaps this arrogant approach has affected or infected their financial systems too ?

As implied above, doctrine can be discussed until the cows come home, but financial accounting and auditing are not -- unless accidentally or deliberately hidden away in the accounts. How the money was spent and where it went, are historical facts --- whether or not demonstrable. Responsible book keeping should make it all as simple and clear as can be. 'Creative accounting' is designed to mislead and obfuscate.

'Have no dealings with a knave.'

Posted by: Laurence Roberts on Wednesday, 11 April 2007 at 11:01am BST