User talk:RoaringOasis:CEC Discuss

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dear Mr. Oasis :),

Thanks for saying my map wasn't cartoonish (I'm actually way too sensitive a guy to be embroiled in all this, aren't I?). I'm intrigued by you because (unless I'm confused) you maintain the PDF (which is astounding) and you've registered a domain name to archive documents. I think a return to patristic government would mean a return to transparency and openness, and I applaud your efforts, but only wish that we in the South Central had thought to implement them first!

You said on the talk page that you'd drop me a line, so we're probably both typing messages to each other at the same time. Would you mind (unless of course I'm totally confused about your identity) hosting my PSD on your site, so as not to attract a lot of meanies to my own personal domain?

Write back.

Kennethmyers 03:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Roar, I think a link to your repository of Sursum Corda articles, etc. would be worth putting out there on the CEC page. However, the one item I think will draw the most flak is the list of allegations. Published articles, public letters from bishops, etc. may be unpopular with some, but there's no question about their being part of the public record. But the list of allegations, I think, falls into a different category, because some of the things said on that list are just pure conjecture, suppositions, questions. I am someone who advocates full disclosure and openness, but only about facts/truth, not about conjecture and ugly unsubstantiated (or partially substantiated) allegations and questions. Can you see the difference I'm trying to draw? To use an analogy, a critical letter from Richard Nixon to his cabinet member, or from a cabinet member to Nixon, deserves to be part of the record. But a personal attack on Nixon from some anonymous source alleging scandal, with uncited references, just sounds like McCarthyism to me, personal vendetta, and doesn't belong in the public record, in my view. Let me know what you think, or post it on the Talk page for review by others to see if they agree. Thanks, Timotheos 22:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy Theories?

RO,

With yesterday's development one has to wonder just a little bit.... Cecfan 00:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Allegations--Inappropriate, At All Times & In All Places

RO,

The LoA is absolutely inappropriate for this article! I reviewed it again yesterday. It is just too problematic and could possibly open its authors up to libel charges. I am involved with things like this on the Federal level from time to time. There is no way any responsible person would take it seriously as a credible source of information. They would, however, look into it closely in regards to well-establish libel and slander laws that have been on the books for years. Authors are always legally responsible for what they publish, regardless of the medium. Only bad, and nothing good, can ever come out that document. I suggest deleting it altogether.

Cecfan 01:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

RO,

Got it. Sorry for not being more precise. I should have said...for this article or for anywhere else, as well! Personally, I wouldn't make the LoA accessible in public at all. It is simply inappropriate for decent people to catolog such vitriolic things against another. Nothing good, only bad, could ever come out of it. The rest of the material is probably fine. However, the LoA just isn't the kind of thing that Christians pass out for all the world to see. This is especially true given the spurious nature of much of the contents of the LoA. I wouldn't be too sure on your definition of malicious intent, either. I have seen a number of well-meaning people such as yourself get into very serious trouble over things similar to this. You may not have had mailicious intent in aiding to compile the allegations. But, the fact is they were largely born out of a heart of malice, not good intentions. Believe it or not, there are many intelligent, reasonable people who simply do not believe the A-F forum's majority world view on the CEC. There is always two sides to any issue. Not everyone involved in making the original allegations has clean hands as well. The fact that you didn't see counter charges made is that there are many who believe that it is unseemly for Christians to be slinging mud like this against each other.

By the way, what difference does it make at this point? Those who hate the Patriarch already hate him enough. Those who are standing with him are pretty much resolute at this point. Why add more fuel to the fire now? Now that most of the damage that can be inflicted on the CEC is done, it is time for all parties to work towards healing. I don't doubt that you have noble intentions in the least. However, this is very serious business. I suggest lots of caution.

Cecfan 02:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

One Additional Thought

RO, much (not all) of the LoA's content recklessly alleges criminal activity. That places it in a completely different ballpark than just passing on other people's opinions. I would steer clear of it completely unless, of course, you have actual police reports to back up the charges. Playing pseudo-prosecutor could potentially cause you a lot of trouble.

Again, what difference does doing all this work on allegations make it this point? There is simple no noble fruit that it could produce. The spurious accusations have already produced the negative results desired by those who made them. Sorting out "fact" from "fiction" seems to be futile at best, especially considering that even the principal antagonist against the Patriarch couldn't even stick to the same story for more than a few weeks at a time during this drama. If the CEC leadership is content to not launch counterattacks, why continue on with the attack? Simple restating and repeating attacks for posterity's sake is not the kind of thing Christians do. Cecfan 02:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Growth & Current Status

RO,

Such a table would be an appedix to the article with a link.

The 30% figure is a good faith estimate by Fr. Tanner and myself on the number of congregations that left based on various sources. The clergy percentage will probably be close to that number (probably a little lower). I wouldn't be too fixed on the congregation number, though, because it is misleading. The bulk of the departed congregations number includes extremely small, non-viable missions. Most of the GLD and over half of the SCD departures were one to five family missions with only one clergyman. Stating the number of total departed congregations is highly misleading without proper vetting. One can not equate the effect of the loss of a mission of 5 to 10 people that was on its last leg with, say, Christ's Church in Sherman, TX. Most of the missions that departed were in such a sad state that most denominations would have never counted them in their total number of congregations in the first place.

Also, the official website is not going to be the best source for accurate numbers because it was never complete nor accurate. ICCEC Archdeacon, Fr Dan Sharp, reports that the iccec.org church list was very incomplete due to the refusal of most of the local ordinaries to make accurate reports to the Primate's Office for years on end. It seems that the "communications problems" went both ways. With that said, my count came to roughly 29% departures and 71% remaining congregations. Fr Tanner has a better feel for the actual departure numbers than I. He is fine with the 30% figure. Obviously, if we find out that the 30% figure is inaccurate either plus or minus, we will change it.

The point is that everyone is getting sick and tired of the nickel and diming to death of the CEC. It is time for everyone to bury the hatchet and distrust and move on with their lives. Trust me, we are not trying to spin nor lie to paint a better picture.

Cecfan 15:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

RO,

I just counted the parish to mission ratio in the former South Central Diocese. It is 4 to 13. According to SCD's website, only four of the congregations that left the Communion were actual parishes! Thirteen of the congregations were small missions that were non-viable, non self-supporting. One in Houston was meeting in the vicar's living room! This is why one must be careful in how one reports these things. Saying that a total of 17 congregations in SCD left the CEC makes a great headline, but is highly misleading. A more accurate and honest way of reporting the story would be, "Four full-fledged parishes, along with 13 small two-to-five family missions, of the South Central Dioces left the Communion."

Also, I remember that the parish to mission ratio was quite similar in the former Great Lakes Diocese as well. (I think that the number of real parishes was only 2 or 3 in the former GLD.) I seem to remember reading that one or two of their "missions" only had one family each in them! Most denominations would call those "missions" Bible Study Groups rather than congregations. Just between the former SCD & the former GLD, about 24 of the roughly 29 "congregations" that left the Communion were not really viable congregations in any sense of the word. Though their loss is painful to all who remain faithful to the CEC, the number of families that left in the 24 or so missions is not really as devastating as some of the original reports made it sound.

Cecfan 04:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)