Curious what @The_ACNA's stance is on Executive Committee members publicly saying a former Provincial Prosecutor should be beaten behind a woodshed.
The screenshot above is from the "Anglican News Update" newsletter sent out regularly by Barbara Gauthier, who was added to @The_ACNA Provincial Executive Committee as of June 19, 2025. americananglican.org/canon-mark-ele…
While Gauthier castigates Runyan at length, not a single mention is made of the Court’s April order (that evidence re investivate process was improper) being violated by the Court itself, which places her authorial bias on clear display.
To have a member of @The_ACNA Exec Committee serve as an outlet for Ruch to frame his case to a wider audience is deeply problematic.
Gauthier, a former UMD Bishop's Council member & wife to the UMD Canon Theologian - is functionally running court interference for Ruch.
It completely undermines the intergrity of @The_ACNA Executive Committee to have a member authoring and distributing propaganda like this.
Another question this raises is the relationship of Gauthier's Anglican News Update to the Greenhouse Movement, which apparently share a mailing address:
@threadreaderapp unroll
No, actually, I'm not quite done on this. Folks like @PostCnsumrChris can be hounded out of @The_ACNA for letting survivors tell their stories on a podcast he clearly stated was not affiliated with the denom/diocese...
@PostCnsumrChris @The_ACNA ...meanwhile Barbara can spout Stewart's propaganda as a member of @The_ACNA's Executive Committee from a "news" mailing connected directly connected to the Greenhouse Movement, and no one bats an eye.
How exactly does the Province expect anyone will trust them at this point?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I have come back to this truth so often in the last year and a half. "Just let the justice system do it's thing" is what we're told over and over again as a critique for speaking publicly. The issue with that? Court deals with the aftermath, not the cause. 1/7
If your plan is to just rely on the justice system to "fix" the abuse that happened on your watch, then what what you're telling us is you're fine with maintaining a culture and system in which abuse was able to take root and flourish.
2/7
The justice system metes out consequences for actions taken, it does not change the culture that enabled those actions. Which is why @ACNAtoo has asked from day one for a thorough, independent investigation that addresses exactly those dynamics. 3/7
Just a reminder that Bp. Minns (who @ArchbishopFoley has put on duty to chaperone Bp. Ruch after his return) was already involved in supervising another @The_ACNA response to clergy abuse as an interim bishop.
He challenged the survivors' narrative at their first meeting, despite their stories having previously been confirmed by an investigation, and refused to discuss how their stories would be shared publicly to the parish.
(2/5)
He then proceeded to provide inaccurate answers at the subsequent parish Q&A session, despite having access to the accurate information via the previously completed investigation.
(3/5)
Ah shit, this is going to be a whole thread isn't it... Ok, you know what? Let's go. 🧵
The arrival of the Noldor in Beleriand sets the stage for all of this. You have some of the original inhabitants (Thingol/Sindar) establishing the groundwork expectations re their home:
1/20
The other princes of the Noldor (esp the sons of Fëanor) respond with anger at the perceived coldness when they expected to be welcomed as conquering/liberating heroes. Instead, they are rightly seen as posing an additional threat to the freedom and autonomy of the Sindar.
2/20
In response to this "slight," they turn their anger toward Finrod and his brothers as the messengers bearing the Sindar's requested boundaries, and immediately draw prejudicial lines based on "purity" of blood:
3/20
Since it seems unlikely we'll get a course-correction on this oath in #TheRingsOfPower, here's a thread I've wanted to do for awhile now about why Finrod's oath of sacrifice mattered for the outcome of the whole 1st Age.
Buckle up, this is one of my absolute favorite topics:
🧵
Thesis: the 1 Silmaril wrested from Morgoth w/o direct intervention of the Valar is only acquired b/c another oath from the doomed House of Finwë is fulfilled that serves as a counter-balance to the Oath of Fëanor.
So let's do some oath analysis:
2/25
Oaths by the House of Finwë basically drive the First Age of Middle-earth, so let's look at these 2 side by side. They both move in three parts:
1) the action the oath promises, 2) the group it is promised to, and 3) the relation of the swearer to an associated object
What does it say about us as Christians when we vocally limit our care to only those "within" our circles? Where is our love of neighbor? Does Christ's love stop at the doors of your church foyer?
How can the Church hold up its head when we name someone who has consistently owned the complexities of her story and worked tirelessly to protect those who came after as "the devil's instrument"?
Helen is one of the most thorough, detailed, and conscience-driven people I have had the honor of speaking with. I'm so incredibly thankful to her for speaking out and detailing her experience on the @MidwestAnglican Bishop's Council:
"If the church had always known that nobody from it actually reported this incident, then why was the message that 'we had done the right thing — we had reported this to the officials' the one that was trumpeted loudly for most of 2021, two years after these events took place?"
Regarding a letter from Bp. Stewart indicating his intent to end his LOA:
"I was dismayed with how very often throughout the letter Bp. Stewart used the singular possessive — me, my, mine — to describe the Diocese, the Bishopric and his own rights and position."