Saturday, July 12, 2008

Lambeth Public Service Announcement

Now you, too, can follow all the blogging Anglican bishops with one easy click.

Helen Mosher:
Last night at the Episcopal Cafe, we posted links to all the blogs we’re aware of written by Anglican bishops. In a fit of “how am I going to keep up with this,” I created a pipeline of the posts and gave it a single feed, which you can subscribe to here:

Hope it’s useful to some of you as well, especially with the Lambeth conference being next week.
This is truly outstanding, Helen. Thanks.

It might be a firehose, but at least it's focused.

Sunday, June 29, 2008

Gafconites emerge united?

This was fun to watch. With enemies like these, who needs friends? Are these folks just pathologically angry?

Standfirm has behaved in a despicable way! Shame on you for violating the
embargo. You know it was embargoed until the meeting tomorrow. Yet you went
ahead and put it up anyway.
What an awful thing you have done.
Posted by George Conger on 06-28-2008 at 05:22 PM

It is elsewhere - see Fulcrum ......
Posted by Martin Reynolds on 06-28-2008 at 05:24 PM

George Conger—what on earth are you talking about??? Fulcrum has had it up forever, along with Ruth Gledhill and Episcopal Cafe.
Posted by Sarah Hey on 06-28-2008 at 05:25 PM

Note Kendall’s comment about why he is posting it, which is the same reason we did.
Posted by Sarah Hey on 06-28-2008 at 05:26 PM

Mr. Conger, Fulcrum definitely had the Communique up first because I copied it
there. I am very sorry for your disappointment.
Posted by Floridian on 06-28-2008 at 05:27 PM

george you have done admirable work this week, good job. Unfortunately the document got out to fulcrum and episcopal cafe and ruth gledhill and then it went all over.
SF had no intention of violating an embargo, there was a big lack of clarity as to when the embargo actually was based on the communication friday night saying the document would be available at 10 p.m. Jerusalem time. Apparently this changed but it was easy to get confused about it, alas.
Posted by Kendall Harmon on 06-28-2008 at 05:27 PM

Um, I know George Conger isn’t intending to be a troll here. I understand his concerns about the confusion and the breech of embargo. It’s unfortunate.
But, it seems to me the discussion of the embargo could pull the whole thread off topic, which would be highly unfortunate.
Posted by Karen B. on 06-28-2008 at 05:29 PM

Because others do wrong you should do wrong also? There is no lack of clarity in a
statement that says it is embargoed until 8:00 BST. Fulcrum copied it from
Standfirm and refused to take it down.
Posted by George Conger on 06-28-2008 at 05:33 PM

George Conger, I believe that Episcopal Cafe the liveral revisionist site had it
up before Stand Firm did! Have you made your disgust known over there as well?
Posted by One Day Closer on 06-28-2008 at 05:33 PM

It seems academic now? Once it gets out on the internet there is little point
holding an embargo. Many folks won’t know there was an embargo anyway - and if
they did would hardly feel obliged by it - so holding the line becomes futile.
Posted by Peter on 06-28-2008 at 05:37 PM

No, Fulcrum got it from us. It was my fault. I’ve explained to George in a private email.
Posted by Greg Griffith on 06-28-2008 at 05:38 PM

Everybody, please lay off George and let’s discuss the statement itself. The situation surrounding the embargo will make for interesting reading one day, but not now.
Posted by Greg Griffith on 06-28-2008 at 05:39 PM

FWIW - it was most certainly up on Ruth Gledhill’s blog well before it was up on StandFirm. I know this because I did not see it on SF, then went over to Gledhill, saw it, read it, surfed back to SF where it was not yet posted, wrote up a post, tried to post it but couldn’t, then refreshed the page a couple of times, and there it was on SF.
Posted by jamesw on 06-28-2008 at 05:40 PM

George, Since you are there in Jerusalem with Ruth Gledhill, why don’t you ake her why she didn’t adhere to the embargo and let her know dhow disappointed you are in
her as well! Now on to bigger and better things.....How will this effect Lambeth
if it does at all? Any body game to ponder?
Posted by One Day Closer on 06-28-2008 at 05:40 PM

Here is the sequence of events. Standfirm publishes first. Fulcrum copies. Episcopal Cafe copies Fulcrum. Look at the time stamps.
Standfirm 4:54 Episcopal Cafe 5:37
Now it is out, the AP has it, and you guys did it. Shame on you for ruining the final day of the conference.
Posted by George Conger on 06-28-2008 at 05:41 PM

Once it’s posted it’s accessible through internet caches. I had it from bloglines and was mulling over whether to post - decided I didn’t want to do a Virtue so didn’t. However, once SF went live then so did we, fair game at that point.
Posted by Peter on 06-28-2008 at 05:41 PM

ODC, Ruth is not in Jerusalem any more. Let’s focus on the statement.
Posted by Greg Griffith on 06-28-2008 at 05:41 PM

Sounds like it was more of a mistake than anything else?
Posted by Peter on 06-28-2008 at 05:42 PM

George, please check your email from me.
Posted by Greg Griffith on 06-28-2008 at 05:43 PM

Folks—please get onto topic, thanks. It’s Greg’s fault entirely—The Southern Anglican Women StandFirm Bloggers Association has made this clear on literally thousands of matters here—and I hope that everybody now understands why he merely makes a few minor technical changes occasionally, and why we assigned him the 5 Episcopal Therapists . . .
Posted by Sarah Hey on 06-28-2008 at 05:44 PM

I did ask a question........How will this effect Lambeth or will it?
Posted by One Day Closer on 06-28-2008 at 05:44 PM

Sarah Hey ... here is the email I received from Greg Griffith....
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 1:28 AM, Greg Griffith wrote:
I know you assumed we broke the embargo, but it was an honest mistake. I was drafting my post and published it, and immediately removed it. In the 20 seconds that it was up, Bloglines grabbed our RSS feed. Graham grabbed the text from the Bloglines cache. Then Naughton grabbed it from Graham and Ruth followed immediately. We did not “behave despicably.” I made an honest mistake and tried to correct it.
Posted by George Conger on 06-28-2008 at 05:45 PM

Uh George? Are you reading any of the comments here?
Posted by Sarah Hey on 06-28-2008 at 05:47 PM

You mean . . you had that email and continued posting comments on this thread,
despite Greg’s being at fault, saying that he was at fault, and even though he’s
asked people to talk about the statement?
Just wow.
I got it now, George.
Posted by Sarah Hey on 06-28-2008 at 05:48 PM

You don’t seem to get it do you Sarah. Integrity means doing the right thing, no
matter what the consequences. You are not doing the right thing.
Posted by George Conger on 06-28-2008 at 05:51 PM

Oh, I get it George—I get you.
Learned a lot on this thread.
Posted by Sarah Hey on 06-28-2008 at 05:53 PM

George, it seems that it was a mistake, not intentional. Not amatter of integrity, more a matter of finger trouble and overzealous blog cache software. I am sorry
that this happened, but it can’t really be undone now?
Posted by Peter on 06-28-2008 at 05:55 PM

Sarah, lets’ talk about the statement. []...
Posted by obadiahslope on 06-28-2008 at 05:55 PM

spotted George Conger, I apologise for trying to point elsewhere I see you have
a very good point.
Posted by Martin Reynolds on 06-28-2008 at 05:57 PM

The integrity comes in by keeping it up. You know you have done wrong. You can fix it by taking this posting down. Sarah, I am happy to play the snide games with you and to compare my work in the trenches to yours. However, this is a question of principle, and it is hypocritical to take others to task for lack of principle when you are at fault.
A mistake was made in posting it. The bad act was putting it back up, even though you knew it to be wrong, when others copied it from you. Two actions here ... and I am talking about the second ... putting it back up when you knew you should not have.
Posted by George Conger on 06-28-2008 at 05:59 PM

Mr. Conger,
This discussion should be taken off line. You are not at the center
of the Church and neither is Greg. God’s will for us is that the GAFCON
statement was released here first.
Thanks be to God.
Posted by Dr. N. on 06-28-2008 at 06:03 PM

RE: “Sarah, I am happy to play the snide games with you and to compare my work in
the trenches to yours.”
I’m not—I couldn’t care less about either *my* or *your* “work in the trenches” . . . [roll eyes] . . .
If you think that it is wrong to post this post right here [setting aside Greg’s initial accidental post that got picked up] then make sure you tell Kendall also to take his down and that he also has no integrity. Fulcrum too . . . I don’t think
Kendall—or Greg—lacks integrity. But again . . . I’ve learned alot by
observation of this thread right here, George.
And thankfully . . . others are too.
Posted by Sarah Hey on 06-28-2008 at 06:05 PM

Mr. Conger, Thank you for your participation at Stand Firm, however, the subject of
the early posting is now off-topic. Greg made an honest mistake. The post is now
all over the blog. There is no way to unring the bell. To all - Please remain on
topic in discussing the statement and there is a lot for us to discuss.
Posted by Jackie on 06-28-2008 at 06:08 PM

George, So much bitterness. The fact of the matter is that the cheese is out of the can, and nothing’s going to change that.
StandFirm can take down the post, but that would have zero effect. Actually, the effect would be worse than zero, as most of us here would rather not have to go to Episcopal Cafe to get our news.
Soooo, we can all rejoice in the content of the GAFCON statement, or we can
just sit around listening to you exercise your ego over an honest mistake.
Posted by Fr. Andrew Gross on 06-28-2008 at 06:08 PM

I did ask Kendall Harmon to take his posting down, both in a comment and in an email. Whether he does or not will speak to the issue.
Posted by George Conger on 06-28-2008 at 06:10 PM

I guess I’m missing something here. I got sent the e-mail too and saw the time and
put it up. What does GMT mean? I thought it was Greenwich time, when is London
Time which means it’s 5:00 p.m. East Coast Time? This is what was sent to
Press Release
Embargoed till 10:00 /8:00 GMT June 29, 2008
June 2008
Final GAFCON statement
We apologize that it has taken a bit longer to finalize the final draft of the GAFCON statement.
A printed version of the statement will be presented and read to the pilgrims in the
plenary on Sunday June 29, at 9.45am, for a brief final review and adoption.
There will be a press briefing at 2.00pm in the Delila Room of the
Renaissance Hotel.
What does 10:00/8:00 GMT mean - 10:00 where? 8:00 where?
I don’t even know what 2:00 p.m. means - London Time? Washington Time? Is
Jerusalem on London Time?
Maybe we can just be careful with each other and watch out and not throw accusations at our brothers and sisters right now. No one knows another person’s heart. We’re all trying as hard as we can to cover GAFCON and the statement is FANTASTIC. Absolutely fantastic. Jesus is Lord.
Obviously, we are all on Holy Spirit Time, not GMT. That’s one thing I think
we know for sure.
Posted by BabyBlue on 06-28-2008 at 06:11 PM

Hmm, fair point George. It would be academic, but right to take it down - if SF had
agreed to the embargo before receiving the document.
That aside, it’s a great statement and I am very grateful for the work the Lord has done here!
Posted by Peter on 06-28-2008 at 06:12 PM

BB—note the date—the 29th.
Posted by Sarah Hey on 06-28-2008 at 06:13 PM

Babyblue, GMT is Greenwich Merdian Time! Across the Thames!
Posted by One Day Closer on 06-28-2008 at 06:14 PM

George, I don’t see the comment from you at T19.
Posted by Sarah Hey on 06-28-2008 at 06:16 PM

So, y’all are fighting among yourselves already?! What embargo, don’t need no stupid
embargo (says someone who knows nothing about the subject.)
Now from the NASCAR Province statement on this historic moment: We see this as a parallel Anglican organization of Bible/True Gospel believers and aloof from the
apostacy. There will be overlap with TEC and COE but no authoritavive
connection. It will also consist of anglicans outside TEC and/or ABC. The
question now is how will the Global Anglican Communion practice discipline? Any
organization has to have a process of credentialing membership and a method to
expell from membership. Guess they will do that soon. Since the two groups will
drift apart after a while, another question is what will TEC/ABC do about the
new group within their area? Probably nothing except 815 may feel obligated to
bring litigation since that is their distinctive. Thus endeth the Encyclical of
Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 06-28-2008 at 06:19 PM

Yes George, that would appear to be the only thing that HAS come off T19
Posted by Martin Reynolds on 06-28-2008 at 06:19 PM

Oh, just saw the date! Good heavens. Today is June 28, tomorrow is June 29. See, I misunderstood the e-mail, too. I think we’re safe to say that it was posted in good faith.
I think it’s also safe to say that we’re all on Holy Spirit Time (HST) now. He is rather notorious for not sticking to man-made schedules, isn’t He?
Posted by BabyBlue on 06-28-2008 at 06:19 PM

This is an important post and thread. Could the moderators clear it of the “off-topic” stuff.
GMT is London Time (US Eastern Daylight time + 4 hours). 8:00 am in
London is 10:00 am in Jerusalem and 4:00 am in New York. 2:00 pm (1400 hrs) in
Jerusalem is noon in London and 7:00 am in New York.
Posted by Dr. N. on 06-28-2008 at 06:21 PM

Here in London it is 29th June 00:27 Summer Saving which is GMT+1. A plea that this
thing not be birthed in rancour but any sorting out be done off-line.
Posted by Pageantmaster on 06-28-2008 at 06:27 PM

In this day and age, if you want something embargoed, you don’t give it to the media.
Back on topic, a very interesting statement. I look forward to seeing how things play out.
At some point, if those more knowledgeable could talk about some of the significant differences between 1662 and, say, 1928 TEC, that would be helpful.
Posted by DavidH on 06-28-2008 at 06:32 PM

We did not agree to an embargo before we got the document. No embargo was ever mentioned until the statement came through.
The subject line of the email from GAFCON was: “Final GAFCON statement”
Attached was a PDF. I opened the PDF, copied the text, and posted it.
We had been told in a media advisory that the statement would be RELEASED at 2pm Central time. When the email came through at 3:46, I assumed they were just finally getting out to releasing it.
When I realized that in the body of the email GAFCON had requested it be embargoed, I
pulled the post down. It was up for perhaps 20 seconds total.
In that time, Bloglines grabbed the text from our RSS feed, which is automatically updated whenever a post is made. The rest is, unfortunately, played out all over the
But if you think we’re going to try and unring this bell, forget it.
The post stays up. Pile on me if you want, George. I made an honest mistake,
which I think is understandable given the surrounding circumstances. Won’t be
the first time I’ve taken this kind of heat, won’t be the last.
Posted by Greg Griffith on 06-28-2008 at 06:34 PM

I’ll take comments on this matter, and offer more details as to exactly what happened, at contact - at - standfirminfaith - dot - com. I’ll regard subsequent comments on the embargo as off-topic. Otherwise, please return
to the topic of the statement.
Posted by Greg Griffith on 06-28-2008 at 06:39 PM

I could give a flying #@$@ about all this garbage about
who released what when. I am interested in thoughts about the statement. What
thread ahould we follow since this one has wasted 50 postings on
Posted by R. Scott Purdy on 06-28-2008 at 06:39 PM


For the record, Episcopal Cafe grabbed the statement off via the mistaken early posting by Stand Firm.

Sunday, June 08, 2008

If everything is black and white....

... why do you need to make color copies anyway?

Julia Duin in Sunday's Washington Times
Many have tried to take their (sic) property with them, including 11 congregations in northern Virginia. These 11 are being sued by the Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia.
Today, the Rev. John Yates, rector of the Falls Church, the largest of the 11 congregations at 2,500 members, will ask congregants for a "one-time special sacrificial gift" - his words - to make up for a $300,000 shortfall in contributions.

The church recently slashed its $6 million budget by 5.4 percent.
Neal Brown, the rector of St. Margaret's Anglican Church in Woodbridge - formerly St. Margaret's Episcopal - said his congregation of 170 souls eked out $40,000 from their operating budget for legal fees.

"Things are so bad, we can't make any color copies on our copy machine," he told me.
Jim Oakes, vice president of the ADV, says there has been talk of "going to the wider Christian community" to plead for funds. This could get interesting.

"The Episcopal Church seems to be determined to take this until the bitter end," he said. "We are concerned about how we'll handle this next round around the track. We don't have many deep pockets underwriting this."
Emphasis added.

Can you say, IRD? How about Following the Money?

Thursday, June 05, 2008

Fitness of Darwinian theory

Opponents of the teaching of the theory evolution want to add three little words to textbooks: "strengths and weaknesses." There's something ironic in an unwitting way about opponents applying Darwinian logic to attack Darwian logic.

From the New York Times
DALLAS — Opponents of teaching evolution, in a natural selection of sorts, have gradually shed those strategies that have not survived the courts. Over the last decade, creationism has given rise to “creation science,” which became “intelligent design,” which in 2005 was banned from the public school curriculum in Pennsylvania by a federal judge.

Now a battle looms in Texas over science textbooks that teach evolution, and the wrestle for control seizes on three words. None of them are “creationism” or “intelligent design” or even “creator.”

The words are “strengths and weaknesses.”

Starting this summer, the state education board will determine the curriculum for the next decade and decide whether the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution should be taught. The benign-sounding phrase, some argue, is a reasonable effort at balance. But critics say it is a new strategy taking shape across the nation to undermine the teaching of evolution, a way for students to hear religious objections under the heading of scientific discourse.

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Jumping to conclusions

Paranoia runs deep in the land of CANA. (Dateline May 29, 2008)

Prior installment here.

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

When is a nonprofit not a nonprofit?

How much wealth can an organization accumulate and still be considered a charity? The New York Times
Authorities from the local tax assessor to members of Congress are increasingly challenging the tax-exempt status of nonprofit institutions — ranging from small group homes to wealthy universities — questioning whether they deserve special treatment.

One issue is the growing confusion over what constitutes a charity at a time when nonprofit groups look more like businesses, charging fees and selling products and services to raise money, and state and local governments are under financial pressure because of lower tax revenues.

And there are others: Does a nonprofit hospital give enough charity care to earn a tax exemption? Is a wealthy university providing enough financial aid?
Congress has threatened to impose a requirement that wealthy universities make minimum payouts from their endowments and raised questions about whether nonprofit hospitals are really all that different from their for-profit — and tax-paying — competitors.

And, concerned about the way some churches are spending money, the Senate Finance Committee has asked for detailed financial information from six evangelical ministries asking them to justify their tax exemptions.

Others are questioning whether some tax-exempt nonprofits, primarily universities and hospitals, have accumulated so much wealth that they should no longer be considered charities. In Massachusetts, where Harvard’s endowment has reached $35 billion in assets, legislators are weighing whether to impose a 2.5 percent annual assessment on universities with endowments of more than $1 billion.

The idea behind tax exemptions is that the organizations provide a public service or substantially reduce the burdens of government. Standards from property-tax exemptions are set by the states, while the federal exemption means charities are not taxed on their income.
Donors may ask the same questions. Why give to an organization that is accumulating wealth rather than using it?

Carroll Bogert, the associate director of Human Rights Watch, and a member of the Harvard class of 1983, in an op-ed in the New York Times
At Harvard, where I’m on my way for my 25th reunion, I’d have to be drunk to fall for their pitch. The university’s endowment stands at $35 billion and is likely to hit $100 billion in a decade.
If you ask Harvard’s president, Drew Gilpin Faust, why in the world she needs your $1,000 — as I did recently, at one of those pre-reunion cocktail parties in someone’s staggering Fifth Avenue duplex — she has a ready answer: alumni giving covers one-third of Harvard’s operating budget. What she doesn’t mention is that earnings from the endowment last year could cover the entire operating budget while still growing at a healthy rate.
A few hundred alumni have formed Harvard Alumni for Social Action, to try to channel 25th-reunion giving to destitute universities in Africa. In three years, we’ve raised $425,000 — a lot for the University of Dar es Salaam but hardly a match for our annual class “gift.” And evidently not enough to win the respect of President Faust, who has begged off meeting the group. Harvard clearly doesn’t like any effort that might divert a dollar away from its Cambridge coffers.
And what about churches that spend more on inreach than outreach -- where inreach includes plush facilities that make it difficult to distinguish the institution from a private club? Some churches do -- in my opinion -- abuse the tax privileges afforded them under the cover of separation of church and state.

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Books read, unread or only started

From In a Godward Direction who got it from [....]

What we have below is a list of the top 106 books most often marked as "unread" by LibraryThing users. Bold the ones you've read, underline the ones you read for school, italicize the ones you started but didn't finish.

Bold the ones you've read, underline the ones you read for school, italicize the ones you started but didn't finish.

Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell
Anna Karenina
The Brothers Karamazov
Guns, Germs, and Steel: the fates of human societies
War and Peace
Vanity Fair
The Time Traveler’s Wife
The Iliad
The Blind Assassin
The Kite Runner
Mrs. Dalloway
Great Expectations
American Gods
A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius
Atlas Shrugged
Reading Lolita in Tehran : a memoir in books
Memoirs of a Geisha
Wicked : the life and times of the wicked witch of the West
The Canterbury Tales
The Historian : a novel
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man
Love in the Time of Cholera
Brave New World
The Fountainhead
Foucault’s Pendulum
The Count of Monte Cristo
A Clockwork Orange
Anansi Boys
The Once and Future King
The Grapes of Wrath
The Poisonwood Bible : a novel
Angels & Demons
The Inferno (and Purgatory and Paradise)
The Satanic Verses
Sense and Sensibility
The Picture of Dorian Gray
Mansfield Park
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
To the Lighthouse
Tess of the D’Urbervilles
Oliver Twist
Gulliver’s Travels
Les Misérables
The Corrections
The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay
The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time
The Prince
The Sound and the Fury
Angela’s Ashes : a memoir
The God of Small Things
A People’s History of the United States : 1492-present
A Confederacy of Dunces
A Short History of Nearly Everything
The Unbearable Lightness of Being
The Scarlet Letter
Eats, Shoots & Leaves
The Mists of Avalon
Oryx and Crake : a novel
Collapse : how societies choose to fail or succeed
Cloud Atlas
The Confusion
Northanger Abbey
The Catcher in the Rye
On the Road
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Freakonomics : a rogue economist explores the hidden side of everything (audio version)
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance : an inquiry into values
The Aeneid (excerpts in school)
Watership Down
Gravity’s Rainbow
The Hobbit
In Cold Blood
White Teeth
Treasure Island
David Copperfield
The Three Musketeers

Friday, May 16, 2008

CANA claims opponents use "vulgar tactics"

A press release from CANA Central:
ALERT: Scam Defaming CANA

Please be aware that some who oppose CANA are apparently resorting to rather vulgar tactics. Earlier this week Bishop Bena was contacted by a landlord in Minnesota who informed us that he had received a query from a supposedly potential tenant who claimed to be from a St Lukes in Southampton England and who claimed that he was coming to the States in order to work for Bishop Minns, Bishop Bena, and CANA for about two years. The tenant further told the landlord that they were going to send a large check in excess of the rent with the request that the landlord cash it and buy furniture for the foreign tenant who would not be able to bring furnishings with them from England. Later this week another landlord from Florida called the CANA Headquarters with the same scenario.

This is a hoax by those who oppose CANA. [...]

My emphasis.

What you have here in all likelihood is a scam by experienced scam artists whose only agenda is making money the easy way. In this age of email spam we've all seen jillions of scams not unlikely these. All they're looking for is a sucker who will fall for the pitch.

I believe CANA is the one resorting to "vulgar tactics" by using the scam to suggest that it must be perpetrated by opponents of CANA. (Either that, or paranoia strikes deep in the heart of CANA.) Which opponents?

CANA should put out an alert about the scam; it hurts its own credibility by using the public service announcement - in the opening sentence, no less - to turn it into a self-serving statement.

Again. Which opponents? CANA is the defamer. CANA is the hoaxer.

CANA congregations continue to look to Episcopal bishops

The funny thing about CANA congregations is that they continue to look to Episcopal dioceses for support -- such as programming and advice of teaching Sunday School, etc. This shouldn't really be surprising. Churches are comprised of people, and old habits and networks don't just die when a group of dissidents leaves the Episcopal Church for CANA. But does reaching out for support also apply to deployment?

Here's a report that is uncorroborated at this point -- it's in the category of rumor rather than news. Mad Priest passes along the story,
There is a parish in the far reaches of our diocese that decided to affiliate with Peter Akinola and the Nigerians. They are now looking for a new rector.

A woman from the search committee contacted the bishop of this diocese and asked him to send an interim rector.

The bishop of this diocese told her he could not do so and that they would have to ask Akinola to send them an interim rector.

The lovely little lady then said they didn't want to do that because they are afraid Akinola will send them a black person.

While I give the bishop credit for this, I cannot forget that he is also very much in favor of discrimination against GLBT Episcopalians in this diocese. He considers himself a "Windsor Bishop," but unlike most of the "Windsor Bishops," he has read the part about avoiding schism.
Here's one list of Windsor Bishops. Here's a list of CANA congregations. I don't know any that are currently searching for a rector.