I am back from my meeting with the Bishop of Central NY, and I have to say that the meeting was both cordial and frank. I appreciated the tone of the meeting and the subjects that we were able to discuss. Our Senior Warden, Warren Musselman was present and he was also pleased with the meeting. The bishop did not shut down this DCNY blog, as I predicted that he might do, but he did say that at times I have given wrong information out here. I am always open to correction, and if anything is factually incorrect, I will publish a correction expeditiously.
He did express concern about the ways that I have portrayed him in the blog, and I did promise to be a bit more careful with my word choices in the future. We also talked about how our parish, St. Andrew's Church in Vestal has been maligned from two pulpits in this district, including, reportedly, by the present dean of the district, and he flatly said that that kind of behavior is wrong. Whether his opinion will stop the misuse of the pulpits in our district, I can't say at this point.
I also asked for a correction to the story in the diocesan newspaper that wrongly said that our parish withheld funds in 2004 from the diocese because of the diocesan position on General Convention 2003 (that story is below under the headline "Messenger Gets It Wrong"). He said that he would look into that. The truth is that we did not have funds to pay our diocesan assessment in 2004 and the upshot was that we were seated at the last diocesan convention without voice or vote.
So, we concluded on good terms, and now we await the actions of General Convention 2006.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Monday, March 27, 2006
Meeting with Bishop
I have been summoned through the bishop's secretary to a meeting with the bishop on Wednesday morning at 10:30 am. When I asked what the meeting was about the bishop's sec. responded that the bishop wants to talk to me about my blog and "other matters." Since I have four blogs (this one, Orthony, theBigQuestions and Illustrations), I'm going to have to guess at this point that this is the blog that is in the bishop's sights. This is the blog where I post information about what is going on in the Diocese of Central NY.
Why might the bishop be concerned about what is posted here? My perception of the bishop's practices is that he likes to keep things secretive. He doesn't want people to know the details of his persecution of David Bollinger. He doesn't want people to know that he is spending diocesan money on an expensive public relations firm or an expensive law firm. He'd rather that people not be reminded of the $4.35 million law suit that is pending against himself, the diocese and Gael Sopchak because of his persecution of David Bollinger. He probably doesn't like it that I pointed out how a section of an article in the diocesan newspaper on the diocesan convention was factually incorrect. These are my guesses.
My position is that the truth doesn't need to be hidden and that things done under the cover of darkness are generally not good. The bishop has continued to say that he has kept things secretive to protect the parties involved, but we have to ask, which parties need protecting? David Bollinger, to my knowledge, has no problem with the facts of his case being aired in this forum or elsewhere. It is the diocese who won't release the church attorney's report. It is the diocese that told David Bollinger not to talk to other priests. It is the diocese who has tried to maintain secrecy on all the details of their persecution of him. So, who is protected by the secrecy?
My answer is that the diocese doesn't want people to know about the shabby process that they have employed against one of their own priests. The diocese doesn't want people to know about how they have violated David Bollinger's rights to due process. The diocese wants to pretend everything is on the up and up when nothing could be further from the truth, and here we are again at that word - truth.
The reason that anyone hires a p.r. firm is because they want to control and manage public perceptions. I maintain that an open and fair airing of the truth does not need control or management. I have been told by another diocesan priest that this view is naive. My response is that we are the church; we have been called by God to serve Jesus Christ. If we are doing that essential work, we don't need any p.r. firms or high priced law firms. It is when we have stepped outside that work, as the diocese has done, that we have to resort to the world's tools.
I have served in four dioceses and have seen disciplinary action taken against priests in three of them, including this diocese. In the other cases, a letter was sent out explaining the action taken; no emergency meeting of clergy was called during which an attempt was made to bring clergy into the diocesan veil of secrecy as was done in this diocese in January last year. After priests objected at that meeting to this a letter was sent out with talking points detailing what priests could say about what was spelled out at the emergency meeting. This whole mess as well as other messes in the diocese just don't pass the smell test.
Anyway, I'd appreciate your prayers for my meeting on Wednesday morning. I am guessing that I will be told in no uncertain terms that I cannot continue this blog.
Why might the bishop be concerned about what is posted here? My perception of the bishop's practices is that he likes to keep things secretive. He doesn't want people to know the details of his persecution of David Bollinger. He doesn't want people to know that he is spending diocesan money on an expensive public relations firm or an expensive law firm. He'd rather that people not be reminded of the $4.35 million law suit that is pending against himself, the diocese and Gael Sopchak because of his persecution of David Bollinger. He probably doesn't like it that I pointed out how a section of an article in the diocesan newspaper on the diocesan convention was factually incorrect. These are my guesses.
My position is that the truth doesn't need to be hidden and that things done under the cover of darkness are generally not good. The bishop has continued to say that he has kept things secretive to protect the parties involved, but we have to ask, which parties need protecting? David Bollinger, to my knowledge, has no problem with the facts of his case being aired in this forum or elsewhere. It is the diocese who won't release the church attorney's report. It is the diocese that told David Bollinger not to talk to other priests. It is the diocese who has tried to maintain secrecy on all the details of their persecution of him. So, who is protected by the secrecy?
My answer is that the diocese doesn't want people to know about the shabby process that they have employed against one of their own priests. The diocese doesn't want people to know about how they have violated David Bollinger's rights to due process. The diocese wants to pretend everything is on the up and up when nothing could be further from the truth, and here we are again at that word - truth.
The reason that anyone hires a p.r. firm is because they want to control and manage public perceptions. I maintain that an open and fair airing of the truth does not need control or management. I have been told by another diocesan priest that this view is naive. My response is that we are the church; we have been called by God to serve Jesus Christ. If we are doing that essential work, we don't need any p.r. firms or high priced law firms. It is when we have stepped outside that work, as the diocese has done, that we have to resort to the world's tools.
I have served in four dioceses and have seen disciplinary action taken against priests in three of them, including this diocese. In the other cases, a letter was sent out explaining the action taken; no emergency meeting of clergy was called during which an attempt was made to bring clergy into the diocesan veil of secrecy as was done in this diocese in January last year. After priests objected at that meeting to this a letter was sent out with talking points detailing what priests could say about what was spelled out at the emergency meeting. This whole mess as well as other messes in the diocese just don't pass the smell test.
Anyway, I'd appreciate your prayers for my meeting on Wednesday morning. I am guessing that I will be told in no uncertain terms that I cannot continue this blog.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Choose This Day
It is reported at TitusOneNine that last week House of Bishop's meeting viewed the Choose This Day dvd twice! I don't have the details, but I will note in this area that the dvd has been made available to parishes in the Binghamton District by members of St. Andrew's in Vestal. Five members of our parish went to the Anglican Communion Network's Hope and a Future conference in Pittsburth and returned with several copies of the Choose This Day dvd. If you are interested in viewing the dvd, contact our parish office at 785-6092.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
LeBlanc on Tennessee
Monday, March 20, 2006
We are all moderates now (except you)
Posted by Douglas LeBlanc
mitresThe Episcopal Diocese of Tennessee is trying to find a successor to Bishop Bertram Herlong, and its 14-ballot roller coaster of an election, still unresolved, shows the profound divisions within the diocese.
Jeannine F. Hunter of The Tennessean scratched the surface of those divisions in a story published the day before the election. She quoted people on both sides, but liberals within the diocese used more pointed language and, in practice, controlled who claimed what labels.
Consider these paragraphs:
The Rev. Ann Walling, assistant to the rector at St. David’s in West Meade, said even before 2003, individuals who took moderate and progressive theological positions found themselves “marginalized in terms of inclusion in the life of the diocese.”
She said evidence of division includes churches removing the word “Episcopal” from church signs; diminished support to long-standing mission congregations; refusal by some churches to accept female ordination or denial by some clergy to receive Holy Communion with “those of moderate points of view.”
“All in all we are in a very distressing situation,” she said, adding that many long for a return to a “mode of acceptance of a great diversity of perspectives.”
Susan Huggins, spokesperson for Continuing Episcopalians of Tennessee, which opposes affiliation with ACN, said that tomorrow’s election could “determine the direction of this diocese.”
The Nashville-based organization believes ACN intends to disenfranchise ECUSA, Huggins said. Her group seeks to move the diocese back to the middle ground, she said.
Notice especially how the words moderate and progressive flow together so effortlessly, not just in direct quotations but in Hunter’s paraphrases, leaving the impression that the only extremists in the diocese are mean conservatives.
This election is far more complex than Hunter’s story suggests. All four nominees say they would have voted against confirming Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire, which in today’s Episcopal Church makes them fairly conservative. But two of the candidates — James Magness and Winston Charles — have left open the possibility of changing their minds in the future about the wisdom of consecrating openly gay bishops or blessing gay couples.
The two other candidates, Neal Michell and Brian Cox, are affiliated with the Anglican Communion Network — which, along with the American Anglican Council — has become the bete noir of the Episcopal left. But neither Cox nor Michell has said he will try to affiliate the diocese with the Network, and both have criticized it in meet-the-candidate forums. Both Michell and Cox clearly say they have no intention of trying to withdraw the diocese from the Episcopal Church.
As the results from Saturday’s voting demonstrate, moderates — at least those who can find a compromise between two firm convictions — are in short supply in the diocese these days. Instead, the diocese has passionate camps of conservatives and liberals who know what they believe and fight for it, even if that means a marathon of futile ballots. It makes for much more interesting and informative reporting than The Tennessean has managed.
(Disclosure: I’ve written admiringly about nominee Brian Cox’s ministry of reconciliation before and consider him a friend. Clearly I have no vocation as an episcopal kingmaker: Cox consistently placed fourth.)
We are all moderates now (except you)
Posted by Douglas LeBlanc
mitresThe Episcopal Diocese of Tennessee is trying to find a successor to Bishop Bertram Herlong, and its 14-ballot roller coaster of an election, still unresolved, shows the profound divisions within the diocese.
Jeannine F. Hunter of The Tennessean scratched the surface of those divisions in a story published the day before the election. She quoted people on both sides, but liberals within the diocese used more pointed language and, in practice, controlled who claimed what labels.
Consider these paragraphs:
The Rev. Ann Walling, assistant to the rector at St. David’s in West Meade, said even before 2003, individuals who took moderate and progressive theological positions found themselves “marginalized in terms of inclusion in the life of the diocese.”
She said evidence of division includes churches removing the word “Episcopal” from church signs; diminished support to long-standing mission congregations; refusal by some churches to accept female ordination or denial by some clergy to receive Holy Communion with “those of moderate points of view.”
“All in all we are in a very distressing situation,” she said, adding that many long for a return to a “mode of acceptance of a great diversity of perspectives.”
Susan Huggins, spokesperson for Continuing Episcopalians of Tennessee, which opposes affiliation with ACN, said that tomorrow’s election could “determine the direction of this diocese.”
The Nashville-based organization believes ACN intends to disenfranchise ECUSA, Huggins said. Her group seeks to move the diocese back to the middle ground, she said.
Notice especially how the words moderate and progressive flow together so effortlessly, not just in direct quotations but in Hunter’s paraphrases, leaving the impression that the only extremists in the diocese are mean conservatives.
This election is far more complex than Hunter’s story suggests. All four nominees say they would have voted against confirming Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire, which in today’s Episcopal Church makes them fairly conservative. But two of the candidates — James Magness and Winston Charles — have left open the possibility of changing their minds in the future about the wisdom of consecrating openly gay bishops or blessing gay couples.
The two other candidates, Neal Michell and Brian Cox, are affiliated with the Anglican Communion Network — which, along with the American Anglican Council — has become the bete noir of the Episcopal left. But neither Cox nor Michell has said he will try to affiliate the diocese with the Network, and both have criticized it in meet-the-candidate forums. Both Michell and Cox clearly say they have no intention of trying to withdraw the diocese from the Episcopal Church.
As the results from Saturday’s voting demonstrate, moderates — at least those who can find a compromise between two firm convictions — are in short supply in the diocese these days. Instead, the diocese has passionate camps of conservatives and liberals who know what they believe and fight for it, even if that means a marathon of futile ballots. It makes for much more interesting and informative reporting than The Tennessean has managed.
(Disclosure: I’ve written admiringly about nominee Brian Cox’s ministry of reconciliation before and consider him a friend. Clearly I have no vocation as an episcopal kingmaker: Cox consistently placed fourth.)
Restricting Funds
From a priest in the Diocese of Kentucky:
“I have worked hard to teach that restricting our pledge is not the appropriate way for sending a message to the diocese. If anything, it only hurts the least among us.... Healing is taking place in Trinity Church...but to vote yes on the revision of Canon 16, with its perceived punitive measures, may only reverse the healing.... And it could also have the effect of further polarizing an already hurting church.”
Is this what really happens when parishioners and parishes restrict funds? Our parish restricted funds going to the diocese after General Convention 2003. At the end of the year we found that we were able to fund two of the four months of assessment that we had pledged and we sent that amount to the diocese. Since 2003 we have not had sufficient funds to send in our assessment, but if we had, and had we withheld that money, would the least among us have really been hurt?
Let's face it - that is pure baloney. In response to the shortfall in giving our diocese let go a communications staffer and a priest from what many perceive as a bloated staff. We were told at the time that the communications staffer was relocating for another opportunity and the priest is now serving as the Canon to the Ordinary in another diocese.
Some churches redirect their giving from the diocese, to, guess what - to the least among us. These parishes give directly to mission.
Further polarization? If the diocese is really concerned with polarization maybe they should genuinely consider repentance of the polarizing acts of General Convention 2003 and a return to full and faithful participation in the Anglican Communion.
“I have worked hard to teach that restricting our pledge is not the appropriate way for sending a message to the diocese. If anything, it only hurts the least among us.... Healing is taking place in Trinity Church...but to vote yes on the revision of Canon 16, with its perceived punitive measures, may only reverse the healing.... And it could also have the effect of further polarizing an already hurting church.”
Is this what really happens when parishioners and parishes restrict funds? Our parish restricted funds going to the diocese after General Convention 2003. At the end of the year we found that we were able to fund two of the four months of assessment that we had pledged and we sent that amount to the diocese. Since 2003 we have not had sufficient funds to send in our assessment, but if we had, and had we withheld that money, would the least among us have really been hurt?
Let's face it - that is pure baloney. In response to the shortfall in giving our diocese let go a communications staffer and a priest from what many perceive as a bloated staff. We were told at the time that the communications staffer was relocating for another opportunity and the priest is now serving as the Canon to the Ordinary in another diocese.
Some churches redirect their giving from the diocese, to, guess what - to the least among us. These parishes give directly to mission.
Further polarization? If the diocese is really concerned with polarization maybe they should genuinely consider repentance of the polarizing acts of General Convention 2003 and a return to full and faithful participation in the Anglican Communion.
From The Buffalo News
RELIGION
Extending a calming hand at St. Paul's Cathedral
By PAULA VOELL
News Staff Reporter
3/18/2006
Robert Kirkham/Buffalo News
"I say people should be welcomed whether they believe or just want to believe...In society, you are judged by what you do. In church, you are all good enough." The Very Rev. N. DeLiza Spangler
Robert Kirkham/Buffalo News
The Very Rev. N. DeLiza Spangler is settling in nicely at St. Paul's Cathedral and will be installed next Saturday as dean.
The Very Rev. N. DeLiza Spangler laughs and throws her head back, displaying a dimple, when she recalls "playing priest" as a child in the small town of Clinton, Mo., where she grew up.
"I remember excommunicating one of my friends because she giggled, but I let her back in because church wasn't the same without her," said Spangler, who will be installed next Saturday as Dean of St. Paul's Episcopal Cathedral and rector of its parish.
She's come a long way from serving Kool-Aid in her grandmother's silver goblets and small squished Wonder Bread circles to being the first woman to lead St. Paul's.
Today, Spangler wouldn't dream of excluding anyone, as she did her young friend. In fact, one of the church's priorities is to increase its "observable and welcoming presence."
"I say people should be welcomed whether they believe or just want to believe," said Spangler, who feels that church offers community that can't be found elsewhere. "It offers unconditional love that teaches you that you don't have to earn love. In society, you are judged by what you do. In church, you are all good enough."
Though she's been in Buffalo only a few months, Spangler is making contacts and learning her way around town to restaurants, concerts, Elmwood Avenue and the Cathedral buildings.
"I've only set the Cathedral alarm off once, so far," she said.
"Once here, I found I really like the people. Buffalo seems Midwestern in the sense that the people are friendly and genuine. People don't even honk at each other very much."
Chosen from among some 80 applicants from four countries, Spangler was a leading candidate from the beginning, said Roger Mark Seifert, a search committee member.
"We liked her candor and her vision for the future of a Cathedral parish in the heart of a depressed city situation," said Seifert, adding that she was the vestry's unanimous choice.
"I think we have the right person to take us forward," said Seifert. "Our attendance is up, our pledging is up."
Bishop J. Michael Garrison said he's delighted with the choice, seeing Spangler as a person of great energy, management competence and charismatic leadership. "And she has a wonderful sense of humor," he said.
The reception and welcome that Spangler has received in the church and community are dramatically different from what happened when the Rev. Gene Robinson was elevated to bishop of New Hampshire in 2003, making him the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church and causing talk of a schism.
Spangler is gay, and she says she's been extremely open about her life from the first letter she sent to St. Paul's when applying for the post. It hasn't been an issue, she said.
"I told them I'd be coming with my family - which includes Luanne Bauer and our dog, Whitby," she said.
Retired Bishop Joachim Fricker of Toronto, who was St. Paul's interim dean for 15 months, knows of one other requisite quality for Spangler.
"I don't know Dean Spangler very well," said Fricker, "but she seems like a calm person. It's good at a very busy cathedral to have someone who has the impression, at least, of calmness and not flying off in all directions."
Spent time in Alaska
Spangler, 52, said she's always wanted to be a priest. "When I'd say Mass (as a child), I knew I was playing, but it was deeper," she said.
But when she asked at her church to be an acolyte, she was told that it was for boys only and she came to realize that she was also shut out of the priesthood.
In college, she considered and rejected other fields and even thought about becoming a monastic nun. "But I realized that being a monastic is a call and you don't do it because you can't do something else," she said.
Spangler decided to forge ahead. She entered General Theological Seminary in New York, graduated in 1978 and was among the first women to be ordained.
But the doors weren't swinging open for women priests.
"Not that many places were interested," she said. "I sort of wrote Alaska on an application, sort of as a joke."
She was called to St. Philip's in Wrangell, Alaska. "In Alaska, all you have is each other," she said. "You can't get mad and say you are going to go to another church."
What she realized is that all of the church's money was going to pay her salary, she said. So, she went to Willamette University to become an attorney, which she did for a time, while serving the parish on a part-time basis.
The church's Web site states: "During her tenure, St. Philip's became a self-supporting parish. Before (Spangler's) departure in May 1995, she oversaw an ambitious project to raise funds and install stained glass windows in the church."
For the next 10 years, Spangler was Rector of Saint Paul's Episcopal Church in Saint Joseph, Mich. "I began to wonder if I'd spend the rest of my active ministry there or whether it was time to make a move," she said. "And I don't like things happening by default."
When she heard about the St. Paul's opening, she was impressed by its tradition of excellent music, the hard work of the congregation, and a religious education program called Godly Play, based on the principles of Montessori, she said.
"In a day when children are bombarded with entertainment and being busy, this program teaches the importance of our own insights, creativity, quiet and reflection," she said.
Besides overseeing the life of the Cathedral, Spangler wants the Cathedral to offer something to the community. "Worship is not an end," she said. "We are fed at worship to do the work that God has given us."
Wants to try kayaking
Since she arrived, a task force has been formed to research how the Cathedral can best use the five-story building it owns at 4 Cathedral Park, including the possibility of outreach programs on the first level.
"If we are to be an extension of the incarnation, we have to reach far beyond ourselves," Spangler said.
During times of turmoil and rifts in church life, Spangler said she stays grounded with prayer and the faith that God's love will prevail.
"Sometimes I don't know what it'll look like, but I know it's true and I can trust that," she said.
For spiritual nourishment, she reads Kathleen Norris, Annie Lamont, Philip Yancey, Rowan Williams and the early writers of the Celtic church. For fun, she wants to learn to kayak and to play the Celtic harp.
Sometimes, she said, she sits quietly in the Cathedral. "When you have an old building, you can feel the prayers that have ascended and you almost feel that you are being held. The beauty speaks to our souls on a level that words can't."
Spangler said she believes that mainline churches should maintain their identities. "We don't need to re-invent ourselves, but stay with the literature, the hymns, the worship that's been prayed down through the centuries," she said. "There's such a hunger for tradition and rootedness."
Extending a calming hand at St. Paul's Cathedral
By PAULA VOELL
News Staff Reporter
3/18/2006
Robert Kirkham/Buffalo News
"I say people should be welcomed whether they believe or just want to believe...In society, you are judged by what you do. In church, you are all good enough." The Very Rev. N. DeLiza Spangler
Robert Kirkham/Buffalo News
The Very Rev. N. DeLiza Spangler is settling in nicely at St. Paul's Cathedral and will be installed next Saturday as dean.
The Very Rev. N. DeLiza Spangler laughs and throws her head back, displaying a dimple, when she recalls "playing priest" as a child in the small town of Clinton, Mo., where she grew up.
"I remember excommunicating one of my friends because she giggled, but I let her back in because church wasn't the same without her," said Spangler, who will be installed next Saturday as Dean of St. Paul's Episcopal Cathedral and rector of its parish.
She's come a long way from serving Kool-Aid in her grandmother's silver goblets and small squished Wonder Bread circles to being the first woman to lead St. Paul's.
Today, Spangler wouldn't dream of excluding anyone, as she did her young friend. In fact, one of the church's priorities is to increase its "observable and welcoming presence."
"I say people should be welcomed whether they believe or just want to believe," said Spangler, who feels that church offers community that can't be found elsewhere. "It offers unconditional love that teaches you that you don't have to earn love. In society, you are judged by what you do. In church, you are all good enough."
Though she's been in Buffalo only a few months, Spangler is making contacts and learning her way around town to restaurants, concerts, Elmwood Avenue and the Cathedral buildings.
"I've only set the Cathedral alarm off once, so far," she said.
"Once here, I found I really like the people. Buffalo seems Midwestern in the sense that the people are friendly and genuine. People don't even honk at each other very much."
Chosen from among some 80 applicants from four countries, Spangler was a leading candidate from the beginning, said Roger Mark Seifert, a search committee member.
"We liked her candor and her vision for the future of a Cathedral parish in the heart of a depressed city situation," said Seifert, adding that she was the vestry's unanimous choice.
"I think we have the right person to take us forward," said Seifert. "Our attendance is up, our pledging is up."
Bishop J. Michael Garrison said he's delighted with the choice, seeing Spangler as a person of great energy, management competence and charismatic leadership. "And she has a wonderful sense of humor," he said.
The reception and welcome that Spangler has received in the church and community are dramatically different from what happened when the Rev. Gene Robinson was elevated to bishop of New Hampshire in 2003, making him the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church and causing talk of a schism.
Spangler is gay, and she says she's been extremely open about her life from the first letter she sent to St. Paul's when applying for the post. It hasn't been an issue, she said.
"I told them I'd be coming with my family - which includes Luanne Bauer and our dog, Whitby," she said.
Retired Bishop Joachim Fricker of Toronto, who was St. Paul's interim dean for 15 months, knows of one other requisite quality for Spangler.
"I don't know Dean Spangler very well," said Fricker, "but she seems like a calm person. It's good at a very busy cathedral to have someone who has the impression, at least, of calmness and not flying off in all directions."
Spent time in Alaska
Spangler, 52, said she's always wanted to be a priest. "When I'd say Mass (as a child), I knew I was playing, but it was deeper," she said.
But when she asked at her church to be an acolyte, she was told that it was for boys only and she came to realize that she was also shut out of the priesthood.
In college, she considered and rejected other fields and even thought about becoming a monastic nun. "But I realized that being a monastic is a call and you don't do it because you can't do something else," she said.
Spangler decided to forge ahead. She entered General Theological Seminary in New York, graduated in 1978 and was among the first women to be ordained.
But the doors weren't swinging open for women priests.
"Not that many places were interested," she said. "I sort of wrote Alaska on an application, sort of as a joke."
She was called to St. Philip's in Wrangell, Alaska. "In Alaska, all you have is each other," she said. "You can't get mad and say you are going to go to another church."
What she realized is that all of the church's money was going to pay her salary, she said. So, she went to Willamette University to become an attorney, which she did for a time, while serving the parish on a part-time basis.
The church's Web site states: "During her tenure, St. Philip's became a self-supporting parish. Before (Spangler's) departure in May 1995, she oversaw an ambitious project to raise funds and install stained glass windows in the church."
For the next 10 years, Spangler was Rector of Saint Paul's Episcopal Church in Saint Joseph, Mich. "I began to wonder if I'd spend the rest of my active ministry there or whether it was time to make a move," she said. "And I don't like things happening by default."
When she heard about the St. Paul's opening, she was impressed by its tradition of excellent music, the hard work of the congregation, and a religious education program called Godly Play, based on the principles of Montessori, she said.
"In a day when children are bombarded with entertainment and being busy, this program teaches the importance of our own insights, creativity, quiet and reflection," she said.
Besides overseeing the life of the Cathedral, Spangler wants the Cathedral to offer something to the community. "Worship is not an end," she said. "We are fed at worship to do the work that God has given us."
Wants to try kayaking
Since she arrived, a task force has been formed to research how the Cathedral can best use the five-story building it owns at 4 Cathedral Park, including the possibility of outreach programs on the first level.
"If we are to be an extension of the incarnation, we have to reach far beyond ourselves," Spangler said.
During times of turmoil and rifts in church life, Spangler said she stays grounded with prayer and the faith that God's love will prevail.
"Sometimes I don't know what it'll look like, but I know it's true and I can trust that," she said.
For spiritual nourishment, she reads Kathleen Norris, Annie Lamont, Philip Yancey, Rowan Williams and the early writers of the Celtic church. For fun, she wants to learn to kayak and to play the Celtic harp.
Sometimes, she said, she sits quietly in the Cathedral. "When you have an old building, you can feel the prayers that have ascended and you almost feel that you are being held. The beauty speaks to our souls on a level that words can't."
Spangler said she believes that mainline churches should maintain their identities. "We don't need to re-invent ourselves, but stay with the literature, the hymns, the worship that's been prayed down through the centuries," she said. "There's such a hunger for tradition and rootedness."
Reports from Listening Tour
This morning, at church, a few people asked me to e-mail my account of what happened at the “listening” meeting held Thurs. night at Trinity Memorial. The purpose of the meeting was for the General Convention Deputies from this diocese to listen to those of us sitting in the pews, and that is what they did. Fr. Matt Kennedy’s report on the meeting follows mine. His report is posted on the web site “Stand Firm” (http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/index). I have also included comments that were posted in response to Matt’s report.
More than half of the people present were from the Church of the Good Shepherd. Aside from a few neutral comments (thanking the deputies for committing their time & etc. and one expressing the desire to talk about something else) all the comments addressed the current troubles in ECUSA. About half the comments were on each side of the issues.
Among the comments on the orthodox side was one that pointed out specific things in the BCP that directly contradict what ECUSA approved at the last General Convention. Also, there was a prepared statement made by one of the parishioners of Good Shepherd. I spoke about the effect of our actions on our relation to the Anglican Communion and asked the deputies to consider this carefully in deciding any vote they cast at the GC this June.
Revisionist comments included Lauren Gough’s claim that the constitution and canons of ECUSA were changed 25 years ago to prohibit discrimination in ordinations on the basis of sexual orientation and other factors. She wondered why many are getting so upset about it now. Louise Donohue expressed the opinion that we should separate ourselves from the Anglican Communion.
Other comments on both sides were along the lines of inclusiveness vs following the Bible and 2000 years of church teaching and practice. I don't think any of the deputies will vote differently as a result of the meeting, but some people who were there may have heard some of the orthodox reasoning for the first time.
Warren
Matt Kennedy
The Good Sort of Dialogue
I am, as I mentioned yesterday, persuaded that the time for talking is over. Our differences over essential matters of faith are so deep that short of repentance and recantation by one side or the other, there is no hope of institutional or spiritual unity.
I stand by that.
But last night my parish engaged in a very good sort of dialogue. As I mentioned yesterday my parish attended a “listening” session held in our district designed to let the diocesan deputies hear from the people they will represent.
I had my doubts about this meeting and argued against attending in vestry meetings. What finally persuaded me that it might be a good idea was the realization that my vestry was not seeing this meeting as a vehicle to “overcome our divisions” or in any way to pretend that “what unites us is greater than what divides”.
Rather they saw this meeting as an opportunity to proclaim the gospel of salvation people who may never have heard it and to clearly explain the reasons for our stand.
Both of those purposes were accomplished. It was an amazing evening. All of the usual tired revisionist arguments were trotted out only to be met with loving calm and sometimes movingly simple and eloquent biblical faith. Not a single Good Shepherd parishioner or leader lost his temper or raised his voice and we made up a little over half of the gathering of 54 Episcopalians. The truth was spoken clearly.
I spoke afterwards to a lesbian woman who teaches at the state University here. She had never heard or seriously grappled with the orthodox position…the real one, not the straw man erected by Integrity et al…before this evening. She wanted to talk more and gave me her card to talk later. I do not know if God used the words of my parishioners to plant seeds or change hearts, I do know that I am wholly in favor of this type of dialogue.
If an orthodox parish can go into a situation like this without the intention of reconciling the irreconcilable, but rather with the purpose of changing hearts and spreading the gospel, then it can be both good for the parish and good for the kingdom of God. This was a corporate evangelism effort for which the hard core revisionists were not at all prepared. The only anger and bitterness expressed came from a revisionist minded couple serving on the vestry of one of the “moderate” parishes in town who seemed to bristle every time a speaker from Good Shepherd rose. The woman spent much of the meeting shooting me seething glances. I later found out that they had been members of Good Shepherd for many years before transferring to this other parish and were not at all happy with the new leadership of their old parish.
One of the most interesting aspects of the evening, and encouraging, was that there was a sad, but honest realization on the part of most there that we had, in reality, become two separate houses. Even the revisionists seemed to understand our differences are not going to be resolved by talking. And this realization actually made for a far more amicable meeting and a far more honest assessment of our future.
The delusion of a united future seemed to die last night, but peacefully. And this was good.
I do not think that every parish should go into a “dialogue” like this, especially if there are people in leadership seeking reconciliation with heresy. And, of course, time is short and such meetings will soon be “interfaith” rather than ecclesial in nature.
But, if a parish is united, firm, and committed to spreading the saving gospel of Jesus Christ; what a great opportunity such meetings represent to reach those sitting under false teaching who may simply be unaware of what’s going on and, in fact, may not know Jesus.
15 Comments • 0 Trackbacks • Permalink
Posted March 17, 2006
Thanks be to God!
What I have found is that so many people are still unaware of the schism that ECUSA is leading the Anglican Communion into!
I guess that this schism is not the flower that they happen to be sniffing at this time...if they are even sniffing at all.
Posted by Milton Finch on 03-17-2006 at 09:23 AM
I am thankful for the witness of members of Good Shepherd at the meeting last night. I did not attend, but I am glad that CGS members did and for their witness there.
Matt, finish this thought:
The only anger and bitterness expressed came from two revisionist members of one of the “moderate” parishes in town who seemed.
Posted by Tony on 03-17-2006 at 09:35 AM
upset that we are still using the bible as a reference for things in ECUSA?
Posted by Milton Finch on 03-17-2006 at 09:51 AM
That’s good, Milton, and it would fit both the syntax of the sentence and the liberals around here. I do hope that Matt will finish his thought so we have it definitively.
Posted by Tony on 03-17-2006 at 12:53 PM
Encouraging Matt+ Thanks for the leadership & exa,ple of your parish. I will pray for your further conversations that follow last night’s meeting.
Posted by Karen B. on 03-17-2006 at 01:43 PM
Matt+: Color me amazed. It is really difficult to find anyone of the revisionista persuasion that will even make a pretense of listening to the other side. Maybe they were cowed by your numbers.
I recently started an email mailing list of members of my former parish to send out various articles on ECUSA and the Anglican Communion that I thought may be of interest. I had one person email be back that I made her want to throw up and she wasn’t even on the list-she heard about the mailing from someone else. Several have emailed me back indignantly demanding to be removed from the list, presumably to avoid being confused by the facts. Let’s face it, revisionista “inclusiveness” only extends to those that agree with them.
the snarkster
PS: I do wish you would finish that incomplete thought that Tony mentioned above.
Posted by the snarkster on 03-17-2006 at 01:56 PM
It’s fixed Tony, sorry about that.
Posted by Matt Kennedy on 03-17-2006 at 01:56 PM
Not a problem. This is interesting:
“The only anger and bitterness expressed came from a revisionist minded couple serving on the vestry of one of the “moderate” parishes in town who seemed to bristle every time a speaker from Good Shepherd rose. The woman spent much of the meeting shooting me seething glances. I later found out that they had been members of Good Shepherd for many years before transfering to this other parish and were not at all happy with the new leadership of their old parish.”
I am inferring that this woman left before you came, so I suppose she wasn’t a fan of the interim or your predecessor or both. And now, apparently she’s not a fan of yours either. Sheesh, you just can’t please some people!
Posted by Tony on 03-17-2006 at 02:07 PM
Yes, Tony, she left during the interim I believe.
One person from the other orthodox parish in town was there as well. He spoke very well and very forcefully about ECUSAn unilateralism.
Snarkster. I think the reason this went so well is because we went in with a battle plan. We had designated spokesmen, three training sessions detailing revisionist arguments and the orthodox response, and a prayer meeting at Good Shepherd 30 minutes before the event.
Now, no plan ever survives contact with the enemy and this one didn’t either. We had two designated speakers and about six spoke, but they spoke appropriately and well.
The hard-core revisionist weren’t prepared and (suprisingly) were not even expecting us to be there. I guess they don’t read Stand Firm. So their arguments had no impact on my people and, because they had been heard and dealt with before the fact at Good Shepherd, they provoked no anger. They were expected.
By the end one of the more radical people in attendance was reduced to pulling the old “ There are so many other things to talk about besides sex. Let’s discuss the millenium goals and feeding the poor...why are some people so hung up on one issue....”
Of course, the great thing about this is that everyone in the room knows that Good Shepherd is one of the poorest churches in the poorest neighborhoods. Many if not most of my parishioners are “the poor” and yet they still do a soup kitchen once a week and put alot of energy, time and money into social outreach. So her subtle jab “the orthodox care about sex and don’t care about the poor” fell pretty flat.
Posted by Matt Kennedy on 03-17-2006 at 03:15 PM
Yes Matt it does credit to your message. What was it that made the difference do you think--the preparation, the prayer time--between that night and what generally goes on here? The anonymity (for which I am grateful, believe me) of Stand Firm brings out all kinds of wicked attitudes and shamless manipulation on the part of what must be pretty well behaved folks otherwise.
Posted by terebinth on 03-17-2006 at 04:35 PM
Matt+: I commend you. You are doing it right. You are also spot on with the “just about sex” argument. That is just a smoke screen the revisionistas use when the rest of their arguments are going nowhere. I am on the board of our county’s only soup kitchen. We get money from almost every church in town but my ex-parish which is the most liberal revisionist parish in Mississippi. They don’t give us a dime. Maybe we should advertise it as a gay/lesbian soup kitchen.
the snarkster
Posted by the snarkster on 03-17-2006 at 04:47 PM
So much for the listening process. Committed revisionists haven’t listened to the orthodox for over 40 years and have no intention of starting now. The kindest thing that can be said about the revisionist attitude toward orthodoxy over the years is that it has been one of studied ennui. Increasingly, however, their side has ratcheted up the vitriol and outright hostility to the point that some are flirting with unbridled hysteria. My judgment is that this is a function of frustration born of their miscalculation regarding the reaction to GenCon 2003 throughout the AC; i.e., this time they haven’t been able to blow one of their fastballs by the orthodox as they did with women’s ordination and dumbing down the Prayer Book. It is therefore not surprising that both sides at your “listening session” sensed that the purported reconciliation process is over. Fortunately, I believe that the good guys have finally gotten the message that our views will always be received with an attitude of compelling indifference by the other side. It’s time to cut them loose and move on without them.
Posted by William R. Hurt on 03-17-2006 at 04:48 PM
Terebinth, I don’t know that there was any difference really. Like I mentioned, all seemed to come the realization that our differences were deep and profound and unable to be bridged. So the usual “why can’t you stop being bigots and come to the Table"..."why can’t we all just get along” was not to be heard. That made all the difference in my opinion because it was honest. It made respect and love possible.
Posted by Matt Kennedy on 03-17-2006 at 04:52 PM
"The anonymity (for which I am grateful, believe me) of Stand Firm brings out all kinds of wicked attitudes and shamless manipulation on the part of what must be pretty well behaved folks otherwise.”
Oh the “labelling”. Oh the “certainty”. Oh the “judgement”.
But . . . I’m sure it’s the *right sort* of labelling, certainty, and judgement.
. . . Oh the bitterness. ; > )
Posted by Sarah on 03-17-2006 at 07:17 PM
Yeah, Sarah: Oh.
More than half of the people present were from the Church of the Good Shepherd. Aside from a few neutral comments (thanking the deputies for committing their time & etc. and one expressing the desire to talk about something else) all the comments addressed the current troubles in ECUSA. About half the comments were on each side of the issues.
Among the comments on the orthodox side was one that pointed out specific things in the BCP that directly contradict what ECUSA approved at the last General Convention. Also, there was a prepared statement made by one of the parishioners of Good Shepherd. I spoke about the effect of our actions on our relation to the Anglican Communion and asked the deputies to consider this carefully in deciding any vote they cast at the GC this June.
Revisionist comments included Lauren Gough’s claim that the constitution and canons of ECUSA were changed 25 years ago to prohibit discrimination in ordinations on the basis of sexual orientation and other factors. She wondered why many are getting so upset about it now. Louise Donohue expressed the opinion that we should separate ourselves from the Anglican Communion.
Other comments on both sides were along the lines of inclusiveness vs following the Bible and 2000 years of church teaching and practice. I don't think any of the deputies will vote differently as a result of the meeting, but some people who were there may have heard some of the orthodox reasoning for the first time.
Warren
Matt Kennedy
The Good Sort of Dialogue
I am, as I mentioned yesterday, persuaded that the time for talking is over. Our differences over essential matters of faith are so deep that short of repentance and recantation by one side or the other, there is no hope of institutional or spiritual unity.
I stand by that.
But last night my parish engaged in a very good sort of dialogue. As I mentioned yesterday my parish attended a “listening” session held in our district designed to let the diocesan deputies hear from the people they will represent.
I had my doubts about this meeting and argued against attending in vestry meetings. What finally persuaded me that it might be a good idea was the realization that my vestry was not seeing this meeting as a vehicle to “overcome our divisions” or in any way to pretend that “what unites us is greater than what divides”.
Rather they saw this meeting as an opportunity to proclaim the gospel of salvation people who may never have heard it and to clearly explain the reasons for our stand.
Both of those purposes were accomplished. It was an amazing evening. All of the usual tired revisionist arguments were trotted out only to be met with loving calm and sometimes movingly simple and eloquent biblical faith. Not a single Good Shepherd parishioner or leader lost his temper or raised his voice and we made up a little over half of the gathering of 54 Episcopalians. The truth was spoken clearly.
I spoke afterwards to a lesbian woman who teaches at the state University here. She had never heard or seriously grappled with the orthodox position…the real one, not the straw man erected by Integrity et al…before this evening. She wanted to talk more and gave me her card to talk later. I do not know if God used the words of my parishioners to plant seeds or change hearts, I do know that I am wholly in favor of this type of dialogue.
If an orthodox parish can go into a situation like this without the intention of reconciling the irreconcilable, but rather with the purpose of changing hearts and spreading the gospel, then it can be both good for the parish and good for the kingdom of God. This was a corporate evangelism effort for which the hard core revisionists were not at all prepared. The only anger and bitterness expressed came from a revisionist minded couple serving on the vestry of one of the “moderate” parishes in town who seemed to bristle every time a speaker from Good Shepherd rose. The woman spent much of the meeting shooting me seething glances. I later found out that they had been members of Good Shepherd for many years before transferring to this other parish and were not at all happy with the new leadership of their old parish.
One of the most interesting aspects of the evening, and encouraging, was that there was a sad, but honest realization on the part of most there that we had, in reality, become two separate houses. Even the revisionists seemed to understand our differences are not going to be resolved by talking. And this realization actually made for a far more amicable meeting and a far more honest assessment of our future.
The delusion of a united future seemed to die last night, but peacefully. And this was good.
I do not think that every parish should go into a “dialogue” like this, especially if there are people in leadership seeking reconciliation with heresy. And, of course, time is short and such meetings will soon be “interfaith” rather than ecclesial in nature.
But, if a parish is united, firm, and committed to spreading the saving gospel of Jesus Christ; what a great opportunity such meetings represent to reach those sitting under false teaching who may simply be unaware of what’s going on and, in fact, may not know Jesus.
15 Comments • 0 Trackbacks • Permalink
Posted March 17, 2006
Thanks be to God!
What I have found is that so many people are still unaware of the schism that ECUSA is leading the Anglican Communion into!
I guess that this schism is not the flower that they happen to be sniffing at this time...if they are even sniffing at all.
Posted by Milton Finch on 03-17-2006 at 09:23 AM
I am thankful for the witness of members of Good Shepherd at the meeting last night. I did not attend, but I am glad that CGS members did and for their witness there.
Matt, finish this thought:
The only anger and bitterness expressed came from two revisionist members of one of the “moderate” parishes in town who seemed.
Posted by Tony on 03-17-2006 at 09:35 AM
upset that we are still using the bible as a reference for things in ECUSA?
Posted by Milton Finch on 03-17-2006 at 09:51 AM
That’s good, Milton, and it would fit both the syntax of the sentence and the liberals around here. I do hope that Matt will finish his thought so we have it definitively.
Posted by Tony on 03-17-2006 at 12:53 PM
Encouraging Matt+ Thanks for the leadership & exa,ple of your parish. I will pray for your further conversations that follow last night’s meeting.
Posted by Karen B. on 03-17-2006 at 01:43 PM
Matt+: Color me amazed. It is really difficult to find anyone of the revisionista persuasion that will even make a pretense of listening to the other side. Maybe they were cowed by your numbers.
I recently started an email mailing list of members of my former parish to send out various articles on ECUSA and the Anglican Communion that I thought may be of interest. I had one person email be back that I made her want to throw up and she wasn’t even on the list-she heard about the mailing from someone else. Several have emailed me back indignantly demanding to be removed from the list, presumably to avoid being confused by the facts. Let’s face it, revisionista “inclusiveness” only extends to those that agree with them.
the snarkster
PS: I do wish you would finish that incomplete thought that Tony mentioned above.
Posted by the snarkster on 03-17-2006 at 01:56 PM
It’s fixed Tony, sorry about that.
Posted by Matt Kennedy on 03-17-2006 at 01:56 PM
Not a problem. This is interesting:
“The only anger and bitterness expressed came from a revisionist minded couple serving on the vestry of one of the “moderate” parishes in town who seemed to bristle every time a speaker from Good Shepherd rose. The woman spent much of the meeting shooting me seething glances. I later found out that they had been members of Good Shepherd for many years before transfering to this other parish and were not at all happy with the new leadership of their old parish.”
I am inferring that this woman left before you came, so I suppose she wasn’t a fan of the interim or your predecessor or both. And now, apparently she’s not a fan of yours either. Sheesh, you just can’t please some people!
Posted by Tony on 03-17-2006 at 02:07 PM
Yes, Tony, she left during the interim I believe.
One person from the other orthodox parish in town was there as well. He spoke very well and very forcefully about ECUSAn unilateralism.
Snarkster. I think the reason this went so well is because we went in with a battle plan. We had designated spokesmen, three training sessions detailing revisionist arguments and the orthodox response, and a prayer meeting at Good Shepherd 30 minutes before the event.
Now, no plan ever survives contact with the enemy and this one didn’t either. We had two designated speakers and about six spoke, but they spoke appropriately and well.
The hard-core revisionist weren’t prepared and (suprisingly) were not even expecting us to be there. I guess they don’t read Stand Firm. So their arguments had no impact on my people and, because they had been heard and dealt with before the fact at Good Shepherd, they provoked no anger. They were expected.
By the end one of the more radical people in attendance was reduced to pulling the old “ There are so many other things to talk about besides sex. Let’s discuss the millenium goals and feeding the poor...why are some people so hung up on one issue....”
Of course, the great thing about this is that everyone in the room knows that Good Shepherd is one of the poorest churches in the poorest neighborhoods. Many if not most of my parishioners are “the poor” and yet they still do a soup kitchen once a week and put alot of energy, time and money into social outreach. So her subtle jab “the orthodox care about sex and don’t care about the poor” fell pretty flat.
Posted by Matt Kennedy on 03-17-2006 at 03:15 PM
Yes Matt it does credit to your message. What was it that made the difference do you think--the preparation, the prayer time--between that night and what generally goes on here? The anonymity (for which I am grateful, believe me) of Stand Firm brings out all kinds of wicked attitudes and shamless manipulation on the part of what must be pretty well behaved folks otherwise.
Posted by terebinth on 03-17-2006 at 04:35 PM
Matt+: I commend you. You are doing it right. You are also spot on with the “just about sex” argument. That is just a smoke screen the revisionistas use when the rest of their arguments are going nowhere. I am on the board of our county’s only soup kitchen. We get money from almost every church in town but my ex-parish which is the most liberal revisionist parish in Mississippi. They don’t give us a dime. Maybe we should advertise it as a gay/lesbian soup kitchen.
the snarkster
Posted by the snarkster on 03-17-2006 at 04:47 PM
So much for the listening process. Committed revisionists haven’t listened to the orthodox for over 40 years and have no intention of starting now. The kindest thing that can be said about the revisionist attitude toward orthodoxy over the years is that it has been one of studied ennui. Increasingly, however, their side has ratcheted up the vitriol and outright hostility to the point that some are flirting with unbridled hysteria. My judgment is that this is a function of frustration born of their miscalculation regarding the reaction to GenCon 2003 throughout the AC; i.e., this time they haven’t been able to blow one of their fastballs by the orthodox as they did with women’s ordination and dumbing down the Prayer Book. It is therefore not surprising that both sides at your “listening session” sensed that the purported reconciliation process is over. Fortunately, I believe that the good guys have finally gotten the message that our views will always be received with an attitude of compelling indifference by the other side. It’s time to cut them loose and move on without them.
Posted by William R. Hurt on 03-17-2006 at 04:48 PM
Terebinth, I don’t know that there was any difference really. Like I mentioned, all seemed to come the realization that our differences were deep and profound and unable to be bridged. So the usual “why can’t you stop being bigots and come to the Table"..."why can’t we all just get along” was not to be heard. That made all the difference in my opinion because it was honest. It made respect and love possible.
Posted by Matt Kennedy on 03-17-2006 at 04:52 PM
"The anonymity (for which I am grateful, believe me) of Stand Firm brings out all kinds of wicked attitudes and shamless manipulation on the part of what must be pretty well behaved folks otherwise.”
Oh the “labelling”. Oh the “certainty”. Oh the “judgement”.
But . . . I’m sure it’s the *right sort* of labelling, certainty, and judgement.
. . . Oh the bitterness. ; > )
Posted by Sarah on 03-17-2006 at 07:17 PM
Yeah, Sarah: Oh.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
"A Good Kind of Dialogue"
by the Rev. Matt Kennedy
I am, as I mentioned yesterday, persuaded that the time for talking is over. Our differences over essential matters of faith are so deep that short of repentance and recantation by one side or the other, there is no hope of institutional or spiritual unity.
I stand by that.
But last night my parish engaged in a very good sort of dialogue. As I mentioned yesterday my parish attended a “listening” session held in our district designed to let the diocesan deputies hear from the people they will represent.
I had my doubts about this meeting and argued against attending in vestry meetings. What finally persuaded me that it might be a good idea was the realization that my vestry was not seeing this meeting as a vehicle to “overcome our divisions” or in any way to pretend that “what unites us is greater than what divides”.
Rather they saw this meeting as an opportunity to proclaim the gospel of salvation people who may never have heard it and to clearly explain the reasons for our stand.
Both of those purposes were accomplished. It was an amazing evening. All of the usual tired revisionist arguments were trotted out only to be met with loving calm and sometimes movingly simple and eloquent biblical faith. Not a single Good Shepherd parishioner or leader lost his temper or raised his voice and we made up a little over half of the gathering of 54 Episcopalians. The truth was spoken clearly.
I spoke afterwards to a lesbian woman who teaches at the state University here. She had never heard or seriously grappled with the orthodox position…the real one, not the straw man erected by Integrity et al…before this evening. She wanted to talk more and gave me her card to talk later. I do not know if God used the words of my parishioners to plant seeds or change hearts, I do know that I am wholly in favor of this type of dialogue.
If an orthodox parish can go into a situation like this without the intention of reconciling the irreconcilable, but rather with the purpose of changing hearts and spreading the gospel, then it can be both good for the parish and good for the kingdom of God. This was a corporate evangelism effort for which the hard core revisionists were not at all prepared. The only anger and bitterness expressed came from a revisionist minded couple serving on the vestry of one of the “moderate” parishes in town who seemed to bristle every time a speaker from Good Shepherd rose. The woman spent much of the meeting shooting me seething glances. I later found out that they had been members of Good Shepherd for many years before transfering to this other parish and were not at all happy with the new leadership of their old parish.
One of the most interesting aspects of the evening, and encouraging, was that there was a sad, but honest realization on the part of most there that we had, in reality, become two separate houses. Even the revisionists seemed to understand our differences are not going to be resolved by talking. And this realization actually made for a far more amicable meeting and a far more honest assessment of our future.
The delusion of a united future seemed to die last night, but peacefully. And this was good.
I do not think that every parish should go into a “dialogue” like this, especially if there are people in leadership seeking reconciliation with heresy. And, of course, time is short and such meetings will soon be “interfaith” rather than ecclesial in nature.
But, if a parish is united, firm, and committed to spreading the saving gospel of Jesus Christ; what a great opportunity such meetings represent to reach those sitting under false teaching who may simply be unaware of what’s going on and, in fact, may not know Jesus.
[from Stand Firm in Faith]
I am, as I mentioned yesterday, persuaded that the time for talking is over. Our differences over essential matters of faith are so deep that short of repentance and recantation by one side or the other, there is no hope of institutional or spiritual unity.
I stand by that.
But last night my parish engaged in a very good sort of dialogue. As I mentioned yesterday my parish attended a “listening” session held in our district designed to let the diocesan deputies hear from the people they will represent.
I had my doubts about this meeting and argued against attending in vestry meetings. What finally persuaded me that it might be a good idea was the realization that my vestry was not seeing this meeting as a vehicle to “overcome our divisions” or in any way to pretend that “what unites us is greater than what divides”.
Rather they saw this meeting as an opportunity to proclaim the gospel of salvation people who may never have heard it and to clearly explain the reasons for our stand.
Both of those purposes were accomplished. It was an amazing evening. All of the usual tired revisionist arguments were trotted out only to be met with loving calm and sometimes movingly simple and eloquent biblical faith. Not a single Good Shepherd parishioner or leader lost his temper or raised his voice and we made up a little over half of the gathering of 54 Episcopalians. The truth was spoken clearly.
I spoke afterwards to a lesbian woman who teaches at the state University here. She had never heard or seriously grappled with the orthodox position…the real one, not the straw man erected by Integrity et al…before this evening. She wanted to talk more and gave me her card to talk later. I do not know if God used the words of my parishioners to plant seeds or change hearts, I do know that I am wholly in favor of this type of dialogue.
If an orthodox parish can go into a situation like this without the intention of reconciling the irreconcilable, but rather with the purpose of changing hearts and spreading the gospel, then it can be both good for the parish and good for the kingdom of God. This was a corporate evangelism effort for which the hard core revisionists were not at all prepared. The only anger and bitterness expressed came from a revisionist minded couple serving on the vestry of one of the “moderate” parishes in town who seemed to bristle every time a speaker from Good Shepherd rose. The woman spent much of the meeting shooting me seething glances. I later found out that they had been members of Good Shepherd for many years before transfering to this other parish and were not at all happy with the new leadership of their old parish.
One of the most interesting aspects of the evening, and encouraging, was that there was a sad, but honest realization on the part of most there that we had, in reality, become two separate houses. Even the revisionists seemed to understand our differences are not going to be resolved by talking. And this realization actually made for a far more amicable meeting and a far more honest assessment of our future.
The delusion of a united future seemed to die last night, but peacefully. And this was good.
I do not think that every parish should go into a “dialogue” like this, especially if there are people in leadership seeking reconciliation with heresy. And, of course, time is short and such meetings will soon be “interfaith” rather than ecclesial in nature.
But, if a parish is united, firm, and committed to spreading the saving gospel of Jesus Christ; what a great opportunity such meetings represent to reach those sitting under false teaching who may simply be unaware of what’s going on and, in fact, may not know Jesus.
[from Stand Firm in Faith]
Friday, March 17, 2006
From Representatives of the Church of the Good Shepherd, Binghamton, NY:
Given at a meeting at Trinity Memorial Church, Binghamton, NY:
Brothers and sisters, deputies to the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church and fellow Episcopalians,
Hopefully, our time together this evening will be fruitful and while we will most likely part ways with deep differences on essential matters of faith, we hope and pray to part as friends and with charity and good will.
This brief statement represents the unanimous sentiment of the clergy and vestry of the Church of the Good Shepherd.
The essential issue at stake in our current crisis is whether God’s Word holds supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice. When Richard Hooker wrote, “what Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth,” (Laws, Book V, 8:2; Folger Edition 2:39,8-14), he was simply articulating what the Church has always believed; that, “all scripture, is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness” (2nd Timothy 3:16), and must therefore hold primary authority in the Church.
The bible consistently and uniformly describes all sexual behavior outside the bounds of heterosexual marriage as sinful. Homosexual behavior in particular is specifically defined as sin in both the Old and the New Testaments (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:18-32; 1st Corinthians 6:9)
In keeping with this biblical truth, the Church: Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant, has consistently taught the same for 2000 years.
Today the Anglican Communion agrees and officially teaches that all sexual behavior outside heterosexual marriage, is inherently sinful.
All four Anglican Instruments of Unity have spoken on this question. Lambeth did so in 1998 with the passage of Lambeth resolution 1.10. The primates, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Anglican Consultative Council did so most recently in their reception and approval of the Windsor Report and Dromantine Communiqué.
Most recently the Archbishop of Canterbury in a letter to the primates dated March 8th of this year again reaffirmed communion teaching and indicated that resolution 1.10 represents the common mind of the Communion and would not be legislatively revisited at the next Lambeth conference in 2008. This means that for the foreseeable future, at least until 2018, the Scriptures, Church tradition and the teaching of the Anglican Communion speak with one voice with regard to human sexuality.
As your brothers and sisters in Christ, fully aware of our own sinfulness, we plead with you to do your part to return the Episcopal Church to the solid rock of biblical faithfulness and to be reunited in mind and spirit with our Christian brothers and sisters across the globe who with one voice declare God’s Word to be true and good despite humanity’s inability to follow it.
First, we urge you to vote for full compliance with the Windsor Report and the primates recommendations in the Dromantine Communique. This will allow the Episcopal Church and the diocese of Central New York to retain full membership in the Anglican Communion. Anything less than full compliance will jeopardize our status not only within the Communion, but also within Christendom itself.
Second, we urge all the clergy in Central New York who participated in the departure from scriptural truth to repent and recant.
We urge this for the sake of those struggling with sexual temptation; those who need the Church to tell the truth about the damaging effects of sexual sin on soul and body so that they might turn from it and receive Christ’s healing, comfort, and forgiveness.
We urge this for the sake of Christian unity, in keeping with the prayer of Christ on the night before he died, that we all may be one (John 17:23). Our visible and spiritual division has been as painful for us as it has been for the entire church.
But most of all we urge this for the sake of fidelity to Christ. “If you love me,” he said, “you will obey what I command.” (John 14:15)
Brothers and sisters we pray that you will lead us in loving the Lord by obeying his Word and teaching it in full.
But please know this: regardless of your decisions at General Convention, we the clergy, vestry, and people of the Church of the Good Shepherd are prepared to stand firm. We will not cooperate with or participate in any body claiming to be the Church that leads people deeper into darkness and further from the light of Christ.
Brothers and sisters, deputies to the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church and fellow Episcopalians,
Hopefully, our time together this evening will be fruitful and while we will most likely part ways with deep differences on essential matters of faith, we hope and pray to part as friends and with charity and good will.
This brief statement represents the unanimous sentiment of the clergy and vestry of the Church of the Good Shepherd.
The essential issue at stake in our current crisis is whether God’s Word holds supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice. When Richard Hooker wrote, “what Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth,” (Laws, Book V, 8:2; Folger Edition 2:39,8-14), he was simply articulating what the Church has always believed; that, “all scripture, is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness” (2nd Timothy 3:16), and must therefore hold primary authority in the Church.
The bible consistently and uniformly describes all sexual behavior outside the bounds of heterosexual marriage as sinful. Homosexual behavior in particular is specifically defined as sin in both the Old and the New Testaments (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:18-32; 1st Corinthians 6:9)
In keeping with this biblical truth, the Church: Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant, has consistently taught the same for 2000 years.
Today the Anglican Communion agrees and officially teaches that all sexual behavior outside heterosexual marriage, is inherently sinful.
All four Anglican Instruments of Unity have spoken on this question. Lambeth did so in 1998 with the passage of Lambeth resolution 1.10. The primates, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Anglican Consultative Council did so most recently in their reception and approval of the Windsor Report and Dromantine Communiqué.
Most recently the Archbishop of Canterbury in a letter to the primates dated March 8th of this year again reaffirmed communion teaching and indicated that resolution 1.10 represents the common mind of the Communion and would not be legislatively revisited at the next Lambeth conference in 2008. This means that for the foreseeable future, at least until 2018, the Scriptures, Church tradition and the teaching of the Anglican Communion speak with one voice with regard to human sexuality.
As your brothers and sisters in Christ, fully aware of our own sinfulness, we plead with you to do your part to return the Episcopal Church to the solid rock of biblical faithfulness and to be reunited in mind and spirit with our Christian brothers and sisters across the globe who with one voice declare God’s Word to be true and good despite humanity’s inability to follow it.
First, we urge you to vote for full compliance with the Windsor Report and the primates recommendations in the Dromantine Communique. This will allow the Episcopal Church and the diocese of Central New York to retain full membership in the Anglican Communion. Anything less than full compliance will jeopardize our status not only within the Communion, but also within Christendom itself.
Second, we urge all the clergy in Central New York who participated in the departure from scriptural truth to repent and recant.
We urge this for the sake of those struggling with sexual temptation; those who need the Church to tell the truth about the damaging effects of sexual sin on soul and body so that they might turn from it and receive Christ’s healing, comfort, and forgiveness.
We urge this for the sake of Christian unity, in keeping with the prayer of Christ on the night before he died, that we all may be one (John 17:23). Our visible and spiritual division has been as painful for us as it has been for the entire church.
But most of all we urge this for the sake of fidelity to Christ. “If you love me,” he said, “you will obey what I command.” (John 14:15)
Brothers and sisters we pray that you will lead us in loving the Lord by obeying his Word and teaching it in full.
But please know this: regardless of your decisions at General Convention, we the clergy, vestry, and people of the Church of the Good Shepherd are prepared to stand firm. We will not cooperate with or participate in any body claiming to be the Church that leads people deeper into darkness and further from the light of Christ.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
PRIEST CONFESSES TO PEDOPHILIA
A source in the diocese told me this evening that the priest charged with acts of pedophilia at St. Paul's Church in Owego was visited this week by Bishop Skip Adams and Fr. John Martinicchio. The priest confessed his crimes and renounced his orders as a priest of the Episcopal Church during this meeting. This confession supports the allegations that were raised over two years ago by Fr. David Bollinger, then rector of St. Paul's. At the time the diocese said that it had insufficient information to fully investigate the charges at that time. When another witness came forward earlier this year the diocese had no choice but to investigate the charges. While the issues related to the pedophilia are closer to resolution at this time, the diocese has not yet rescinded the presentment against Fr. Bollinger.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
PRESENTMENT ISSUED
As was predicted on DCNY, the next step has been taken in the diocesan vendetta against Fr. David Bollinger. I said in November that the diocese would wait until after diocesan convention and then would act against Fr. Bollinger. That has happened by decree of the Standing Committee.
In a letter dated March 14, the Bishop of Central NY has handed down a presentment against Fr. David Bollinger. The presentment means that Fr. Bollinger will be tried by an ecclesiastical court. The diocese continues to maintain the veil of secrecy over the charges, claiming that they are doing so in order "to be fair and faithful to all persons involved." The letter further claims that the full disclosure of the presentment would "potentially prejudice the proceedings now before the Ecclesiatical Court." The Standing Committee which issed the presentment is the same group that would not hear from the vestry (the leadership board) of St. Paul's, Owego, the parish where Fr. Bollinger served because to do so would prejudice their minds in the matter. It is interesting how the matter of prejudice is used as the diocese controls the flow of information on this issue.
I have been told by a member of clergy in the Diocese of Central NY that a member of the ecclesiastical court, the Rev. Dr. William Lutz, has said in a clergy meeting that he believes that Fr. Bollinger is guilty as charged. If this is what Fr. Lutz said, he would seem to have a prejudiced mind before the trial has even started. If so, this is just one more piece of an ever widening accumulation of evidence that the diocesan process toward removing Fr. Bollinger from his parish and potentially from the priesthood has been extremely flawed from the beginning.
News will be published as it made available on the ecclesiastical trial of Fr. Bollinger and the pending lawsuit of $4.35 million against the bishop, diocese and former comptroller.
In a letter dated March 14, the Bishop of Central NY has handed down a presentment against Fr. David Bollinger. The presentment means that Fr. Bollinger will be tried by an ecclesiastical court. The diocese continues to maintain the veil of secrecy over the charges, claiming that they are doing so in order "to be fair and faithful to all persons involved." The letter further claims that the full disclosure of the presentment would "potentially prejudice the proceedings now before the Ecclesiatical Court." The Standing Committee which issed the presentment is the same group that would not hear from the vestry (the leadership board) of St. Paul's, Owego, the parish where Fr. Bollinger served because to do so would prejudice their minds in the matter. It is interesting how the matter of prejudice is used as the diocese controls the flow of information on this issue.
I have been told by a member of clergy in the Diocese of Central NY that a member of the ecclesiastical court, the Rev. Dr. William Lutz, has said in a clergy meeting that he believes that Fr. Bollinger is guilty as charged. If this is what Fr. Lutz said, he would seem to have a prejudiced mind before the trial has even started. If so, this is just one more piece of an ever widening accumulation of evidence that the diocesan process toward removing Fr. Bollinger from his parish and potentially from the priesthood has been extremely flawed from the beginning.
News will be published as it made available on the ecclesiastical trial of Fr. Bollinger and the pending lawsuit of $4.35 million against the bishop, diocese and former comptroller.
Monday, March 13, 2006
From the Anglican Communion Network
During Lent
Fast from fear; feast on faith.
Fast from despair; feed on hope.
Fast from depressing news; feed on prayer.
Fast from discontent; feast on gratitude.
Fast from anger and worry; feed on patience.
Fast from bitterness; feed on love and forgiveness.
Fast from words that wound; feast on words that heal.
Fast from gravity; feed on joy and humor.
Fast from fear; feast on faith.
Fast from despair; feed on hope.
Fast from depressing news; feed on prayer.
Fast from discontent; feast on gratitude.
Fast from anger and worry; feed on patience.
Fast from bitterness; feed on love and forgiveness.
Fast from words that wound; feast on words that heal.
Fast from gravity; feed on joy and humor.
Some Monday Morning Analysis
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 08:57:28 -0600
From: Richard Kew
Subject: The AT&T Solution?
Dear Friends,
Last Monday we awoke to the news that for a cool $67 billion the
new-look AT&T had taken over our local telephone company, BellSouth.
There seems to be a certain irony in the way that things go full circle,
for now we are back to having a handful of telecoms after two decades of
confusion and an alphabet soup of companies.
However, the telecom world is at a far different place today than it was
when old Ma Bell was split up, with cable companies, wireless,
satellite, and voice-over-internet outfits muscling in on a business
which communicates more data than it does the spoken word, and is
growing exponentially. It will obviously continue mutating, but in the
midst of all this change that familiar name, AT&T, with a slightly
modified logo is there at the front of the pack again.
Yet it isn't the same AT&T that split out the Baby Bells in the 1980s.
This company cut itself into a number of pieces, then those pieces
shuffled themselves and did some merging, then some other smaller
telecoms got in on the act. Meanwhile they were selling bits and pieces
of themselves to each other, until finally what had started out as
SouthwesternBell took over the remnants of AT&T - and the venerable
name. Now, AT&T had already sold its Wireless service to BellSouth, but
as it has taken over BellSouth it has the piece back again.
It sounds confusing, and it is confusing. Hardly had these companies
started to settle down to a new way of doing business than mergers and
acquisitions altered their configuration so that they were forced to
work out new ways of doing business again. However I am not sure than
there are many people who would want to return to the controlled and
truncated service that old Ma Bell used to offer -- or the prices that
had to be paid for the privilege of making use of them.
What has this to do with the Gospel and the Church? Quite a lot if you
think about it. What the telecoms have been doing is adapting and
adjusting themselves to a wholely different world that has come into
being in the last quarter century. Pundits have been noting for a long
time that changing technology changes the culture which changes the way
goods and services are delivered in that culture. This must change those
who do the delivering.
The telephone companies are a fine example of how that process goes
ahead. Nothing is tidy, there are countless loose ends, and then there
are gaps to be filled. For example, BellSouth provide our landline
service and until a couple of years ago our local telephone service.
Meanwhile, ATT was our long distance provider. When a snafu with
BellSouth happened soon after we moved into our present home we switched
our local service to ATT, which means we get ATT service over BellSouth
lines.
It is more complicated than that because we get our cellular mobile
service through Verizon, the other major player in America's telephone
galaxy, although for many years we were with ATT Wireless before that.
We are now waiting for VerizonWireless to inaugurate their broadband
service in this area because we will then get our broadband through that
because living in a rural area there is no DSL provided by BellSouth,
and the local cable provider hasn't seen fit to hook up houses on our
street!
I suspect you are bored out of your minds by the meanderings of the Kews
and their communication needs, but I am getting to the point. The
Episcopal Church of the USA has been the primary franchisee of Anglican
services in the United States, but like old Ma Bell and the lumbering
old auto companies, it doesn't work in the world of today. It runs a
top-heavy bureaucracy in New York, and demands fealty from its regional
clans (dioceses).
On top of that instead of providing services for mission, the
denominational structure gets in the way as it works out the
implications of theologies that were fresh and shiny in the Sixties but
are now as dated as over-sized cars with fins and Beatles haircuts. Like
most tired old bureaucracies the denomination not only keeps on doing
stupid things (or enabling stupid things to be done), but it also seeks
to maintain its fealty over those who are embarrassed to be associated
with it.
Whether it likes it or not, reconfiguration is going on, much as the
birthing of the Baby Bells played a large part in the development of
today's emerging telecom scene. The old structures are trying to force
the old top-heavy structure to stay together, with its tidy diocesan
lines and money coming from the grassroots up the chain of command, and
the grassroots are increasingly deciding that such a dinosauric approach
is for the birds. This is like trying to hold dry sand in your hand on a
windy day.
For a start, in increasing numbers of places the passage of money along
the chain of command is faultering. In other places congregations or
whole blocs of congregations have severed themselves in favor of
something less onorous and compromised, and are networking themselves
into a healthier church in other parts of the world. There is, like in
the day of the Baby Bells, a bewildering array of entities that in one
way or another are seeking to be faithful, and that see the old
structure as beyond retrieval.
Add to this that there are those who remain in the old structure but are
less of it than of the healthier global church with which they identify,
and the additional fact that some of the older splinterings of the Ma
Bell structure are feeling their way back into the mix, like the
Reformed Episcopal Church and the Anglican Province in America, and you
have something that is far from tidy.
We don't know how all this will play out. The old ECUSA is aging and
despite denial to the contrary by those in the boardrooms, the
statistics say it is in increasing trouble. I might want to continue
pretending that it IS Anglicanism in the United States, but that is
about as realistic as General Motors believing itself to be America's
car company. Because the old ECUSA is in a state of decline something
new, streamlined, and healthy could emerge from all these other things
that are going on at the moment, and I suspect that we would see this
outcome in 15-20 years.
What ECUSA forgot, to use the late Peter Drucker's assessment of the
mainline churches, is its core business. It has become absorbed in
itself rather than the task that Jesus set the church of making
disciples. It has been more interested in protecting its monopoly than
seeing ways in which the Good News can be made to work in this
topsy-turvy world of today. Just as General Motors has been telling
Americans that they should like the cars they produce, Episcopalians and
others are shaking their heads and saying, "Nah," and taking their
business elsewhere.
The exciting thing, if we use the AT&T analogy, is that there is life
beyond the present confusion, but that life will look very different
from what things are like now. I suspect that General Convention 2006
will be the last that many of us will take much notice of. The way ahead
looks distinctly unclear, but who when the Baby Bells were spawned
imagined the sort of world that has come to pass? Yet the Lord is
sovereign, he will purge his church, he will help it reshape itself for
mission, and those who cannot get with his program will eventually
wither and die.
In Christ,
Richard Kew
RichardKew@aol.com
http://richardkew.blogspot.com
------------------------------
From: Richard Kew
Subject: The AT&T Solution?
Dear Friends,
Last Monday we awoke to the news that for a cool $67 billion the
new-look AT&T had taken over our local telephone company, BellSouth.
There seems to be a certain irony in the way that things go full circle,
for now we are back to having a handful of telecoms after two decades of
confusion and an alphabet soup of companies.
However, the telecom world is at a far different place today than it was
when old Ma Bell was split up, with cable companies, wireless,
satellite, and voice-over-internet outfits muscling in on a business
which communicates more data than it does the spoken word, and is
growing exponentially. It will obviously continue mutating, but in the
midst of all this change that familiar name, AT&T, with a slightly
modified logo is there at the front of the pack again.
Yet it isn't the same AT&T that split out the Baby Bells in the 1980s.
This company cut itself into a number of pieces, then those pieces
shuffled themselves and did some merging, then some other smaller
telecoms got in on the act. Meanwhile they were selling bits and pieces
of themselves to each other, until finally what had started out as
SouthwesternBell took over the remnants of AT&T - and the venerable
name. Now, AT&T had already sold its Wireless service to BellSouth, but
as it has taken over BellSouth it has the piece back again.
It sounds confusing, and it is confusing. Hardly had these companies
started to settle down to a new way of doing business than mergers and
acquisitions altered their configuration so that they were forced to
work out new ways of doing business again. However I am not sure than
there are many people who would want to return to the controlled and
truncated service that old Ma Bell used to offer -- or the prices that
had to be paid for the privilege of making use of them.
What has this to do with the Gospel and the Church? Quite a lot if you
think about it. What the telecoms have been doing is adapting and
adjusting themselves to a wholely different world that has come into
being in the last quarter century. Pundits have been noting for a long
time that changing technology changes the culture which changes the way
goods and services are delivered in that culture. This must change those
who do the delivering.
The telephone companies are a fine example of how that process goes
ahead. Nothing is tidy, there are countless loose ends, and then there
are gaps to be filled. For example, BellSouth provide our landline
service and until a couple of years ago our local telephone service.
Meanwhile, ATT was our long distance provider. When a snafu with
BellSouth happened soon after we moved into our present home we switched
our local service to ATT, which means we get ATT service over BellSouth
lines.
It is more complicated than that because we get our cellular mobile
service through Verizon, the other major player in America's telephone
galaxy, although for many years we were with ATT Wireless before that.
We are now waiting for VerizonWireless to inaugurate their broadband
service in this area because we will then get our broadband through that
because living in a rural area there is no DSL provided by BellSouth,
and the local cable provider hasn't seen fit to hook up houses on our
street!
I suspect you are bored out of your minds by the meanderings of the Kews
and their communication needs, but I am getting to the point. The
Episcopal Church of the USA has been the primary franchisee of Anglican
services in the United States, but like old Ma Bell and the lumbering
old auto companies, it doesn't work in the world of today. It runs a
top-heavy bureaucracy in New York, and demands fealty from its regional
clans (dioceses).
On top of that instead of providing services for mission, the
denominational structure gets in the way as it works out the
implications of theologies that were fresh and shiny in the Sixties but
are now as dated as over-sized cars with fins and Beatles haircuts. Like
most tired old bureaucracies the denomination not only keeps on doing
stupid things (or enabling stupid things to be done), but it also seeks
to maintain its fealty over those who are embarrassed to be associated
with it.
Whether it likes it or not, reconfiguration is going on, much as the
birthing of the Baby Bells played a large part in the development of
today's emerging telecom scene. The old structures are trying to force
the old top-heavy structure to stay together, with its tidy diocesan
lines and money coming from the grassroots up the chain of command, and
the grassroots are increasingly deciding that such a dinosauric approach
is for the birds. This is like trying to hold dry sand in your hand on a
windy day.
For a start, in increasing numbers of places the passage of money along
the chain of command is faultering. In other places congregations or
whole blocs of congregations have severed themselves in favor of
something less onorous and compromised, and are networking themselves
into a healthier church in other parts of the world. There is, like in
the day of the Baby Bells, a bewildering array of entities that in one
way or another are seeking to be faithful, and that see the old
structure as beyond retrieval.
Add to this that there are those who remain in the old structure but are
less of it than of the healthier global church with which they identify,
and the additional fact that some of the older splinterings of the Ma
Bell structure are feeling their way back into the mix, like the
Reformed Episcopal Church and the Anglican Province in America, and you
have something that is far from tidy.
We don't know how all this will play out. The old ECUSA is aging and
despite denial to the contrary by those in the boardrooms, the
statistics say it is in increasing trouble. I might want to continue
pretending that it IS Anglicanism in the United States, but that is
about as realistic as General Motors believing itself to be America's
car company. Because the old ECUSA is in a state of decline something
new, streamlined, and healthy could emerge from all these other things
that are going on at the moment, and I suspect that we would see this
outcome in 15-20 years.
What ECUSA forgot, to use the late Peter Drucker's assessment of the
mainline churches, is its core business. It has become absorbed in
itself rather than the task that Jesus set the church of making
disciples. It has been more interested in protecting its monopoly than
seeing ways in which the Good News can be made to work in this
topsy-turvy world of today. Just as General Motors has been telling
Americans that they should like the cars they produce, Episcopalians and
others are shaking their heads and saying, "Nah," and taking their
business elsewhere.
The exciting thing, if we use the AT&T analogy, is that there is life
beyond the present confusion, but that life will look very different
from what things are like now. I suspect that General Convention 2006
will be the last that many of us will take much notice of. The way ahead
looks distinctly unclear, but who when the Baby Bells were spawned
imagined the sort of world that has come to pass? Yet the Lord is
sovereign, he will purge his church, he will help it reshape itself for
mission, and those who cannot get with his program will eventually
wither and die.
In Christ,
Richard Kew
RichardKew@aol.com
http://richardkew.blogspot.com
------------------------------
Friday, March 10, 2006
From TitusOneNine
What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb. But what if some novel contagion try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty. What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men. But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation.
–St. Vincent of Lerins
–St. Vincent of Lerins
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Developments in Bollinger Case
This was posted on November 2, 2005 under the title Conventional Wisdom:
"CW has it that the extended inhibition of Fr. David Bollinger was for the express purpose of getting any larger action, like deposition, past the date of Diocesan Convention. The fact that the Standing Committee did not present any new evidence or charges, as required for an extension of the inhibition, certainly does not conflict with this interpretation of events. CW also believes that there is a likelihood that Fr. Bollinger will be deposed without trial as is being done in the Diocese of CT. Stay tuned."
New: I expect there to be some developments that will come to light shortly. However, given what I have learned about legal processes over the last few years, news of developments may be slow to emerge.
"CW has it that the extended inhibition of Fr. David Bollinger was for the express purpose of getting any larger action, like deposition, past the date of Diocesan Convention. The fact that the Standing Committee did not present any new evidence or charges, as required for an extension of the inhibition, certainly does not conflict with this interpretation of events. CW also believes that there is a likelihood that Fr. Bollinger will be deposed without trial as is being done in the Diocese of CT. Stay tuned."
New: I expect there to be some developments that will come to light shortly. However, given what I have learned about legal processes over the last few years, news of developments may be slow to emerge.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Bishop: Jesus' agenda calls for peace
From the Syracuse Post-Standard:
More than 800 attend ecumenical Ash Wednesday service in Fayetteville.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
By Renée K. Gadoua
Staff writer
At a packed ecumenical Ash Wednesday service marking the start of Lent, the local Episcopal bishop challenged more than 800 people to use the season of repentance and reflection to recall the message of Jesus Christ.
"Lent calls us to be brutally honest . . . and calls us to come back to Jesus' agenda and that what he stood for is the good news of justice and compassion and integrity and peace," Bishop Gladstone "Skip" Adams said at Immaculate Conception Roman Catholic Church, 400 Salt Springs Road, Fayetteville.
Jesus' agenda, Adams said, does not include war or federal budget cuts that harm the poor.
His remarks came before church leaders representing eight congregations in Fayetteville, Manlius and DeWitt distributed ashes, a traditional symbol of repentance and the transitory nature of material life.
Roman Catholic, Episcopal, United Methodist, nondenominational Christian and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America congregations participated.
Ash Wednesday opens the Christian season of Lent, which ends with the celebration of Jesus' resurrection on Easter. Western churches will mark Easter on April 16; some Eastern Orthodox churches will celebrate Easter on April 23.
During Lent, some churches cover statues, use less light and sing fewer songs. Purple is the liturgical color usually associated with Lent; a purple cloth was draped over the cross hanging behind the altar at Immaculate Conception.
Many Christians make sacrifices during Lent, such as giving up a favorite food or habits; prayer and fasting are also typical.
Those are important practices, Adams said, but Christians should take them on with a sense of God's global mission, he said.
"Those acts of piety are the way to peace, the way to address the poverty of our world, literally and figuratively," he said.
The Rev. Kevin Hannon, pastor of St. Ann Roman Catholic Church in Manlius, blessed the ashes, and said Lent includes forgiveness.
"In God's eyes, the ashes are worthless," he said. "That is how our God treats our sin."
Renee K. Gadoua can be reached at rgadoua@syracuse.com or 470-2203.
More than 800 attend ecumenical Ash Wednesday service in Fayetteville.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
By Renée K. Gadoua
Staff writer
At a packed ecumenical Ash Wednesday service marking the start of Lent, the local Episcopal bishop challenged more than 800 people to use the season of repentance and reflection to recall the message of Jesus Christ.
"Lent calls us to be brutally honest . . . and calls us to come back to Jesus' agenda and that what he stood for is the good news of justice and compassion and integrity and peace," Bishop Gladstone "Skip" Adams said at Immaculate Conception Roman Catholic Church, 400 Salt Springs Road, Fayetteville.
Jesus' agenda, Adams said, does not include war or federal budget cuts that harm the poor.
His remarks came before church leaders representing eight congregations in Fayetteville, Manlius and DeWitt distributed ashes, a traditional symbol of repentance and the transitory nature of material life.
Roman Catholic, Episcopal, United Methodist, nondenominational Christian and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America congregations participated.
Ash Wednesday opens the Christian season of Lent, which ends with the celebration of Jesus' resurrection on Easter. Western churches will mark Easter on April 16; some Eastern Orthodox churches will celebrate Easter on April 23.
During Lent, some churches cover statues, use less light and sing fewer songs. Purple is the liturgical color usually associated with Lent; a purple cloth was draped over the cross hanging behind the altar at Immaculate Conception.
Many Christians make sacrifices during Lent, such as giving up a favorite food or habits; prayer and fasting are also typical.
Those are important practices, Adams said, but Christians should take them on with a sense of God's global mission, he said.
"Those acts of piety are the way to peace, the way to address the poverty of our world, literally and figuratively," he said.
The Rev. Kevin Hannon, pastor of St. Ann Roman Catholic Church in Manlius, blessed the ashes, and said Lent includes forgiveness.
"In God's eyes, the ashes are worthless," he said. "That is how our God treats our sin."
Renee K. Gadoua can be reached at rgadoua@syracuse.com or 470-2203.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)