Via American Anglican Council:
Lutherans seeing fallout over gay clergy issue
By PATRICK CONDON, Associated Press Writer – Wed Feb 24, 1:05 pm ET
Until a few weeks ago, the Rev. Gail Sowell was pastor at two Lutheran churches in the small Wisconsin town of Edgar. That was before members of both congregations jumped headfirst into the simmering debate over gay clergy in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America.
"It was pretty gruesome," Sowell said, recalling shouting matches inside the sanctuary; the mass resignation of one church's council, save one member; even whispers around town that she was a lesbian. "For the record, I'm not," she said.
When the smoke cleared, the congregation at St. John Lutheran Church narrowly voted to not leave the ELCA. Across town at Peace Lutheran, they voted to leave and fired Sowell. "Fortunately, I'm thick-skinned," she said.
Not all ELCA congregations have seen that level of turbulence over the ELCA's decision last August to allow pastors in committed same-sex relationships to serve openly. But by most accounts, it has been a confusing and murky time in the nation's largest Lutheran denomination.
Several hundred congregations are moving toward a permanent split with the ELCA and more will likely come, but the number is still a small portion of the 10,000-church denomination.
Last week, a conservative Lutheran group announced its plans to establish the North American Lutheran Church, a new denomination that will recruit dissident congregations. Rather than setting up a clear-cut choice, though, even some critics of the ELCA's new policy say the move could further confuse already splintered Lutherans at a time when Protestantism in general seems to be moving away from a denominational model.
"It just feels like we're stepping off a sinking ship, and I'm not inclined to get on another boat," said the Rev. Bill Bohline, lead pastor at Hosanna! in Lakeville, Minn., which had been the state's second largest ELCA church until its members voted overwhelmingly in January to sever ties with the denomination. "That's not where the spirit is moving."
Pushing plans for the new Lutheran denomination is Lutheran CORE, an activist group that led opposition to the gay clergy policy. Critics say liberalizing policies toward homosexuality directly contradicts scripture.
Lutheran CORE leaders hope to have the North American Lutheran Church up and running by August. They hope for a denomination that's less bureaucratic than the ELCA, but still makes it easy for congregations across the country to collaborate on shared goals.
"We heard from many congregations who came to us, who said we'd like to leave the ELCA, but for us the other options aren't quite right," said Ryan Schwarz, a private equity manager in Washington who's leading the effort to organize the new denomination.
Since August, congregations have not left the ELCA in huge numbers. The denomination has about 10,000 congregations, and in all 220 have taken at least one of two required votes to leave. So far, only 28 congregations have actually approved leaving, which requires two separate votes that each attain a two-thirds supermajority.
"Even if that number doubles or triples, it would still be less than 5 percent of the ELCA," said Bishop Peter Rogness of the St. Paul, Minn. synod. "So it's not as though a schism has happened, where we're a denomination split in half. Nothing on that magnitude is in the offing."
Lutheran CORE leaders say the process for leaving is laborious and time-consuming, and those that already left were on the leading edge of opposition.
"I think they should be alarmed by these numbers," said the Rev. Mark Chavez, Lutheran CORE's director. Many churches, he said, just started the discussion.
"I don't think the wave has hit them yet," Chavez said.
Some of the breakaway churches have already found alternative denominations to take them in.
The Lutheran CORE effort isn't coming together quickly enough to be viable, said the Rev. Kurt Rau, whose Calvary Lutheran Church in Kalispell, Mont., instead opted to affiliate with Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ.
"They're a little slow to the party," Rau said.
His church's new, much smaller denomination itself split from the ELCA in 2000 over perceptions that the bigger congregation was getting too liberal, and so far has been the chief receptacle for congregations leaving the ELCA.
St. Paul Lutheran Church in New Braunfels, Texas, also joined LCMC, said Brian Baese, a self-employed salesman who is president of the church council.
Lutheran CORE's proposal came "too little, too late," Baese said. "We can't hang around when we don't know how long this is going to take. The momentum was carrying in this direction, and we had to go with it."
At St. Luke's Lutheran Church in La Mesa, Calif., the congregation also voted to ditch the ELCA — although the Rev. Mark Menacher said that had less to do with gay clergy and more to do with other long-standing theological disputes. St. Luke's is affiliating with yet another small denomination, the Fellowship of Confessing Lutheran Churches.
Menacher is skeptical about the success of the North American Lutheran Church. "If all that joins you together is concern about same sex relationships, I don't think that's a very strong reason for being," he said.
Bohline, the Lakeville pastor, said Lutherans should stop worrying so much about how they organize themselves. It's a main reason for the decline of mainline Protestantism in recent decades, he said.
"When I went to seminary, I wasn't sure I should be a pastor because I didn't understand what was so different about Lutherans or Baptists or Methodists. And you know, we're not that different," Bohline said. "We're working on the same playing field here. So let's get on with it."
Friday, February 26, 2010
TLC Editorial: Lent and Lawsuits
From The Living Church:
Posted on: February 25, 2010
Not long after appearing in a soft-spoken and impressive video about Lenten discipline, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori took issue with the Bishop of South Carolina on the proper response to any congregation that distances itself from the Episcopal Church.
For those readers joining this melodrama mid-story, here is a quick summary: Thomas Tisdale, Jr., a former chancellor of the Diocese of South Carolina, has asked the current chancellor for reams of documents regarding four congregations in various states of disaffection with the Episcopal Church. The Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence is trying to address the pastoral needs of these congregations without threatening to sue them.
As the Presiding Bishop described Bishop Lawrence’s actions, her tone departed from the proposed discipline of Lent. “He’s telling the world that he is offended that I think it’s important that people who want to stay Episcopalians there have some representation on behalf of the larger church,” she said in remarks to the Episcopal Church’s Executive Council on Feb. 19.
This description should surprise anyone who has read Bishop Lawrence’s public letter in response to the former chancellor’s fishing expedition.
Bishop Lawrence did raise questions about the appropriateness of a hostile legal probe occurring within his diocese, and noted that he has not heard from the Presiding Bishop regarding this probe.
But he also explained the deeper motivation of his decision to delay the diocese’s convention for three weeks: “This is not a time for precipitous action; nor is it a time for congregations or members to strike out in unilateral directions destructive to the common life and witness God has called us to make in the world and the Church.”
If this is a bishop willfully disregarding the rights of Episcopalians within his diocese, he has a strange way of showing it. No: What Bishop Lawrence is disregarding is the Presiding Bishop’s lawsuit-happy response to any congregation that votes itself out of affiliation with the Episcopal Church.
We do not celebrate any departures from a diocese or from the broader Episcopal Church, but neither do we believe that filing lawsuits against fellow Christians is a matter of good stewardship.
The conflicts in South Carolina do raise serious questions of ecclesiology. We have trouble following the logic of congregations that wish to dissociate themselves from the Episcopal Church but want to remain in some form of communion with the Episcopal Church’s Bishop of South Carolina.
For that matter, we wish that any congregation separating itself from the Episcopal Church would give serious thought to sacrificing any claims to property. This is a costly action, yes, but it is a question worth raising when a parish is convinced that its decision to leave is inspired by no less an authority than the Holy Trinity.
If God inspires a congregation to set out, like Moses, in a quest for the Promised Land, surely God will provide for that congregation’s needs. Church of the Resurrection, West Chicago, is one example of a congregation that left its diocese on amicable — more specifically, Christian — terms, and soon found its humility rewarded with a new location for its continuing ministry.
Nevertheless, we do not live in a time when Episcopalians show much creativity or generosity in preventing legal disputes. Too often the attitude is one of squatter’s rights or, in the pious name of defending legacies, spending millions upon millions of dollars to crush one’s legal opponent. Ruthless strategies and self-valorizing language occur on both sides of property disputes.
This is carnal, it is sick, and it’s the very sort of hubris-laden sin that Christians ought to confront within themselves during Lent. We consider it welcome news when a bishop shows the vision of refusing to play the lawsuit game. The Rt. Rev. John W. Howe, Bishop of Central Florida, managed to do this while assuring that his diocese kept all affected properties. Bishop Lawrence is now staying out of court without saying, just yet, what will become of affected properties.
If a bishop’s refusing to sue rectors and vestries is sufficient cause to attract deposition-style inquiries on behalf of the Presiding Bishop, may Bishop Lawrence’s courageous tribe increase.
hat tip: Fr. Dick Kim
Posted on: February 25, 2010
Not long after appearing in a soft-spoken and impressive video about Lenten discipline, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori took issue with the Bishop of South Carolina on the proper response to any congregation that distances itself from the Episcopal Church.
For those readers joining this melodrama mid-story, here is a quick summary: Thomas Tisdale, Jr., a former chancellor of the Diocese of South Carolina, has asked the current chancellor for reams of documents regarding four congregations in various states of disaffection with the Episcopal Church. The Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence is trying to address the pastoral needs of these congregations without threatening to sue them.
As the Presiding Bishop described Bishop Lawrence’s actions, her tone departed from the proposed discipline of Lent. “He’s telling the world that he is offended that I think it’s important that people who want to stay Episcopalians there have some representation on behalf of the larger church,” she said in remarks to the Episcopal Church’s Executive Council on Feb. 19.
This description should surprise anyone who has read Bishop Lawrence’s public letter in response to the former chancellor’s fishing expedition.
Bishop Lawrence did raise questions about the appropriateness of a hostile legal probe occurring within his diocese, and noted that he has not heard from the Presiding Bishop regarding this probe.
But he also explained the deeper motivation of his decision to delay the diocese’s convention for three weeks: “This is not a time for precipitous action; nor is it a time for congregations or members to strike out in unilateral directions destructive to the common life and witness God has called us to make in the world and the Church.”
If this is a bishop willfully disregarding the rights of Episcopalians within his diocese, he has a strange way of showing it. No: What Bishop Lawrence is disregarding is the Presiding Bishop’s lawsuit-happy response to any congregation that votes itself out of affiliation with the Episcopal Church.
We do not celebrate any departures from a diocese or from the broader Episcopal Church, but neither do we believe that filing lawsuits against fellow Christians is a matter of good stewardship.
The conflicts in South Carolina do raise serious questions of ecclesiology. We have trouble following the logic of congregations that wish to dissociate themselves from the Episcopal Church but want to remain in some form of communion with the Episcopal Church’s Bishop of South Carolina.
For that matter, we wish that any congregation separating itself from the Episcopal Church would give serious thought to sacrificing any claims to property. This is a costly action, yes, but it is a question worth raising when a parish is convinced that its decision to leave is inspired by no less an authority than the Holy Trinity.
If God inspires a congregation to set out, like Moses, in a quest for the Promised Land, surely God will provide for that congregation’s needs. Church of the Resurrection, West Chicago, is one example of a congregation that left its diocese on amicable — more specifically, Christian — terms, and soon found its humility rewarded with a new location for its continuing ministry.
Nevertheless, we do not live in a time when Episcopalians show much creativity or generosity in preventing legal disputes. Too often the attitude is one of squatter’s rights or, in the pious name of defending legacies, spending millions upon millions of dollars to crush one’s legal opponent. Ruthless strategies and self-valorizing language occur on both sides of property disputes.
This is carnal, it is sick, and it’s the very sort of hubris-laden sin that Christians ought to confront within themselves during Lent. We consider it welcome news when a bishop shows the vision of refusing to play the lawsuit game. The Rt. Rev. John W. Howe, Bishop of Central Florida, managed to do this while assuring that his diocese kept all affected properties. Bishop Lawrence is now staying out of court without saying, just yet, what will become of affected properties.
If a bishop’s refusing to sue rectors and vestries is sufficient cause to attract deposition-style inquiries on behalf of the Presiding Bishop, may Bishop Lawrence’s courageous tribe increase.
hat tip: Fr. Dick Kim
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
WHAT IF?
from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor
Rereading the two posts immediately below this one got me to thinking about something. Could the Episcopalians have pulled off 2003? Or at least minimized the damage they did to the rest of Anglican Communion?
Theoretically, yes; practically, no. As Pierre Whalon hints at and Walter Russell Mead comes right out and says, arrogance and indifference to the rest of the Anglican world have been hallmarks of the Episcopal Organization for a long time.
The fact that Frank Griswold insouciantly signed his name to th[e primates
statement at the emergency meeting in 2003] proves better than anything possibly can TEO’s complete and total indifference to the opinion of the rest of the Anglican world.
And the fact that the Episcopalians kept changing their justification for Robbie’s pointy hat(the spirit is doing a new thing, polity, fruits of the spirit, etc.) suggests that they were genuinely surprised by the firestorm Robbie’s consecration caused.
All of which further suggests that the Episcopal Organization(and the rest of the Anglican left including Rowan Williams) was so convinced of the rightness of what TEO had done that there was no interest in taking seriously any contrary viewpoint.
But what if the Episcopal approach had been entirely different? What if, immediately after Robinson’s approval, he had been ordered to stay down, to confine himself to his New Hampshire duties and nothing else? And what if the 2003 General Convention had passed a resolution that said the following to the rest of the Anglican world?
We realize what we have just done. But New Hampshire wants this man as its bishop and we are bound by our canons to approve him.
But we know full well why you are angry. Therefore, we pledge not to approve the election of another practicing homosexual bishop until such time as we have all sat down together and hashed this thing out.
We therefore urge the Archbishop of Canterbury to move up the next Lambeth Conference to as early a date as possible but we are prepared to wait. And we would like the Conference to deal with this issue and this issue alone.
We believe we have a case to make. But if that case is not accepted, we will walk away from the Communion, wish you Godspeed and allow any of our parishes or dioceses that wish to remain a part of the Communion to do so with our blessing.
If the Episcopalians had taken that line, most, if not all, of the rancor of the last six and a half years would have been avoided. But, as has been stated previously, the Episcopalians were and still are incapable of taking that line. Because that would have required something Episcopalians have never been any good at.
Humility.
Rereading the two posts immediately below this one got me to thinking about something. Could the Episcopalians have pulled off 2003? Or at least minimized the damage they did to the rest of Anglican Communion?
Theoretically, yes; practically, no. As Pierre Whalon hints at and Walter Russell Mead comes right out and says, arrogance and indifference to the rest of the Anglican world have been hallmarks of the Episcopal Organization for a long time.
The fact that Frank Griswold insouciantly signed his name to th[e primates
statement at the emergency meeting in 2003] proves better than anything possibly can TEO’s complete and total indifference to the opinion of the rest of the Anglican world.
And the fact that the Episcopalians kept changing their justification for Robbie’s pointy hat(the spirit is doing a new thing, polity, fruits of the spirit, etc.) suggests that they were genuinely surprised by the firestorm Robbie’s consecration caused.
All of which further suggests that the Episcopal Organization(and the rest of the Anglican left including Rowan Williams) was so convinced of the rightness of what TEO had done that there was no interest in taking seriously any contrary viewpoint.
But what if the Episcopal approach had been entirely different? What if, immediately after Robinson’s approval, he had been ordered to stay down, to confine himself to his New Hampshire duties and nothing else? And what if the 2003 General Convention had passed a resolution that said the following to the rest of the Anglican world?
We realize what we have just done. But New Hampshire wants this man as its bishop and we are bound by our canons to approve him.
But we know full well why you are angry. Therefore, we pledge not to approve the election of another practicing homosexual bishop until such time as we have all sat down together and hashed this thing out.
We therefore urge the Archbishop of Canterbury to move up the next Lambeth Conference to as early a date as possible but we are prepared to wait. And we would like the Conference to deal with this issue and this issue alone.
We believe we have a case to make. But if that case is not accepted, we will walk away from the Communion, wish you Godspeed and allow any of our parishes or dioceses that wish to remain a part of the Communion to do so with our blessing.
If the Episcopalians had taken that line, most, if not all, of the rancor of the last six and a half years would have been avoided. But, as has been stated previously, the Episcopalians were and still are incapable of taking that line. Because that would have required something Episcopalians have never been any good at.
Humility.
PLANO, TX: Archbishop Duncan says New Anglican Movement is poised to be Anglican Century
By David W. Virtue in Plano
www.virtueonline.org
February 23, 2010
The Archbishop of the Anglican Church of North America said today that “if orthodox Anglicans do what we are sent to do, what we will become is the ancient future movement of the 21st Century church attracting a rising generation of believer leaders abounding in the love of Jesus Christ broken.
“This could be the Anglican Century in North America accountable to Scripture, Tradition, the Holy Spirit and the transformation of society. There has never been a movement so well positioned at the beginning of an era multiplying congregations fueled by the Holy Spirit. It is the Anglican moment and if we are faithful we should prove to be an Anglican century,” said Archbishop Robert Duncan to 325 new Anglican Church planters.
“We have come a long ways from those darks days seven years ago when the church we grew up in we discovered had left us. We are in a different moment, today.”
Duncan said, ”We are in a season where there are so many evidences of God’s favor about what we are engaged in. It is what the Father is doing and there is great blessing when we enjoin ourselves to what the Father is doing. We preach Christ crucified.”
“This is an Anglican moment because it is in God’s plan. We are not something special. God chooses those who don’t deserve it. ACNA is evidence of God’s favor.”
Duncan recounted how in 2004 Bishop Ed Salmon (SC ret.) got a letter from Archbishop Rowan Williams saying they (orthodox Anglicans in North America) will never get it together. “They didn’t think like that eight months ago. Now look at how far we have come together today! Last week in London (General Synod), it changed yet again.”
Duncan said ACNA is part of the Anglican alphabet soup. “It is a sovereign act of God and it has actually changed our hearts. We have brought Canada and the US together wiping away boundaries, bringing us altogether. It is the first sign of God’s favor.”
“We have an identity. The charisms of catholic, evangelical and Pentecostal have been brought together in one church to reach North America with the transforming love of Jesus Christ.”
Duncan outlined four accountabilities: Scripture, tradition, the Holy Spirit and society. “They are not four streams but four accountabilities. We meet people where they are, but we do not to leave them there. We love them there and help them be transformed by God’s love.”
The archbishop said the recognitions that have come, both ecumenical and Anglican, from Rick Warren and Metropolitan Jonah empowered him. “They said we know who you are and we stand with you. That is a sign of God’s favor. It is extraordinary the Anglican recognition we have gotten and how it keeps unfolding. One can debate what Synod meant in London, but part of it is that both archbishops voted for it. This past Saturday I got a call from Southeast Asia Archbishop John Chew who told him this Synod by unanimous resolution voted so the whole province is now in communion with ACNA. Myanmar (formerly Burma) and GAFCON have also recognized us.”
Facing the fears and financial threats to ACNA, Duncan said it is easier to leave Egypt than to leave Egypt’s patterns. It is easy to fall back in old ways of behaving. “There were lots of fears that we would lose the Prayer Book, seminaries, parishes and pensions.” On finances, Duncan said “We used to have a lot (of money) and did nothing with it, so stop worrying about it.”
“We have overcome. God is favoring us. There is a new rising generation of leaders and I am excited.
“The devil is a raging lion, he doesn’t like what you are doing, but God does. The final threat is to end on less than the vision. When you have a vision you aim at the vision when you don’t have a vision you aim at each other.”
Touching on the thorny issue of women’s ordination, Duncan said, “We have made peace together about two integrities. It is easy to take the easy road. We will settle it out politically. Are we going to aim at the vision or at each other? The goal is to reach North America with the transforming love of Jesus Christ.”
END
www.virtueonline.org
February 23, 2010
The Archbishop of the Anglican Church of North America said today that “if orthodox Anglicans do what we are sent to do, what we will become is the ancient future movement of the 21st Century church attracting a rising generation of believer leaders abounding in the love of Jesus Christ broken.
“This could be the Anglican Century in North America accountable to Scripture, Tradition, the Holy Spirit and the transformation of society. There has never been a movement so well positioned at the beginning of an era multiplying congregations fueled by the Holy Spirit. It is the Anglican moment and if we are faithful we should prove to be an Anglican century,” said Archbishop Robert Duncan to 325 new Anglican Church planters.
“We have come a long ways from those darks days seven years ago when the church we grew up in we discovered had left us. We are in a different moment, today.”
Duncan said, ”We are in a season where there are so many evidences of God’s favor about what we are engaged in. It is what the Father is doing and there is great blessing when we enjoin ourselves to what the Father is doing. We preach Christ crucified.”
“This is an Anglican moment because it is in God’s plan. We are not something special. God chooses those who don’t deserve it. ACNA is evidence of God’s favor.”
Duncan recounted how in 2004 Bishop Ed Salmon (SC ret.) got a letter from Archbishop Rowan Williams saying they (orthodox Anglicans in North America) will never get it together. “They didn’t think like that eight months ago. Now look at how far we have come together today! Last week in London (General Synod), it changed yet again.”
Duncan said ACNA is part of the Anglican alphabet soup. “It is a sovereign act of God and it has actually changed our hearts. We have brought Canada and the US together wiping away boundaries, bringing us altogether. It is the first sign of God’s favor.”
“We have an identity. The charisms of catholic, evangelical and Pentecostal have been brought together in one church to reach North America with the transforming love of Jesus Christ.”
Duncan outlined four accountabilities: Scripture, tradition, the Holy Spirit and society. “They are not four streams but four accountabilities. We meet people where they are, but we do not to leave them there. We love them there and help them be transformed by God’s love.”
The archbishop said the recognitions that have come, both ecumenical and Anglican, from Rick Warren and Metropolitan Jonah empowered him. “They said we know who you are and we stand with you. That is a sign of God’s favor. It is extraordinary the Anglican recognition we have gotten and how it keeps unfolding. One can debate what Synod meant in London, but part of it is that both archbishops voted for it. This past Saturday I got a call from Southeast Asia Archbishop John Chew who told him this Synod by unanimous resolution voted so the whole province is now in communion with ACNA. Myanmar (formerly Burma) and GAFCON have also recognized us.”
Facing the fears and financial threats to ACNA, Duncan said it is easier to leave Egypt than to leave Egypt’s patterns. It is easy to fall back in old ways of behaving. “There were lots of fears that we would lose the Prayer Book, seminaries, parishes and pensions.” On finances, Duncan said “We used to have a lot (of money) and did nothing with it, so stop worrying about it.”
“We have overcome. God is favoring us. There is a new rising generation of leaders and I am excited.
“The devil is a raging lion, he doesn’t like what you are doing, but God does. The final threat is to end on less than the vision. When you have a vision you aim at the vision when you don’t have a vision you aim at each other.”
Touching on the thorny issue of women’s ordination, Duncan said, “We have made peace together about two integrities. It is easy to take the easy road. We will settle it out politically. Are we going to aim at the vision or at each other? The goal is to reach North America with the transforming love of Jesus Christ.”
END
Presiding Bishop: ECUSA began decline before gay bishop
As I suggest in a short post below, honesty is not one of the strong points of the PB. The BBB provides the evidence for this. ed.
From the BibleBeltBlogger via Stand Firm:
Top-notch Episcopal Church statistician Kirk Hadaway gave a presentation to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and other church leaders — and the numbers don’t look good.
After the ordination of openly gay bishop Gene Robinson in 2003, the Episcopal Church lost roughly one-tenth of its members. Roughly One-seventh of its weekly churchgoers stopped attending.
Is there a big correlation between Robinson’s ordination and the plummeting membership and attendance figures? The presiding bishop doesn’t seem to think so, if this Episcopal News Service article is any indication.
“Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said after Hadaway’s report that she was struck that the most recent trend of declining membership began in 2000 and 2001, ‘long before the actions of General Convention 2003, which is often the spin that is out there.’ That meeting of convention consented to the ordination and consecration of New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson as the first openly gay and partnered bishop in the Anglican Communion. That decision caused intense debate across the church and the fracturing of some congregations and dioceses.”
But here’s what the church’s own statistics show:
Membership decline from 1998 through 2002 = 1%
Membership decline from 1998 through 2008 = 12%
The pattern is even more striking for church attendance.
Church attendance from 1998 through 2002 actually increased by 0.5% But average Sunday attendance between 1998 and 2008 decreased 16 percent.
From the BibleBeltBlogger via Stand Firm:
Top-notch Episcopal Church statistician Kirk Hadaway gave a presentation to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and other church leaders — and the numbers don’t look good.
After the ordination of openly gay bishop Gene Robinson in 2003, the Episcopal Church lost roughly one-tenth of its members. Roughly One-seventh of its weekly churchgoers stopped attending.
Is there a big correlation between Robinson’s ordination and the plummeting membership and attendance figures? The presiding bishop doesn’t seem to think so, if this Episcopal News Service article is any indication.
“Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said after Hadaway’s report that she was struck that the most recent trend of declining membership began in 2000 and 2001, ‘long before the actions of General Convention 2003, which is often the spin that is out there.’ That meeting of convention consented to the ordination and consecration of New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson as the first openly gay and partnered bishop in the Anglican Communion. That decision caused intense debate across the church and the fracturing of some congregations and dioceses.”
But here’s what the church’s own statistics show:
Membership decline from 1998 through 2002 = 1%
Membership decline from 1998 through 2008 = 12%
The pattern is even more striking for church attendance.
Church attendance from 1998 through 2002 actually increased by 0.5% But average Sunday attendance between 1998 and 2008 decreased 16 percent.
Va. Episcopalians backpedal on gay unions
From The Washington Times via TitusOneNine:
By Julia Duin
The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia has backed away from recognizing same-sex unions, instead voting over the weekend to form a panel of laity and clergy that will set standards for church-sanctioned blessings of such unions should they be approved by the entire 2-million-member Episcopal Church.
About 346 delegates to the diocese's annual council meeting at Virginia Theological Seminary in Alexandria narrowly voted — by a show of hands — to form the panel, which will also include lawyers who specialize in church law.
A substitute amendment suggesting the diocese allow openly gay clergy and same-sex blessings failed after a lengthy debate.
Saturday's vote was a less radical choice for the 80,000-member Virginia Diocese, the largest in the Episcopal Church; signifying a slowing down in the momentum that is propelling the entire denomination toward eventually allowing same-sex unions. Several dioceses, although not Virginia, allow actively gay clergy, and the denomination's second openly gay bishop, Canon Mary Glasspool of Baltimore, is expected to be consecrated this May in Los Angeles.
The Virginia vote was in response to last summer's decision by the Episcopal General Convention, meeting in Anaheim, Calif., to pass resolution C056, which empowered the denomination to begin "collecting and developing theological resources and liturgies" for same-sex blessings. The denomination is expected to endorse some kind of rite at its 2012 meeting in Indianapolis.
Sixteen Episcopal dioceses — including four since last summer — already allow same-sex blessings.
Saturday's resolution was a compromise between three previous proposed resolutions; one that proposed Episcopalians keep to a traditional understanding of marriage as between a man and a woman, and two others that proposed the diocese lift its current prohibition against same-sex blessings, ordaining sexually active homosexuals or allowing them to serve in a parish.
The resolution admitted that diocesan clergy and parishioners "remain divided over the wisdom and theology of blessing same-gender relationships" but at the same time admitted that churches feel pressured by the "the growing differences between Christian and civil understanding of marriage and relationships."
Should the denomination move forward on same-sex blessings in 2012, the resolution said, the diocese must address how clergy, for reasons of "theological principle," may refuse to perform such blessings. It will also look at several other matters, such as whether the diocesan bishop has to sign off on these unions, what to do if a gay couple wants a divorce, and how to proceed since the state of Virginia does not recognize such unions.
Only five states permit gay marriages, with the District slated to do so as of March 2.
Several members of St. Anne's Episcopal Church in Reston, Va. — which drafted the original resolutions approving openly gay clergy and same-sex blessings, protested the compromise resolution, saying that a panel was not the direction they wanted to go.
Its rector, Jim Papile, said they viewed the compromise "with incredible dismay," saying it dealt more with marriage, whereas their original resolution dealt with same-sex blessings.
Saturday's meeting was a continuation of a Jan. 29 diocesan council that was adjourned early because of an approaching snowstorm. At the earlier meeting, delegates approved a $4.8 million 2010 budget, about $12,000 less than the previous year's budget.
Diocesan officials also addressed a $4 million line of credit — of which $3.5 million has been spent to date — that it has taken out to fund a three-year lawsuit against 11 conservative churches that left the diocese in 2006 and early 2007. When market conditions approve, the diocese will sell parcels of unconsecrated land to help pay the $3.5 million.
The diocese seeks to win back millions of dollars of property taken by the departing churches, which left over liberal trends in the denomination. After the conservatives won the lawsuit at trial, the diocese appealed. The case will go before the Virginia Supreme Court this year.
The departure of the conservatives, which reduced the diocese's membership by about 10,000, was referred to several times Saturday as causing much "pain" to the remaining Episcopalians. However, a last-minute amendment to form a "reconciliation task force" between Episcopalians and former Episcopalians failed for lack of time to consider it adequately.
By Julia Duin
The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia has backed away from recognizing same-sex unions, instead voting over the weekend to form a panel of laity and clergy that will set standards for church-sanctioned blessings of such unions should they be approved by the entire 2-million-member Episcopal Church.
About 346 delegates to the diocese's annual council meeting at Virginia Theological Seminary in Alexandria narrowly voted — by a show of hands — to form the panel, which will also include lawyers who specialize in church law.
A substitute amendment suggesting the diocese allow openly gay clergy and same-sex blessings failed after a lengthy debate.
Saturday's vote was a less radical choice for the 80,000-member Virginia Diocese, the largest in the Episcopal Church; signifying a slowing down in the momentum that is propelling the entire denomination toward eventually allowing same-sex unions. Several dioceses, although not Virginia, allow actively gay clergy, and the denomination's second openly gay bishop, Canon Mary Glasspool of Baltimore, is expected to be consecrated this May in Los Angeles.
The Virginia vote was in response to last summer's decision by the Episcopal General Convention, meeting in Anaheim, Calif., to pass resolution C056, which empowered the denomination to begin "collecting and developing theological resources and liturgies" for same-sex blessings. The denomination is expected to endorse some kind of rite at its 2012 meeting in Indianapolis.
Sixteen Episcopal dioceses — including four since last summer — already allow same-sex blessings.
Saturday's resolution was a compromise between three previous proposed resolutions; one that proposed Episcopalians keep to a traditional understanding of marriage as between a man and a woman, and two others that proposed the diocese lift its current prohibition against same-sex blessings, ordaining sexually active homosexuals or allowing them to serve in a parish.
The resolution admitted that diocesan clergy and parishioners "remain divided over the wisdom and theology of blessing same-gender relationships" but at the same time admitted that churches feel pressured by the "the growing differences between Christian and civil understanding of marriage and relationships."
Should the denomination move forward on same-sex blessings in 2012, the resolution said, the diocese must address how clergy, for reasons of "theological principle," may refuse to perform such blessings. It will also look at several other matters, such as whether the diocesan bishop has to sign off on these unions, what to do if a gay couple wants a divorce, and how to proceed since the state of Virginia does not recognize such unions.
Only five states permit gay marriages, with the District slated to do so as of March 2.
Several members of St. Anne's Episcopal Church in Reston, Va. — which drafted the original resolutions approving openly gay clergy and same-sex blessings, protested the compromise resolution, saying that a panel was not the direction they wanted to go.
Its rector, Jim Papile, said they viewed the compromise "with incredible dismay," saying it dealt more with marriage, whereas their original resolution dealt with same-sex blessings.
Saturday's meeting was a continuation of a Jan. 29 diocesan council that was adjourned early because of an approaching snowstorm. At the earlier meeting, delegates approved a $4.8 million 2010 budget, about $12,000 less than the previous year's budget.
Diocesan officials also addressed a $4 million line of credit — of which $3.5 million has been spent to date — that it has taken out to fund a three-year lawsuit against 11 conservative churches that left the diocese in 2006 and early 2007. When market conditions approve, the diocese will sell parcels of unconsecrated land to help pay the $3.5 million.
The diocese seeks to win back millions of dollars of property taken by the departing churches, which left over liberal trends in the denomination. After the conservatives won the lawsuit at trial, the diocese appealed. The case will go before the Virginia Supreme Court this year.
The departure of the conservatives, which reduced the diocese's membership by about 10,000, was referred to several times Saturday as causing much "pain" to the remaining Episcopalians. However, a last-minute amendment to form a "reconciliation task force" between Episcopalians and former Episcopalians failed for lack of time to consider it adequately.
Diocesan statistics for the Episcopal Diocese of Vermont
from TitusOneNine by Kendall Harmon:
According to the U.S. Census Bureau's figures, Vermont has grown in population from 608,827 in 2000 to 621,760 in 2009. This represents a population growth of approximately 2.1%.
According to Episcopal Church statistics, the Diocese of Vermont went from Average Sunday Attendance (or ASA) of 3,280 in 1998 to 2,765 in 2008. This represents an ASA decline of about 16% over this ten year period.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau's figures, Vermont has grown in population from 608,827 in 2000 to 621,760 in 2009. This represents a population growth of approximately 2.1%.
According to Episcopal Church statistics, the Diocese of Vermont went from Average Sunday Attendance (or ASA) of 3,280 in 1998 to 2,765 in 2008. This represents an ASA decline of about 16% over this ten year period.
[West Texas] Chuck Collins, Christ Church, San Antonio, Writes His Vestry
from Stand Firm:
February 17, 2010
TO: Christ Church Vestry
It is abundantly clear to me, and I believe to every member of Christ Church, that our church family is deeply divided, not over questions of theology, but over whether or not to stay in The Episcopal Church.
This was plainly stated in the Vestry’s January 12, 2010 letter to our members: “There are those of us who believe that there is no future in TEC and others who would like to work for change from within. Some of us are willing to give up our existing buildings if necessary and others would not leave under any circumstance.”
Anxieties over this have risen to a crescendo with the vestry elections, the February 7 parish meeting, and in emails and personal conversations I have had with many parishioners. It seems even clearer after last night’s Vestry meeting how polarized we are and how difficult it is to really listen to one another. Well meaning and sincerely devoted Christians are on both sides of this discussion. Both sides love the Bible and our Anglican heritage, and both sides abhor the revisionist agenda of The Episcopal Church. Both sides perceive our current Christ Church community to be a strong witness for Christ and desire to keep it unified.
Nevertheless, as The Episcopal Church pushes forward with its agenda, the issue before us will not just go away.
Last night I asked the Executive Committee of the Vestry to recommend to the Vestry a “process” whereby we, as Christian brothers and sisters, can discern our future together. Once the Executive Committee has made their recommendation, I ask the vestry to forthrightly address the following as soon as possible: Given the deep divisions at Christ Church over the question of our continuing relationship with The Episcopal Church, what is the way forward for this parish family that honors our core values, our love for the Lord, and our love and respect for every member.
“May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit” (Romans 15).
Chuck Collins
Rector
February 17, 2010
TO: Christ Church Vestry
It is abundantly clear to me, and I believe to every member of Christ Church, that our church family is deeply divided, not over questions of theology, but over whether or not to stay in The Episcopal Church.
This was plainly stated in the Vestry’s January 12, 2010 letter to our members: “There are those of us who believe that there is no future in TEC and others who would like to work for change from within. Some of us are willing to give up our existing buildings if necessary and others would not leave under any circumstance.”
Anxieties over this have risen to a crescendo with the vestry elections, the February 7 parish meeting, and in emails and personal conversations I have had with many parishioners. It seems even clearer after last night’s Vestry meeting how polarized we are and how difficult it is to really listen to one another. Well meaning and sincerely devoted Christians are on both sides of this discussion. Both sides love the Bible and our Anglican heritage, and both sides abhor the revisionist agenda of The Episcopal Church. Both sides perceive our current Christ Church community to be a strong witness for Christ and desire to keep it unified.
Nevertheless, as The Episcopal Church pushes forward with its agenda, the issue before us will not just go away.
Last night I asked the Executive Committee of the Vestry to recommend to the Vestry a “process” whereby we, as Christian brothers and sisters, can discern our future together. Once the Executive Committee has made their recommendation, I ask the vestry to forthrightly address the following as soon as possible: Given the deep divisions at Christ Church over the question of our continuing relationship with The Episcopal Church, what is the way forward for this parish family that honors our core values, our love for the Lord, and our love and respect for every member.
“May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit” (Romans 15).
Chuck Collins
Rector
The Blue Beast
The essay immediately below this one is astounding and outstanding. Perhaps the PB and Bonnie Anderson might have read and reflected on it before they made their remarks at the press conference after the pecusa Executive Committee meeting. The essay below is certainly more credible than anything that came out of the mouths of those two.
Sunday Jeremiad: Petty Prophets of the Blue Beast
From The American Interest Online via Covenant Communion:
By Walter Russell Mead
Posted on February 21st, 2010
There’s nothing like Lent for reflecting on the sins of other people; I thought I’d start at the top — with the bishops of my own church. As the Episcopal church along with the other mainline Protestant denominations diminishes, we don’t have to look far to see bishops and leaders who are largely failing in their core assignments: to tend to the health and promote the growth of the congregations in their area. Yet even as we have fewer and fewer effective and successful leaders, we have no shortage of political, ‘prophetic’ bishops. When they can, they meet with world leaders and jet off to exotic locales to bring peace and fight for justice. When they can’t do that, they sign statements of concern, issue reports and otherwise tug on the skirts of an indifferent public seeking attention for their political views.
In the mainline churches, which is what I know best, the political views leaders express are generally those of what could be called the ‘foundation left’ — emotionally grounded in concern for the poor and development, historically linked to the ‘new left’ mix of economic and social concerns as developed in the 1960’s, shaped by an atmosphere of privilege and entitlement that reflects the upper middle class background of the educated professionals who run these institutions. The social sins they deplore are those of the right: excessive focus on capitalism, too robust and unheeding a promotion of the American national and security interest abroad, insufficient care for the environment, failure to help the poor through government welfare programs, failure to support affirmative action, failure to celebrate and protect the unrestricted right of women to abort. I am of course speaking very generally here and there are lots of individual exceptions, but many of these folks are generally tolerant of theological differences and rigidly intolerant when it comes to political differences: they care nothing at all about doctrines like predestination but get very angry with people who disagree with them about issues like global warming or immigration reform. Theological heresy is a matter for courtesy and silence, but political heretics fill them with bile.
Back in the days of the civil rights movement and the Vietnam war, it was news when Episcopal bishops sided in public with liberal causes. It took real courage for bishops and priests to speak up in some cases; one of the clergymen in the town where I grew up had been driven from his last parish in Alabama because he spoke up for the Montgomery bus boycott led by Martin Luther King. Other priests received death threats; some who participated in the Freedom Rides and other demonstrations were beaten by angry mobs.
But these days an Episcopal bishop would have to go to a lot of trouble to get into the news for backing a liberal political cause. The headline says it all: Liberal Official of Small, Declining Liberal Denomination Endorses Liberal Idea. This isn’t news for two reasons: it is utterly predictable and it doesn’t matter. Trivial and predictable are not news, and the political stands that the mainline clergy take are almost always both. A statement by an Episcopal bishop will not change one mind or one vote; at least in all my years in the pews I’ve never met a single Episcopalian who said that the opinion of a bishop does or should have the slightest influence on how Episcopalians vote and if the churchgoers aren’t paying attention to the bishops I can’t imagine anyone else is.
I’m not urging the bishops to change their politics. I’m urging them to shut up. More precisely, I’m urging them to base their ministry on a clearer understanding of their situation and their role.
Let me nail some cyber-theses to the virtual door.
1. Nobody cares what you think while your tiny church is falling apart.
In a diocese not a thousand miles from my home in glamorous Queens, there once was a bishop whose long and public battle with alcoholism rendered him unable to carry out his duties. For years and years this diocese suffered under grievous mismanagement and its rotten condition was an open scandal widely discussed and lamented throughout the national church. Yet in the general shipwreck of his episcopacy, this bishop (or what remained of the diocesan machinery) somehow managed to get ‘prophetic’ statements out on political causes of various kinds. So far as I know, none of these statements ever had any impact on anyone’s thinking anywhere on Planet Earth.
This poor bishop, now thankfully retired, was an extreme case, but why, exactly, would any sane person today pay attention to the political pronouncements of an Episcopal bishop? Episcopalians are a tiny minority of the population and the church long ago lost its social power and cachet. The Episcopal church today is in the worst condition it has been since the aftermath of the Revolution; its clergy has visibly failed to keep the church together or prevent its ongoing decline. I’m afraid that the penchant to make political pronouncements proceeds less from a true prophetic vocation than from a nostalgia for a time when it mattered what Episcopal bishops thought. In any case, there is nothing more ridiculous than a proprietor of a failing concern who officiously lectures everyone else on how to manage their affairs. Please, for the sake of what remains of the dignity of your office, give it a rest.
2. American Episcopal bishops have so spectacularly screwed up their relations with Africa that they are in no position to lecture secular leaders on international politics.
When members of the foundation left lecture the rest of the world, the need for better relations with the oppressed peoples of the developing world is one of their favorite themes.I would be the last person to say they don’t have a point; I’ve spent enough time in the slums of three continents to have some small sense of the need for some basic changes in our world. But the bishops of the American Episcopal church have no lessons to teach. The American Episcopalians are currently engaged in a bitter struggle with their equivalents in African countries like Nigeria, Rwanda and Uganda over a variety of theological issues, of which the question of the ordination of openly gay bishops is the most prominent. Now it’s my view that in the long run as the church reflects on the issue of homosexuality, it should and will come to a place closer to that of the American Episcopal mainstream than to that of the Nigerians. But this process of reflection and debate will take more time than the Americans want to give it, and it will take some theological procedures very different from those that are currently fashionable in the American Episcopal church.
Be that as it may, it’s clear that if there is a secret to managing respectful North-South relations in the 21st century, the American Episcopal bishops don’t have it. African church leaders compare their American counterparts to George W. Bush: arrogantly unilateral, deaf to other points of view, seeking to impose a uniquely American agenda on those who do not agree. That’s not entirely fair, but there’s enough truth in it that when it comes to America’s place in the world, the Episcopal church should listen as others speak. Who knows — maybe we’ll learn something.
3. In the contemporary world the job of the clergy isn’t to provide political leadership. It is to help laypeople grow into better, wiser political leaders.
Back when Henry VIII was chopping the heads off his wives, bishops were political as well as religious leaders.They voted in the English House of Lords. Their dioceses were rich, owning substantial land and employing many people. At the same time, when ordinary people were often barely literate, priests and bishops were among the tiny minority who could read Latin as well as English and so had access to the great bulk of the world’s knowledge and could keep up with thought in other countries. Richer, more powerful and better educated than most of the people in that day, the clergy were a social and political force to reckon with, and bishops particularly spent a lot of time thinking through their political strategies. It mattered what bishops thought about politics, and throughout the kingdom there were people who from interest or conviction would follow their bishop’s lead.
The Episcopal church was never this important or rich in the United States, but its members were disproportionately wealthy and well connected for much of our history. Episcopal bishops and priests generally ranked pretty high among local and regional elites; Mrs. Astor’s 400 were more likely to be found Sunday morning in Episcopal churches than anywhere else. Episcopal bishops and priests were in touch with those who ran the country and for a couple of generations the “St. Grottlesex” schools of New England, largely Episcopal, trained the establishment and shaped its worldviews. This was true as late as the 1960’s and 1970’s; when Episcopal bishops came out for civil rights and against the Vietnam War, it was a sign that the establishment was moving. The bishops didn’t so much make the change as register a change that was happening around them, but nevertheless their stands were, legitimately, news.
That was a generation ago. These days the establishment is weaker, less religious and less Protestant than it used to be. Fewer members of the establishment care about the church, and the establishment as a whole has less power and prestige in American life. Episcopal parishes are less and less gathering places for local movers and shakers, and Episcopal bishops are less and less members of regional power structures. Fewer and fewer powerful people pay any attention at all to what Episcopal leaders think.
More than this, the laity has less regard for clerical leadership than ever before. As college and post-graduate education has become more common, the educational distance between the clergy and their parishioners has shrunk. We don’t actually need all that much guidance from the clergy anymore. The mainline Protestant clergy in any case has largely abandoned any claim on religious authority. The theological pluralism of the contemporary Episcopal church (and the acute and growing shortage of pledge-paying members) means that most clergy and bishops tolerate virtually any unconventional theological opinion, especially among the laity. Having given up their religious authority, they are in a weak position when it comes to trying to exert political leadership.
None of this means that the church and the clergy don’t have a political role to play — but it does mean that they need to think differently about how to play it. The job of a bishop isn’t to make statements about the minimum wage or the Iraq war. It’s to help the clergy in his or her diocese form communities that produce dynamic, committed and intelligent laypeople who will shape political debates on these and many other matters. A bishop isn’t here to inject Christian values into public policy debates; a bishop is here to inject mature, thoughtful and committed Christians into public life. The Diocese of Long Island shouldn’t be taking stands on the minimum wage; it should be producing people who transform the life of the region at every level of engagement.
If the bishops were already doing this pretty well I would be much more tolerant of their occasional ventures into public debate. But it’s as plain as day that en masse the American bishops are catastrophically failing at that core task — as indeed are their colleagues in the other mainline denominations. In the parlous state of today’s Episcopal church, every dime a diocese spends and every minute of a bishop’s working day needs to be focused on local congregations. The church is melting before their eyes and many bishops seem to be passively watching it happen; at most they hope to manage decline as smoothly as possible.
In this situation, issuing statements on the importance of the Millennium Development Goals or the minimum wage which will change no minds and advance no agenda isn’t just a pointless though cheap and effortless exercise. It’s a way of lying to yourself — of saying that the church is still doing what churches should do, that its problems aren’t that bad and that you as a religious leader are doing what you should do. This isn’t prophetic ministry; it’s denial. And it isn’t good. It’s bad.
4. The Blue Social Model isn’t the Kingdom of God.
My final provocative thesis is this: there’s an underlying problem that both leads mainline church leaders like Episcopal bishops to put too much weight on making vapid and useless political statements and that contributes to the inexorable decline of the churches entrusted to their charge.
The problem is that the contemporary mainline churches have confused the Blue social model with the Kingdom of God. I’ve written about this model before — what the Blue model is and why it is breaking down, why the breakdown has impaled contemporary liberal politics on the horns of an impossible dilemma, and how the Blue Beast is sucking the life out of the mainline churches today. Historically this is not surprising; the blue social model was in large part formed by thinkers from the mainline churches in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Somehow the mainline churches came through the violence and the upheavals of the twentieth century with their faith in liberal progress largely intact. Neither Stalin nor Hitler nor Reinhold Niebuhr could convince us of the power of original sin; neither Hiroshima nor the Holocaust shook our faith in the ability of good government programs to remake mankind.
To mistake an ideology or a social model for the transcendent and always surprising (and irritating!) Kingdom of God is, technically speaking, the sin of idolatry. It is to worship the work of our own hands. What makes it worse is that to some degree in the mainline churches we have replaced faith in the scripturally based and historically rooted doctrines and values of the Christian heritage with faith in progressive social thought.
Instead of proclaiming a gospel of salvation that still brings lost sinners streaming through the doors (ask the Pentecostals and evangelicals who have continued to grow even as we shrink) we issue statements urging the federal government to fulfill its contributions to the Millennium Development Goals and to raise the minimum wage. They preach and plant churches; we have professional development workshops for diocesan employees.
I want to be clear here. Liberal mainline Protestantism is not just a ghastly mistake and a return to literalism and fundamentalism is not the way out of the current impasse. The great historical riches and insights of the mainline denominations are more important than ever today. The liberal, questing spirit that refuses to take ancient truths for granted and that challenges historic orthodoxies in the light of lived experience has a vital and necessary place in the life of the church. It’s important that the mainline churches halt their disintegration and decline and regain the strength to play their role in the American religious system. I am not writing all these terrible things about bishops because I want them to fail. God has work for the mainline church to do, and God’s work in the world will suffer if we fail.
But the Blue Beast cannot save American society and it cannot save the mainline church. Until we come to terms with these truths and start living them we can neither help ourselves nor do much to help anybody else.
By Walter Russell Mead
Posted on February 21st, 2010
There’s nothing like Lent for reflecting on the sins of other people; I thought I’d start at the top — with the bishops of my own church. As the Episcopal church along with the other mainline Protestant denominations diminishes, we don’t have to look far to see bishops and leaders who are largely failing in their core assignments: to tend to the health and promote the growth of the congregations in their area. Yet even as we have fewer and fewer effective and successful leaders, we have no shortage of political, ‘prophetic’ bishops. When they can, they meet with world leaders and jet off to exotic locales to bring peace and fight for justice. When they can’t do that, they sign statements of concern, issue reports and otherwise tug on the skirts of an indifferent public seeking attention for their political views.
In the mainline churches, which is what I know best, the political views leaders express are generally those of what could be called the ‘foundation left’ — emotionally grounded in concern for the poor and development, historically linked to the ‘new left’ mix of economic and social concerns as developed in the 1960’s, shaped by an atmosphere of privilege and entitlement that reflects the upper middle class background of the educated professionals who run these institutions. The social sins they deplore are those of the right: excessive focus on capitalism, too robust and unheeding a promotion of the American national and security interest abroad, insufficient care for the environment, failure to help the poor through government welfare programs, failure to support affirmative action, failure to celebrate and protect the unrestricted right of women to abort. I am of course speaking very generally here and there are lots of individual exceptions, but many of these folks are generally tolerant of theological differences and rigidly intolerant when it comes to political differences: they care nothing at all about doctrines like predestination but get very angry with people who disagree with them about issues like global warming or immigration reform. Theological heresy is a matter for courtesy and silence, but political heretics fill them with bile.
Back in the days of the civil rights movement and the Vietnam war, it was news when Episcopal bishops sided in public with liberal causes. It took real courage for bishops and priests to speak up in some cases; one of the clergymen in the town where I grew up had been driven from his last parish in Alabama because he spoke up for the Montgomery bus boycott led by Martin Luther King. Other priests received death threats; some who participated in the Freedom Rides and other demonstrations were beaten by angry mobs.
But these days an Episcopal bishop would have to go to a lot of trouble to get into the news for backing a liberal political cause. The headline says it all: Liberal Official of Small, Declining Liberal Denomination Endorses Liberal Idea. This isn’t news for two reasons: it is utterly predictable and it doesn’t matter. Trivial and predictable are not news, and the political stands that the mainline clergy take are almost always both. A statement by an Episcopal bishop will not change one mind or one vote; at least in all my years in the pews I’ve never met a single Episcopalian who said that the opinion of a bishop does or should have the slightest influence on how Episcopalians vote and if the churchgoers aren’t paying attention to the bishops I can’t imagine anyone else is.
I’m not urging the bishops to change their politics. I’m urging them to shut up. More precisely, I’m urging them to base their ministry on a clearer understanding of their situation and their role.
Let me nail some cyber-theses to the virtual door.
1. Nobody cares what you think while your tiny church is falling apart.
In a diocese not a thousand miles from my home in glamorous Queens, there once was a bishop whose long and public battle with alcoholism rendered him unable to carry out his duties. For years and years this diocese suffered under grievous mismanagement and its rotten condition was an open scandal widely discussed and lamented throughout the national church. Yet in the general shipwreck of his episcopacy, this bishop (or what remained of the diocesan machinery) somehow managed to get ‘prophetic’ statements out on political causes of various kinds. So far as I know, none of these statements ever had any impact on anyone’s thinking anywhere on Planet Earth.
This poor bishop, now thankfully retired, was an extreme case, but why, exactly, would any sane person today pay attention to the political pronouncements of an Episcopal bishop? Episcopalians are a tiny minority of the population and the church long ago lost its social power and cachet. The Episcopal church today is in the worst condition it has been since the aftermath of the Revolution; its clergy has visibly failed to keep the church together or prevent its ongoing decline. I’m afraid that the penchant to make political pronouncements proceeds less from a true prophetic vocation than from a nostalgia for a time when it mattered what Episcopal bishops thought. In any case, there is nothing more ridiculous than a proprietor of a failing concern who officiously lectures everyone else on how to manage their affairs. Please, for the sake of what remains of the dignity of your office, give it a rest.
2. American Episcopal bishops have so spectacularly screwed up their relations with Africa that they are in no position to lecture secular leaders on international politics.
When members of the foundation left lecture the rest of the world, the need for better relations with the oppressed peoples of the developing world is one of their favorite themes.I would be the last person to say they don’t have a point; I’ve spent enough time in the slums of three continents to have some small sense of the need for some basic changes in our world. But the bishops of the American Episcopal church have no lessons to teach. The American Episcopalians are currently engaged in a bitter struggle with their equivalents in African countries like Nigeria, Rwanda and Uganda over a variety of theological issues, of which the question of the ordination of openly gay bishops is the most prominent. Now it’s my view that in the long run as the church reflects on the issue of homosexuality, it should and will come to a place closer to that of the American Episcopal mainstream than to that of the Nigerians. But this process of reflection and debate will take more time than the Americans want to give it, and it will take some theological procedures very different from those that are currently fashionable in the American Episcopal church.
Be that as it may, it’s clear that if there is a secret to managing respectful North-South relations in the 21st century, the American Episcopal bishops don’t have it. African church leaders compare their American counterparts to George W. Bush: arrogantly unilateral, deaf to other points of view, seeking to impose a uniquely American agenda on those who do not agree. That’s not entirely fair, but there’s enough truth in it that when it comes to America’s place in the world, the Episcopal church should listen as others speak. Who knows — maybe we’ll learn something.
3. In the contemporary world the job of the clergy isn’t to provide political leadership. It is to help laypeople grow into better, wiser political leaders.
Back when Henry VIII was chopping the heads off his wives, bishops were political as well as religious leaders.They voted in the English House of Lords. Their dioceses were rich, owning substantial land and employing many people. At the same time, when ordinary people were often barely literate, priests and bishops were among the tiny minority who could read Latin as well as English and so had access to the great bulk of the world’s knowledge and could keep up with thought in other countries. Richer, more powerful and better educated than most of the people in that day, the clergy were a social and political force to reckon with, and bishops particularly spent a lot of time thinking through their political strategies. It mattered what bishops thought about politics, and throughout the kingdom there were people who from interest or conviction would follow their bishop’s lead.
The Episcopal church was never this important or rich in the United States, but its members were disproportionately wealthy and well connected for much of our history. Episcopal bishops and priests generally ranked pretty high among local and regional elites; Mrs. Astor’s 400 were more likely to be found Sunday morning in Episcopal churches than anywhere else. Episcopal bishops and priests were in touch with those who ran the country and for a couple of generations the “St. Grottlesex” schools of New England, largely Episcopal, trained the establishment and shaped its worldviews. This was true as late as the 1960’s and 1970’s; when Episcopal bishops came out for civil rights and against the Vietnam War, it was a sign that the establishment was moving. The bishops didn’t so much make the change as register a change that was happening around them, but nevertheless their stands were, legitimately, news.
That was a generation ago. These days the establishment is weaker, less religious and less Protestant than it used to be. Fewer members of the establishment care about the church, and the establishment as a whole has less power and prestige in American life. Episcopal parishes are less and less gathering places for local movers and shakers, and Episcopal bishops are less and less members of regional power structures. Fewer and fewer powerful people pay any attention at all to what Episcopal leaders think.
More than this, the laity has less regard for clerical leadership than ever before. As college and post-graduate education has become more common, the educational distance between the clergy and their parishioners has shrunk. We don’t actually need all that much guidance from the clergy anymore. The mainline Protestant clergy in any case has largely abandoned any claim on religious authority. The theological pluralism of the contemporary Episcopal church (and the acute and growing shortage of pledge-paying members) means that most clergy and bishops tolerate virtually any unconventional theological opinion, especially among the laity. Having given up their religious authority, they are in a weak position when it comes to trying to exert political leadership.
None of this means that the church and the clergy don’t have a political role to play — but it does mean that they need to think differently about how to play it. The job of a bishop isn’t to make statements about the minimum wage or the Iraq war. It’s to help the clergy in his or her diocese form communities that produce dynamic, committed and intelligent laypeople who will shape political debates on these and many other matters. A bishop isn’t here to inject Christian values into public policy debates; a bishop is here to inject mature, thoughtful and committed Christians into public life. The Diocese of Long Island shouldn’t be taking stands on the minimum wage; it should be producing people who transform the life of the region at every level of engagement.
If the bishops were already doing this pretty well I would be much more tolerant of their occasional ventures into public debate. But it’s as plain as day that en masse the American bishops are catastrophically failing at that core task — as indeed are their colleagues in the other mainline denominations. In the parlous state of today’s Episcopal church, every dime a diocese spends and every minute of a bishop’s working day needs to be focused on local congregations. The church is melting before their eyes and many bishops seem to be passively watching it happen; at most they hope to manage decline as smoothly as possible.
In this situation, issuing statements on the importance of the Millennium Development Goals or the minimum wage which will change no minds and advance no agenda isn’t just a pointless though cheap and effortless exercise. It’s a way of lying to yourself — of saying that the church is still doing what churches should do, that its problems aren’t that bad and that you as a religious leader are doing what you should do. This isn’t prophetic ministry; it’s denial. And it isn’t good. It’s bad.
4. The Blue Social Model isn’t the Kingdom of God.
My final provocative thesis is this: there’s an underlying problem that both leads mainline church leaders like Episcopal bishops to put too much weight on making vapid and useless political statements and that contributes to the inexorable decline of the churches entrusted to their charge.
The problem is that the contemporary mainline churches have confused the Blue social model with the Kingdom of God. I’ve written about this model before — what the Blue model is and why it is breaking down, why the breakdown has impaled contemporary liberal politics on the horns of an impossible dilemma, and how the Blue Beast is sucking the life out of the mainline churches today. Historically this is not surprising; the blue social model was in large part formed by thinkers from the mainline churches in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Somehow the mainline churches came through the violence and the upheavals of the twentieth century with their faith in liberal progress largely intact. Neither Stalin nor Hitler nor Reinhold Niebuhr could convince us of the power of original sin; neither Hiroshima nor the Holocaust shook our faith in the ability of good government programs to remake mankind.
To mistake an ideology or a social model for the transcendent and always surprising (and irritating!) Kingdom of God is, technically speaking, the sin of idolatry. It is to worship the work of our own hands. What makes it worse is that to some degree in the mainline churches we have replaced faith in the scripturally based and historically rooted doctrines and values of the Christian heritage with faith in progressive social thought.
Instead of proclaiming a gospel of salvation that still brings lost sinners streaming through the doors (ask the Pentecostals and evangelicals who have continued to grow even as we shrink) we issue statements urging the federal government to fulfill its contributions to the Millennium Development Goals and to raise the minimum wage. They preach and plant churches; we have professional development workshops for diocesan employees.
I want to be clear here. Liberal mainline Protestantism is not just a ghastly mistake and a return to literalism and fundamentalism is not the way out of the current impasse. The great historical riches and insights of the mainline denominations are more important than ever today. The liberal, questing spirit that refuses to take ancient truths for granted and that challenges historic orthodoxies in the light of lived experience has a vital and necessary place in the life of the church. It’s important that the mainline churches halt their disintegration and decline and regain the strength to play their role in the American religious system. I am not writing all these terrible things about bishops because I want them to fail. God has work for the mainline church to do, and God’s work in the world will suffer if we fail.
But the Blue Beast cannot save American society and it cannot save the mainline church. Until we come to terms with these truths and start living them we can neither help ourselves nor do much to help anybody else.
TEC's declining numbers no big deal, but watch out for misinformation, say Leaders
By Mary Ann Mueller
Special Correspondent
www.virtueonline.org
February 22, 2010
OMAHA, NEBRASKA---"Can a diocese leave the Episcopal Church?" During Monday's Episcopal Executive Council's Internet News Conference, Bonnie Anderson, the president of the Episcopal House of Deputies, asked what she called a simple question.
"What is the process for those kinds of concerns?" Ms. Anderson continued in speculation. "And making sure that we know and everyone knows what we have agreed to -- in terms of our General Convention -- over the years when we were all carefully walking this path together, and hopefully we can continue to do that."
However, Dr. Anderson did not provide a definitive answer to her own question. The query still remains unanswered leaving it up to various state courts to decide as expensive litigations chug through courtrooms on both coastlines and throughout the rest of the nation.
This speculation came on the heels of VOL's questions concerning The Episcopal Church's attempt to meddle into the internal diocesan affairs of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina based upon Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori's understanding that some South Carolinian Episcopalians "have expressed concern about some who have departed the Episcopal Church and attempted to maintain control of Episcopal Church assets. They have asked for some assistance because the church has a whole has some responsibility."
The Presiding Bishop went on to say that Episcopalians are laboring under the hindrance of erroneous information that is making its way through the church, noting that people are relying on opinions rather than factual information and that the representation of the theology of the church is inaccurate as well as the dissemination of facts on church-dwide procedural matters blaming the Internet, in part, for the dearth of accurate details.
"I would certainly hope that Episcopalians in South Carolina have a clear understanding of the realities of The Episcopal Church and they don't depend on erroneous information," the Presiding Bishop noted.
She explained that Episcopalians, like many others who use the Internet, often seek information in places that do not accurately reflect The Episcopal Church's stances indicating that anyone who is seeking precise facts should get their information directly from Episcopal Church sources.
The Episcopal Executive Council concluded its four-day Lenten session meeting in the Episcopal Diocese of Nebraska in the heartland of the nation. The Council touched on a wide variety of issues including: church budgets, the Diocese of South Carolina's postponed diocesan convention, church membership numbers, nature's fury in Haiti and the Dakotas, military deployment in Afghanistan and Iraq, TEC standing committees, and the Omaha Tri-Faith Initiative
Meanwhile, The Episcopal Church also continues to keep its head in the sand when it comes to declining membership numbers. The Executive Council heard from TEC Program Officer Kirk Hadaway that, according to the latest Parochial Report (2008), TEC membership continues to plummet in the United States, dropping 2.8 percent in membership and 3.1 percent in the Average Sunday Attendance figures.
At that same Executive Council Internet News Conference, Ms. Anderson shrugged off the eroding rolls as non-consequential because, according to a recent report released by the National Council of Churches, most of the other American denominations seem to be losing members too.
"The churches are experiencing a decline in attendance and membership and that is true regardless of their theological orientation. We're not alone." She said. "Viewing this issue through an ideological lens I don't find particularly helpful because it does not lead to an accurate diagnosis of the problem."
Those problems, according to Ms. Anderson, include the need to reinvigorate worship, re-energize evangelism and reach out to communities as well as the failure to see the positive things The Episcopal Church offers to the world, which are a strong democratic polity, a strong commitment to mission and social justice, and the vital ministry of lay people.
"We need to respond to the decline across all the mainline churches by really giving the people a good reason to get out of bed on a Sunday morning and join us," she said.
No mention was made of Christ, the Sacramental life of the Church, or historic apostolic teaching.
----Mary Ann Mueller is a journalist living in Texas. She is a regular contributor to VirtueOnline
Special Correspondent
www.virtueonline.org
February 22, 2010
OMAHA, NEBRASKA---"Can a diocese leave the Episcopal Church?" During Monday's Episcopal Executive Council's Internet News Conference, Bonnie Anderson, the president of the Episcopal House of Deputies, asked what she called a simple question.
"What is the process for those kinds of concerns?" Ms. Anderson continued in speculation. "And making sure that we know and everyone knows what we have agreed to -- in terms of our General Convention -- over the years when we were all carefully walking this path together, and hopefully we can continue to do that."
However, Dr. Anderson did not provide a definitive answer to her own question. The query still remains unanswered leaving it up to various state courts to decide as expensive litigations chug through courtrooms on both coastlines and throughout the rest of the nation.
This speculation came on the heels of VOL's questions concerning The Episcopal Church's attempt to meddle into the internal diocesan affairs of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina based upon Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori's understanding that some South Carolinian Episcopalians "have expressed concern about some who have departed the Episcopal Church and attempted to maintain control of Episcopal Church assets. They have asked for some assistance because the church has a whole has some responsibility."
The Presiding Bishop went on to say that Episcopalians are laboring under the hindrance of erroneous information that is making its way through the church, noting that people are relying on opinions rather than factual information and that the representation of the theology of the church is inaccurate as well as the dissemination of facts on church-dwide procedural matters blaming the Internet, in part, for the dearth of accurate details.
"I would certainly hope that Episcopalians in South Carolina have a clear understanding of the realities of The Episcopal Church and they don't depend on erroneous information," the Presiding Bishop noted.
She explained that Episcopalians, like many others who use the Internet, often seek information in places that do not accurately reflect The Episcopal Church's stances indicating that anyone who is seeking precise facts should get their information directly from Episcopal Church sources.
The Episcopal Executive Council concluded its four-day Lenten session meeting in the Episcopal Diocese of Nebraska in the heartland of the nation. The Council touched on a wide variety of issues including: church budgets, the Diocese of South Carolina's postponed diocesan convention, church membership numbers, nature's fury in Haiti and the Dakotas, military deployment in Afghanistan and Iraq, TEC standing committees, and the Omaha Tri-Faith Initiative
Meanwhile, The Episcopal Church also continues to keep its head in the sand when it comes to declining membership numbers. The Executive Council heard from TEC Program Officer Kirk Hadaway that, according to the latest Parochial Report (2008), TEC membership continues to plummet in the United States, dropping 2.8 percent in membership and 3.1 percent in the Average Sunday Attendance figures.
At that same Executive Council Internet News Conference, Ms. Anderson shrugged off the eroding rolls as non-consequential because, according to a recent report released by the National Council of Churches, most of the other American denominations seem to be losing members too.
"The churches are experiencing a decline in attendance and membership and that is true regardless of their theological orientation. We're not alone." She said. "Viewing this issue through an ideological lens I don't find particularly helpful because it does not lead to an accurate diagnosis of the problem."
Those problems, according to Ms. Anderson, include the need to reinvigorate worship, re-energize evangelism and reach out to communities as well as the failure to see the positive things The Episcopal Church offers to the world, which are a strong democratic polity, a strong commitment to mission and social justice, and the vital ministry of lay people.
"We need to respond to the decline across all the mainline churches by really giving the people a good reason to get out of bed on a Sunday morning and join us," she said.
No mention was made of Christ, the Sacramental life of the Church, or historic apostolic teaching.
----Mary Ann Mueller is a journalist living in Texas. She is a regular contributor to VirtueOnline
Calvary Syndrome Infects South Carolina
from Anglican Curmudgeon by A. S. Haley:
In a previous post I posed the question: What in the world is happening in the Diocese of South Carolina? Now, after a press conference today with the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies, following the conclusion of the meeting of the Executive Council in Omaha, and as reported by Cherie Wetzel of Anglicans United, I think am starting to see the outline of an answer: what is going on is that we see history about to repeat itself.
Not only that, but it will apparently repeat itself with no lessons having been learned. This is all so unnecessary -- and the facts demonstrate, more than anything I could say or write, how severe is the crisis that engulfs the leadership of the Episcopal Church.
Let me first stick to just the facts, since as you will see, the essence of 815's rationale for taking the actions they have taken -- and apparently are further planning to take -- is that "facts are being distorted, and Episcopalians in South Carolina are not getting the truth." Here is a verbatim quote from the press conference:
Doug LeBlanc, The Living Church: In the ENS (Episcopal News Service) report on Friday, you indicated that the PB spoke about the situation in South Carolina, asking people pray for the people in SC. What change do you hope to see as a result of those prayers?
PB [the Presiding Bishop]: I want a clear understanding of realities of TEC and don’t want the people of South Carolina to rely on erroneous information, provided by other sources.
And just in case you did not receive the message loud and clear, here is another exchange:
George Conger, reporter at large [and Church of England Newspaper] to the PB and President: You both expressed receiving erroneous information in SC. What is this erroneous information? Where did it come from?
PB: Episcopalians, like many others who use the internet, seek information that is not subject to peer review. They rely on opinion, not fact. The South Carolina representation of our theology and polity as a whole is not accurate. There are stated processes of this Church that are not accurate. I would encourage South Carolinians to ask bodies of TEC that are responsible for these decisions and get their facts straight.
Bonnie Anderson [President of the House of Deputies]: There is a large influx of information coming from multiple sources. It is really important for people who are going to be voting on something to get accurate information on the issues before them. For example, and this is just hypothetical, can a diocese leave TEC? What is the process for that concern? What have we agreed to in the General Convention over the years with regard to that?
Now, just what is this misinformation and ill-informed opinion that is being broadcast to Episcopalians in South Carolina? Here is a third exchange from the conference, which provides a clue:
Mary Ann Moehler for VirtueOnline: TEC has gone after traditionalists with a vengeance. Now you are going after South Carolina. What do you hope to gain doing this?
PB: Episcopalians in SC have expressed concern to my office about those who have left [the] diocese or are contemplating doing so and continued to exercise control over Episcopal assets. That is my primary concern.
"Those who have left [the] diocese"?? The fact is that the only parish to have left the Diocese of South Carolina to date is All Saints Waccamaw, on Pawley's Island -- and it did so in 2003 -- some seven years ago. Its right to do so was recently affirmed by South Carolina's highest court (although certain vestry and parish members who disagree with that decision have asked the United States Supreme Court to review it). This is hardly -- how shall this Westerner put it? -- a stampede.
But what about those who "are contemplating [leaving]", according to the Presiding Bishop? Apparently she has information that not only are there such people, but they are planning "to continue to exercise control over Episcopal assets." My goodness and sakes alive, as my sainted grandmother was fond of saying. To think that there would be current Episcopalians in South Carolina who might actually choose to accept and follow the ruling by the highest Court of that State -- which held, just so that we stick to the facts, now -- that the Dennis Canon was legally insufficient to create on its own any beneficial interest in a parish's property and in favor of the Diocese or the national Church.
Do I have this right?? The Presiding Bishop of the House of Bishops and the President of the House of Deputies are concerned that Episcopalians in South Carolina are not being told "the truth" about the South Carolina Supreme Court's decision? That despite what the Supreme Court ruled, Episcopalians in South Carolina are entitled to retain control over the assets of those who elect to leave the Diocese? And that the President of the House of Deputies believes "that is [w]hat we have agreed to in the General Convention over the years"??
Were I not absolutely convinced of the faithfulness with which Cherie Wetzel transcribed these words, I would find myself doubting my own sanity. For -- let it now be said -- this is unsound; this makes no sense whatsoever. If the current leadership of the Episcopal Church believes so strongly that they are right and the Supreme Court of South Carolina is wrong, then why did not ECUSA itself ask the Supreme Court to review the case? Why did it expect a few dissident Waccamaw parishioners to carry that burden?
What we see happening right now in South Carolina is the kind of craziness that began in the Diocese of Pittsburgh in 2003 -- long before the terms of either of the current presiding officers of the Church began. As I have recounted in a series of posts dealing with the litigation in that Diocese, everything began with a suspicion on the part of certain clergy and parishioners associated with Calvary Church that Bishop Duncan was preparing to allow other parishes who disagreed with the impending consecration of V. Gene Robinson to leave the Diocese and to keep their parish property. So they filed suit against Bishop Duncan to prevent him from doing just that.
And the result, five years later, was not that any individual parishes left the Church, but that the entire Diocese voted to leave the Church -- after the (current) leadership at 815 had broken the canons multiple times to "depose" the Right Rev. Robert Duncan, its bishop.
But Bishop Duncan did not have any binding precedent of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on his side -- in fact, what precedent there was had held in favor of the Dennis Canon. Here we have the exact opposite.
"[Mis]information", my eye. This is not about misinformation at all, but about power -- absolute and unchecked power (because the House of Bishops is too cowardly to insist as a group that the canons of the Church be strictly followed when it comes to deposition of their colleagues), which corrupts absolutely, as Lord Acton famously reminded us.
If the leadership at 815 embarks on a Calvary-inspired harassment of the Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence and the Standing Committee, then I repeat what I said in my earlier post:
"This is a watershed moment for both those at 815 Second Avenue and their supporters, as well as for all those who are trying to hold on to a presence in the Episcopal Church despite its current tyrannical ways. Fortunately, their very arguments based on a "trust" in favor of the national Church may be turned against them -- if each parish owes perpetual allegiance to the national Church, then the leadership of that Church owes fiduciary duties to each and every diocese and parish. Those fiduciary duties are very clear, and do not admit of any waffling or tergiversation. Depending on how this all plays out, there will either be a very clear case for breach of fiduciary duties, or not.
"If ECUSA did not learn from the current debacle in Pittsburgh -- where the law ostensibly was in its favor -- then it is doomed to repeat in South Carolina the mistakes it made there. And if no other dioceses will stand behind South Carolina in its travails, then I miss my guess, and the Episcopal Church is truly not worth the paper its constitution was written on. All that will then remain will be a metropolitical Church under an arbitrary figurehead. After some 220 years, judgment will then fall on the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America."
Ah, well -- someday, it will all make a great book. Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit.
In a previous post I posed the question: What in the world is happening in the Diocese of South Carolina? Now, after a press conference today with the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies, following the conclusion of the meeting of the Executive Council in Omaha, and as reported by Cherie Wetzel of Anglicans United, I think am starting to see the outline of an answer: what is going on is that we see history about to repeat itself.
Not only that, but it will apparently repeat itself with no lessons having been learned. This is all so unnecessary -- and the facts demonstrate, more than anything I could say or write, how severe is the crisis that engulfs the leadership of the Episcopal Church.
Let me first stick to just the facts, since as you will see, the essence of 815's rationale for taking the actions they have taken -- and apparently are further planning to take -- is that "facts are being distorted, and Episcopalians in South Carolina are not getting the truth." Here is a verbatim quote from the press conference:
Doug LeBlanc, The Living Church: In the ENS (Episcopal News Service) report on Friday, you indicated that the PB spoke about the situation in South Carolina, asking people pray for the people in SC. What change do you hope to see as a result of those prayers?
PB [the Presiding Bishop]: I want a clear understanding of realities of TEC and don’t want the people of South Carolina to rely on erroneous information, provided by other sources.
And just in case you did not receive the message loud and clear, here is another exchange:
George Conger, reporter at large [and Church of England Newspaper] to the PB and President: You both expressed receiving erroneous information in SC. What is this erroneous information? Where did it come from?
PB: Episcopalians, like many others who use the internet, seek information that is not subject to peer review. They rely on opinion, not fact. The South Carolina representation of our theology and polity as a whole is not accurate. There are stated processes of this Church that are not accurate. I would encourage South Carolinians to ask bodies of TEC that are responsible for these decisions and get their facts straight.
Bonnie Anderson [President of the House of Deputies]: There is a large influx of information coming from multiple sources. It is really important for people who are going to be voting on something to get accurate information on the issues before them. For example, and this is just hypothetical, can a diocese leave TEC? What is the process for that concern? What have we agreed to in the General Convention over the years with regard to that?
Now, just what is this misinformation and ill-informed opinion that is being broadcast to Episcopalians in South Carolina? Here is a third exchange from the conference, which provides a clue:
Mary Ann Moehler for VirtueOnline: TEC has gone after traditionalists with a vengeance. Now you are going after South Carolina. What do you hope to gain doing this?
PB: Episcopalians in SC have expressed concern to my office about those who have left [the] diocese or are contemplating doing so and continued to exercise control over Episcopal assets. That is my primary concern.
"Those who have left [the] diocese"?? The fact is that the only parish to have left the Diocese of South Carolina to date is All Saints Waccamaw, on Pawley's Island -- and it did so in 2003 -- some seven years ago. Its right to do so was recently affirmed by South Carolina's highest court (although certain vestry and parish members who disagree with that decision have asked the United States Supreme Court to review it). This is hardly -- how shall this Westerner put it? -- a stampede.
But what about those who "are contemplating [leaving]", according to the Presiding Bishop? Apparently she has information that not only are there such people, but they are planning "to continue to exercise control over Episcopal assets." My goodness and sakes alive, as my sainted grandmother was fond of saying. To think that there would be current Episcopalians in South Carolina who might actually choose to accept and follow the ruling by the highest Court of that State -- which held, just so that we stick to the facts, now -- that the Dennis Canon was legally insufficient to create on its own any beneficial interest in a parish's property and in favor of the Diocese or the national Church.
Do I have this right?? The Presiding Bishop of the House of Bishops and the President of the House of Deputies are concerned that Episcopalians in South Carolina are not being told "the truth" about the South Carolina Supreme Court's decision? That despite what the Supreme Court ruled, Episcopalians in South Carolina are entitled to retain control over the assets of those who elect to leave the Diocese? And that the President of the House of Deputies believes "that is [w]hat we have agreed to in the General Convention over the years"??
Were I not absolutely convinced of the faithfulness with which Cherie Wetzel transcribed these words, I would find myself doubting my own sanity. For -- let it now be said -- this is unsound; this makes no sense whatsoever. If the current leadership of the Episcopal Church believes so strongly that they are right and the Supreme Court of South Carolina is wrong, then why did not ECUSA itself ask the Supreme Court to review the case? Why did it expect a few dissident Waccamaw parishioners to carry that burden?
What we see happening right now in South Carolina is the kind of craziness that began in the Diocese of Pittsburgh in 2003 -- long before the terms of either of the current presiding officers of the Church began. As I have recounted in a series of posts dealing with the litigation in that Diocese, everything began with a suspicion on the part of certain clergy and parishioners associated with Calvary Church that Bishop Duncan was preparing to allow other parishes who disagreed with the impending consecration of V. Gene Robinson to leave the Diocese and to keep their parish property. So they filed suit against Bishop Duncan to prevent him from doing just that.
And the result, five years later, was not that any individual parishes left the Church, but that the entire Diocese voted to leave the Church -- after the (current) leadership at 815 had broken the canons multiple times to "depose" the Right Rev. Robert Duncan, its bishop.
But Bishop Duncan did not have any binding precedent of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on his side -- in fact, what precedent there was had held in favor of the Dennis Canon. Here we have the exact opposite.
"[Mis]information", my eye. This is not about misinformation at all, but about power -- absolute and unchecked power (because the House of Bishops is too cowardly to insist as a group that the canons of the Church be strictly followed when it comes to deposition of their colleagues), which corrupts absolutely, as Lord Acton famously reminded us.
If the leadership at 815 embarks on a Calvary-inspired harassment of the Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence and the Standing Committee, then I repeat what I said in my earlier post:
"This is a watershed moment for both those at 815 Second Avenue and their supporters, as well as for all those who are trying to hold on to a presence in the Episcopal Church despite its current tyrannical ways. Fortunately, their very arguments based on a "trust" in favor of the national Church may be turned against them -- if each parish owes perpetual allegiance to the national Church, then the leadership of that Church owes fiduciary duties to each and every diocese and parish. Those fiduciary duties are very clear, and do not admit of any waffling or tergiversation. Depending on how this all plays out, there will either be a very clear case for breach of fiduciary duties, or not.
"If ECUSA did not learn from the current debacle in Pittsburgh -- where the law ostensibly was in its favor -- then it is doomed to repeat in South Carolina the mistakes it made there. And if no other dioceses will stand behind South Carolina in its travails, then I miss my guess, and the Episcopal Church is truly not worth the paper its constitution was written on. All that will then remain will be a metropolitical Church under an arbitrary figurehead. After some 220 years, judgment will then fall on the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America."
Ah, well -- someday, it will all make a great book. Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit.
Press Conference at the end of Executive Council meeting
From Anglicans United via TitusOneNine:
Feb 22, 2010 12:10 PM Concluded 12:27 PM
The press conference was moderated by Neva Rae Fox, Public Affairs Officer for The Episcopal Church. Each reporter that calls in is greeted by Mrs. Fox. She initially commented on today’s email flurry, stating I was in London, requesting money to get home. The speakers were introduced, with their official titles. Questions follow. I did not get every reporter’s name. PB is Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori; Bonnie Anderson is the President, House of Deputies, and Vice President of the Executive Council. RE is a question from a reporter without a name.
Louise Brooks, Integrity: pass; did not return to press conference
Cherie Wetzel , The Anglican Voice: For the Presiding Bishop, Can you explain why Bishop Mark Lawrence’s decision to postpone the diocesan convention in order to respond to the attorney’s request, generated your extensive report to the Executive Council on South Carolina last Friday?
PB: I wanted the Executive Council to be aware of it.
RE: Dr. Hadaway’s presentation on attendance statistics: what was the Council’s response?
Bonnie Anderson, President, House of Deputies: He is such a good speaker and gave us good report. Only 5 of the nation’s top denominations showed growth in 2008. Even Southern Baptist and Roman Catholic showed decline, with the Roman Catholics spared by the large influx of people from other denominations. Viewing through ideological lens did not explain the situation, since everyone is in decline.
PB: It stimulated good conversation about characteristics of churches that grow. Provided lots of data and information for people to take home with them.
Doug LeBlanc, The Living Church: In the ENS (Episcopal News Service) report on Friday, you indicated that the PB spoke about the situation in South Carolina, asking people pray for the people in SC. What change do you hope to see as a result of those prayers?
PB: I want a clear understanding of realities of TEC and don’t want the people of South Carolina to rely on erroneous information, provided by other sources.
Bonnie Anderson: Have heard from several of the deputies from south Carolina. They have a desire for clear and accurate information; prayer all across the church for this situation.
Re: Who is new council member to replace Bp elect Ian Douglas?
PB: He hasn’t resigned yet. He is expected to do so at the end of the meeting today. [Ed. Note: the Rev. Dr. Ian Douglas was elected Bishop of Connecticut. His resignation today from the Executive Council indicates that he has received enough consents from bishops and standing committees to be consecrated in April. He must resign because he was not elected from the House of Bishops, but from the House of Deputies. ]
Mary Ann Moehler for Virtueonline: TEC has gone after traditionalists with a vengeance. Now you are going after South Carolina. What do you hope to gain doing this?
PB: Episcopalians in SC have expressed concern to my office about those who have left diocese or are contemplating doing so and continued to exercise control over Episcopal assets. That is my primary concern.
Mary Francis Schoenberg: Can you talk about the challenges in crafting 2010/2011 budget.
PB: Budgets are always challenging, even though we preach a gospel of prosperity. How do we, or what is the best way to spend money to perform the transformative work of the Gospel?
Bonnie Anderson: The budget is discussed and passed by The Governing Body of this Church: the General Convention. Now its the work of the Exec Council to make small adjustments. It’s a very democratic process. Keeping in mind that we have a defining document before us in the document passed at General Convention, we will try to hold on to what the General Convention concluded and mandated.
George Conger, reporter at large: to the PB and President: You both expressed receiving erroneous information in SC. What is this erroneous information? Where did it come from?
PB: Episcopalians, like many others who use the internet, seek information that is not subject to peer review [Ed. Note: as information is in academic circles.] They rely on opinion, not fact. The South Carolina representation of our theology and polity as a whole is not accurate. There are stated processes of this Church that are not accurate. I would encourage South Carolinians to ask bodies of TEC that are responsible for these decisions and get their facts straight.
Bonnie Anderson: There is a large influx of information coming from multiple sources. It is really important for people who are going to be voting on something to get accurate information on the issues before them. Fox example, and this is just hypothetical, can a diocese leave TEC? What is the process for that concern? What have we agreed to in the General Convention over the years with regard to that?
There were no other questions.
Bonnie Anderson in conclusion: I want to add on to something Bp. Katharine said earlier about positive things we saw from the Hadaway report about building, rebuilding, and reinvigorating congregations. I want to respond to decline in mainline denominations. We need to give people a reason to get out of bed on Sunday morning and come to church. We must respond to our communities and tell people all the good things about TEC: our strong stand for social justice, the vital ministry of lay people and our democratic process of decision making. That is the work we must each promote locally.
NR Fox: Another post this afternoon re: Exec Council. Letter from Exec Council to the Church that will be released later today.
Feb 22, 2010 12:10 PM Concluded 12:27 PM
The press conference was moderated by Neva Rae Fox, Public Affairs Officer for The Episcopal Church. Each reporter that calls in is greeted by Mrs. Fox. She initially commented on today’s email flurry, stating I was in London, requesting money to get home. The speakers were introduced, with their official titles. Questions follow. I did not get every reporter’s name. PB is Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori; Bonnie Anderson is the President, House of Deputies, and Vice President of the Executive Council. RE is a question from a reporter without a name.
Louise Brooks, Integrity: pass; did not return to press conference
Cherie Wetzel , The Anglican Voice: For the Presiding Bishop, Can you explain why Bishop Mark Lawrence’s decision to postpone the diocesan convention in order to respond to the attorney’s request, generated your extensive report to the Executive Council on South Carolina last Friday?
PB: I wanted the Executive Council to be aware of it.
RE: Dr. Hadaway’s presentation on attendance statistics: what was the Council’s response?
Bonnie Anderson, President, House of Deputies: He is such a good speaker and gave us good report. Only 5 of the nation’s top denominations showed growth in 2008. Even Southern Baptist and Roman Catholic showed decline, with the Roman Catholics spared by the large influx of people from other denominations. Viewing through ideological lens did not explain the situation, since everyone is in decline.
PB: It stimulated good conversation about characteristics of churches that grow. Provided lots of data and information for people to take home with them.
Doug LeBlanc, The Living Church: In the ENS (Episcopal News Service) report on Friday, you indicated that the PB spoke about the situation in South Carolina, asking people pray for the people in SC. What change do you hope to see as a result of those prayers?
PB: I want a clear understanding of realities of TEC and don’t want the people of South Carolina to rely on erroneous information, provided by other sources.
Bonnie Anderson: Have heard from several of the deputies from south Carolina. They have a desire for clear and accurate information; prayer all across the church for this situation.
Re: Who is new council member to replace Bp elect Ian Douglas?
PB: He hasn’t resigned yet. He is expected to do so at the end of the meeting today. [Ed. Note: the Rev. Dr. Ian Douglas was elected Bishop of Connecticut. His resignation today from the Executive Council indicates that he has received enough consents from bishops and standing committees to be consecrated in April. He must resign because he was not elected from the House of Bishops, but from the House of Deputies. ]
Mary Ann Moehler for Virtueonline: TEC has gone after traditionalists with a vengeance. Now you are going after South Carolina. What do you hope to gain doing this?
PB: Episcopalians in SC have expressed concern to my office about those who have left diocese or are contemplating doing so and continued to exercise control over Episcopal assets. That is my primary concern.
Mary Francis Schoenberg: Can you talk about the challenges in crafting 2010/2011 budget.
PB: Budgets are always challenging, even though we preach a gospel of prosperity. How do we, or what is the best way to spend money to perform the transformative work of the Gospel?
Bonnie Anderson: The budget is discussed and passed by The Governing Body of this Church: the General Convention. Now its the work of the Exec Council to make small adjustments. It’s a very democratic process. Keeping in mind that we have a defining document before us in the document passed at General Convention, we will try to hold on to what the General Convention concluded and mandated.
George Conger, reporter at large: to the PB and President: You both expressed receiving erroneous information in SC. What is this erroneous information? Where did it come from?
PB: Episcopalians, like many others who use the internet, seek information that is not subject to peer review [Ed. Note: as information is in academic circles.] They rely on opinion, not fact. The South Carolina representation of our theology and polity as a whole is not accurate. There are stated processes of this Church that are not accurate. I would encourage South Carolinians to ask bodies of TEC that are responsible for these decisions and get their facts straight.
Bonnie Anderson: There is a large influx of information coming from multiple sources. It is really important for people who are going to be voting on something to get accurate information on the issues before them. Fox example, and this is just hypothetical, can a diocese leave TEC? What is the process for that concern? What have we agreed to in the General Convention over the years with regard to that?
There were no other questions.
Bonnie Anderson in conclusion: I want to add on to something Bp. Katharine said earlier about positive things we saw from the Hadaway report about building, rebuilding, and reinvigorating congregations. I want to respond to decline in mainline denominations. We need to give people a reason to get out of bed on Sunday morning and come to church. We must respond to our communities and tell people all the good things about TEC: our strong stand for social justice, the vital ministry of lay people and our democratic process of decision making. That is the work we must each promote locally.
NR Fox: Another post this afternoon re: Exec Council. Letter from Exec Council to the Church that will be released later today.
Monday, February 22, 2010
All is Well™: DioNorCal in Early Stages of Death Spiral
from Stand Firm by Greg Griffith:
"Faced with declining membership and less money to pay salaries and maintain aging buildings, Beisner is calling on staff and laity to come up with new ways of keeping their church doors open.
"The bishop said he has no plans to close any of the 72 churches in the diocese. "But everything is on the table," he said.
"Many congregations can no longer afford full-time clergy. Some are having trouble paying their bills. In a letter to clergy this month, a diocesan leader said changes must be made soon.
"There are those who feel we are on the brink of a crisis," said Canon Britt Olson in the Aurora Clergy E-News. "This is because this is a crisis – not only for the congregation, but for all churches in the diocese."
Bishop, it sounds like you could use the help of the national church's Office of Evangelism to help build up membership in DioNorCal.
What's that you say? There IS NO Office of Evangelism any more?
In that case, may I recommend spending millions of dollars of church money on litigation in order to obtain ownership of big, expensive buildings it will never fill?
No?
Sheesh... tough crowd.
"Faced with declining membership and less money to pay salaries and maintain aging buildings, Beisner is calling on staff and laity to come up with new ways of keeping their church doors open.
"The bishop said he has no plans to close any of the 72 churches in the diocese. "But everything is on the table," he said.
"Many congregations can no longer afford full-time clergy. Some are having trouble paying their bills. In a letter to clergy this month, a diocesan leader said changes must be made soon.
"There are those who feel we are on the brink of a crisis," said Canon Britt Olson in the Aurora Clergy E-News. "This is because this is a crisis – not only for the congregation, but for all churches in the diocese."
Bishop, it sounds like you could use the help of the national church's Office of Evangelism to help build up membership in DioNorCal.
What's that you say? There IS NO Office of Evangelism any more?
In that case, may I recommend spending millions of dollars of church money on litigation in order to obtain ownership of big, expensive buildings it will never fill?
No?
Sheesh... tough crowd.
An Unnamed TEC Priest Coins a New Word—To “Exschoriate”
from Stand Firm by Sarah Hey:
Oh dear.
Received via email, from a clever mind:
ex·scho·ri·ate
Pronunciation: \ek-ˈshȯr-ē-ˌāt\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): ex·scho·ri·at·ed; ex·scho·ri·at·ing
Etymology: American English, from Late Latin exschoriatus, past participle of exschoriare, from Latin ex- + schori overreaching figurehead
Date: 21st century
1 : to censure scathingly without authority or effect, as in firing one who has already resigned
2 : to erode the appearance of one's own authority:
— ex·scho·ri·a·tion \(ˌ)ek-ˌshȯr-ē-ˈā-shən\ noun
Oh dear.
Received via email, from a clever mind:
ex·scho·ri·ate
Pronunciation: \ek-ˈshȯr-ē-ˌāt\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): ex·scho·ri·at·ed; ex·scho·ri·at·ing
Etymology: American English, from Late Latin exschoriatus, past participle of exschoriare, from Latin ex- + schori overreaching figurehead
Date: 21st century
1 : to censure scathingly without authority or effect, as in firing one who has already resigned
2 : to erode the appearance of one's own authority:
— ex·scho·ri·a·tion \(ˌ)ek-ˌshȯr-ē-ˈā-shən\ noun
Mass mailing from LGBT lobby gives insight into Lent, Episcopalian style!
From Northern Plains Anglican via Stand Firm:
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2010
Just in time for Ash Wednesday and Lent, the following letter landed on my desk. I leave the punctuation and highlights as in the original unless otherwise noted:
Dear sisters & brothers:
Many unchurched lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender [LGBT] people in your community are spiritually searching. They are looking for a faith community where they will be welcomed and affirmed as beloved children of God. You can encourage them to visit and join your parish by becoming a Believe Out Loud Episcopal Congregation.
A Believe Out Loud Episcopal Congregation is a mission or parish of our denomination that publicly welcomes and affirms LGBT people and that has completed the simple, three-phase process described on the back of this letter. If your parish qualifies, I invite you to become a Believe Out Loud Episcopal Congregation by registering online at [original has link] or by returning the bottom third of this letter in the reusable envelope in which it arrived.
Once your parish registers as a Believe Out Loud Congregation, you will be added to a national database of welcoming and affirming faith communities.
Thanks for considering this step toward fuller inclusion and wider evangelism. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Heaven's blessing,
John Clinton Bradley, Acting Executive Director
IntegrityUSA
(original includes email and phone contact)
Believe Out Loud Episcopal Congregations is endorsed by the Bishop's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Ministry [Los Angeles], the Committee for Gay and Lesbian Ministry [Rochester], IntegrityUSA, Oasis Ministry Michigan, Oasis California, Oasis Missouri, the Oasis [Newark], the Oasis of New Jersey, and TransEpiscopal.
[back page]
Phase 1: Ready?
Does your congregation already have a history of publicly welcoming and affirming lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender [LGBT] folk?
- If the answer is NO, we strongly recommend you continue with Phase 1.
- If the answer is YES, decide whether your congregation would benefit from continuing with Phase 1 or is ready to move to Phase 2.
Attend a Faith-Based Community Organizing workshop offered by the Institute of Welcoming Resources [original has link]
Download and use IWR's Building An Inclusive Church Toolkit to evaluate, organize, educate and prepare the congregation [original has link].
Phase 2: Set.
Ask the vestry or annual meeting to adopt a public statement explicitly welcoming and affirming LGBT people. [Example statements can be found on page 28 of the Building An Inclusive Church Toolkit.]
Phase 3: Go!
Publish the statement.
Register as a Believe Out Loud Episcopal Congregation.
Work with IntegrityUSA to make your congregation even more welcoming and affirming.
Consider becoming a corporate member - or Proud Parish Partner - of IntegrityUSA.
[CONGREGATIONAL CONTACT RETURN CARD FOLLOWS]
- END OF LETTER -
OK, where to start? Certainly not with the Bible or any of Christianity's spiritual wisdom, even though most of us just mouthed the Ash Wednesday call to "a holy Lent, by self-examination and repentance; by prayer, fasting, and self-denial; and by reading and meditating on God's holy Word."
So let's just look at their lead claim, that they are offering us growth:
In 2007, IntegrityUSA did a survey of its membership and "friends." Guess what? A gaggle of gay white men. Not the expansive, inclusive critter this letter would have you imagine.
The Bishop and a bunch of clergy from our neighbor diocese of Iowa signed onto a letter endorsing same sex "marriage". Have a look at the ten year attendance and membership trends for that "welcoming, affirming and evangelizing" entity. (Yeah, it's a bar graph - roughly 1,000 fewer people attending per Sunday, which in that diocese meant a 25% loss.) And here's Rochester, one of the letter's proud sponsors. Newark's another one.
Folks, it is the same old ploy. A handful of activists say all the words we want to hear about people swarming into our aging, closing churches. But just the opposite happens - the pace of decline and closure gains momentum.
But we fall for it every time.
And the gaggle of activists - especially clergy - feed off the carcass of what was once a church. And have you all noticed the shift from "nice, monogamous same-sex couples" to inclusion of bisexuals who, if sexually active, can't possibly be monogamous?
Heaven's blessing, all. Last one out, turn off the lights.
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2010
Just in time for Ash Wednesday and Lent, the following letter landed on my desk. I leave the punctuation and highlights as in the original unless otherwise noted:
Dear sisters & brothers:
Many unchurched lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender [LGBT] people in your community are spiritually searching. They are looking for a faith community where they will be welcomed and affirmed as beloved children of God. You can encourage them to visit and join your parish by becoming a Believe Out Loud Episcopal Congregation.
A Believe Out Loud Episcopal Congregation is a mission or parish of our denomination that publicly welcomes and affirms LGBT people and that has completed the simple, three-phase process described on the back of this letter. If your parish qualifies, I invite you to become a Believe Out Loud Episcopal Congregation by registering online at [original has link] or by returning the bottom third of this letter in the reusable envelope in which it arrived.
Once your parish registers as a Believe Out Loud Congregation, you will be added to a national database of welcoming and affirming faith communities.
Thanks for considering this step toward fuller inclusion and wider evangelism. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Heaven's blessing,
John Clinton Bradley, Acting Executive Director
IntegrityUSA
(original includes email and phone contact)
Believe Out Loud Episcopal Congregations is endorsed by the Bishop's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Ministry [Los Angeles], the Committee for Gay and Lesbian Ministry [Rochester], IntegrityUSA, Oasis Ministry Michigan, Oasis California, Oasis Missouri, the Oasis [Newark], the Oasis of New Jersey, and TransEpiscopal.
[back page]
Phase 1: Ready?
Does your congregation already have a history of publicly welcoming and affirming lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender [LGBT] folk?
- If the answer is NO, we strongly recommend you continue with Phase 1.
- If the answer is YES, decide whether your congregation would benefit from continuing with Phase 1 or is ready to move to Phase 2.
Attend a Faith-Based Community Organizing workshop offered by the Institute of Welcoming Resources [original has link]
Download and use IWR's Building An Inclusive Church Toolkit to evaluate, organize, educate and prepare the congregation [original has link].
Phase 2: Set.
Ask the vestry or annual meeting to adopt a public statement explicitly welcoming and affirming LGBT people. [Example statements can be found on page 28 of the Building An Inclusive Church Toolkit.]
Phase 3: Go!
Publish the statement.
Register as a Believe Out Loud Episcopal Congregation.
Work with IntegrityUSA to make your congregation even more welcoming and affirming.
Consider becoming a corporate member - or Proud Parish Partner - of IntegrityUSA.
[CONGREGATIONAL CONTACT RETURN CARD FOLLOWS]
- END OF LETTER -
OK, where to start? Certainly not with the Bible or any of Christianity's spiritual wisdom, even though most of us just mouthed the Ash Wednesday call to "a holy Lent, by self-examination and repentance; by prayer, fasting, and self-denial; and by reading and meditating on God's holy Word."
So let's just look at their lead claim, that they are offering us growth:
In 2007, IntegrityUSA did a survey of its membership and "friends." Guess what? A gaggle of gay white men. Not the expansive, inclusive critter this letter would have you imagine.
The Bishop and a bunch of clergy from our neighbor diocese of Iowa signed onto a letter endorsing same sex "marriage". Have a look at the ten year attendance and membership trends for that "welcoming, affirming and evangelizing" entity. (Yeah, it's a bar graph - roughly 1,000 fewer people attending per Sunday, which in that diocese meant a 25% loss.) And here's Rochester, one of the letter's proud sponsors. Newark's another one.
Folks, it is the same old ploy. A handful of activists say all the words we want to hear about people swarming into our aging, closing churches. But just the opposite happens - the pace of decline and closure gains momentum.
But we fall for it every time.
And the gaggle of activists - especially clergy - feed off the carcass of what was once a church. And have you all noticed the shift from "nice, monogamous same-sex couples" to inclusion of bisexuals who, if sexually active, can't possibly be monogamous?
Heaven's blessing, all. Last one out, turn off the lights.
Decline, and what to do about it
from The Lead by Jim Naughton
If you want to read the post attached to the headline you'll have to go to The Lead. I'll save you the work: it's a rehash of the ENS story below with some other links.
The truth is that there is a way to escape the death spiral - return to the living God. Of course this is not something that the Episcopal Fraud is inclined to do. So, the death spiral will continue. It's not an issue of technique; it's an issue of faith. As long as pecusa follows a gospel other than the one given to us by Jesus the Christ, the death spiral will continue.
If you want to read the post attached to the headline you'll have to go to The Lead. I'll save you the work: it's a rehash of the ENS story below with some other links.
The truth is that there is a way to escape the death spiral - return to the living God. Of course this is not something that the Episcopal Fraud is inclined to do. So, the death spiral will continue. It's not an issue of technique; it's an issue of faith. As long as pecusa follows a gospel other than the one given to us by Jesus the Christ, the death spiral will continue.
Schori continues to spin (lie) about pecusa decline
When the PB points out that pecusa has been in decline since 2000, years before the Anglican crisis that began in 2003 that is an untruth wrapped in a truth. The truth is that pecusa has been in decline since about 1966. There have been upticks, but the general pattern has been down. The downward trend deepened after 2003, but you won't hear the PB talk about that. ed.
Executive Council discusses trends in Episcopal Church membership
Researcher outlines characteristics of growing congregations
By Mary Frances Schjonberg, February 21, 2010
[Episcopal News Service – Omaha, Nebraska] The Episcopal Church's Executive Council heard here Feb. 21 that church membership and Sunday attendance continued to decline in 2008, but also heard a call for the church to promote knowledge of the characteristics of growing congregations.
During his statistic-laden hour-long report, Kirk Hadaway, the church's program officer for congregational research, told the council that congregations grow when they are in growing communities; have a clear mission and purpose; follow up with visitors; have strong leadership; and are involved in outreach and evangelism.
Congregations decline, he said, when their membership is older and predominantly female; are in conflict, particularly over leadership and where worship is "rote, predictable and uninspiring."
The primary source of the statistics for Hadaway's report is the canonically required (Canon 1.6.1) information filed annually with diocesan bishops by each congregation. The so-called parochial reports are due by March 1 of the following year. An example of the sort of information gathered is available here. Hadaway analyzed the data received to compile a variety of statistical reports and also cited a variety of surveys of church members that he and others have conducted.
The 2008 parochial reports show overall church membership at 2,225,682 people, with a total average Sunday attendance (ASA) at 747,376. Those totals compare with 2007 membership of 2,285,143 and total ASA at 768,476. The dioceses in the United States saw a 2.8 percent drop in membership and a 3.1 percent decrease in ASA. Overall church membership -- including 10 non-U.S. dioceses -- was down 2.6 percent and attendance dropped 2.7 percent for the entire church.
Hadaway suggested that "if we're going to turn this around -- or at least turn around the decline -- more attention needs to be paid to the things that result in growth, rather than to the broader cultural factors that are affecting our current patterns." Those cultural factors include such things as an aging population with declining birthrates and an increase in the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation.
"The base problem is the fact that so many of our churches don't know why they're there," he said. "It's a caretaker sort of ministry, which is good and helpful, but it's a prescription for continuing decline."
Hadaway agreed with council member Brian Cole who suggested that "this is still ultimately a hopeful time for this way of being Christian" and said that the Episcopal Church ethos would seem to be appealing to those people who are wary of joining churches.
The problem, Hadaway said, is "we're not necessarily inviting them."
"We're just hoping they'll show up because of our lovely facilities, but then even when they're in, we don't really do anything necessarily to incorporate them," he said. "If you've been to a coffee hour, you know what I mean."
He added that very few congregations deliberately gather contact information from visitors and then follow up with them. He urged personal contact with newcomers, saying that parishes that deliberately follow up with visitors in a variety of ways are more likely to grow.
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said after Hadaway's report that she was struck that the most recent trend of declining membership began in 2000 and 2001, "long before the actions of General Convention 2003, which is often the spin that is out there." That meeting of convention consented to the ordination and consecration of New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson as the first openly gay and partnered bishop in the Anglican Communion. That decision caused intense debate across the church and the fracturing of some congregations and dioceses.
Some of the statistical reports Hadaway discussed were released Oct. 16, a week after Executive Council members received, but did not discuss, the findings during their Oct. 5-8 meeting in Memphis, Tennessee.
The median Episcopal Church congregation in 2008 had 164 active members (down four members from 2007) and 69 people in Sunday worship, the same as in the previous year. Membership declines in the Episcopal Church mirror a pattern seen in other Christian denominations. Recent nationwide data shows the median non-Roman Catholic congregation has 75 regular participants at worship on Sundays.
Four domestic Episcopal Church dioceses grew during 2008 in both overall membership and average Sunday attendance: Alabama, Navajoland Area Mission, North Dakota and Wyoming.
In the dioceses outside the United States, membership in the Diocese of Ecuador-Litoral grew by 8.6 percent, the Dominican Republic by 5.5 percent, Colombia by 4 percent and Taiwan by 3 percent, according to statistics available here.
The 2008 parochial report statistics are available in a diocese-by-diocese format here along with a "Fast Facts" report about the church's domestic dioceses here and a Fast Facts document that traces trends since 2004 here. Other analyses are here and here.
Also during the meeting
During the plenary session on Feb. 21, members also discussed the process for calling special meetings of council.
The issue arose in late November when 16 council members petitioned for a special meeting to discuss a possible statement on proposed Ugandan legislation that would introduce the death penalty for people who violate portions of that country's anti-homosexuality laws. After discussions about the request, the meeting was not held and Jefferts Schori issued a statement condemning the proposed changes.
The presiding bishop, as president of the Executive Council, may call a special meeting and a minimum of nine council members may petition in writing for such a meeting under Canon I.4 (4)(a). There have only been five such meetings in the last 110 years, according to the Rev. Dr. Gregory Straub, the church's executive officer.
At the end of the Feb. 21 discussion, Jefferts Schori told the council that "I think there is awareness in the room of how much energy … it takes to organize a special meeting, not to mention the fact that it takes getting on 40 people's calendars, which is not easy to do instantly."
"I would encourage us to be cautious in moves to call for a special meeting. It's an enormous burden on the system and on every council member, so let's reserve it for issues than cannot be resolved in any other way," she said.
The Feb. 19-22 meeting at the Omaha Hilton is taking place in the seat of the Episcopal Diocese of Nebraska. Council was to hear about the mission and ministry of the diocese on the evening of Feb. 21.
Earlier in the day, council and church center staff members worshiped with three Omaha parishes: All Saints, Church of the Resurrection and Trinity Episcopal Cathedral. Jefferts Schori preached and presided at All Saints, while House of Deputies President Bonnie Anderson preached at Church of the Resurrection on what in many Episcopal Church congregations was not only the First Sunday in Lent but also Episcopal Relief & Development Sunday. David Booth Beers, chancellor to the presiding bishop, preached at the cathedral, but did not have a text.
Council members had spent the afternoon of Feb. 19 and all day Feb. 20 in committee meetings. The five standing committees are called Local Ministry and Mission (LMM), Advocacy and Networking for Mission (A&N), World Mission (WM), Governance and Administration for Mission (GAM) and Finances for Mission (FFM).
The rest of the meeting
On Feb. 22, council will consider resolutions from those five committees as well as a letter to the church outlining its work in Omaha that a council subcommittee is drafting. Members will also get a briefing on Episcopal Relief & Development's work in Haiti since the earthquake.
Also on council's last day, members will elect a successor to council member and Diocese of Connecticut Bishop-elect Ian Douglas, who plans to resign at the end of the meeting. The person chosen will fill out the remainder of his six-year term which expires after General Convention in 2012.
The Executive Council carries out the programs and policies adopted by the General Convention, according to Canon I.4 (1)(a). The council is composed of 38 members, 20 of whom (four bishops, four priests or deacons and 12 lay people) are elected by General Convention and 18 (one clergy and one lay) by provincial synods for six-year terms, plus the presiding bishop and the president of the House of Deputies.
Executive Council discusses trends in Episcopal Church membership
Researcher outlines characteristics of growing congregations
By Mary Frances Schjonberg, February 21, 2010
[Episcopal News Service – Omaha, Nebraska] The Episcopal Church's Executive Council heard here Feb. 21 that church membership and Sunday attendance continued to decline in 2008, but also heard a call for the church to promote knowledge of the characteristics of growing congregations.
During his statistic-laden hour-long report, Kirk Hadaway, the church's program officer for congregational research, told the council that congregations grow when they are in growing communities; have a clear mission and purpose; follow up with visitors; have strong leadership; and are involved in outreach and evangelism.
Congregations decline, he said, when their membership is older and predominantly female; are in conflict, particularly over leadership and where worship is "rote, predictable and uninspiring."
The primary source of the statistics for Hadaway's report is the canonically required (Canon 1.6.1) information filed annually with diocesan bishops by each congregation. The so-called parochial reports are due by March 1 of the following year. An example of the sort of information gathered is available here. Hadaway analyzed the data received to compile a variety of statistical reports and also cited a variety of surveys of church members that he and others have conducted.
The 2008 parochial reports show overall church membership at 2,225,682 people, with a total average Sunday attendance (ASA) at 747,376. Those totals compare with 2007 membership of 2,285,143 and total ASA at 768,476. The dioceses in the United States saw a 2.8 percent drop in membership and a 3.1 percent decrease in ASA. Overall church membership -- including 10 non-U.S. dioceses -- was down 2.6 percent and attendance dropped 2.7 percent for the entire church.
Hadaway suggested that "if we're going to turn this around -- or at least turn around the decline -- more attention needs to be paid to the things that result in growth, rather than to the broader cultural factors that are affecting our current patterns." Those cultural factors include such things as an aging population with declining birthrates and an increase in the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation.
"The base problem is the fact that so many of our churches don't know why they're there," he said. "It's a caretaker sort of ministry, which is good and helpful, but it's a prescription for continuing decline."
Hadaway agreed with council member Brian Cole who suggested that "this is still ultimately a hopeful time for this way of being Christian" and said that the Episcopal Church ethos would seem to be appealing to those people who are wary of joining churches.
The problem, Hadaway said, is "we're not necessarily inviting them."
"We're just hoping they'll show up because of our lovely facilities, but then even when they're in, we don't really do anything necessarily to incorporate them," he said. "If you've been to a coffee hour, you know what I mean."
He added that very few congregations deliberately gather contact information from visitors and then follow up with them. He urged personal contact with newcomers, saying that parishes that deliberately follow up with visitors in a variety of ways are more likely to grow.
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said after Hadaway's report that she was struck that the most recent trend of declining membership began in 2000 and 2001, "long before the actions of General Convention 2003, which is often the spin that is out there." That meeting of convention consented to the ordination and consecration of New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson as the first openly gay and partnered bishop in the Anglican Communion. That decision caused intense debate across the church and the fracturing of some congregations and dioceses.
Some of the statistical reports Hadaway discussed were released Oct. 16, a week after Executive Council members received, but did not discuss, the findings during their Oct. 5-8 meeting in Memphis, Tennessee.
The median Episcopal Church congregation in 2008 had 164 active members (down four members from 2007) and 69 people in Sunday worship, the same as in the previous year. Membership declines in the Episcopal Church mirror a pattern seen in other Christian denominations. Recent nationwide data shows the median non-Roman Catholic congregation has 75 regular participants at worship on Sundays.
Four domestic Episcopal Church dioceses grew during 2008 in both overall membership and average Sunday attendance: Alabama, Navajoland Area Mission, North Dakota and Wyoming.
In the dioceses outside the United States, membership in the Diocese of Ecuador-Litoral grew by 8.6 percent, the Dominican Republic by 5.5 percent, Colombia by 4 percent and Taiwan by 3 percent, according to statistics available here.
The 2008 parochial report statistics are available in a diocese-by-diocese format here along with a "Fast Facts" report about the church's domestic dioceses here and a Fast Facts document that traces trends since 2004 here. Other analyses are here and here.
Also during the meeting
During the plenary session on Feb. 21, members also discussed the process for calling special meetings of council.
The issue arose in late November when 16 council members petitioned for a special meeting to discuss a possible statement on proposed Ugandan legislation that would introduce the death penalty for people who violate portions of that country's anti-homosexuality laws. After discussions about the request, the meeting was not held and Jefferts Schori issued a statement condemning the proposed changes.
The presiding bishop, as president of the Executive Council, may call a special meeting and a minimum of nine council members may petition in writing for such a meeting under Canon I.4 (4)(a). There have only been five such meetings in the last 110 years, according to the Rev. Dr. Gregory Straub, the church's executive officer.
At the end of the Feb. 21 discussion, Jefferts Schori told the council that "I think there is awareness in the room of how much energy … it takes to organize a special meeting, not to mention the fact that it takes getting on 40 people's calendars, which is not easy to do instantly."
"I would encourage us to be cautious in moves to call for a special meeting. It's an enormous burden on the system and on every council member, so let's reserve it for issues than cannot be resolved in any other way," she said.
The Feb. 19-22 meeting at the Omaha Hilton is taking place in the seat of the Episcopal Diocese of Nebraska. Council was to hear about the mission and ministry of the diocese on the evening of Feb. 21.
Earlier in the day, council and church center staff members worshiped with three Omaha parishes: All Saints, Church of the Resurrection and Trinity Episcopal Cathedral. Jefferts Schori preached and presided at All Saints, while House of Deputies President Bonnie Anderson preached at Church of the Resurrection on what in many Episcopal Church congregations was not only the First Sunday in Lent but also Episcopal Relief & Development Sunday. David Booth Beers, chancellor to the presiding bishop, preached at the cathedral, but did not have a text.
Council members had spent the afternoon of Feb. 19 and all day Feb. 20 in committee meetings. The five standing committees are called Local Ministry and Mission (LMM), Advocacy and Networking for Mission (A&N), World Mission (WM), Governance and Administration for Mission (GAM) and Finances for Mission (FFM).
The rest of the meeting
On Feb. 22, council will consider resolutions from those five committees as well as a letter to the church outlining its work in Omaha that a council subcommittee is drafting. Members will also get a briefing on Episcopal Relief & Development's work in Haiti since the earthquake.
Also on council's last day, members will elect a successor to council member and Diocese of Connecticut Bishop-elect Ian Douglas, who plans to resign at the end of the meeting. The person chosen will fill out the remainder of his six-year term which expires after General Convention in 2012.
The Executive Council carries out the programs and policies adopted by the General Convention, according to Canon I.4 (1)(a). The council is composed of 38 members, 20 of whom (four bishops, four priests or deacons and 12 lay people) are elected by General Convention and 18 (one clergy and one lay) by provincial synods for six-year terms, plus the presiding bishop and the president of the House of Deputies.
DIOGENES
from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor
The Rt. Rev. Pierre Whalon, Bishop-in-charge of the Convocation of American Churches in Europe, is as good a liberal as the Episcopal Organization has but he is also something else. An honest man.
Admit it, says Pete. The Episcopalians have not made a serious theological case for the innovations of the last six and a half years:
"When I sat with the rest of the bishops in Convention in Minneapolis on the day that our House confirmed the New Hampshire election, I sensed the Spirit was moving. It felt like a holy moment, in other words. But what was the Spirit saying, I asked myself.
"We have not finished unpacking the significance of that moment. One thing that has become clear to me is that the equivocations of our church with respect to our gay and lesbian members were being exposed. While I do believe that a case for the full inclusion of gay and lesbian people that rests on faithful arguments from Scripture, theological anthropology, etc., can be made, the fact is that this church has not officially done so. Not that our official theology is deficient, but in fact, we have none, other than the traditional teaching still theoretically in force that love is to be sexually expressed only within the bonds of Matrimony between husband and wife. Of course, there are plenty of theologians writing theologies, lots of people composing liturgies of same-sex blessings, and partnered gay clergy are fairly commonplace. But while there are General Convention resolutions that anticipate such developments, no official teaching backs these actions."
Whalon believes that a serious theological case for these innovations can be made. He also believes that “because it makes me feel good” isn’t a serious theological case.
"So what was the Spirit doing in Minneapolis on that hot day in late July 2003? In a previous Anglicans Online column, I reviewed the history of the movement from rejection to acceptance of exceptions to full inclusion, working out the implications of the 1976 Convention resolution that affirmed that gay and lesbian people are “children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church” (A-69). The stunning fact is that since Bishop Paul Moore ordained Ellen Barrett to the priesthood in 1977 (and was not censured for it), no work has ever been done in any depth that has received the approval of the General Convention to explain why “love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church” include access to marital rites and ordination.
"It seems to me that the Holy Trinity had had enough of the “don’t ask–don’t tell” policy that was de facto on the church-wide level up until 2003, and therefore the Spirit introduced us all to the new Bishop of New Hampshire. Now we had to deal with the reality of what we doing, and defend it. Not by some appeal to psychology or endocrinology or genetics, or other contested, ephemeral, and finally dehumanizing “scientific answers,” but some honest-to-God theology, a reasoned argument based firmly on Scripture and the other, lesser resources of the Tradition.
"Since 2003, we have as a church done nothing to change the situation. Last summer’s Convention resolution D025 declared what a majority of the deputies and bishops believe, but acknowledged continuing disagreement in the last and rhetorically most significant paragraph. I voted for it because it is primarily a statement of fact (“the majority believes this . . . but . . .”) rather than a theological argument."
The Episcopal Organization is doing no one, least of all homosexuals, any favors by making things up as it goes along.
"It is my conviction that wherever one is on the spectrum of opinion, to have no theology for full inclusion, while more or less practicing it, is worse than having bad theology. Bad theology cries out for better theology. No theology, however, calls the whole enterprise into question. And here the question of justice, to which appeal is routinely made for permitting blessings and ordinations, applies, but much more widely. It is patently unjust to everyone, including partnered gay and lesbian people, to keep on ordaining them and blessing their unions without providing a theological rationale for changing the church’s teaching.
"And the Anglican Communion was quite right to ask us to hold off consecrating any other homosexual bishops.
"It is precisely because we then provided no rationale as a church for this change that we were asked to practice “gracious restraint.” It is not that the whole rest of the Anglican Communion disagrees with us—that is simply not true. But even those elsewhere who agree with a full inclusion position do not on the whole support how we have gone about it. While General Convention is the final arbiter of what The Episcopal Church believes, simply relying on bald resolutions and election results does not spell out its teaching. And this is inadequate to the task at hand. Not just to rebut critics inside and outside this church, but for the much larger and more important work of the cure of souls, the pastoring of all the church’s members by the church. None of that has been worked out, except in local ad hoc ways that have not received the acceptance of our only churchwide decision-making body."
What’s truly impressive about this piece is that Pierre Whalon seems to be that rarest of all Anglican liberals. Someone who is open to the possibility that he might just be wrong.
"Finally, I am quite aware that changing a part of the church’s teaching may be in error, and that those leaders who lead others astray will fall under God’s judgment. I do not expect to get handed one day a millstone with my initials on it fitted to my neck size, so to speak, but those are the stakes, and we need to own up to it. Moreover, as a matter of justice, not to mention love, it is simply wrong, that is, unjust and unloving, to continue as a church to live into a new teaching without giving clear reasons—carefully argued and officially accepted by our own church—for doing so. While justice delayed is justice denied, the global scope of our actions is in fact hindering the acceptance of gay and lesbian people elsewhere.
"Some have said that the moratoria will end when we act to end them. Such an action, undefended, would only perpetuate the present anomie, and raise a real question about a “General-Convention fundamentalism”—“the majority voted it, therefore God said it, and that settles it.” Rather, we need to continue to keep “gracious restraint” until we have done the necessary work in order to end it. We do not have to wait for the rest of the Communion to approve our arguments, of course. But it is terrible that we as a church have continued to avoid that work, and all therefore continue to pay a heavy price, both within and without The Episcopal Church. If we go on blessing same-sex unions and consecrating people in those partnered relationships, and yet continue to refuse to do that work, will that mean that we cannot justify our actions? And if we cannot, then what — in God’s name — do we think we’re doing?"
From the start of the Current Unpleasantness, I’ve said over and over that I would go back to the Episcopal parish I left in 2003 if you would only provide me with a Scriptural case for Gene Robinson.
That offer still stands. But the fact that a liberal like Pierre Whalon thinks that a case has not yet been made after six and a half years suggests that I won’t be dropping by my old joint any time soon.
The Rt. Rev. Pierre Whalon, Bishop-in-charge of the Convocation of American Churches in Europe, is as good a liberal as the Episcopal Organization has but he is also something else. An honest man.
Admit it, says Pete. The Episcopalians have not made a serious theological case for the innovations of the last six and a half years:
"When I sat with the rest of the bishops in Convention in Minneapolis on the day that our House confirmed the New Hampshire election, I sensed the Spirit was moving. It felt like a holy moment, in other words. But what was the Spirit saying, I asked myself.
"We have not finished unpacking the significance of that moment. One thing that has become clear to me is that the equivocations of our church with respect to our gay and lesbian members were being exposed. While I do believe that a case for the full inclusion of gay and lesbian people that rests on faithful arguments from Scripture, theological anthropology, etc., can be made, the fact is that this church has not officially done so. Not that our official theology is deficient, but in fact, we have none, other than the traditional teaching still theoretically in force that love is to be sexually expressed only within the bonds of Matrimony between husband and wife. Of course, there are plenty of theologians writing theologies, lots of people composing liturgies of same-sex blessings, and partnered gay clergy are fairly commonplace. But while there are General Convention resolutions that anticipate such developments, no official teaching backs these actions."
Whalon believes that a serious theological case for these innovations can be made. He also believes that “because it makes me feel good” isn’t a serious theological case.
"So what was the Spirit doing in Minneapolis on that hot day in late July 2003? In a previous Anglicans Online column, I reviewed the history of the movement from rejection to acceptance of exceptions to full inclusion, working out the implications of the 1976 Convention resolution that affirmed that gay and lesbian people are “children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church” (A-69). The stunning fact is that since Bishop Paul Moore ordained Ellen Barrett to the priesthood in 1977 (and was not censured for it), no work has ever been done in any depth that has received the approval of the General Convention to explain why “love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church” include access to marital rites and ordination.
"It seems to me that the Holy Trinity had had enough of the “don’t ask–don’t tell” policy that was de facto on the church-wide level up until 2003, and therefore the Spirit introduced us all to the new Bishop of New Hampshire. Now we had to deal with the reality of what we doing, and defend it. Not by some appeal to psychology or endocrinology or genetics, or other contested, ephemeral, and finally dehumanizing “scientific answers,” but some honest-to-God theology, a reasoned argument based firmly on Scripture and the other, lesser resources of the Tradition.
"Since 2003, we have as a church done nothing to change the situation. Last summer’s Convention resolution D025 declared what a majority of the deputies and bishops believe, but acknowledged continuing disagreement in the last and rhetorically most significant paragraph. I voted for it because it is primarily a statement of fact (“the majority believes this . . . but . . .”) rather than a theological argument."
The Episcopal Organization is doing no one, least of all homosexuals, any favors by making things up as it goes along.
"It is my conviction that wherever one is on the spectrum of opinion, to have no theology for full inclusion, while more or less practicing it, is worse than having bad theology. Bad theology cries out for better theology. No theology, however, calls the whole enterprise into question. And here the question of justice, to which appeal is routinely made for permitting blessings and ordinations, applies, but much more widely. It is patently unjust to everyone, including partnered gay and lesbian people, to keep on ordaining them and blessing their unions without providing a theological rationale for changing the church’s teaching.
"And the Anglican Communion was quite right to ask us to hold off consecrating any other homosexual bishops.
"It is precisely because we then provided no rationale as a church for this change that we were asked to practice “gracious restraint.” It is not that the whole rest of the Anglican Communion disagrees with us—that is simply not true. But even those elsewhere who agree with a full inclusion position do not on the whole support how we have gone about it. While General Convention is the final arbiter of what The Episcopal Church believes, simply relying on bald resolutions and election results does not spell out its teaching. And this is inadequate to the task at hand. Not just to rebut critics inside and outside this church, but for the much larger and more important work of the cure of souls, the pastoring of all the church’s members by the church. None of that has been worked out, except in local ad hoc ways that have not received the acceptance of our only churchwide decision-making body."
What’s truly impressive about this piece is that Pierre Whalon seems to be that rarest of all Anglican liberals. Someone who is open to the possibility that he might just be wrong.
"Finally, I am quite aware that changing a part of the church’s teaching may be in error, and that those leaders who lead others astray will fall under God’s judgment. I do not expect to get handed one day a millstone with my initials on it fitted to my neck size, so to speak, but those are the stakes, and we need to own up to it. Moreover, as a matter of justice, not to mention love, it is simply wrong, that is, unjust and unloving, to continue as a church to live into a new teaching without giving clear reasons—carefully argued and officially accepted by our own church—for doing so. While justice delayed is justice denied, the global scope of our actions is in fact hindering the acceptance of gay and lesbian people elsewhere.
"Some have said that the moratoria will end when we act to end them. Such an action, undefended, would only perpetuate the present anomie, and raise a real question about a “General-Convention fundamentalism”—“the majority voted it, therefore God said it, and that settles it.” Rather, we need to continue to keep “gracious restraint” until we have done the necessary work in order to end it. We do not have to wait for the rest of the Communion to approve our arguments, of course. But it is terrible that we as a church have continued to avoid that work, and all therefore continue to pay a heavy price, both within and without The Episcopal Church. If we go on blessing same-sex unions and consecrating people in those partnered relationships, and yet continue to refuse to do that work, will that mean that we cannot justify our actions? And if we cannot, then what — in God’s name — do we think we’re doing?"
From the start of the Current Unpleasantness, I’ve said over and over that I would go back to the Episcopal parish I left in 2003 if you would only provide me with a Scriptural case for Gene Robinson.
That offer still stands. But the fact that a liberal like Pierre Whalon thinks that a case has not yet been made after six and a half years suggests that I won’t be dropping by my old joint any time soon.
Diocese of Virginia nervous over drop in pledges as litigation costs continue to mount; plans to sell church properties if they win in Supreme Court
from BabyBlueOnline by BabyBlue
Once again he's on the beat. Report from Intrepid:
(1) Donald Cady of the Executive Board reported on the "litigation against those who have tried to appropriate Episcopal Church property" and stated that the Diocesan staff had "made prudent use of the line of credit." I'm not entirely sure what that means, and of course there was no time to ask.
Things at a Diocesan Council meeting in Virginia are tightly controlled. Mr. Cady explained in rather optimistic terms that the "line of credit will be retired at an appropriate time when sale of unconsecrated property takes place", all based on a change in the market when such properties will be more valuable. Perhaps we could call this the "new property for old" program.
I must say I have been severely tempted to ask for an addition to the budget of a line item for say $250,000 to cover the utility and property management costs for maintaining the properties at Truro and Falls Church, among others, should the Diocese actually win the court cases and regain the property. One does wonder if they know how they will pay the bills on such large properties with no congregations to maintain them.
Mr. Cady then said they were working hard to "minimize ongoing litigation costs on the program of the diocese" and wanted to stress in no uncertain terms that "parish pledges have not and will not be used to underwrite litigation costs." Phew, that's a relief. Though again I admit this last line sounds a bit odd when you consider how strongly the Diocese has made the case that we must protect the legacy of faith in these buildings, or something like that. It's clear that while someone at high levels believes litigation to be very important, there must be enough others in local churches who believe using pledges for litigation is a bad idea. And you know, pledges to the diocese from parishes are at a very low point, making the Diocese of Virginia one of the lowest rates of parish support in the country. Go figure.
(2) Bishop Jones gave a short address in which he mentioned that there have been hurt feelings and "issues" around the younger congregations that left the church but that we need to stay faithful nonetheless to the Great Commission. He devoted a large part of his address to encouraging delegates to Council to return to their parishes and explain to their Vestries how important the Diocese is, especially when budgets are being discussed. The lack of funding coming into the Diocese seems to have everyone nervous.
(3) Various resolutions had the usual attention to a word or phrase here or there that needed to be changed for reasons more apparent to those discussing them than to the rest of us. Do any of these resolutions telling us to work for peace and to pray for something or other make a difference in the long run? It seems to this observer that resolutions at Diocesan Council are a lot like smoking a pipe ... in the way in which Anna Russell described it when explaining how to play a bagpipe ... there's simply more fiddling with it than actually using it. You know, this report is simply not all that interesting, because what we did wasn't very interesting. The normal suspects were walking about huffing and puffing or saying the sky was falling, but on the whole it was procedurely boring and theologically bankrupt.
Which brings us to the great annual boondoggle that appears at every Diocesan Council when the Rev. James Papille and the good folk over at St. Anne's, Reston lead the charge for an extreme makeover of procedures and teachings around sexuality.
This year there was a large-scale revision of the motions originally presented at the Council meeting in Richmond. Due to a major snowstorm the Council reconvened weeks later with something totally new, written by the Resolutions Committee. It seems to have magically appeared from who knows where. I can understand why the authors of the original motions were not amused.The substitute resolution looked, sounded and proposed very little of what the originals had wanted. This lead to a lively discussion for the better part of an hour on the floor of Council. One side wanted to return to the original, carefully worded resolutions that asked the Council to state their support for what amounts to rewriting all of the sexual teachings of the church ... from how we handle same-sex blessings, to ordination, and employment issues. The focus was to get the house to show their desire to support these issues.
Those supporting the original motions seemed to fail to see the irony of their position, as so often happens in these situations. In order to get a resolution to show we are tolerant of alternative lifestyles, there was a desire to pass a resolution by majority vote and then explain that the Council and the diocese support this decision, which makes it sound like all of us were united in the position. We're not. And the rush to be able to say the Diocese officially supports something seems like an intolerant position to take towards those of us who do not have the votes in our favor any longer.
Well, the original motions failed to gather the needed support. The substitute resolution was a totally different thing, proposing that the Bishop empanel a group to determine consistent policies for implementing same sex blessings if (but more likely when) the bishop approved them. (Note: He's on record as saying he personally approves of blessings, and of the ordination of people in same sex relationships). Since this substitute was a narrower thing than the original resolutions, that made for some fuss. Personally I found the new resolution to be very odd. It asked for the group to be made up of lawyers and canonical scholars (who?) who would determine such things as the degree of kinship allowable in same sex blesisngs, how economic issues would be resolved in case of dissolution of the relationships, whether testing for health conditions should be mandated and whether clergy would be allowed to have the choice of whether or not to officiate without penalty. Scary stuff ... to think we should have a group discussing whether half brothers can have their sexual relationship blessed by the church, or whether we should limit things to first cousins, or second?
Who died and put us in charge of this stuff? Whoever it was, I am sure it wasn't Jesus.
In the end, the attempt to get the original resolutions considered again failed. By that time people were so tired of the discussion we moved and passed the substitute resolution so we could all go home. Well, not me, I voted against that one too, but you get a feel for how things are going after listening to the debate.
So once again we have asked for some group to study something and report back. A friend in my parish who is a systems analyst has asked what we expect to know differently after another year of study. Is any new data going to come forward? If not then what, he asked me, are we waiting for? Oh but I know that answer. It's in the Bible. We're waiting for enough people to die off, wander off, or just get so tired of things that the votes start going the way they are supposed to go. Then we can enter the new and improved promised land. Until then, we can look forward to at least one more year of studies and reports and another fine debate brought to us at next year's Annual Council. Mark your calendars now and make your reservations for a room in Reston. You won't want to miss the next thrilling episode of "As the Diocese Spins".
Intrepid is a member of the Annual Council of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia.
Once again he's on the beat. Report from Intrepid:
(1) Donald Cady of the Executive Board reported on the "litigation against those who have tried to appropriate Episcopal Church property" and stated that the Diocesan staff had "made prudent use of the line of credit." I'm not entirely sure what that means, and of course there was no time to ask.
Things at a Diocesan Council meeting in Virginia are tightly controlled. Mr. Cady explained in rather optimistic terms that the "line of credit will be retired at an appropriate time when sale of unconsecrated property takes place", all based on a change in the market when such properties will be more valuable. Perhaps we could call this the "new property for old" program.
I must say I have been severely tempted to ask for an addition to the budget of a line item for say $250,000 to cover the utility and property management costs for maintaining the properties at Truro and Falls Church, among others, should the Diocese actually win the court cases and regain the property. One does wonder if they know how they will pay the bills on such large properties with no congregations to maintain them.
Mr. Cady then said they were working hard to "minimize ongoing litigation costs on the program of the diocese" and wanted to stress in no uncertain terms that "parish pledges have not and will not be used to underwrite litigation costs." Phew, that's a relief. Though again I admit this last line sounds a bit odd when you consider how strongly the Diocese has made the case that we must protect the legacy of faith in these buildings, or something like that. It's clear that while someone at high levels believes litigation to be very important, there must be enough others in local churches who believe using pledges for litigation is a bad idea. And you know, pledges to the diocese from parishes are at a very low point, making the Diocese of Virginia one of the lowest rates of parish support in the country. Go figure.
(2) Bishop Jones gave a short address in which he mentioned that there have been hurt feelings and "issues" around the younger congregations that left the church but that we need to stay faithful nonetheless to the Great Commission. He devoted a large part of his address to encouraging delegates to Council to return to their parishes and explain to their Vestries how important the Diocese is, especially when budgets are being discussed. The lack of funding coming into the Diocese seems to have everyone nervous.
(3) Various resolutions had the usual attention to a word or phrase here or there that needed to be changed for reasons more apparent to those discussing them than to the rest of us. Do any of these resolutions telling us to work for peace and to pray for something or other make a difference in the long run? It seems to this observer that resolutions at Diocesan Council are a lot like smoking a pipe ... in the way in which Anna Russell described it when explaining how to play a bagpipe ... there's simply more fiddling with it than actually using it. You know, this report is simply not all that interesting, because what we did wasn't very interesting. The normal suspects were walking about huffing and puffing or saying the sky was falling, but on the whole it was procedurely boring and theologically bankrupt.
Which brings us to the great annual boondoggle that appears at every Diocesan Council when the Rev. James Papille and the good folk over at St. Anne's, Reston lead the charge for an extreme makeover of procedures and teachings around sexuality.
This year there was a large-scale revision of the motions originally presented at the Council meeting in Richmond. Due to a major snowstorm the Council reconvened weeks later with something totally new, written by the Resolutions Committee. It seems to have magically appeared from who knows where. I can understand why the authors of the original motions were not amused.The substitute resolution looked, sounded and proposed very little of what the originals had wanted. This lead to a lively discussion for the better part of an hour on the floor of Council. One side wanted to return to the original, carefully worded resolutions that asked the Council to state their support for what amounts to rewriting all of the sexual teachings of the church ... from how we handle same-sex blessings, to ordination, and employment issues. The focus was to get the house to show their desire to support these issues.
Those supporting the original motions seemed to fail to see the irony of their position, as so often happens in these situations. In order to get a resolution to show we are tolerant of alternative lifestyles, there was a desire to pass a resolution by majority vote and then explain that the Council and the diocese support this decision, which makes it sound like all of us were united in the position. We're not. And the rush to be able to say the Diocese officially supports something seems like an intolerant position to take towards those of us who do not have the votes in our favor any longer.
Well, the original motions failed to gather the needed support. The substitute resolution was a totally different thing, proposing that the Bishop empanel a group to determine consistent policies for implementing same sex blessings if (but more likely when) the bishop approved them. (Note: He's on record as saying he personally approves of blessings, and of the ordination of people in same sex relationships). Since this substitute was a narrower thing than the original resolutions, that made for some fuss. Personally I found the new resolution to be very odd. It asked for the group to be made up of lawyers and canonical scholars (who?) who would determine such things as the degree of kinship allowable in same sex blesisngs, how economic issues would be resolved in case of dissolution of the relationships, whether testing for health conditions should be mandated and whether clergy would be allowed to have the choice of whether or not to officiate without penalty. Scary stuff ... to think we should have a group discussing whether half brothers can have their sexual relationship blessed by the church, or whether we should limit things to first cousins, or second?
Who died and put us in charge of this stuff? Whoever it was, I am sure it wasn't Jesus.
In the end, the attempt to get the original resolutions considered again failed. By that time people were so tired of the discussion we moved and passed the substitute resolution so we could all go home. Well, not me, I voted against that one too, but you get a feel for how things are going after listening to the debate.
So once again we have asked for some group to study something and report back. A friend in my parish who is a systems analyst has asked what we expect to know differently after another year of study. Is any new data going to come forward? If not then what, he asked me, are we waiting for? Oh but I know that answer. It's in the Bible. We're waiting for enough people to die off, wander off, or just get so tired of things that the votes start going the way they are supposed to go. Then we can enter the new and improved promised land. Until then, we can look forward to at least one more year of studies and reports and another fine debate brought to us at next year's Annual Council. Mark your calendars now and make your reservations for a room in Reston. You won't want to miss the next thrilling episode of "As the Diocese Spins".
Intrepid is a member of the Annual Council of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia.
Replacing Springfield Episcopal bishop could be contentious process
Via TitusOneNine:
By STEVEN SPEARIE
THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER
Posted Feb 20, 2010 @ 11:30 PM
Springfield’s Episcopal Church diocese will be under national scrutiny as it seeks a successor for Bishop Peter Beckwith.
Beckwith has allied himself with the conservative wing of the broader Anglican umbrella, and the timing of his retirement, which took effect Feb. 1, caught many in the church off guard.
Diocesan officials believe they can adhere to a timeline that will result in consecration of a new bishop by March 2011. But knotty problems may lie ahead, particularly because whomever local Episcoplians choose as their new bishop must also be approved by a majority of U.S. bishops and standing committees — delegates from Episcopal dioceses around the country.
“It’s a hugely messy situation,” said David Virtue of VirtueOnline, an orthodox Anglican Web site. “A search for his replacement will be ugly in the extreme.”
“Usually these votes are pro forma,” said the Very Rev. John Bettman, vicar of St. Paul’s Church in Carlinville. “But the church is so polarized nationally, (the candidate) might be a problem now.”
Beckwith, who was consecrated in Springfield 18 years ago, retired two years before the mandatory age of 72. He thinks the transition will be smoother than critics believe.
“Ugly? I don’t think much of that assessment,” Beckwith said in an interview at his Springfield home. “I have more confidence in the clergy and people than that.
“I’ve told people you’re going to get the bishop that you deserve.”
Defender of orthodoxy
Beckwith has always called himself “a faithful Christian in the Episcopal Church,” but his version of the church and the one administered by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori differ, however.
That played out most prominently, Beckwith said, in the church’s endorsements of V. Eugene Robinson, who is openly gay, as bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire and Barry Beisner, who is twice divorced, as bishop of the Diocese of Northern California.
In a June 30, 2006 pastoral letter, Beckwith labelled Schori’s theology “New Age.” At the same time, the Springfield diocese’s standing committee declared Schori “to be outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy and the clear parameters of the Christian faith, as understood from an Anglican perspective” and asked for direct oversight from the Archbishop of Canterbury in England.
Last year, there was speculation that Beckwith might show up at the inaugural assembly in Bedford, Tex., of a newly-formed conservative splinter, the Anglican Church of North America
He did not, and Beckwith recently said he had “no immediate plans to join ACNA.” However, he acknowledged that he has more in common with the secessionist church than the Episcopal Church.
“I expect to continue to have close friendships with ACNA and with the Roman Catholic Church, too,” Beckwith said.
Critics’ charges
Beckwith’s critics say the damage has been done and wonder what kind of future leader the Springfield diocese -- made up of 38 churches and missions comprising about 5,000 people over 60 counties -- might attract.
The Rev. Virginia Bennett, rector of St. Andrew’s Church in Edwardsville, publicly disagreed with Beckwith several years ago, when Beckwith refused the sacrament of confirmation to a lesbian member of St. Andrew’s. When two of the church’s eucharistic ministers publicly refused communion from Beckwith, he stripped the licenses of all the church’s eucharistic ministers.
Although cooler heads eventually prevailed, Bennett said recently she never thought Beckwith’s apology was sincere.
With Beckwith’s retirement, she compared the diocese to a battlefield after the aggression has stopped, and she contended the election process for the next bishop is being rushed.
“I don’t see how we can move to a healthy place without tending to these wounds,” Bennett said. “If (the diocese) doesn’t deal with these wounds, the next bishop will.”
Full steam ahead
In Beckwith’s absence, the diocese’s standing committee, made up of four clergy members and four lay people, will carry on day-to-day activities, according to the Venerable Shawn Denney, the diocesan archdeacon. The standing committee has also begun the election process, with guidelines and nomination forms going out last week.
A nominating synod will whittle the list to four or five candidates, who will meet with clergy and church members at several locales in the diocese. An electing synod, made up of clergy and lay delegates from the various congregations, is scheduled to convene in mid-September to finalize the choice.
The candidate is then put on the national stage, to the bishops and dioceses’ standing committees.
Carlinville’s Bettman said he hopes the diocese doesn’t get a re-play of what happened in the Diocese of South Carolina in 2007. The electing synod’s first vote to name the Right Rev. Mark Lawrence, a conservative, was declared void. Lawrence was subsequently re-elected, approved and consecrated bishop in 2008.
“It’s hard to come up with a majority sometimes,” said Bettman. “It’s not necessarily an easy thing to do. “People have deep-held beliefs (about their candidates.)”
Denney said the timeline is realistic and that the process is not being rushed.
“We have everything lined up,” he said. “There’s no reason the selection of the bishop can’t take place.”
“Irons in the fire”
Beckwith said he approached the diocese in November 2008 about electing a bishop coadjutor, who would have served alongside Beckwith until his formal retirement and would have had rights to succession, according to church law.
However, holding such an election wasn’t approved by the national church until May 2009.
“In concurring with folks from around the diocese, I thought it would be better to retire sooner than later,” said Beckwith.
His retirement decision came down to “a decline of energy,” Beckwith said.
“Ten years ago, I couldn’t wait to get to the office or get up at 2:30 or 4:30 a.m. on a Sunday to travel around the diocese,” he said. “After 45 years of ministry, I’m not up to the task anymore.”
Beckwith said he and his wife, Melinda, don’t plan to retire in Springfield, but they’re not ready to pull up stakes yet, either. He’s been approached about being a bishop in residence or serving as a chaplain (Beckwith is a former military chaplain), but he wouldn’t say if those ministries would be inside or outside of the Episcopal Church.
“I don’t plan to give up ministry,” Beckwith said. “I have irons in the fire.”
From 2009 Diocesan Synod
“The real problem is this: the Episcopal Church is now on record as declaring moral what the Church, from the beginning, has taught is immoral. ... A Church that claims to follow Christ as Savior and Lord cannot succeed if it endorses and adopts secular values because it will then have turned its back on the fundamental mission of calling people to holiness through repentance and forgiveness. No one needs a Church that aligns itself with worldly values at the expense of eternal biblical principles.”
--Bishop Peter H. Beckwith
By STEVEN SPEARIE
THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER
Posted Feb 20, 2010 @ 11:30 PM
Springfield’s Episcopal Church diocese will be under national scrutiny as it seeks a successor for Bishop Peter Beckwith.
Beckwith has allied himself with the conservative wing of the broader Anglican umbrella, and the timing of his retirement, which took effect Feb. 1, caught many in the church off guard.
Diocesan officials believe they can adhere to a timeline that will result in consecration of a new bishop by March 2011. But knotty problems may lie ahead, particularly because whomever local Episcoplians choose as their new bishop must also be approved by a majority of U.S. bishops and standing committees — delegates from Episcopal dioceses around the country.
“It’s a hugely messy situation,” said David Virtue of VirtueOnline, an orthodox Anglican Web site. “A search for his replacement will be ugly in the extreme.”
“Usually these votes are pro forma,” said the Very Rev. John Bettman, vicar of St. Paul’s Church in Carlinville. “But the church is so polarized nationally, (the candidate) might be a problem now.”
Beckwith, who was consecrated in Springfield 18 years ago, retired two years before the mandatory age of 72. He thinks the transition will be smoother than critics believe.
“Ugly? I don’t think much of that assessment,” Beckwith said in an interview at his Springfield home. “I have more confidence in the clergy and people than that.
“I’ve told people you’re going to get the bishop that you deserve.”
Defender of orthodoxy
Beckwith has always called himself “a faithful Christian in the Episcopal Church,” but his version of the church and the one administered by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori differ, however.
That played out most prominently, Beckwith said, in the church’s endorsements of V. Eugene Robinson, who is openly gay, as bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire and Barry Beisner, who is twice divorced, as bishop of the Diocese of Northern California.
In a June 30, 2006 pastoral letter, Beckwith labelled Schori’s theology “New Age.” At the same time, the Springfield diocese’s standing committee declared Schori “to be outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy and the clear parameters of the Christian faith, as understood from an Anglican perspective” and asked for direct oversight from the Archbishop of Canterbury in England.
Last year, there was speculation that Beckwith might show up at the inaugural assembly in Bedford, Tex., of a newly-formed conservative splinter, the Anglican Church of North America
He did not, and Beckwith recently said he had “no immediate plans to join ACNA.” However, he acknowledged that he has more in common with the secessionist church than the Episcopal Church.
“I expect to continue to have close friendships with ACNA and with the Roman Catholic Church, too,” Beckwith said.
Critics’ charges
Beckwith’s critics say the damage has been done and wonder what kind of future leader the Springfield diocese -- made up of 38 churches and missions comprising about 5,000 people over 60 counties -- might attract.
The Rev. Virginia Bennett, rector of St. Andrew’s Church in Edwardsville, publicly disagreed with Beckwith several years ago, when Beckwith refused the sacrament of confirmation to a lesbian member of St. Andrew’s. When two of the church’s eucharistic ministers publicly refused communion from Beckwith, he stripped the licenses of all the church’s eucharistic ministers.
Although cooler heads eventually prevailed, Bennett said recently she never thought Beckwith’s apology was sincere.
With Beckwith’s retirement, she compared the diocese to a battlefield after the aggression has stopped, and she contended the election process for the next bishop is being rushed.
“I don’t see how we can move to a healthy place without tending to these wounds,” Bennett said. “If (the diocese) doesn’t deal with these wounds, the next bishop will.”
Full steam ahead
In Beckwith’s absence, the diocese’s standing committee, made up of four clergy members and four lay people, will carry on day-to-day activities, according to the Venerable Shawn Denney, the diocesan archdeacon. The standing committee has also begun the election process, with guidelines and nomination forms going out last week.
A nominating synod will whittle the list to four or five candidates, who will meet with clergy and church members at several locales in the diocese. An electing synod, made up of clergy and lay delegates from the various congregations, is scheduled to convene in mid-September to finalize the choice.
The candidate is then put on the national stage, to the bishops and dioceses’ standing committees.
Carlinville’s Bettman said he hopes the diocese doesn’t get a re-play of what happened in the Diocese of South Carolina in 2007. The electing synod’s first vote to name the Right Rev. Mark Lawrence, a conservative, was declared void. Lawrence was subsequently re-elected, approved and consecrated bishop in 2008.
“It’s hard to come up with a majority sometimes,” said Bettman. “It’s not necessarily an easy thing to do. “People have deep-held beliefs (about their candidates.)”
Denney said the timeline is realistic and that the process is not being rushed.
“We have everything lined up,” he said. “There’s no reason the selection of the bishop can’t take place.”
“Irons in the fire”
Beckwith said he approached the diocese in November 2008 about electing a bishop coadjutor, who would have served alongside Beckwith until his formal retirement and would have had rights to succession, according to church law.
However, holding such an election wasn’t approved by the national church until May 2009.
“In concurring with folks from around the diocese, I thought it would be better to retire sooner than later,” said Beckwith.
His retirement decision came down to “a decline of energy,” Beckwith said.
“Ten years ago, I couldn’t wait to get to the office or get up at 2:30 or 4:30 a.m. on a Sunday to travel around the diocese,” he said. “After 45 years of ministry, I’m not up to the task anymore.”
Beckwith said he and his wife, Melinda, don’t plan to retire in Springfield, but they’re not ready to pull up stakes yet, either. He’s been approached about being a bishop in residence or serving as a chaplain (Beckwith is a former military chaplain), but he wouldn’t say if those ministries would be inside or outside of the Episcopal Church.
“I don’t plan to give up ministry,” Beckwith said. “I have irons in the fire.”
From 2009 Diocesan Synod
“The real problem is this: the Episcopal Church is now on record as declaring moral what the Church, from the beginning, has taught is immoral. ... A Church that claims to follow Christ as Savior and Lord cannot succeed if it endorses and adopts secular values because it will then have turned its back on the fundamental mission of calling people to holiness through repentance and forgiveness. No one needs a Church that aligns itself with worldly values at the expense of eternal biblical principles.”
--Bishop Peter H. Beckwith
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)