The Outrage of Collectivism: Silence on the Issues

Dad always said, "Never discuss religion or politics with company." I know what he was trying to say, and that was that these subjects can make or break friendships, or what in current church circles is called "relationship." But should they? One problem with Dad's "keep it to yourself" approach is that it ultimately leads to the type of shallow, secular non-friendships of which we have an overabundance. In the church, failure of the membership to discuss religious issues leads to shallow "relationship."

Like it or not, every church collective has a few folks who love to talk about issues, a larger group who sit quietly, wishing the issues would go away, a few folks who create issues, and a tiny number who turn to scripture for help with the issues.

There are times when we wish politics would just go away, and there are times when we wish politics would not try to resolve moral questions.

C.S. Lewis' take on the matter in "Membership," (found in The Weight of Glory, pp. 160-161) provides some important insights:

"We live, in fact, in a world starved for solitude, silence, and privacy, and therefore starved for meditation and true friendship.

True friends must be able to share quiet time together, free from the distractions of the world.

That religion should be relegated to solitude in such an age is, then paradoxical. But it is also dangerous for two reasons. In the first place, when the modern world says to us aloud, 'You may be religious when you are alone,' it adds under its breath, 'and I will see to it that you are never alone.'"

I believe that Lewis is referring to the powerful demands of modern society to silence the public witness of Christianity (You may be religious when you are alone) and the distractions of media and other temptations that prevent people from being alone with God for even a moment (I, the collective, will see to it that you are never alone).

"...That is one of the enemy's strategems. In the second place, there is the danger that real Christians who know that Christianity is not a solitary affair may react against that error by simply transporting into our spiritual life that same collectivism which has already conquered our secular life."

This is a bit more difficult for me to follow. How should I react against the error of thinking that Christianity is a private affair? Should I join with the collective even when it endorses sinful behaviors? I guess I could become one of those pewsitters who sits quietly, hoping the issues go away. But wouldn't that be like following the demands of political correctness we hear from secular collectivism? Lewis senses danger with that approach.

"That is the enemy's other strategem. Like a good chess player, he is always trying to manoeuvre you into a position where you can save your castle only by losing your bishop.

He didn't expect that the enemy might turn queens into bishops and vice versa in order to upset the whole chess board.

In order to avoid the trap we must insist that though the private conception of Christianity is an error, it is a profoundly natural one and is clumsily attempting to guard a great truth. Behind it is the obvious feeling that our modern collectivism is an outrage upon human nature and that from this, as from all other evils, God will be our shield and buckler."

C.S. Lewis.

Practicing religion as part of a group will always create issues. Problems can arise whenever the individual and the group hold opposing views. When one speaks out, the collective can come down pretty heavily. The prospect of causing angst in the collective is enough to stifle most pewsitters' voices even during those times that appear to demand a response. Some problems just cannot remain stifled. When the issue is an important question of Biblical truth, or when secular politics intersects with important moral questions, are we to sit on our hands?

Terry Mattingly's column in the Saturday July 10, 2010 edition of our local paper reminds us that the power of the collective to silence the voices crying out "Truth!" from the religious arena is just as strong today as it was in the time of C.S. Lewis. T. Matt quotes Ian Dowbiggin, author of “Life, Death, God and Medicine: A Concise History of Euthanasia.”

“There are deep moral and religious issues at stake in debates about physician-assisted suicide, which is why religious believers have always been involved,” said Dowbiggin. “But what we are hearing today are prominent voices that say that religious people must keep their ideas to themselves, because religion is a private thing — period — and must not affect public life. If that idea is accepted, that’s a major step toward the acceptance of physician-assisted suicide.”

T. Matt quotes Dowbiggin again in what I think is a statement which applies to not just the intersection of politics and religion, but also to any issue which you have tested against the witness of Biblical Truth.

If religious leaders want to keep taking part in these policy discussions, said Dowbiggin, “they must have something positive to say. It is not enough to just keep saying ‘no.’ … They need a vision of what the ‘good death’ looks like. They need to say that this is the goal of all end-of-life care — people making informed moral decisions about hospice and other forms of care that are right for themselves and for their families.”

All too often, religious issues are resolved with a gradual leftward drift because reasserting leaders are stereotyped in a negative light. "The one who says 'No!'" might be printed on my next sweat shirt, but it would be in error. The most difficult thing about saying "No" in this context is communicating that what people really have to do is say "No" to self, and "Yes" to God's Word.

So, do you keep your religion to yourself in order to keep the collective happy, or do you do it to keep yourself happy? Are you silent on religious issues to keep the Church happy? Is the prospect of causing angst in the collective enough to stifle the pewsitters' voice? Are you just the voice that says "No"? Is any of that good for the body of Christ?

Echoes from GC 2009 Heard in the 2011 Diocesan Budget

In March 2010, the Episcopal Bishop of Washington D.C. gave permission for priests in his diocese to preside at civil marriages according to this report from Episcopal Pravda Online. In July 2010 the Living Church announced that the Diocese of San Diego joins Massachusetts, Southeast Florida, and Southern Ohio in allowing same-sex blessings to "move beyond" where we were.

On May 15, 2010 we were presented with the "joyous" consecration of Mary Glasspool.

Does anyone remember this statement from one of Upper South Carolina's deputies to last year's General Convention of the Episcopal church? (Posted July 14, 2009)

Please remain calm!


Once again, as in 2003, we are dismayed by sensational headlines written, in some cases, by folks who have no understanding of Episcopal polity, our Constitution and Canons, or our Baptismal Covenant. Before you let anyone send you into a panic over the passage of DO25, pull out a copy of our Constitution and Canons and refer to sections on elections, ordinations, etc. While the fear is that passage of DO25 will further antagonize our Anglican family (and, no, it will not be received well), the reality is that the resolution did not actually change anything. What it does, in essence, is to say that these are our canons, the ordination PROCESS is open to anyone, but there are no guarantees that someone who goes through the process will be ordained. Our bishop feels that this resolution does not negate BO33, which asks us to exercise restraint in the ORDINATION of anyone whose manner of life presents a challenge to the Anglican Communion and to restrain from the blessing of same-sex unions (but, stay tuned – that resolution will be coming to us soon).

I can hear the echoes now... Please...Please...Remain...Remain...Calm...Calm...

I know that she was just echoing the Bishop's party line, but do we really need echoing deputies? Maybe so, if you are really desperate like the Sheriff was in this cartoon clip:



While our diocesean deputy was playing echo in 2009, the T.E.C. rats were in the hen house planning for their dastardly ordinations and same-sex liturgies to occur 2010.

The effects of GC 2009 are still being heard.

Although the powers that be in the Diocese of Upper South Carolina say, "blame the economy" (I recently wanted to stand up and shout, "It ain't the economy stupid!" when I heard that from the mouth of an Upper South Carolina clergyman), I think the reverberations from GC 2009 are one possible cause for the continued decline in the diocese's budget projections ($300,000 less income predicted for 2011) (Track the progress of the budget here). Falling Sunday attendance is another reason. It is getting increasingly difficult to ask people to come visit your church once you mention the brand name, "Episcopal." In addition, once visitors come and are exposed to the heretical views of many of our clergy, they take their Bibles and flee for their soul's sake, never to return. As a result, people just aren't giving to the Episcopal church like they used to. Why should they? Why give money to an organization that has chosen to walk away from your first love, the Good News as presented in the Gospels, as handed down by the Apostles. T.E.C. has taken on new lovers. For one, Biblical revisionism has, like the adulteress, lured the church astray. Pimps and prostitutes now run the show in the Episcopal church.

Woe to the church that does not hear the echoes from the past.

Woe to the shepherds who blame the sheep for a lack of wool.

I think for the next General Convention in 2012 we should send that same old cotton pickin deputy back, along with our new Sheriff, Andy, to represent us so we can hear all the echoes...echoes...echoes... from... from... from... 2009...2009...2009... again...again...again...

Of course, we might not have enough money to pay for their trip!

Let's Get Political, Political...

I have been trying to avoid watching the congressional hearings about President Obama's recent Supreme Court nominee because I don't think anything will change the inevitable swing to the left that the Supreme Court is going to take over the next few years (or more).

These types of hearings usually demonstrate how vigorously people want "my way" over "the other way" when selecting people for positions of leadership. My way would be to pick a constitutional constructivist, but that way has gone by the wayside these days. I imagine people like me might be in for a pretty wild ride over the next few decades.

Supreme Court nominations always bring out battles which turn the question of how a nominee will judge into a political game where our elected officials get some free air time while the nominee tries to keep their mouth shut so that no one will get to know what foundations they use to form their judgments.

The Episcopal church selects its leadership in equally strange ways, but in the case of TEC, there is a far greater mismatch in the relative strengths of the opposing parties than we see in the party percentages in the halls of Congress today, and as a result, a fairly homogenous collection of liberal clergy has come into the majority, so guess who winds up being elevated to positions of leadership such as bishop? Recent history suggests that the "democratic" (no, I don't believe that is the proper term) polity of TEC has become a means of perpetuating incompetence.

A couple of other questions come to mind when considering the long term results of continuing to follow a failing method of choosing leaders when compared with proven methods such as those recommended in the Bible (1 Timothy 3 for example). One would guess that the secular politics of the clergy would also become homogenized over time. Several questions then come to mind:

Should the Church look for political diversity in candidates for the priesthood?

What happens when a church has little diversity in the political affiliations of its leadership?

Does the political ideology of the majority creep into the life of the church?

The Institute on Religion and Democracy(IRD) led me to this article at the American Spectator by Alan F.H. Wisdom on 02/24/10 who offers his opinion.

"...where overwhelmingly left-leaning clergy often imagine themselves to be 'prophets' leading their people into a promised land of social justice and world peace. Clergy elites may possess the institutional power to impose this political agenda; however, by doing so they instigate a rift with their church members. To the extent that politics becomes a focus in church life, the divide grows deeper and more damaging. Peter Smith of the Louisville Courier-Journal described the situation succinctly: 'Red pew, blue pulpit.'"

Don't believe it? Review the Public Religion Research 2009 survey of clergy.

67% of Episcopal clergy identify themselves as Democrats, 8% Independents, and 22% Republicans.

Maybe that helps explain this:

49% of Episcopal clergy say that gay couples should be allowed to legally marry and 38% say that civil unions should be allowed.

Of course this majority might claim that politics has nothing to do with their quest for gay marriage. In fact, I have read the claim that the Holy Spirit has is guiding them to this er..., um..., position. Unfortunately, they are lying because they have failed to back up their claims by using scriptural sources. There is a good possibility that an unholy spirit is doing the leading, and that the filthy spirit of politics has a lot to do with the current course of the Church.

Politics has probably always been a problem for the Church. I call it a problem because we usually get dirty when we get political. I agree with sister Sarah that the reappraisers have been far more successful in TEC because of their political (read: church politics) activism. Of course, this makes them all the dirtier for it. Reasserters have not been as active, nor as well organized. Some, like myself, realize the dangers politics pose to the soul, and would prefer to avoid conflict, but I am drawn back by the thought that scripture would tell us that we should instead get up off our duffs, arm ourselves with the Word of God, and engage the enemy (in a non violent way of course).

So how does a minority group of church mice get politically active? I have read the proposals. I have heard the call for an economic boycott. I have listened to the cries to move my church membership to the Diocese of South Carolina. I considered the requests of those in TEC for me to leave. Of the current options, the economic boycott makes the most sense, and I have yet to see any downsides to that approach except that participation in such a scheme might limit access to certain political activities inside the Church.

In addition to no longer funding EDUSC heretics (such as paying for a full time curate to be part of the task force to develop liturgies for same sex blessings), I am considering ramping up the rhetoric, but in order to do so I have to continue my own efforts to study the scriptures in order to be a more effective voice. I never asked for this. In fact, I hate politics. I would rather the Lord lead me elsewhere, to a place of peace, quiet, and solitude like my cave, but He has left me here, in this insane thing called TEC, and I must soldier on.

So let's get political, political...

Dispossessed

The sermon at ECOOS today was delivered by Mary Cat who used today's reading, Mark 10:17-31 as her source.

As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honour your father and mother.” ’ He said to him, ‘Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.’ Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, ‘You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money* to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.’ When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.
Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, ‘How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!’ And the disciples were perplexed at these words. But Jesus said to them again, ‘Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.’ They were greatly astounded and said to one another, ‘Then who can be saved?’ Jesus looked at them and said, ‘For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible.’

I think she did a good job handling this lesson, although the last sentence,
"For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible," should have been expounded upon.

Of all the disputes in the Episcopal church, the hardest for me to get my mind around has got to be the pursuit of litigation, church vs church, Diocese vs congregation, 815 vs Diocese. All the legal arguments aside, the fight over possessions is something which if it does not narrow the eye of the needle, it must certainly tie people up in such a knot that neither party will ever pass through that eye.

While I can fully appreciate the injustice of having an apostate national "church" lay claim to church properties through the ruse of the unilaterally adopted Dennis canon, sham "rump" Dioceses, appointed "bishops," and a $4,000,000 litigation fund set aside in 815's triennial budget, our Lord makes clear that these possessions may actually be encumbrances to whomever lays claim to them. Indeed, the process of making a claim goes against the spirit of today's lesson. Now, I risk getting into the arguments for and against fighting for what is rightfully yours versus "walking away." I have read strong opinions on the matter, and again, I reiterate, the risk in fighting these things out in court is that the eye of the needle might close itself shut. The alternative, walking away from the church of your fathers will cause shock and grief at first, but if it is done for the love of the Lord, the newness of life such a Church will have in the Lord must be an unimaginable thing. Walking away, by the way applies to either side in these disputes.

As the legal battles continue, grieve over the loss of the Episcopal church you thought of as your own. It is gone, but it was merely a possession, an encumbrance. Instead, gladly follow the Lord with the rest of His dispossessed.

The Great Deception (A.K.A., BCP 1979)

I was reading in the September/October issue of "Mandate" (see page 9), a publication of the Prayer Book Society, a piece that discussed "How Episcopalians Were Deceived" by Francis W. Read who quotes extensively from Dean Urban T. Holmes of the School of Theology of the University of the South who Francis Read says boasts of how through "silence, crafty evasions, and ambiguous rhetoric" the goals of advancing liberal theology through the prayer book revisions of the 1970's were achieved.

Choice quotes:

“The 1960s was a time when theologians became aware of the bankruptcy of so-called "classical theology." As Hans Urs von Balthasar stated, we discovered that "man has attained a new stage of his religious consciousness."

At least he didn't say a higher stage, but that quotation sets the stage for Holmes' actions.

Failure of the SLC to obtain sanction of the bishops to a radical theological change occurred in 1970, when Prayer Book Studies XVIII was issued. Holmes says:

“Its recommendations were more than the bishops of the Episcopal Church could fathom. They had been out of the seminary too long and were too threatened; so it never came to be. Here was an educational failure."

I guess those old bishops had not attained Holmes' stage.

But how the revisers got around the objections of the bishops is subsequently told:

“The subcommittee on Christian initiation and the SLC knew that the old understanding of Confirmation was theologically, historically, and psychologically untenable."

Now that is a bold statement. I love that "pyschologically untenable" bit.

"With a passion that we could only interpret as the result of a deeply invested role image, a number of bishops defended the old understanding of Confirmation. It became clear that we did not have the means to educate the bishops on this matter; so the alternative was to make the Confirmation rite as ambiguous as possible in the hope that eventually greater theological clarity would emerge and the rite would be an appropriate expression of that new clarity and a source - not a resource - for understanding the meaning of the sacrament."

A startling admission! Note to self, go back and recheck that Confirmation rite.

What the revision really does, Holmes tells in these words:

“For those of us that believe that the theological emphases of the 1979 book are appropriate for people in the late 20th and early 21st centuries this is a splendid opportunity. It is why we do not see the choice between 1928 and 1979 as a matter of taste. It is more a question of truth for our time. Two standard Books of Common Prayer would be theologically naive, to put it kindly. The task that lies before us is to show how in fact lex orandi is lex credendi and to rewrite our theology books in the light of our liturgy."

WOW, what a stroke of diabolical genius, and to think this comes straight from the School of Theology of the University of the South!

But the fact that a theological revolution was taking place under the smoke screen of liturgical revision was carefully concealed from the Church at large. During the time most of the events described by Holmes were taking place, the present writer, as an Associate Editor of the American Church News (predecessor of the New Oxford Review), repeatedly called for a resolution similar to the one that authorized the 1928 revision, declaring that no proposal involving a change in doctrine be presented or considered. These insistent demands were simply ignored by the SLC when plain honesty demanded that the avowed intentions of theological change be known. This duplicity is admitted by Holmes to have misled the Church, for he justified the failure to respond to the challenge of the Society for the Preservation of the Book of Common Prayer (SPBCP) in these words:

“They were correct when they said, as they did repeatedly and sometimes abrasively, that the theologies of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and STU (Services for Trial Use. i.e., what was to become the 1979 book) were different. The SLC probably was strategically wise in not affirming this too loudly, but its members knew that the SPBCP was correct. There is a clear theological change." (emphasis added.)

That doesn't mean the theology is right!

He further admits the duplicity of the SLC:

“It is evident that Episcopalians as a whole are not clear about what has happened. The renewal movement in the 1970s, apart from the liturgical renewal, often reflects a nostalgia for a classical theology which many theologians know has not been viable for almost 200 years. The 1979 Book of Common Prayer is a product of a corporate, differentiated theological mind, which is not totally congruent with many of the inherited formularies of the last few centuries. This reality must soon ‘come home to roost’ in one way or another."

Cluck, cluck, it sure has.

The result is what he calls a "fundamental rift in the Episcopal Church."

He demonstrates beyond any possible rebuttal how the Episcopal Church was "sold a bill of goods" in getting General Convention to approve the new book as a mere updating of its liturgy, only to find that it now had a new theology. Is it any wonder that there are so many disaffected, disenchanted, and disaffiliated Episcopalians?

As the powers that be at 815 study the steady decline of the Episcopal church since the promulgation of BCP 1979 (a drop of about 2 million souls), will we hear any voices calling for a return of the old theology? I think not. Instead, look forward to more "modernization" by the next generation of conniving revisionists who, no doubt, will take up the cry that the church needs a new prayer book to keep pace with theology (a theology which they haven't fully worked out), while they silently plan to create a new theology through a new liturgy.

Hang Out the Washing on the Columbia (SC) Line

Bishop Mark Lawrence of the Diocese of South Carolina gave an address to his clergy on August 13, 2009. The full text may be found at Kendall Harmon's blog, TitusOneNine. Read it all.

In the past, I have heard disparaging remarks about the Diocese of South Carolina coming from the mouth of one self professed liberal clergyman of the Diocese of Upper South Carolina. Yes Virginia, there are two Episcopal Dioceses in SC, and they appear to be growing apart.



First, guess which Bishop, +Lawrence (a) or +Henderson (b) said the following:

"We face a multitude of false teachings, which like an intrusive vine, is threatening The Episcopal Church as we have inherited and received it from our ancestors. I have called this the false Gospel of Indiscriminate Inclusivity because I see a common pattern in how the core doctrines of our faith are being systematically deconstructed."

Answer: (a).

Next, which Bishop wrote the following:

"...recent secular news reporting on the Episcopal Church has been filled with inaccuracies and misleading phrases..."

Answer: (b).

Ya'll are doing great! So who wrote this:

"At the last three General Conventions I have been concerned about the lack of Eucharists according to the rites in the Book of Common Prayer. Even this I might be able to overlook if the rites that were employed were not so devoid of references to God the Father. In more than a few of these worship services the only reference to God the Father actually in the liturgy was the Lord’s Prayer. In the name of inclusion there’s the perception by some (a variant of radical feminism I suppose) that the references to the Father, and the pronoun 'he' is some lingering patriarchal holdover. Yet it has always intrigued me that in all of the Hebrew Scriptures there are only a handful of references to God as Father. If one wants to locate the authority of the Church to worship God as Father one need look no further than Jesus himself. It was he who called God 'Abba' and taught the disciples to prayer 'Our Father.' Frankly, if Jesus got that one so wrong, why should we turn to him for anything?"

Answer: (a).

How about this:

"The new spirit began early and gradually built so that, by the close of Convention even the most liberal and the most conservative in the House of Bishops took to the floor to acknowledge and to express gratitude—even awe—to God, to each other, and to the Presiding Bishop. Each one noted, although in different words, the growing spirit moving among us, prompting us to listen, respect, and honor each other. I believe we came to recognize more clearly that, in fact, we are indispensable parts of a Church united in purpose. Perhaps I repeat myself, but we discovered common ground even when we were dealing with the most sensitive of matters."

Answer: (b).

How about his one:

"As some within TEC are busy cutting the cords of fellowship with the larger Church through the unilateral actions of General Convention expanding policies which further tear the fabric of the Communion; our task will be to weave and braid missional relationships which strengthen far flung dioceses and provinces in the work of the gospel. As some in TEC find a hopeless refuge in the narrower restrictions of denominational autonomy, we shall find hope in a deeper and generous catholicity."

Answer (a).

And this one:

"In short, common ground led to common joy in both bearing one another’s burdens and discovering more effective, comfortable ways of living into the Great Commission. Sounds like 'One Body, One Mission…' to me."

Answer (b).

Lastly, let us look at how dissenting parishes may be handled:

"Should a parish find it needs to be served by alternative Episcopal care I will work with them toward that end. Please know this is not my desire for any parish. It would grieve me because I have enjoyed my relationship with every congregation in this great Diocese... Still these are challenging times, and if I am called to lead in such an assertive manner as I have suggested here, pastoral sensitivity suggests I should give space to those who feel they need it."

Answer: (a).

Remember St. Christopher's or how about St. John's North Augusta?
Answer (b)

Finally, my thoughts:

Would Upper South Carolinians embrace or reject the approach outlined in +Lawrence's address? Will they even hear about it? Newspapers in the lower half of the state may have given more or different coverage than upstate papers. The Rock Hill "Herald" for instance, had little, if any coverage of +Lawrence's address. It was mentioned in a small piece on the back page of the religion page. Was there better coverage in Charleston? Many people in the upstate have second homes and shared friendships in the Dio. of SC and this is the time of year for increased travel to the coast and back. Many of our up-staters had the opportunity to attend services in both dioceses this summer. This cross cultural contamination should not be forgotten. At the same time there is a certain animus between upper and lower SC. I once heard a liberal upstate priest remark that the diocesan border divides the state like the Maginot line. The impression he was giving was that the lower half of the state was analogous to pre-WWII Germany (AKA the bad guys), and the upper half of the state was analogous to France (AKA les bons hommes). In my opinion this was a poor choice of analogies, not just because it reveals a hideous prejudice, but because we all know how the French wasted time and money building a useless defensive structure, deluding themselves into believing in their superiority and security.



If there is to be a defensive line erected by liberal theology, will it be drawn through Columbia? If so the liberal clergy of Upper SC might want to look for a different model. Personally, I think liberal theology's fundamentally flawed defenses will, in the long run, be overrun by Biblical truths. Surely, my liberal clergyman was not thinking that the roles were reversed and that his offensive liberal theology was being stopped at the Siegfried line just south of Columbia by stubborn, thick necked, low country barbarians?

Before discounting +Lawrence as a fringe element, read his entire address and ask yourself, "Is this something that Upper South Carolinian pewsitters would agree with?"

"No, we have no business fostering unexamined prejudice; so few of us are free from scars of sexual brokenness. Rather, we are constrained by the love of Christ to be primarily about the task of proclaiming the Gospel—calling all people to
repentance—ourselves included; administering the sacraments; encouraging faithfulness in the body of Christ; and through the power of the Holy Spirit walking with charity in the world."

Answer: (a).

Pewster's score 100%, but I did write the test.

Doublecrosswalk, or Will it Play in Pew-oria?

"Crosswalk" is the title of the newspaper of the Diocese of Upper South Carolina (DUSC). In fact, it consists of just a single sheet of paper that is literally the cover for the underlying 24 pages of "Episcopal Life Monthly," a publication of our national Episcopal church. The August issue arrived by snail mail as a "Special Issue: 76th General Convention, August 2009." Our August "Crosswalk" was greeted with the usual quick toss into the recycling container, but a voice called out and led me to rescue the August edition from oblivion. The voice said, "Look for subliminal messages."

The title of the lead article by Peggy Antwerp Hill, "Upper SC makes presence known at General Convention" is a clue that the article may contain a certain bias. After all, who knew DUSC was so important!

The article begins with,

"While hot-button issues were grabbing headlines in our secular press..."

(Subliminal message #1: Don't believe the mean spirited secular press, believe Crosswalk.)

"...Upper South Carolinians were making news in a gentler way at the 76th General Convention..."

(Message #2: Bless their hearts.)

"...Often finding themselves in the limelight..."

(Insert sound of "Crosswalk" being thrown across the room.)

After that laughable first paragraph, we get to the real message:

"Both Bishop Henderson and deputation chair the Very Rev. Dr. Philip Linder, dean of Trinity Cathedral..."

(I am a little worried that this Linder chap is getting more ink than the Bishop. Is this subliminal message #3?)

"...both...had a hand in crafting the controversial resolution D025, 'Commitment and Witness to Anglican Communion,' offered as a successor to B033, which, in 2006, urged restraint in consenting to the consecration of bishops whose 'manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church.'"

(Gulp, now this is news. This Linder guy and +Henderson were partly responsible for D025!?? I don't think that this is something for Upper South Carolinians to be boasting about.)

"Linder...participated in the intense and time consuming work of developing a single resolution...from a group of 13 resolves submitted in response to B033."

(In the accompanying photo of a pensive Philip Linder, I can almost feel the intensity of the moment.)

When reading the next section, keep in mind that the average uninformed pew sitter has no clue as to the language of D025 or how the rest of the Anglican Communion has reacted to its passage.

"The resolution...endorsed by Linder and others from the floor, affirms the openness of the ordination process in the Episcopal Church..."

(Wait a second, I thought the spin was that it meant the discernment process was open to all.)

"The resolution...reaffirms the Church's abiding commitment ...to the fellowship of churches that constitute the Anglican Communion."

This is an outrageous attempt at spin. IMHO the resolution affirms the church's commitment to walking away from the fellowship of the churches.

(Subliminal message #4: All is well. "Fellowship" sounds like something all of us would vote for, unfortunately that is not what the resolution is about. See the end of this post for the final wording).

What does our brave deputy tell us about D025?

"The resolution," Linder said, is "a truthful acknowledgement of what is, a way forward that is not perfect but nonetheless a way for us to state boldly that we are now recommitting to our faith in Jesus Christ with a desire to focus fully upon mission and ministry in his name. I believe," Linder continued, "that we have turned a major page in going forward...and we have done so in a most Anglican way that respects the worldwide Anglican Communion."

(Insert the sound of 'Cough, cough...' The Archbishop of Canterbury begging to disagree in a most Anglican way.)

This is more outrageous spin, this time from the Very Rev. Dr. Philip Linder, dean of Trinity Cathedral. D025 "...respects the worldwide Anglican Communion." Poppycock!
(Insert sound of the "Crosswalk" being folded into the shape of an air sickness bag).
And his statement about the resolve being "'a truthful acknowledgement of what is" is another example of how far the church will go to follow society's values instead of tradition and scripture. The Very Rev. Dr. Philip Linder is saying that society has moved here, and we the Church acknowledge it.
(Subliminal message #5: "Acknowledgment" is code for "future acceptance.")
The next step is to move the Church further towards the culture in which it finds itself. "What is" is essentially the Zeitgeist. Do you think "What is" might be harmful to the body of Christ? What does our deputy think?
Linder's words leave me with the impression that the church is conforming itself to the world by acknowledging the zeitgeist rather than acknowledging that there is another path, one opposed to the "what is", a way that leads the world to Jesus and everlasting life.

You should also notice the recurring theme of "mission and ministry" (Subliminal message #6) which I believe is a smokescreen. The code words "mission and ministry" are meant to distract people from "issues," and from the serious work of Bible study, apologetics, and evangelism needed by Christians to face an increasingly pluralistic and secular world. What ever happened to leading people to Christ for heaven's sake? The subliminal message is that if our leaders can just keep the sheep focused on eating grass, that they won't notice the wolves in their midst, nor will the sheep notice that their shepherds were the ones who let the wolves in the gates in the first place.

This whole section of "Crosswalk" seems designed to build up the Very Rev. Dr. Philip Linder, and leave the impression that he is a multi-titled, super special kind of guy, maybe the kind of guy who would make a good bishop (Subliminal message #7) . Does Ms. Antwerp think Upper South Carolinians will fall for this blatant airbrushing of the chair of Upper SC's deputation?

The final section of this piece is entitled "Hoping to Reassure." In it we find a very confusing account of the journey of D025 from the House of Deputies to the House of Bishops, and how our heroic bishop tried to,

"soften the assertion of the original resolve, which states that God calls partnered gays and lesbians in 'life-long committed relationships,' 'like any other baptised members, to any ordained ministry.'"

(Insert sound of the "Crosswalk" being crumpled into a nanoparticle)

(And uh, excuse me, but the reporter, bless her heart for shielding the conservative majority, left out the language in the resolve that includes this theological leap across the Rubicon: "the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God." )

Our bold bishop then offered an amendment to

"reassure Episcopalians and other Anglicans more than the original language would."

(Who is he kidding? I don't think the original language was reassuring at all.)

"The amendment, affirming 'that God's call to the ordained ministry...is a mystery which the Church attempts to discern for all people through our discernment process...'"

(That is soooooo reassuring.)

"However, a second amendment, incorporating the original language, along with the language the bishop had proposed, was adopted and the resolution passed."

(Drats foiled again! But wait a second, didn't both Bishop Henderson and the Very Rev. Dr. Philip Linder vote for this stupid thing they helped create? Come now fearless reporter, tell us how they voted! Again, for those of you unfamiliar with the final version, see the whole resolution at the end of this piece, and note that the entire resolution was not printed in "Crosswalk.")

"In a statement issued following the vote, Bishop Henderson regretted that some would use the language of the resolve 'to advance an agenda for which I believe neither we nor the Anglican Communion are ready to endorse...'"

(Excuse me, but isn't that reason enough to vote against the resolution?)
Just say, "No!"

Events have proven Bishop Henderson right in that the Dioceses of Los Angeles and Minnesota have recently nominated non-celibate homosexual individuals to run as candidates for Bishop suffragan and Bishop respectively.
So why did he vote for it?

"...the content of the resolution, taken as a whole, is more helpful than not."

(Insert sound of the nanoparticle sized "Crosswalk" being crammed into a quantum hole trash can.)
Question: If a nanoparticle gets compressed to fit into into a quantum hole, does it make a sound?

I could not resist but to ask a naive Episcopalian to read the "Crosswalk" article and let me record their opinions. This is a heavily censored summary:

"There is no substance in this!"

"They don't say anything!"

"It's a bunch if B.S."

"The typical parishioner won't understand what they are talking about!"

"What is B033?"

"What is 'openness of the ordination process,' and what is this abiding commitment to this Anglican Communion thingy?"

"What does D025 mean?"

"What did I learn? Nothing!"

"What a bunch of gobbledy goop."

"Why do I need reassuring?"

"Who is this Linder person, I have learned nothing of what he stands for, and who pays his salary anyway?"

"God calls who to what!? Is God's plan for them to be in lifelong relationships, or is it for them to be ordained? What Bible verse was that? He (+Henderson) is making this up."

"Is he saying that gays and lesbians are called to ordained ministry, and they have to be partnered to called by God? Why can't they be celibate?"

Guess what, naive pew sitter, the article also fails to tell you that Linder and Henderson's yes votes endorse the part of the resolution that stated that these new "lifestyles" among the baptised fall under the category of "holy love" as defined by the Episcopal church. The article says nothing about the Archbishop of Canterbury's opening address to the convention in which he asked the Episcopal church not to do anything like this. The article says nothing about the Archbishop's response to the passage of this resolution. The article appears to be attempting to shield Bishop Henderson from criticism during his last months in DUSC, and the article appears to be laying the groundwork for a candidacy for bishop by the Very Rev. Dr. Philip Linder.

After reading this Crosswalk article, and knowing how contrary the actions of our deputation's leaders are to the conservative majority (as evidenced by question 17 amongst others found in the recently published profile of our diocese), I am inclined to offer a new title for "Crosswalk." How about: "Doublecrosswalk?"

Oh, how that limelight burns.





* FINAL VERSION - Concurred Resolution: D025
Title: Commitment and Witness to Anglican Communion
Topic: Anglican Communion
Committee: 08 - World Mission
House of Initial Action: Deputies
Proposer: Ms. D. Rebecca Snow

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the 76th General Convention reaffirm the continued participation of The Episcopal Church as a constituent member of the Anglican Communion; give thanks for the work of the bishops at the Lambeth Conference of 2008; reaffirm the abiding commitment of The Episcopal Church to the fellowship of churches that constitute the Anglican Communion and seek to live into the highest degree of communion possible; and be it further


Resolved, That the 76th General Convention encourage dioceses, congregations, and members of The Episcopal Church to participate to the fullest extent possible in the many instruments, networks and relationships of the Anglican Communion; and be it further


Resolved, That the 76th General Convention reaffirm its financial commitment to the Anglican Communion and pledge to participate fully in the Inter-Anglican Budget; and be it further


Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm the value of "listening to the experience of homosexual persons," as called for by the Lambeth Conferences of 1978, 1988, and 1998, and acknowledge that through our own listening the General Convention has come to recognize that the baptized membership of The Episcopal Church includes same-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationships "characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God" (2000-D039); and be it further


Resolved, That the 76th General Convention recognize that gay and lesbian persons who are part of such relationships have responded to God's call and have exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and are currently doing so in our midst; and be it further


Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm that God has called and may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church, and that God's call to the ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church is a mystery which the Church attempts to discern for all people through our discernment processes acting in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church; and be it further


Resolved, That the 76th General Convention acknowledge that members of The Episcopal Church as of the Anglican Communion, based on careful study of the Holy Scriptures, and in light of tradition and reason, are not of one mind, and Christians of good conscience disagree about some of these matters.




EXPLANATION

This resolution provides clarification in light of the Windsor Report (2004) and subsequent discussions in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.

The first resolve reaffirms resolution A159 adopted at the 75th General Convention General Convention, in 2006. While much attention has been focused on official statements and resolutions from the primates meetings, Lambeth Conference 2008, and Anglican Consultative Council meetings in 2005 and 2009, our participation in the Anglican Communion consists of a much richer tapestry of ministries and networks as well as personal relationships. Hence the second resolve encourages Episcopalians, individually and in dioceses and parishes, to build relationships with our sisters and brothers around the Anglican Communion by participation in these networks and ministries.

Another sign of the Episcopal Church's commitment to the Anglican Communion is financial. In 2007, The Episcopal Church budgeted $661,000 for the Inter-Anglican budget, which sustains the work of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Anglican Communion offices in London. The 2007 financial report of the Anglican Consultative Council (the latest available on the Anglican Communion website) reports a total income from Inter Anglican Budget contributions as £1,134,745 ($1,864,574.36, using 2009 currency rates). In other words, The Episcopal Church contributes a substantial portion of the Inter Anglican Budget. This resolution reaffirms our financial commitment.

Our relationships in the Anglican Communion have been tested by the question of the ordination to the episcopate of individuals living in a same-sex partnership. Resolution D-039 of the 73rd General Convention, in 2000, acknowledged that the membership of the Episcopal Church includes persons living in same-sex relationships; established an expectation that "such relationships will be characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God"; and further denounced "promiscuity, exploitation, and abusiveness in the relationships of any of our members." Three years later, the 74th General Convention reaffirmed this expectation. These standards thus provide guidance for access to the discernment process for ordination to the episcopate.

The acceptance of the ministry of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender persons is not settled in The Episcopal Church or in the Anglican Communion. While the church continues to discern God's will in these matters, it is important to remind ourselves that sacramental theology since the time of Augustine of Hippo has affirmed that the validity of sacraments does not depend on the character of the ordained person celebrating those sacraments.


* Note: The final language, as well as the final status of each resolution, is being reviewed by the General Convention office. The Journal of the 76th General Convention and the Constitution and Canons will be published once the review process has been completed.

Katie Bar the Door

(Picture from the History of Leith)

Go over to World Wide Words for a look at Michael Quinion's fascinating discussion on the possible origins of the expression "Katy bar the door."

I remember the cry, "Katie bar the door," coming from some sports announcer, perhaps it was Keith (Whoa, Nellie!) Jackson, maybe it was as a big game was coming down to the wire, or perhaps it was when a runner was heading towards the end zone for a mop up touchdown in a game that was already a blowout. In the first instance he was expressing the traditional meaning of "Look out, there's gonna be a fight, so lock the door." In the second circumstance, I recall the expression being used to describe a game that has gotten out of hand, and one team was seeing the door closed on any possible hope of victory.

I thought of this expression as news came of a recent flurry of nominations of openly gay clergy to various Episcopal Bishop positions around the U.S.A. (Minnesota and Los Angeles, NYT) These come "Schorily" on the heels of the Episcopal church's 2009 General Convention and the passage of the controversial resolution C025 (which you may recall from last week's post). Or hadn't you heard?

“It's permeated the fabric of the bloody society, almost.”

-Keith Jackson

In the case of the Episcopal church, fighting words were effectively issued by those who voted in favor of resolutions C025 and C056. "Them fightin words" were directed at the rest of the Anglican Communion. So far we have in this corner TEC, and in that corner the AoC and the rest of the world. Are we getting ready for a smackdown? What we are going to need is a great play by play man, but don't call Keith Jackson.

“I don't want to get back into the pressure cooker of play-by-play and worry about travel. I don't want to die in a stadium parking lot.”
-Keith Jackson

(Read it again, but substitue "church parking lot" for "stadium parking lot").

The post game analysis won't be pretty. It might look something like this (from EastmanHouse.org and "Gardner's Photographic Sketchbook of the Civil War" 1866):

STONE CHURCH, CENTREVILLE

I love the description accompanying the picture:

"Perched upon the gentle slope of the ridge that bears its name, and looking across fertile fields to the mountains that rise up grandly hiding the West, Centreville had smiled on many generations, and grown feeble with all its pleasant things about it. The houses were leaning structures with huge stone chimneys, doors that creaked in their old age, and fences that straggled every way, but there was always an odor of wild roses and honeysuckle about it, and a genial hospitality to welcome the stranger. War crushed it, piled earthworks upon its ruins to protect hostile camps, built cantonments in its gardens, and made hospitals of the churches. Scarcely a vestige of its former self remains. Redoubts and riflepits stretch along its knolls; graves, half hidden by the grass, tell where the dead of both armies slumber, and the spot now only interests the visitor because of the wreck that has come upon it...
...Guerillas have swarmed about it, cavalry have charged over its untilled fields, and demoralized divisions have bivouacked for roll-call behind its hills.

Through all these scenes a few of its people have lived and suffered, faithful to their homes. Others are turning back from uncertain wanderings to the resting place of their fathers, and, with returning peace, the husbandman finds that nature has not forgotten its fruitfulness in the years of war and devastation."

The photographer's perspective after the battle is preferrable, but right now I can only see the view from my little rifle pit.

A Leonidas Moment?

Earlier this week I chanced to look down at the detritus left from recent house cleaning and yard sale material preparation and saw a little book alone on the floor that had somehow freed itself from the clutches of the ravagers and pillagers of my beloved treasures. While their backs were turned, I snatched it up and retreated to my cave. Some of you might recognize this book, The Will of God by Leslie Weatherhead first printed in 1944. In it, a series of sermons takes a look at God's will, and the concept is broken down into God's intentional will, circumstantial will, and ultimate will. I felt the book was asking for a re-read, so that's what I did. In a way, this helped me "decompress" after the recent General Convention of the Episcopal church. So many people are asking so many questions, that I had to stop and think, "Where is God in all this?"

My take on the ultimate will of God is that it is sometimes too difficult to accept, or we are so blinded by ourselves and the world, that we can never see God's ultimate will on our own. We are too impatient or self indulged to humble ourselves to Him as we busily try to plan our day or our futures as if He did not exist. The author uses what I would consider a strong classical argument that God's circumstantial will is intimately involved with the problems of Evil, Sin, and pain, those worldly things that try to steer us from God's intentional will. Regular readers of this blog may remember that Evil and Sin are not popular subjects at our parish, and from the reports from GC 09, not terribly popular with the modern Episcopal church in general. The church, by choosing to ignore the subjects, give Evil and Sin the perfect opportunity to work their way into the Church, thus setting up the current circumstances with which so many are struggling. Was this God's intention? Did God, through His intentional will, endorse D025 and C056? Did God will the rejection of D069*, or are these the actions of humans and their free will? Here we are, face to face with the circumstantial will of God. How we respond to these circumstances should be where we place our focus.

I personally find myself in interesting circumstances as a member of this disordered organization. This is nothing new of course. I recall 1979, 2003, 2005, 2006, and now 2009 as times in which the Episcopal church revealed how Evil advances its goals. At no point have I thought that this was the "movement of the Spirit" or "the will of God." It all looked more like the work of fallen man. Let me break it down in an overly simplified method similar to what is discussed in the little book.

1. Intentional Will: It is God's intention that I turn to Him, repent, and love and worship Him as my Lord and Savior.

2. Circumstantial Will: Evil is constantly attacking God's intention, and in this case, His Church, by presenting false doctrines and false prophets to which God's people, by their free will, are easily turned. These are the circumstances man has placed us in and it is where we find ourselves today, pulled away from God's intent.

3. Ultimate Will: This may not be revealed in my lifetime, but the question for me is how do I act in accordance with #1 to do my part for #3?

Some might flee and find comfort in an orthodox church, others might leave the church altogether (as some of our former congregants at ECOOS have done). This simple pewster agrees that the circumstances are dangerous, but I, for one, have been led to challenging them, and no, I am not expecting to change the world. One thing about this journey is that it is not easy, it requires study, prayer, more study, more prayer, and it cannot be done alone. At some point, even a simple pewster might be tempted to call it quits, to swim the Tiber, or to heed some such call. Why battle the Evil circumstances here that challenge God's intention when there is a safe spot down the street?



Can circumstances ever get so bad that I would leave the Episcopal church?

Clifford at Red Stick Rant appears have reached that point. Read his illustration of the fictional Leonidas restaurant (he named that after Leonidas Polk, the "fighting bishop") losing customers because of changes in the staff, what they were serving, changes in the ownership, and eventually losing Red Stick himself when the place becomes totally unrecognizable. (Click the Red Stick Rant link for the long version).

Nice analogy, but is July 2009 a Leonidas moment?



I don't think so. I think anyone wondering if this is the moment needs to proceed to chapter 4 of Weatherhead's little book. The chapter is entitled "Discerning the Will of God." Go there because the question on many moderate and conservative Episcopalians' minds is "Where do I go from here?" Part of our Christian being calls us to ask for God's help at such times. (As humans, we usually call only during troubled times, but that is a subject for another post.) The chapter ends with two questions:

1. "Do I really want to discern God's will or do I want to get his sanction for my own?"
2. "Have I got the courage to do God's will when I discern it?"

I came up with another,

3. What will happen if I reject God's will?

As I try to discern His will, I see, in all the conflicts of the day, the need to confront Evil. I recognize my limited ability to do so given my past upbringing in this Episcopal church. I accept the challenge to increase my understanding of God's purpose so that I can better defend it.

If I reject His will, walk away from His promise, then His sacrifice was in vain.

* ORIGINAL TEXT of Rejected Resolution: C069 Title: Affirm Christ in multi-faith society
Topic: Evangelism
Committee: 12 - Evangelism
House of Initial Action: Deputies
Proposer: Diocese of Western Louisiana

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Resolved, the House of _______ concurring, That this 76th General Convention of this church affirm the conclusion of the Church of England at its February General Synod and direct the House of Bishops' Committee on Theology to report back to the 77th General Convention on "their understanding of the uniqueness of Christ in the United States multi-faith society, and offer examples and commendations of good practice in sharing the gospel of salvation through Christ alone with people of other faiths and of none."




EXPLANATION

Indicative of our support and appreciation for the presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury at this General Convention and his leadership of the Church of England in Christian witness within the multi-faith culture of the United Kingdom, this resolution affirms that the Episcopal Church is in substantial agreement with the Church of England General Synod which directed its House of Bishops at their February 2009 meeting to report back on "their understanding of the uniqueness of Christ in Britain's multi-faith society, and offer examples and commendations of good practice in sharing the gospel of salvation through Christ alone with people of other faiths and of none."

Supporting document "General Synod 2/11/09" is posted and available in hard copy in the General Convention Secretariat until the end of the 76th General Convention.

The Schismatic's Apprentice

Schism and schismatic are names Christians throw out at each other when they are really mad. It doesn't matter on which side of the canyon you stand, it is always the other side that caused the rift. One never looks down at the river that has been eating away at the bedrock. Nor do you look into the waters to see the dirt and grit contributing to the erosion. The process is usually so slow that it takes years to you discover the fact that you are no longer connected to the other side. At that point you shout out, "Schismatic" across the divide, and no doubt you will hear the word echo back upon yourself.

What is going on with the 2009 General Convention of the Episcopal church that is raising the cry, "Schism!"? The BBC reports,

"Bishops of the Anglican Church in the United States have voted to overturn a three-year moratorium on the election of gay bishops.

The decision seems likely to lead to the Episcopal Church's eventual exit from the worldwide Anglican Communion."

(Read: Schism)

The UK's Times OnLine had this headline from July 15, 2009:

The Americans know this will end in schism
Support by US Episcopalians for homosexual clergy is contrary to Anglican faith and tradition. They are leaving the family

How did the Episcopal Church get to this point, the point where our Bishops have "come out" and said, "Let us increase the gulf between us and the rest of the Anglican Communion."? What waters have done this, and from whence does the river flow? Many think the entire issue is over homosexuality. I like to think that those people are just looking at the rapids, and not the whole river. There is a current of liberal theology that is harder for people to recognize as it is what slowly erodes away the foundations of the church. This theology weakens the foundational authority of the same scripture that we believe contains all things necessary to salvation (Article VI). Allowed to run its course, a church standing beside the river of liberal theology finds itself divided. Tracing our river backwards, we spot one of the architechs of this divide was the nefarious Bishop John Spong, whose "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism," along with his other teachings and actions, acted like abrasives poured into the already running waters. There are other individuals dotting the shorelines, but since he is intimately involved in the process, and homosexuality is the rocky shoal over which we are currently watching the church float, I will focus more on this part of the river than is usual for these pages.

There are more detailed time lines out there, but for the neophyte, this shorter version from the pages of Get Religion is a good starting place.
Terry Mattingly asserts that in order to write about the subject of homosexuality and the Episcopal church, you have to cherchez les Bishops when he wrote,

"When you are talking about the history of the Anglican wars, you really have to remember that it’s really about the bishops.

The Episcopal Church has been struggling with homosexuality — in its national meetings — since the 1970s. But the big signposts have been about the men and women in the purple shirts. Here’s a few.

1989 — Bishop John Spong, Diocese of Newark, publicly ordains first non-celibate, openly-partnered, homosexual.

1991 — Bishop Walter Righter, Diocese of Washington, D.C., ordains a non-celibate homosexual.

1994 — Bishop Spong drafted the Koinonia Statement defining homosexuality as morally neutral and affirming support for the ordination of homosexuals in faithful sexual relationships (signed by 90 bishops and 144 deputies). Spong publishes his 12 Theses, laying out an approach to faith without a transcendent, personal deity.

1996 — Both counts of heresy against Bishop Righter dismissed in an ecclesiastical court, which decides that there is “no clear doctrine” in the Episcopal Church relevant to the ordination of those sexually active outside of marriage.

1998 — The bishops at the global Lambeth Conference uphold traditional teachings on marriage and human sexuality. Then, 65 ECUSA bishops sign a pastoral statement addressed to lesbian and gay Anglicans.

2000 — Archbishops Emmanuel Kolini ( Province of Rwanda) and Moses Tay ( Province of South East Asia) consecrate Father Chuck Murphy and Father John Rodgers as missionary bishops to the U.S.

You get the idea, if you are looking at the revolution of the theological left or the counter-revolt by the right, you have to watch the bishops — starting in the 1970, but with the open warfare picking up in the 1980s and ’90s. That’s the timeline."

(emphasis added)

And I might update the time line:
June 2009 The Anglican Church in North America is formed with Robert Duncan as Archbishop and Primate.

July 9, 2009 Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams addresses the Episcopal church and prays they do not, through their actions, leave the Anglican Communion;

"Of course I am coming here with hopes and anxieties – you know that and I shan't deny it. Along with many in the Communion, I hope and pray that there won't be decisions in the coming days that will push us further apart. But if people elsewhere in the Communion are concerned about this, it's because of a profound sense of what the Episcopal Church has given and can give to our fellowship worldwide. If we - if I – had felt that we could do perfectly well with out you, there wouldn't be a problem. But the bonds of relationship are deep, for me personally as for many others."

Sorry Rowan, but TEC bishops went ahead and gave you the holy kiss off with the latest addition to the time line:

July 13, 2009 Episcopal House of Bishops passes resolution (D025)

CURRENT VARIANT Resolution: D025
Title: Commitment and Witness to Anglican Communion
Topic: Anglican Communion
Committee: 08 - World Mission
House of Initial Action: Deputies
Proposer: Ms. D. Rebecca Snow

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the 76th General Convention reaffirm the continued participation of The Episcopal Church as a constituent member of the Anglican Communion; give thanks for the work of the bishops at the Lambeth Conference of 2008; reaffirm the abiding commitment of The Episcopal Church to the fellowship of churches that constitute the Anglican Communion and seek to live into the highest degree of communion possible; and be it further


Resolved, That the 76th General Convention encourage dioceses, congregations, and members of The Episcopal Church to participate to the fullest extent possible in the many instruments, networks and relationships of the Anglican Communion; and be it further


Resolved, That the 76th General Convention reaffirm its financial commitment to the Anglican Communion and pledge to participate fully in the Inter-Anglican Budget; and be it further


Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm the value of "listening to the experience of homosexual persons," as called for by the Lambeth Conferences of 1978, 1988, and 1998, and acknowledge that through our own listening the General Convention has come to recognize that the baptized membership of The Episcopal Church includes same-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationships "characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God" (2000-D039); and be it further


Resolved, That the 76th General Convention recognize that gay and lesbian persons who are part of such relationships have responded to God's call and have exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and are currently doing so in our midst; and be it further


Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm that God has called and may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church,; and that God's call to the ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church is a mystery which the Church attempts to discern for all people through our discernment processes acting in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church; and be it further


Resolved, That the 76th General Convention acknowledge that members of The Episcopal Church as of the Anglican Communion, based on careful study of the Holy Scriptures, and in light of tradition and reason, are not of one mind, and Christians of good conscience disagree about some of these matters.

As I look at the Bishops' resolution, it show a resolve to part ways with the Anglican Communion. That, my dear friends, creates schism.

Our Bishop Henderson voted in favor of this resolution. His explanation is found here and concludes with:

"It may come as a surprise to some that I voted “yes” on the final version of the resolution in the House of Bishops. I did so with powerful, mixed feelings, and my sleep during the night was not sound. My thinking is this: it is critically important that (1) we leave B033 in place, and (2) that we reaffirm our commitment to, involvement in, and support of the entire Anglican Communion, its life, mission and ministry. I do realize that some intend to use the language of the sixth resolve to advance an agenda for which I believe neither we nor the other churches of the Anglican Communion is ready to endorse separately or corporately. However, the content of the resolution, taken as a whole, is more helpful than not."

Even though he says he wants to remain committed to the Anglican Communion, his actions will result in the advance of the liberal agenda, eroding the foundations of the church and widening the gap between us. I therefore count him as a schismatic, albeit a moderate one, or at least a schismatics' accomplice. One has to wonder if he has been groomed as a schismatic's apprentice for this very moment.

Click here to see how other the Bishops voted.

You will be hearing various interpretations of this resolution, but the long and the short of it is that you will never again hear the following verses at your Sunday services in our Episcopal church (insert sound of scissors here):

1 Timothy 3:1-13

1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Snip, snip, snip, and that is the sound of schism.

(Gigli was a forgettable Ben Affleck movie from 2003)

Daughters of the King to Become Pawns of the Queen?

Baby Blue has been tracking this issue for the past year and a half. This post from 02/04/2008 gives you some of the background.

"A handful of 'progressive' Episcopal women want to ban Anglicans, Lutherans, and Roman Catholics from the Order and make it an Episcopal Church-only organization. They have targeted the elected president of the Order, Joan Dalrymple, but frankly, I have to wonder if the real target is the national Chaplain, none other than the Rt. Rev. John W. Howe, Bishop of Central Florida. He's been making peace of late with those parishes and clergy who seek to separate from the Episcopal Church. And now we have Washington-style politics going on, with whispers of financial mismanagement (absurd, you can read their financial statements yourself here - including the audit) as well as an entire shadow website put up online as a "shadow" Order (sound familiar friends?).

At the Daughters of the King Triennial, held in 2006, the delegates voted to interpret the bylaws strictly so that each chapter had one vote. The bylaws do not recognize 'Episcopal' and the Order is not an official part of the Episcopal Church. It's like the Alpha Course - it's associated with Episcopal Churches, but is a separate entity. The Triennial voted by an overwhelming majority of 219 to 30 to seat Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Anglican Chapters."

BB gave us an update this past week by posting the following on June 27, 2009.

"Since the Triennial, a small group formed calling themselves the 'Episcopal' Community of the Daughters of the King and they seek to expel from the Order all the Anglican, Lutheran, and Roman Catholic members. They have recruited bishops from the Episcopal Church to pressure the president of the DOK, continuing the whisper campaign to cast a cloud over her leadership.

Proposed bylaws being submitted by a faction called the 'Episcopal Community' is seeking to expel the non-TEC members from the Order of the Daughters of the King.

The draft bylaws now being circulated in anticipation to next month's Triennial include entire sections of the current by-laws rewritten so that those non-TEC members who are in the Order now will be expelled from membership.

The draft reads, 'All members must be women communicants of The Episcopal Church (hereinafter referred to as TEC, formerly known as the Episcopal Church of the United States of America) . At no time shall any non-TEC person have seat or voice or vote or hold office or serve as chaplain in TEC Daughters of the King.'"

Baby Blue's suspicions about the chaplain concerns seem to be borne out.

In addition, the wearing of the Daughters of the King cross will only be granted to so-called 'parallel structures' (separate but equal?) by explicit permission of the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church following a rigorous consent process of the Episcopal-only membership. 'Non-TEC parallel Orders may ... apply to the full National Council of TEC Daughters of the King'"

I am not familiar with their articles of incorporation (if any) but are they changing the name to "TEC Daughters of the King?"

"for a license to use the name, cross, and such other items as may belong to this Order,' reads the Episcopal Community draft Article IV:I. 'The decision of the National Council to grant such license must be ratified by the membership and consented to by the Presiding Bishop of TEC.'"

Is this in keeping with an "Inclusive Church?"

Does this create a new job description for the P.B.?

Is there any chance this will pass?

To me this looks like another power play by the Presiding Bishop. Let us pray that she is not party to this proposed bylaws change, but would the "Episcopal Community" dare to presuppose that the Presiding Bishop would take time from her busy schedule to deign her permission to certain non-Episcopalians to wear the cross? This makes me think that they had discussed this matter with 815 and have the blessing of the P.B. It should be interesting to watch how this story unfolds. Keep us posted, Baby Blue!

DEFCON 2: GENCON 09

Next week could be a week that will go down in infamy, and I am raising the alert status to DEFCON 2. I am talking about the upcoming triennial convention of the Episcopal Church in Anaheim. Resolutions "debated" and passed by past conventions have frequently been fodder for the national press, and have quite likely been the cause for many to leave our church. I have reviewed many of the resolutions and followed some of the discussion going on over the web. The 2009 convention promises to put the Episcopal Church back in the spotlight once again.

This past Sunday, there was another appearance of a bulletin insert from Episcopal Life Online (A.K.A. Episcopal Pravda). This one surprised a few members of our church when they read for the first time about some of the resolutions up for "debate" which include:

"• Holy Women, Holy Men an overhaul of Lesser Feasts and Fasts, which would add a number of names to the Calendar of the Church Year.

Including the name of self avowed revolutionary socialist Vida Dutton Scudder. Could it be that this soon to be holy woman will also break the sexual orientation barrier in the Episcopal Calendar of "saints?"

• New prayers for: artists and writers; the Virgin Mary; care of God’s creation; on the occasion or anniversary of a disaster; prophetic witness in the church and society; reconciliation and forgiveness; and scientists and environmentalists.

"Prophetic witness" in society leaves the door wide open for any number of controversial issues to show up in your service and cause more conflict in the congo.

• Consideration of requests for authorization to develop rites of blessing for same-gender unions, especially in states that have legalized such unions or marriages.
• Use of gender-neutral language for prayer book marriage services;

That could be the show stopper for many in our church.

• Requests to overturn, nullify or supersede GC06 Resolution B033, which called for restraint in electing or approving the election as bishops of candidates “whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.”

Read: Divorced homosexual men, or anyone else otherwise considered by our forefathers as inappropriate leaders of the Church.

Some have asked me, can anything be done to stop this majical mystery bus tour that we are on? I am afraid that all we in Upper South Carolina can do is pray that our Bishop takes a strong stand against these resolutions.

Elsewhere, a few are speaking up. Fr. Dan wrote this on the HoB/D list serve regarding General Convention 2009's many resolutions. I quote with permission.

"What an unconscionable waste of time
for convention to have to consider these resolutions. Talk about poor
stewardship! Convention's action will have absolutely ZERO impact on any of
these issues, all of which are dealt with more effectively by formal and
informal coalitions of interested parties at the local level. And this is to
say nothing of the fact that the vast majority of deputes and bishops lack
the requisite expertise to even be qualified to have an informed opinion on
most of these questions. In the meantime, the world sees us as the mouse
(more like the gnat) that roared, and we alienate even more of our own
members who are embarrassed by their own church's public positions. I am
reminded why I wore out the No button on my voting device in Columbus and
Minneapolis."

You tell em, Fr. Dan!

In the past, conservatives have put up gallant, if unsuccessful, fights to try to stem the tide of new age thinking. This year may be different. The lower part of SC's Bishop Mark Lawrence wrote to his clergy that he did not intend to engage in a political struggle at GENCON 09. (Read it all at T19)

"Certainly, Kendall as our Canon Theologian will monitor the developments at General Convention 2009, but I believe it is in keeping with our declared vision as a diocese to focus on what we believe God is calling us to do, not on the strategies and battles he called us to engage in yesterday."

In other words, there is no point in arguing with lunatics, even when they are driving the bus backwards over a cliff.


What then should we do? Bishop Lawrence goes on to suggest that we look to the real future of Anglicanism,

"...our 'Inside Strategy' is not to tilt at windmills in Quixotic fashion thinking we can turn back the clock to some prior age; it is to help shape the future that is emerging in global Anglicanism from within the Communion."

He appears to be saying that everyone should step back and let the idiots drive off the cliff if they want to.

I have to ask +Lawrence, does that entail getting off this bus and onto another?

I ask +Henderson that if he cannot bear to cut the ties that bind us to that bus, please stretch that rope as far as you can or at least cut us some slack!

DEFCON 3: GENCON 09

The General Convention of the Episcopal Church will be held July 8-15 in Anaheim California. Those attending this big waste of time, talent, and treasure were gifted with a little light reading to study before the big event. This is nicknamed the "Blue Book" (warning this is an 811 page pdf file). One of the most ominous sections was one called the "House of Deputies Committee on the State of the Church" (pp 59-81). This report presents in written, graphic, and tabular detail the decline of the Episcopal empire.

It is amazing how one small paragraph in one long document can tell a great truth.

Found buried on page 63 under the "House of Deputies Committee on the State of the Church" after all the numbers documenting the dropping Sunday attendances, the greying of membership, etc., we read:

"As a final comment on the age structure of The Episcopal Church we note two facts. First, “youth and young adults” were articulated by General Convention as one of our top five priorities for the 2006-2009 triennium. The Executive Council, in developing the draft budget for the 2009-2012 triennium, did not list “youth and young adults” as one of their mission priorities. Second, in the recent reorganization of The Episcopal Church Center staff in New York City, the position of Staff Officer for Youth and Young Adult Ministries was eliminated and the duties of that officer re-distributed to other ministry areas."

I know there are people who think that 815's decision to eliminate this position is wrong, unfair, cruel, indifferent, stupid, etc., and for them, I raise the alert level to DEFCON3.

Personally I don't give a hoot if 815 has a "Staff Officer for Youth and Young Adult Ministries," because youth ministry is a local/regional issue as illustrated out by last week's post on youth mission trips. When a small church has small numbers of youth, the real question should be, "What are we doing wrong?" Real solutions for Rock Hill, SC will not be found by asking some Staff Officer in NYC.

Unfortunately, in reading through the resolutions in the Blue Book, I don't think these folks have a good idea on where to "re-distribute" that officer or those monies. How about sending it back to the Dioceses? Or better yet, why do we send 815 money at all?

A DIE-C Acronym

Pre-note: This post was composed before the latest sickening statements came from the new President of the Episcopal Divinity School. I warn you, it is as one commenter said at SF, "sick, sick, SICK, SICK SICK!!!!!" I apologize for merging two apparently disparate threads, but I just cannot, I cannot let it go tonight. For the time being I would ask readers, after they have linked to the above article which I refuse to reprint, for new suggestions for the meaning of the acronym suggested below:




If the Presiding Bishop's plans go through, the Episcopal Church might need to change its name. Once known as ECUSA, then as TEC, I predict we will be called DIE-C or "Decentralized International Episcopal Church." My reasons come from a recent post by Anglicat where she details some of what she learned from the Presiding Bishop of DIE-C's visit to Minnesota.

"During last week's meeting with Minnesota's Episcopal clergy, Presiding Bishop Katharine Schori said she is trying not to use the term 'National Church' any more. She enumerated the offshore members of TEC, including Puerto Rico, Taiwan, Honduras, Ecuador, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and six countries in Europe. She mentioned the relocation of ministries formerly centered in New York to regional offices around the country, such as Episcopal Migration Ministries to Florida and Ecumenical Affairs, Stewardship, and Ministry in Daily life to Omaha. 'It seemed important to spread staff around the church...to be more present,' Schori explained."

Perhaps there are unmentioned economic reasons to move staff from New York, but could there be political machinations going on as well?

The argument that it is done "to be more present" should put up a warning flag to those communities about to be invaded by dyed in the wool Politburo members. That may be a "presence" you don't want in your back yard.



As a post script I will add my comment to the SF post on the latest insult the Episcopal Church,

Dear Mr. Wormwood,

I started the day off by remembering the martyrs of Lyons. This has inoculated me against your efforts of today. I will not allow the Katherine Ragsdales of the world to distort the meaning of sainthood or martyrdom. Try something else, I am sure that you will.

U.P.

This church is beyond DIE-C meaning "Decentralized International Episcopal Church."

Please join with me in prayer.

Lord have mercy upon us. May the souls in the pews awaken to see the open support of murder of the unborn espoused by their Church, and funded by their money. Lord please help open the ears, minds, hearts, and souls of the future priests of the Church to the cries of Your holy innocents. Lord, we admit our powerlessness in swaying the hardened hearts of those in positions of leadership of Your people. Use Your power to change the hearts of those wearing Your collars of ordination so that they might place their whole trust in You. I pray in the memory of the Blessed Mary who bore You in spite of the shame and scorn and "inconvienience," and grant that I pray in the name of Christ our Lord and Redeemer.