The truth in a novel?

So, I'm minding my own business, doing some summer reading and I come across this exchange:

Was Mr. Naumann a Christian man?"

"Christian? Yes, he was. At least, he was an Episcopalian. That may not be the same thing as a Christian."

That's on page 26 of The Echelon Vendetta by David Stone. I picked this one up at the library because it was on the Ian Fleming Steel Dagger Award list.

This is from page 31:

"He was an Episcopalian. They don't believe in God."

This is my first exposure to David Stone; I'm wondering how he knows so much about pecusa. Perhaps he just reads the newspaper.

Tom Krattenmaker: How to sell Christianity? Ask an atheist.

from TitusOneNine by Kendall Harmon

Jim Henderson is a recovering evangelist. Back in his soul-chasing, church-starting days, he began hearing a grating dissonance between his faith in Jesus and the way he went about winning new converts. Henderson realized he was doing unto others what he would never want done unto him. He was manipulating conversations to set up a pitch. Viewing people as potential notches on his evangelism belt rather than fellow sojourners and prospective friends. Listening only to the extent it could reveal an argumentative opening. He realized he hated the whole enterprise.

"I told the people in my church, 'I don't like evangelizing, and I know you hate it, so I've decided that I'm formally resigning from witnessing. You're all free to do so the same,' " Henderson recalls. "I said, 'I love Jesus, you love Jesus, and we all want to connect people with Jesus. But we're gonna have to figure out new ways to do it.' "

In the 15 years since, Henderson has blazed a new path as an innovator, author, church-evaluator, self-professed subversive, and leader in the creation of new ways to be publicly and persuasively Christian in the 21st century. Maybe the most subversive — and sensible — surprise of all is the population to which this well-caffeinated Seattle man has turned for partners, friends and teachers: atheists.

Read it all.

COMPLIANTOUSNESS

from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor

Conscious that the lesbian only cost them a couple of slots on a couple of ecumenical gabfests, the Episcopalians push all-in:

The Episcopal Church Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music June 28 announced the names of task force leaders charged with leading the development of theological resources and liturgies for same-sex blessings, according to a news release.

The church’s General Convention in 2009 passed Resolution C056, which authorized the House of Bishops, in conjunction with the SCLM, to devise an open process that would invite church-wide participation in collecting and developing the resources.

The commission is to report its efforts to the next meeting of General Convention, in 2012.

Let’s see. Assuming Dr. Williams asks her why her “church” relieved itself over yet another of the moratoria, how does Mrs. Schori spin this? They’re same-sex “blessings” and not Holy Matrimony, they’re descriptive of where we are as a church and therefore we haven’t breached the moratorium even though it looks like we have.

Same as last time, basically.

Greg Griffith wonders why there hasn’t ever been any meaningful resistance.

It’s a source of frustration for me - and no doubt a source of joy for our Worthy Opponents - that no matter how brazen or successful or disruptive they are in advancing their agenda, there seems to be nothing that triggers any sort of pushback from the Beloved Moderates - on whom, like their counterparts in secular political elections, the ultimate outcome of changes such as these rest.

But there we are: In about 20 years, the Episcopal Church has gone from a few rogue priests doing gay “marriages” disguised as home blessings, to a task force that in two short years will develop and present for approval by General Convention, liturgies for same-sex blessings.

I think I know the reason for that. Pushing back means taking a stand, causing controversy, arguing with people, maybe even getting them mad at you. In the Episcopal case, it also means being referred to as a bigot if you refuse to robotically accept the Episcopal left’s entire program or demand actual Scriptural backing for leftist innovations.

None of that is terribly pleasant. It’s far easier to stay where you are, lie low, and don’t make too much of a fuss. You can express regret or even open disagreement with this or that Episcopal action. You and your parish or diocese can even go on record as officially repudiating it and disassociating yourselves from it.

And it won’t cost you; far from it. In a way, this kind of “opposition” makes the Episcopal job much easier. If the Episcopal left knows that all the Episcopal right will do is express disagreement and nothing more, it can pass any innovation it likes along with the added advantage of being able to claim that it is a church with a wide variety of opinions.

Of course, what Episcopalians call “a church with a wide variety of opinions,” intelligent people call “window dressing.” If you’re content merely to express your disagreement, disassociation, disavowal or repudiation of your church’s heretical action and leave it at that, rest assured that disagreement, disassociation, disavowal or repudiation is something that you’re going to be doing a lot of.

Add starLikeShareShare with noteEmailKeep unreadAdd tags

The Spin Double-Spun

from Anglican Curmudgeon by A. S. Haley

Commenters on this and similar blogs noted how long it took for news of the decision by the Court of Appeals in Fort Worth to reach the Episcoleft's blogosphere. The decision was handed down late last Friday, and there were quickly stories about it here, on StandFirm, on TitusOneNine, VirtueOnline, and on the Episcopal Diocese's Website -- all within 24 hours. It seems, however, that no one on the left could trust these sources, and so their notice of the news had to await the publication of an official press release at Bishop Ohl's website, nearly 72 hours later. Only then did the Episcoleft start to blog about it, taking the press release word-for-word as their interpretation of what the decision actually said.

Bishop Ohl's press release offered quite a spin on the story. It began by asserting what the opinion did not say:

The Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth issued an opinion late Friday, June 25, granting the Southern Cone parties' petition for writ of mandamus regarding the order of the 141st District Court ruling on the Southern Cone parties' Rule 12 motion.

The Court's decision said there is one Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and one Corporation of the Diocese of Fort Worth. The procedural ruling was based on Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 12 and expressly was not a substantive decision on which faction—those bishops and officials who are members of The Episcopal Church or those bishops and officials who are now of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone—represents the continuing Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth or the Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth.

It also was not a decision on which faction is entitled to the church property in dispute, a substantive matter which Judge John Chupp of the 141st District Court will decide. The Court also ruled that the stay imposed on the trial court proceedings was lifted to permit further action in the 141st District Court.

Even in that limited scope, however, the press release failed to get it right. In the first place, the Court of Appeals did not grant Bishop Iker's petition for a writ of mandamus outright; what it did was to issue a conditional grant. "Mandamus" -- Latin for "we command" -- is a form of order issued by a higher court to a lower one, or to a government official or agency, telling the court, official or agency what they must do in order to comply with the higher court's view of the case. In this particular proceeding, Bishop Iker and his co-petitioners had requested the appellate court to order the trial court to strike the pleadings which Bishop Ohl's predecessor had filed in the name of the "Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth" and its associated Corporation.

The Court of Appeals, as I say, issued no order to that effect. It simply indicated that it would issue such an order unless the trial court promptly struck the pretenders' pleadings. In that way, it gave the trial court room to act on its own first without being formally ordered. And one can bet safe money on the fact that the trial court will do as required, so that there will never be a need to grant the petition for mandamus outright.

Next, while it is true that the Court of Appeals did not decide "which faction" represents the Episcopal Diocese and its Corporation, such a circumlocution is equivalent to how a one-time Soviet newspaper treated the results of an auto race between an American car and a Russian car, in which the former won handily. The Soviet paper reported the story with this headline: "Russian car finishes second in international race; American car comes in next to last."

What the Court of Appeals did decide was that there was only one Diocese and one related Corporation, both founded in 1983. And it struck the pleadings of Bishop Ohl's group, who were claiming to represent them. In doing so, it let stand in place the pleadings which Bishop Iker's group had filed in the name of the 1983 entities. So while, no, the court did not decide who was in control of those entities, it left Bishop Iker and his colleagues in full control of them, and able to plead and appear in court on their behalf. If that is not deciding "which faction . . . representsthe continuing Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth or [its Corporation", then I guess the person who wrote the press release must be playing games, and must mean the 2009 entities when referring to the "Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and its Corporation", because the Court in fact did not say anything about those entities, either.

Actually, if the truth be told, I believe there is no such entity currently in existence as a "Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth" that was incorporated in 2009. As I explained in this earlier post, Bishop Ohl's predecessor did not bother to form a new corporation, but simply filed false papers with the Secretary of State claiming to have changed the officers in the 1983 Corporation controlled by Bishop Iker. Now that the Court of Appeals has barred his attorneys from acting on behalf of that Corporation, it will be instructive to see whether Bishop Ohl will incorporate a new one. My best guess is that he will not, because that would operate as an admission that he had no rights over the 1983 Corporation and its assets. Instead, he will probably argue in Court that only he has the right to control the Corporation, because only he is a currently ordained bishop in the Episcopal Church (USA).

Anyway, back to the spinning of the press release. In two subsequent paragraphs, it manages to turn the case 180 degrees around, by making it appear as though it was Bishop Iker and his troops that had failed to achieve "their objective" in the case:

The Court emphasized that "[t]he trial court did not determine on the merits which Bishop and which Trustees are the authorized persons within the corporation and the Fort Worth Diocese, nor do we. The question of ‘identity' remains to be determined in the course of the litigation." Thus the Southern Cone parties failed to achieve their goal of getting the Court of Appeals to declare that Bishop Iker represented the continuing Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and its Diocesan Corporation.

The Court also noted that "[w]e are aware of no statute or common law rule allowing attorneys to prosecute a suit in the name of a corporation or other entity on behalf of only one faction or part of that corporation or entity against another part or faction." As applied to both factions in the litigation, the bishops and trustees from each faction are already named as parties in the case pending in the 141st District Court.

As I just explained, what the appellate court did was reserve for the main trial on the merits the issue of whether, in voting to withdraw from ECUSA, Bishop Iker's Diocese was entitled to maintain all of its bank accounts and assets intact. The appellate court recognized that Bishop Ohl's group disputes their claim to those assets, on the ground that "dioceses can never leave the Church; only people can." So, no -- the appellate court did not purport to decide that issue. But as already noted, what it did was leave Bishop Iker in full control of the entities which own those assets. And since Bishop Ohl's attorneys were unable to point the trial court to a single canon or constitutional provision which prohibits a diocese from leaving the Church, I fail to see how they are going to convince Judge Chubb on remand why a diocese cannot withdraw.

If you wanted to learn about what the court actually decided, therefore, and to understand its import, you would have had to do quite a bit of homework after reading just Bishop Ohl's press release. But now I want to show you a stellar example of what I have called the left's "echo chamber" -- how things posted by a recognized source on the left get picked up and repeated by other liberal sites without any independent editing, or thought, whatsoever. Take a look at how the blogger over at Three-Legged Stool handled the story based on the press release. Here is his full story, in its entirety, word-for-word, typos and all:

The Second Court of Appeals issued it's ruling that

Thus the Southern Cone parties failed to achieve their goal of getting the Court of Appeals to declare that Bishop Iker represented the continuing Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and its Diocesan Corporation.

The decision continues:

We are aware of no statute or common law rule allowing attorneys to prosecute a suit in the name of a corporation or other entity on behalf of only one faction or part of that corporation or entity against another part or faction.

The Southern Cone has not responded, yet, and I'm sure they will file an appeal. Remember, the schismatics are not interested in the property, folks, but don't hold your breath.

Read the decision here.

The author should have followed his own advice, and read the opinion before posting this. As you can see from my quoting of the press release above, the author has taken a passage from the release and quoted it as though it were taken word-for-word from the Court's opinion! Not only that, the passage sounds so unfavorable to Bishop Iker, that the author concludes that it is certain that he will "file an appeal" -- from a decision which he won!

Thus is the spin on the left double-spun. And thus does their echo-chamber function to get the true word out to the faithful.

TEC Announces Members of Task Force to Create Liturgies for Same-Sex Blessings

from Stand Firm by Greg Griffith

When I see things like this, I can't help but think of our Beloved Moderates.

Twenty-five years ago, if you had told them that the Episcopal Church would, in their lifetimes, allow rogue priests in faraway parishes to do same-sex blessings disguised as "home blessings," they would have scoffed at you. Yet it happened, and the practice grew.

Twenty years ago, if you had told these same Beloved Moderates that, the practice of disguising same-sex blessings as "home blessings" having grown by leaps and bounds, some priests in faraway parishes had taken to blessing same-sex unions in their churches, the reaction would have been more scoffing but, faced with the facts, a wave of the hand and some mumbling about "it could never happen in OUR diocese." Yet the number of diocese in which same-sex blessings were being allowed grew from zero, to now approaching two dozen.

Fifteen years ago, if you had told these same Beloved Moderates that, the practice of same-sex blessings being more openly accepted throughout the church, it was only a matter of time before an openly-gay, non-celibate bishop was consecrated, they would have laughed out loud. Yet along came Gene Robinson. "Well, I'm sure that's an anomaly that will rectified. besides, it won't happen anywhere else." And yet, we find out that Otis Charles, Bishop of Utah preceded Robinson by many years. And now we have Mary Glasspool consecrated in Los Angeles.

Ten years ago, if you had told these same Beloved Moderates that the Episcopal Church would, at its General Convention, officially declare that same-sex blessings were part of "the common life" of the church, and that bishops like the one in Mississippi would actually vote for it, the reaction would have been more scoffing: "Oh please - don't be ridiculous. that will never happen." And yet C051 easily passed in 2003, with the support of Bishops like the one from Mississippi.

Five years ago, if you had told these same Beloved Moderates that as a direct result of C051, only a few years later there would be formed a task force by the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music "charged with leading the development of theological resources and liturgies for same-sex blessings," the result would have been more scoffing: "Oh please... liturgies for same-sex blessings? At thenational level? That will never happen!"

And yet... here we are.

It's a source of frustration for me - and no doubt a source of joy for our Worthy Opponents - that no matter how brazen or successful or disruptive they are in advancing their agenda, there seems to be nothing that triggers any sort of pushback from the Beloved Moderates - on whom, like their counterparts in secular political elections, the ultimate outcome of changes such as these rest.

But there we are: In about 20 years, the Episcopal Church has gone from a few rogue priests doing gay "marriages" disguised as home blessings, to a task force that in two short years will develop and present for approval by General Convention, liturgies for same-sex blessings.

And today, I will say to our Beloved Moderates: "You know, the next step will be to change the Prayer Book to include these liturgies, and in a few short years we'll have a new Prayer Book, with a gay marriage liturgy right beside the traditional 'straight' marriage liturgy. This will be the Prayer Book you will open with your children during your church service. It will not matter whether your parish, or your diocese, approves of same-sex blessings. You will not have a choice as to which Prayer Book sits in the pew in front of you."

And they will scoff.

"Preposterous!" they will snort.

"But if it does happen," they will promise, "well that's it! That's where I draw the line!"

The Episcopal Church Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music June 28 announced the names of task force leaders charged with leading the development of theological resources and liturgies for same-sex blessings, according to a news release.

The church's General Convention in 2009 passed Resolution C056, which authorized the House of Bishops, in conjunction with the SCLM, to devise an open process that would invite church-wide participation in collecting and developing the resources.

The members are pretty much the type of people you'd expect:

Liturgical resources task group, chair:
The Rev. Patrick Malloy of the Diocese of Bethlehem. Malloy is the H. Boone Porter chair in liturgics at General Theological Seminary in New York and is a former member of the SCLM. The rector of Grace Church, Allentown, Pennsylvania, he is the author of Celebrating the Eucharist and a forthcoming second volume, Celebrating the Pastoral Rites and the Daily Office.

Pastoral/teaching resources group, co-chairs:
The Rev. Canon Thaddeus A. Bennett of the Diocese of Vermont. Bennett is the part-time canon for transition ministry and part-time rector of St. Mary's-in-the-Mountains Church in Wilmington. Previously, he was the canon to the ordinary in the Diocese of Los Angeles. He is one of the authors of the Episcopal Church's Fresh Start resource and serves as a vocational faculty for CREDO. He helped found three HIV/AIDS organizations, including the National Episcopal AIDS Coalition, and co-authored a number of resources for HIV/AIDS education and ministry.

The Rev. Canon Susan Russell of the Diocese of Los Angeles. Russell is the senior associate at All Saints Church in Pasadena and is chair of the Program Group on LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) ministry for the Diocese of Los Angeles. In 2008 she convened the taskforce responsible for creating a diocesan pastoral response to both the May California Supreme Court decision on marriage equality and the November Proposition 8 ballot initiative.

Theological resources task group, chair
The Rev. Jay Emerson Johnson of the Diocese of California. Johnson is a member of the core doctoral faculty in theology at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley and coordinates the Certificate in Sexuality and Religion program at Pacific School of Religion, where he serves as senior director of academic research and resources at the school's Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry. Since 2006 he has been a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Theology and Sexuality and he is book review editor of the Anglican Theological Review. His first book, published in 2005, was Dancing with God: Anglican Christianity and the Practice of Hope. He serves as associate clergy at the Church of the Good Shepherd in Berkeley.

Oh but look - they're "facilitating communication":

To facilitate communication and to share ideas and resources, SCLM has set up a blog and an e-mail address: sclm@episcopalchurch.org.

That's considerate of them.

Hey, what say we engage in dialogue with them?

Russian Orthodox Church raises fears over pro-gay Protestant Churches

from VirtueOnline

Russian Orthodox Church raises fears over pro-gay Protestant Churches

by Brian Hutt
http://www.christiantoday.com/
June 29, 2010

Russia Orthodox Church Patriarch Kirill, right, attends a ceremony at the Christ the Savior Cathedral during a celebration of his enthronement first anniversary in Moscow on Monday, Feb. 1, 2010.

Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia has told the head of the World Council of Churches of his concerns over the position of some Protestant Churches towards homosexuality.

WCC General Secretary Dr Olav Fykse Tveit met the Patriarch in Moscow today as part of his first visit to the Russian Orthodox Church since taking up office last September.

Read the full story at www.VirtueOnline.org

PARTY LINE

from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor

Speaking of messages, my gracious lord of Canterbury just received another one:

The Bishop in Iran has quit the Anglican Communion’s ‘Standing Committee’.

Bishop Azad Marshall’s decision to stand down will come as a blow to the Archbishop of Canterbury who has sought to vest an unprecedented degree of authority in the new entity—formed by the merger of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Standing Committee of the Primates Meeting.

The vote of ‘no confidence’ by yet another leader of the Global South group of Anglican churches serves to isolate Dr. Williams from the conservative and liberal wings of the Communion—diminishing his authority as the political centre collapses from under him.

To say the least. Along with that comes word that the Episcopalians are once again deciding that Anglican rules don’t apply to them.

On June 18 the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church elected Bishop Ian Douglas of Connecticut to succeed Bishop Catherine Roskam as its episcopal representative to the ACC. Bishop Douglas had been a clergy representative from the Episcopal Church to the ACC and at last year’s ACC meeting in Kingston Jamaica was elected to the Standing Committee.

Asked by CEN in March whether he would continue as a member of the ACSC following his April 17 consecration to the episcopate, Bishop Douglas said “election to the Standing Committee by the ACC is irrespective of orders. Therefore, if I am elected the episcopal ACC member from TEC by the Executive Council in June, then I remain on the Standing Committee.”

However, the Anglican Communion Institute (ACI) has objected to Bishop Douglas’ continuing membership on the ACSC, noting it violates the language of the ACC constitution and bylaws.

In a paper released last week, the ACI argued that Bishop Douglas gave up his clergy seat on the ACC when he was consecrated a bishop. His “membership on the ACC ended on April 17 when he retired from his presbyterial office and was ‘translated’ to a new order” of ministry, they said.

The ACI further stated that the ACC bylaws require a member of the Standing Committee to be a member of the ACC, and due to his consecration and subsequent loss of clergy seat on the ACC he “also ceased to be a member of the ACC standing committee at that moment,” under Article 2(f) of the bylaws.

Even assuming that Bishop Douglas could be re-appointed to the Standing Committee after he changed his clergy seat for an episcopal seat, the ACC bylaws require a replacement member be drawn from the “same order” of ministry as his predecessor. Bishop Douglas could not, under the ACC bylaws the ACI said, replace the Rev. Douglas.

Mouneer Anis has stepped down from it, Henry Orombi has apparently decided that participation in it is a waste of his time and now Azad Marshall has quit. So from the conservative or roughly-conservative end of things, the credibility of the Anglican Communion Standing Committee is pretty much shot to pieces.

Meaning what? Who knows? One more pillar of the Anglican Communion is shown to be either a tool of the Americans or a pointless irrelevance. Either way, I don’t like the Communion’s long-term chances.

Does Opting for "Local Option" Equate to Opting out of Life in Communion?

Does Opting for "Local Option" Equate to Opting out of Life in Communion?

from VirtueOnline

by Michael Watson
http://www.stayinanglican.com/stayin_anglican/2010/06/does-opting-for-local-option-.html
June 2010

In this piece I want to critique two articles appearing in the March 2010 issue of News From the Hill, a newsletter of Virginia Theological Seminary. They are companion articles written by two prominent figures in the Diocese of Texas - the Honorable James A. Baker III, former Secretary of State and a member of St. Martin's, Houston, and the Reverend Dr. Russell J. Levenson, rector of St. Martin's. Secretary Baker's article, "Finding Our Way Forward," appears on page 6 of the issue and may be accessed at http://tinyurl.com/yeyplzn. Dr. Levenson's article, "A Time for Self-Restraint: Reclaiming the Middle Way" appears on page 8 of the issue and may be accessed at http://tinyurl.com/ydp5z36. The articles deal with the crisis in The Episcopal Church related to issues that include human sexuality. They propose solutions that can be characterized generally as involving "agreeing to disagree" and implementing local option down to the parish level.

In late March, the Baker and Levenson articles were picked up in the Anglican blogosphere. On the blogs, the two articles drew criticism, in large part based on the belief they exhibited naïveté about the leadership of the national Church. Some commenters were skeptical that agreement on a local option approach would even be within the realm of possibility. I want here to consider these two articles from a different point of view. Putting aside any prediction about whether the dominant forces within the national organization of The Episcopal Church would be receptive to local option, I will argue that both articles fail to consider the basic Anglican doctrine that while some things are adiaphora (things that don't make a difference), others aren't. Further, I will observe that in the case of the issues involved here, the Anglican Communion has some time ago decided that positions now being taken by The Episcopal Church contravene the acceptable limits of diversity. From a Communion point of view, these are not issues as to which an "agreement to disagree" is appropriate. Although avenues for further discussion can and should remain open and reexamination of that determination is not foreclosed, that is where matters stand. I hope to be able to express my disagreement in a respectful way, especially since the persons with whom I am disagreeing are the rector and a distinguished member of the parish I attend.

Read the full story at www.VirtueOnline.org

NEW HAVEN, CT: priest leaving Episcopal Church in New Haven to follow evangelical calling

NEW HAVEN, CT: priest leaving Episcopal Church to follow evangelical calling

from VirtueOnline

By Ed Stannard, Register Metro Editor
New Haven Register
newhavenregister.com
June 27, 2010

For the Rev. Geoffrey Little and his wife, Blanca, it's time to leave one spiritual home and build a new one.

Today will be the Littles' last day at St. James Episcopal Church on East Grand Avenue, but they'll continue to serve the Latino community in Fair Haven and Fair Haven Heights.

This week, they'll open a new evangelical parish, worshiping in a banquet hall at 229 Grand Ave.

Read the full story at www.VirtueOnline.org

[Diocese of Texas] At Least One Parishioner Isn’t Buying Bishop Doyle’s Spin on the Pentecost Letter

from Stand Firm

Here's a portion of Michael Watson's excellent analysis of Bishop Doyle's response to the Dueling Pentecost Letters -- but the entire piece is excellent:

But we still can have a common mission, right?
As noted, Bishop Doyle maintains that the Presiding Bishop strives, along with Archbishop Williams, for a common mission. Speaking of his many contacts with primates and bishops from around the world, he emphasizes that the Diocese of Texas is "increasing our mission and outreach locally and globally." Among other things, he maintains that those who agree with the direction of TEC desire to join with other Anglicans globally in mission.

To know what to make of the desire to maintain a common mission while rejecting the repeated pleas of the representative bodies of the Communion, it is necessary to consider the sense in which "mission" is being used. In one sense, Anglicans can engage in common mission with the Rotary Club. More than that, Archbishop Rowan has been clear that Anglicans can and should do things for the care of God's poor and vulnerable even in the face of sharp division.

But at a deeper level, mission that is distinctively Christian cannot be unaffected by the theological divisions that are manifest when the Presiding Bishop's letter is held up against the Archbishop's. At that deeper level mission is not unaffected but in fact damaged. As the Archbishop's letter puts it: "To maintain outward unity at a formal level while we are convinced that the divisions are not only deep but damaging to our local mission is not a good thing." It makes little sense to say that TEC has exceeded the acceptable limits to diversity within Anglicanism, but that this makes no difference to the Church's mission. At issue specifically is the impact on mission on what the Archbishop calls recognizability. In his "Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future" reflection mentioned above, he said the following:

When a local church seeks to respond to a new question, to the challenge of possible change in its practice or discipline in the light of new facts, new pressures, or new contexts, as local churches have repeatedly sought to do, it needs some way of including in its discernment the judgement of the wider Church. Without this, it risks becoming unrecognisable to other local churches, pressing ahead with changes that render it strange to Christian sisters and brothers across the globe. . . . This is not some piece of modern bureaucratic absolutism, but the conviction of the Church from its very early days.

The Anglican Covenant
Bishop Doyle also expresses his belief that there are those who agree with the direction of TEC who also desire to affirm the Anglican Covenant. Presumably anticipating an objection, Bishop Doyle volunteers that there is no inconsistency here. But there is inconsistency. By the choices it has already made, TEC has demonstrated its unwillingness to adhere to the undertakings and commitments of the Covenant. As observed by The Anglican Communion Institute in September 20096,

An Anglican church cannot simultaneously commit itself through the Anglican Covenant to shared discernment and reject that discernment; to interdependence and then act independently; to accountability and remain determined to be unaccountable. If the battle over homosexuality in The Episcopal Church is truly over, then so is the battle over the Anglican Covenant in The Episcopal Church, at least provisionally. As Christians, we live in hope that The Episcopal Church will at some future General Convention reverse the course to which it has committed itself, but we acknowledge the decisions that already have been taken. These decisions and actions run counter to the shared discernment of the Communion and the recommendations of the Instruments of Communion implementing this discernment. They are, therefore, also incompatible with the express substance, meaning, and committed direction of the first three Sections of the proposed Anglican Covenant. As a consequence, only a formal overturning by The Episcopal Church of these decisions and actions could place the church in a position capable of truly assuming the Covenant's already articulated commitments. Until such time, The Episcopal Church has rejected the Covenant commitments openly and concretely, and her members and other Anglican churches within the Communion must take this into account.

Similar conclusions are drawn by the Rev. Dr. Andrew Goddard in his paper referred to above:

[G]iven TEC's actions and given the Archbishop's response it is now logically impossible for TEC to sign the covenant without significantly changing course and showing that it no longer is driven by a "vision . . . not shaped by the desire to intensify relationships in this particular way, or whose vision of the Communion is different" [quoting from paragraph 22 of the Archbishop's "Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future"]

Having raised the matter of the Anglican Covenant, Bishop Doyle then makes reference to a process for the Diocese of Texas to consider the Covenant. The first point that emerges from what he says about this relates to the issue of timing. In his February 2010 report to the 161st Diocesan Council, Bishop Doyle proposed a discussion at the next annual Council in 2011 in anticipation that a mind of Council resolution would be adopted at that time. It appears from Bishop Doyle's current letter that his timetable for Council consideration has slipped a year, to the 2012 annual Council. Meanwhile, several other dioceses have moved ahead much more purposefully. The Dioceses of Central Florida, Dallas, Albany and Western Louisiana have all taken actions in some form to adopt or endorse the Covenant. The Diocese of West Texas has discussed the Covenant at its last annual council with action anticipated in 2011. None of these particular Dioceses face impediments to adoption such as those created by the Diocese of Texas' standing committee.

The second point that seems worth noting is that Bishop Doyle says that he strongly supports the Anglican Covenant. This expression of support seems clouded by Bishop Doyle's apparent belief that agreement with the direction of TEC on the matters at issue is not inconsistent with support for the Covenant. (By "agreeing with the direction of TEC," it seems reasonably clear that Bishop Doyle must mean not just advocacy of a position on sexuality issues in continuing discussions, but agreement with TEC's actions violative of what has been requested by the Communion's representative bodies.)

A third point concerning the Covenant is Bishop Doyle's proposal for a study of issues regarding the Covenant and "theological and practical realities of a healthy Communion" using a curriculum to be developed by a task force he has appointed. (The members of the task force are not identified in Bishop Doyle's letter.) The question arises whether the task force developing the curriculum will be operating under the assumption that the undertakings and commitments of the Anglican Covenant can be made in good faith by those "agreeing with the direction of TEC" as reflected, for example, in the consecration of Mary Glasspool. If input is to be sought from the Diocese at large, it seems important that the issues be presented to the Diocese in a way that does not obscure the point of view of the representative bodies of the Communion.

Will the Diocese of Texas adhere to "the faith and order of the vast majority of the Anglican Communion" or "agree with the direction of TEC"? It is not apparent how the Diocese can do both.

HEY KIDS!! WHAT TIME IS IT?!!

from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor

It’s time for the game that has become an international sensation. Where’s Robbie? Where the heck is wacky homosexual Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, who is both a homosexual and the Bishop of the Diocese of Someplace-Or-Other-It’s-On-The-Tip-Of-Our-Tongues-Don’t-Tell-Us, this week?

The rules couldn’t be simpler. Guess before you start reading. And you must be specific. “Nowhere near New Hampshire” is not an acceptable answer:

The assisting bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande asked Bishop Gene Robinson of As-If-Anybody-Gives-A-Crap-Anymore to reconsider his decision to participate in Santa Fe’s Gay Pride Parade on June 26.

Robinson is the first openly gay, noncelibate priest to be ordained a bishop in the Episcopal Church.

In a telephone interview, Robinson said that he heard from the retired Rev. William C. Frey, the assisting bishop, as well as some members of the diocese, who cautioned him against appearing in the June 26 parade as the honorary grand marshal.

“He’s of a mind, as many good people are, that participation in such a parade means that you condone and approve of every person that’s in the parade — the way every person is dressed, the way every person acts. I understand that, but I’m there to proclaim God’s love for all of God’s children.”

Content slightly edited. In other words, screw collegiality. Which, when you think about it, is probably the wrong way to phrase that.

Robinson said he also heard from several people thanking him for agreeing to be in the parade.

Like this poser.

The Rev. Dr. Richard Murphy, who is hosting Robinson at St. Bede’s Episcopal Church (with HaMakom), said he disagrees with those who say church leaders should not participate in the parade. He and his wife, Carol, have marched in the parade in the past. “I’ve worn my clerical collar and will do so this year. It is a place where the church should be present. Jesus stood with those on the margins, those who are so often disenfranchised from society’s mainstream. We are called to be imitators of Jesus,” he said.

Remember this? Do you know the real reason why that woman was crying and kissing Jesus’ feet? Because contrary to the Biblical text(an obvious later revision by bigots and homophobes), Jesus had, in fact, told that woman that she could keep right on sinning. Indeed, she wasn’t sinning enough.

Here’s another Santa Fe New Mexican story on this travesty parade. Seems Robbie was honorary grand marshal of this thing.

Saturday’s Gay Pride Parade had two grand marshals — the official one and an honorary one.

Donald Stout, a founder of the Santa Fe Human Rights Alliance and a parade organizer for seven years, was the real one.

And Gene Robinson, an Episcopal bishop from Seriously-Why-Do-You-Bigots-Keep-Bringing-Up-That-Irrelevant-Crap, served as the honorary grand marshal.

Robinson helped lead the parade Saturday against the advice of the assisting bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande. The parade was one of a number of events at which Robinson, the first openly gay, noncelibate priest ordained a bishop in the Episcopal Church, appeared in Santa Fe and Albuquerque. He said he wanted to participate to “proclaim God’s love for all of God’s children.”

Content slightly edited. VERY next paragraph.

Then there was Tyler McCormick, the first female-to-male transgender person to win the International Mr. Leather competition. McCormick, of Albuquerque, took home the title at the 32nd annual event in Chicago last month.

Congratulations there, T. I don’t know what winning involves and I don’t want to know. Robbie? Count on the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence dropping a serious lawsuit on your ass one of these days. Why care about homosexuals who dress up like nuns to piss off normal people when you’ve got actual ordained Episcopal “clergymen” ready, willing and enthusiastic to do it themselves?

Mad props to Greg Griffith.

More resignations from the newly-formed Anglican Communion Standing Committee as ACI charges TEC with doing a runaround

from BabyBlueOnline by BabyBlue

From the Church of England Newspaper:

The Bishop in Iran has quit the Anglican Communion’s ‘Standing Committee’.

Bishop Azad Marshall’s decision to stand down will come as a blow to the Archbishop of Canterbury who has sought to vest an unprecedented degree of authority in the new entity—formed by the merger of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Standing Committee of the Primates Meeting.

The vote of ‘no confidence’ by yet another leader of the Global South group of Anglican churches serves to isolate Dr. Williams from the conservative and liberal wings of the Communion—diminishing his authority as the political centre collapses from under him.

Bishop Marshall’s withdrawal also comes the same week as the Episcopal Church presents Dr. Williams with a new crisis over the legitimacy of the standing committee, with a fight over the seating of Bishop Ian Douglas of Connecticut on the committee likely to loom large at its next meeting.

The Church of England Newspaper was unable to contact Bishop Marshall, who is traveling in Iran, to confirm his reasons for withdrawing from the standing committee, but those familiar with his decision say it follows in line with the Jan 30 announcement of his primate, Presiding Bishop Mouneer Anis of Jerusalem and the Middle East.

Dr. Anis said that after having served for three years on the standing committee he had come to the belief that his continued presence had “no value whatsoever and my voice is like a useless cry in the wilderness.”

The Primate of Uganda, Archbishop Henry Orombi has also absented himself from the meetings of the ACSC for the past year. The African’ primates representative has not resigned his seat, but has stated he has no confidence in the integrity of the organization and will not attend meetings if representatives from the Episcopal Church are seated.

However, on June 21 the director of communications of the Anglican Consultative Council confirmed to CEN that Bishop Marshall had tendered his resignation from the standing committee.

On June 18 the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church elected Bishop Ian Douglas of Connecticut to succeed Bishop Catherine Roskam as its episcopal representative to the ACC. Bishop Douglas had been a clergy representative from the Episcopal Church to the ACC and at last year’s ACC meeting in Kingston Jamaica was elected to the Standing Committee.

Asked by CEN in March whether he would continue as a member of the ACSC following his April 17 consecration to the episcopate, Bishop Douglas said “election to the Standing Committee by the ACC is irrespective of orders. Therefore, if I am elected the episcopal ACC member from TEC by the Executive Council in June, then I remain on the Standing Committee.”

However, the Anglican Communion Institute (ACI) has objected to Bishop Douglas’ continuing membership on the ACSC, noting it violates the language of the ACC constitution and bylaws.

Read it all here. I supposed I question Ian's wisdom in taking on such a huge responsibility when he's now become a diocesan bishop of the oldest diocese in The Episcopal Church, never mind the fact that he's been a clergy rep, not a bishop rep. The ACI brings up some important points - was the Executive Council not aware of these regulations?

Simple Country Bishop™ Forced to March in Gay Pride Parade

from Stand Firm by Greg Griffith

All he wants is to lead a quiet life as bishop of a small diocese, but no - they keepdragging him into the limelight, this time to march in Santa Fe's Gay Pride Parade this past Saturday. Can't you people just leave Gene alone???

The assisting bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande asked Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire to reconsider his decision to participate in Santa Fe's Gay Pride Parade on June 26.

Robinson is the first openly gay, noncelibate priest to be ordained a bishop in the Episcopal Church.

In a telephone interview, Robinson said that he heard from the retired Rev. William C. Frey, the assisting bishop, as well as some members of the diocese, who cautioned him against appearing in the June 26 parade as the honorary grand marshal.

Robinson said that he and Frey are good colleagues and friends, but, "He comes from a more conservative place than I.

"He's of a mind, as many good people are, that participation in such a parade means that you condone and approve of every person that's in the parade — the way every person is dressed, the way every person acts. I understand that, but I'm there to proclaim God's love for all of God's children."

Robinson said he also heard from several people thanking him for agreeing to be in the parade.

The Rev. Dr. Richard Murphy, who is hosting Robinson at St. Bede's Episcopal Church (with HaMakom), said he disagrees with those who say church leaders should not participate in the parade. He and his wife, Carol, have marched in the parade in the past. "I've worn my clerical collar and will do so this year. It is a place where the church should be present. Jesus stood with those on the margins, those who are so often disenfranchised from society's mainstream. We are called to be imitators of Jesus," he said.

Yes, because Jesus often marched alongside men in buttless chaps.

What a proud moment for Bishop Frey and the Diocese of Rio Grande.

[Diocese of Texas] Doyle Attempts To Soothe Parishioners Regarding the ABC’s Pentecost Letter

from Stand Firm by Sarah Hey

Bishop Doyle starts out by attempting to perceive great similarities between Rowan Williams's and Katherine Jefferts Schori's stances -- see, they're not so different!

And hey -- if you folks could just settle down and send in those pledges for our Mission and Ministry that would be great. It's the pledges that are our symbol of unity in diversity.

You simply must read the entire piece, over on the Diocese of Texas website:

What I have read over the years and know about Archbishop Rowan Williams is how important the Anglican Communion is to him, and how he believes its unity and its diversity represent the very internal and holy life of the Trinity. Living this life in communion with God and one another is essential if we are to present Jesus Christ to the world through our lives and ministry.

Same yet Different
In reading and listening to our Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, and especially in her recent pastoral letter, I see some of the same themes. She very much believes in an Anglican Communion, rooted in a Godly community, working in diverse contexts to present Jesus Christ to the world. She represents well the Episcopal Church on the matters of sexuality. She also echoes themes I hear from other bishops around the Communion. In many ways, both the Archbishop and the Presiding Bishop hope for and long for a common mission and ministry that is beyond where we stand today. Their differences in how to lead, in large part, illuminate for our whole church the differences in style, culture and strategy about how we move forward together. . . .

. . . I believe today and tomorrow the Diocese of Texas will remain firmly planted in the center. We are planted in the center of the Divine community of the Trinity. This place of clarity about our call to be Church and to be in mission together is clear and compelling. We may indeed be pulled to one side or another from time to time, but we live blessedly in the middle, not for the sake of compromise, but for the sake of comprehension. Texans have always leaned into the task of understanding the face of Christ in our neighbor. This is especially true when we are able to have the space for conversation that is focused on mission and ministry.

Our diversity and relationships with one another is a visionary gift. The Diocese of Texas can seek not only to explore this gift in ever deepening ways but can seek to offer this gift to the greater Church and world.

Is it possible that the people and clergy of our diocese might work together committed to the incarnational reality of Christ present in the breadth of our expressions through mission and ministry? Can we work towards building the capacity to be in conversation between diverse provinces and dioceses from around TEC and the Communion? We are large enough, diverse enough and have a unique way of standing together no matter what the argument of the day may be. Can we help to bring our divided community and Communion together?

It can be hubris to think we have the solution; and, goodness knows Texans don't need any help with their pride! Nevertheless, I believe in our own diversity, and in our love for our particular expression of the faith, we have a unique opportunity to offer the leadership and an example of unity our Church needs at this particular time.

This letter from the Archbishop marks a moment in the life of the Church, but only a moment. We are responsible for discerning our work in the midst of the whole and helping to close the gap between where we are today and where God invites us to live tomorrow: the community of God.

Add starLikeShareShare with noteEmailKeep unreadAdd tags