March 22, 2017

December 28, 2009


Lessons in Incompetence, Apathy, or Malice: The Case of the Missing San Diego RCRC Resolution

Today is The Feast of the Holy Innocents, the commemoration of King Herod’s self-serving, jealous lust for the death of young children out of fear of the loss of his throne and its power.  The spirit of Satan entered his heart and he ordered the death of all young children in the region of Jesus’s birth. 

It’s therefore fitting that we post yet another article about the great evil of abortion, as well as the great evil of The Episcopal Church’s Executive Council joining the Religious Coalition of Reproductive Choice—a monstrous organization that revels and delights in the joys of killing the innocents.  The Episcopal Church is the only church that has joined, by action of its Executive Council, the RCRC, though there are organizations of other churches that have joined as sub-organizations. 

If you are giving unrestricted funds to your parish, and your diocese gives money to the national church, you are supporting the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

Kudos go out to Jill Woodliff for doing the research on this article, which points out that either the San Diego diocese failed in its duty to forward the passed RCRC disassociation resolution to the 2009 General Convention, or the 2009 General Convention failed to receive it and address it.  Either way, it is yet another example of what Baby Blue explicates in her post on the Hammerstein Hierarchy of Human Behavior—human behavior is often guided by some combination of laziness, stupidity, or evil.  In the case of this resolution, I know what I believe—you can come to your own conclusions.

The Case of the Missing San Diego RCRC Disassociation Resolution

By Jill Woodliff

At the 2008 San Diego diocesan convention, Anne Coletta and others submitted a resolution dissociating the diocese from the actions of the Executive Council to join the Episcopal Church to the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.  She presented the proposed resolution in a workshop at the diocesan convention.  Several parishes had recently dissociated from the diocese, and a member of the audience raised the objection that the word ‘dissociate’ was politically charged.  Also, the Executive Council making a decision for TEC as a whole was viewed as an issue in procedure, and a matter to be addressed by the General Convention.  Attending the presentation was Fr. Andrew Green.  After the workshop, he asked her to change the resolution.

Anne was well aware, from past experience, that any pro-life resolution sent to General Convention was certain to be killed.  She knew that any successful action would have to be taken at the diocesan level, but she reluctantly agreed to let the resolution be rewritten.  Fr. Green was instrumental in writing language that all could agree to.

Before the vote, both Fr. Green and Bishop James Mathes asked her if she was happy with the substitute.  She replied no, but getting something on the record was better than nothing at all.

It was Anne’s impression that Bishop Mathes wanted the resolution to be passed, in a form acceptable to him.  This diocesan convention also passed a resolution urging the Bishop to form a task force to study holiness in relationships and blessings in Churches of the Episcopal Diocese of San Diego.  The bishop could point to Anne’s resolution, in counterbalance to the same sex relationship resolution, and claim to be centrist.

The substitute resolution was passed by convention and is recorded on the diocesan website:

Title: Resolution Regarding The Episcopal Church and The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

Proposed By: St. Michael’s by-the-Sea Vestry

Whereas the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church by official action on January 12, 2006, formally affirmed the affiliation of the Episcopal Church in the United States with the “Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice,” formerly known as the “Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights,” which is an organization which actively promotes abortion on demand for any reason for all nine months of pregnancy and

Whereas we believe the goals and principles of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) as stated on their Website conflict with biblical theology related to the sanctity of human life, and

Whereas the 75th General Convention of 2006 was denied the opportunity to make any vote concerning the continued membership of The Episcopal Church in the RCRC

Therefore be it Resolved that the 2008 Convention of the Diocese of San Diego (34th Annual Diocesan Convention) request that the 76th General Convention meeting in Anaheim, California, end the officially sanctioned affiliation of the Episcopal Church with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

EXPLANATION OF RESOLUTION:

The Episcopal Church has a clear position on abortion articulated in General Convention resolutions in 1988, 1994, and 1997. However the decision to officially sanction affiliation with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice was made by the Executive Council. The Episcopal Church is the only denomination so affiliated. This resolution would allow the General Convention in 2009 to study, discuss, debate, and decide if our affiliation is appropriate.

As it turned out, this was to be the only resolution regarding the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice destined for General Convention 2009.  Fr. Green and Bishop Mathes both represented the Diocese of San Diego at GC2009.

May 2009 Georgette Forney called the Diocese of San Diego regarding the resolution.  No one knew anything about it.

August 2009 Anne Coletta started making inquiries in the Diocese of San Diego.  On August 25, Anne was told by the bishop’s assistant, Bobbi Hoff, that the resolution had been forwarded to the General Convention office.

October 5, 2009 I [Jill Woodliff] left a message on Bishop Mathes’s machine, asking about the outcome of the legislation.  Hannah Miller, the communications director, returned my call.  She asked where I was from, and I told her that I was an Episcopal priest’s wife from Mississippi and that I was pro-life.  She told me that the San Diego Resolution had been folded into D063, which had not passed.  She volunteered that B026 pertained to the abortion issue as well.  She instructed me how to find the legislation online.  I thanked her for so promptly returning my call. 

After I hung up, I looked up the resolutions.  D063 had to do with the flu pandemic.  B026 commended the reforming dioceses of San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, Ft Worth, and Quincy.

I called back and left a polite message for her to call me again.  As the resolutions had nothing to do with the subject, I simply wanted to confirm that I had written the numbers down correctly.  She did not return my call. 

Two days later, I called her again.  This time, she referred me to an article that described what happened to the pro-life resolutions.  The article regarded GC2006, rather than GC2009.  I sent her an e-mail pointing this out, and she did not respond.

Mid-October 2009 I was told by Maribeth Kobza Betton of the Archives of the Episcopal Church that the resolution could not be located after a thorough examination of the 87 resolutions submitted by dioceses to the 2009 General Convention.

Thinking that my ignorance of the legislative process might be the problem, I asked my diocesan office for assistance.  The Canon to the Ordinary, Rev. David Johnson contacted the legislative officer of the General Convention office, who could not find any resolutions dealing with the subject.

November 2009 My bishop, Rt. Rev. Duncan Gray, inquired of Bishop James Mathes of San Diego.  While on the phone, the Bishop Mathes went back through the journal of his 2008 convention until he found the resolution. He remembered it when he saw it and said he thought that it “probably passed.”  However, he could not be sure because nowhere in the journal was there any notation as to whether it did pass or fail.  Bishop Mathes’s best guess was that somewhere in the process, the resolution, if it had been passed, was not noted in a formal way and, thus, not forwarded, as it should have been, to General Convention.

Epilogue

In corporate behavior, many factors (e.g. incompetence, malice, and apathy) can be involved.  I leave judgment to our Lord.  Friend or foe, I bless all parties to this sorry saga.  On a recent retreat, I wrote this after an extended session of healing prayer:

Jeremiah 31:11-12 (NLT)

For the Lord has redeemed Israel
    from those too strong for them.
They will come home and sing songs of joy on the heights of Jerusalem.
    They will be radiant because of the Lord’s good gifts—
  the abundant crops of grain, new wine, and olive oil,
    and the healthy flocks and herds.
  Their life will be like a watered garden,
    and all their sorrows will be gone.

My joy is in You, Father.  From my mustard seed of faith, O kingdom of heaven, take root in my spirit.  O river of life, clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and the Lamb, water my seed of faith.  O tree of life, grow.

My joy is in You, Jesus, and my times are in Your hands.  Like Zaccheus climbing the sycamore tree to get a clearer view of You, I climb out of my circumstances to look into Your face.  I rest on that well-watered tree of life and eat its ripe fruit, a different fruit in each season.  I lean over and drink of the water of life.  I brush against the leaves and am healed, a different healing from each leaf.

My joy is in You, Holy Spirit, and I come to Your kingdom.  Like the birds of the air lodging in a great mustard tree, I sing.

Psalm 1:3, Matthew 13:31-32, Revelation 22:1-2

 


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

38 comments

Here are the Scriptures against shedding of innocent blood:
Here are Scriptures that forbid the shedding of innocent blood:

Deuteronomy 19:8-10 (ESV) - And if the LORD your God enlarges your
territory, as he has sworn to your fathers, and gives you all the land that
he promised to give to your fathers- provided you are careful to keep all
this commandment, which I command you today, by loving the LORD your God and
by walking ever in his ways- then you shall add three other cities to these
three, lest innocent blood be shed in your land that the LORD your God is
giving you for an inheritance, and so the guilt of bloodshed be upon you.

Deuteronomy 19:13 - Your eye shall not pity him, but you shall purge the
guilt of innocent blood from Israel, so that it may be well with you.

Deuteronomy 21:8 - Accept atonement, O LORD, for your people Israel, whom
you have redeemed, and do not set the guilt of innocent blood in the midst
of your people Israel, so that their blood guilt be atoned for.’

Deuteronomy 27:25 - “‘Cursed be anyone who takes a bribe to shed innocent
blood.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’

I Samuel 19:5 - For he took his life in his hand and he struck down the
Philistine, and the LORD worked a great salvation for all Israel. You saw
it, and rejoiced. Why then will you sin against innocent blood by killing
David without cause?”
2 Kings 24:4 - Moreover, Manasseh shed very much innocent blood, till he had
filled Jerusalem from one end to another, besides the sin that he made Judah
to sin so that they did what was evil in the sight of the LORD.

Psalm 106:38 - they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and
daughters,whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan,and the land was
polluted with blood.

Proverbs 1:11-16 - If they say, “Come with us, let us lie in wait for blood;
let us ambush the innocent without reason…my son, do not walk in the way
with them; hold back your foot from their paths, for their feet run to evil,
and they make haste to shed blood.

Proverbs 6:16-17 - There are six things that the LORD hates, seven that are
an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed
innocent blood…

Isaiah 59:7 - Their feet run to evil,and they are swift to shed innocent
blood;their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity;desolation and destruction are
in their highways.

Jeremiah 7:5-7 - For if you truly amend your ways and your deeds, if you
truly execute justice one with another, if you do not oppress the sojourner,
the fatherless, or the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place, and if
you do not go after other gods to your own harm, then I will let you dwell
in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your fathers forever.

Jeremiah 19:4 - Because the people have forsaken me and have profaned this
place by making offerings in it to other gods whom neither they nor their
fathers nor the kings of Judah have known; and because they have filled this
place with the blood of innocents…

Jeremuah 22:3 - Thus says the LORD: Do justice and righteousness, and
deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no
wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor
shed innocent blood in this place.

Jeremiah 22:17 - But you have eyes and heartonly for your dishonest gain,
for shedding innocent blood,and for practicing oppression and violence.

Jeremiah 26:15 - Only know for certain that if you put me to death, you will
bring innocent blood upon yourselves and upon this city and its inhabitants,
for in truth the LORD sent me to you to speak all these words in your ears.

Joel 3:19 - Egypt shall become a desolationand Edom a desolate wilderness,
for the violence done to the people of Judah,because they have shed innocent
blood in their land.

Jonah 1:14 - Therefore they called out to the LORD, “O LORD, let us not
perish for this man’s life, and lay not on us innocent blood, for you, O
LORD, have done as it pleased you.”

Matthew 27:3-4 - Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was
condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver
to the chief priests and the elders, saying, “I have sinned by betraying
innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.”

[1] Posted by Floridian on 12-28-2009 at 11:00 AM · [top]

Argh.  How frustrating. 

And no, I don’t believe it’s “incompetence, based on the way Hannah Miller obviously lied and tried to send her down multiple rabbit trails - a plain lie.  Shame on her.

[2] Posted by B. Hunter on 12-28-2009 at 11:19 AM · [top]

My apologies - I cannot judge Hannah Miller’s heart.  However, based on her actions I would say the odds are 10 to 1 she isn’t telling the truth.  Fair enough?

[3] Posted by B. Hunter on 12-28-2009 at 11:23 AM · [top]

“But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?”

“Any country that accepts abortion, is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what it wants.”

“It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”


Quotes from Blessed Teresa of Calcutta.
May Christ have mercy on us!

[4] Posted by Nikolaus on 12-28-2009 at 11:48 AM · [top]

This is typical behavior for Mathes - say what the people want to hear, and then do whatever will advance his revisionist agenda.  No wonder so many churches left the diocese.

[5] Posted by marney on 12-28-2009 at 11:48 AM · [top]

B Hunter, #2 and 3, I agree that Hannah Miller lied. 
However, that was well after the fact.  I have no way of knowing if she ever participated in a decision to not forward the resolution (if, indeed, such a calculated decision was ever made). Nor do I know if she was acting on the instructions of a superior.
The greater responsibility to insure that the resolution was sent to the General Convention office would lie with the diocesan bishop, the chancellor, and Father Green, since he was instrumental in rewriting the resolution and also served as a deputy to GC.

[6] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 12-28-2009 at 12:23 PM · [top]

A well told story.
I hope that matters are pressed further and that as the facts emerge they are published here.
Will the local meeting try sending their views to the next General Convention? I hope it is not left.

[7] Posted by Martin Reynolds on 12-28-2009 at 12:25 PM · [top]

my wife is one of the coordinators for anglicans for life here in san diego and i have 3 reasons to rejoice after reading this.

i am thankful that she is involved with a group of parishes here in san diego that value life, from conception to natural death.

i am thankful that anglicans in san diego are actively promoting life issues…because being “pro-life” is Biblical, not political.

and finally, i am thankful that she doesn’t have to come in contact with the pure evil of the episcopal church leadership and their radical pro-abortion agenda.

[8] Posted by joshmistake on 12-28-2009 at 12:28 PM · [top]

If you are giving unrestricted funds to your parish, and your diocese gives money to the national church, you are supporting the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

I beg to differ with this assessment.  Actually, if you are giving any funds to your local parish, you are supporting the RCRC.  Your giving of funds allows your parish to take any unrestricted funds received and direct them to the national church, RCRC, or any other cause they desire, unless your vestry or church council specifically forbids it.  Even if you restrict your individual funds to the local parish, they “free up” other unrestricted funds to be passed on to the diocesan and national level, since your donation is paying for the local church upkeep that other unrestricted funds would otherwise be needed for.

I have had the same conversation with United Methodists, who say “Oh, I direct my giving to the local church.”  The Methodists have taken it one step further at the national level by getting a Judicial Council decision that prevents any local church from putting any restrictions on it apportionments (the money assessed by the annual conference that the local church pays for support of the district, annual conference and national church).

Unless you stop contributing altogether, they will still have the money they need to funnel on to all manner of causes at the national level.

[9] Posted by Daniel on 12-28-2009 at 12:28 PM · [top]

Hey guys, there is similar lack of evidence that the so-called “Dennis Canon” was never passed General Convention.

Is Bishop Mathis prepared to dump it?

Enquiring minds want to know.

[10] Posted by Septuagenarian on 12-28-2009 at 12:30 PM · [top]

From personal knowledge, I can say that those responsible for bringing this resolution to the diocesan convention have left the Diocese of San Diego and TEC. I don’t know if there is anyone left in the diocese that cares to bring this up again. Their next diocesan convention is in February and no resolutions have been published yet - they will be sometime in January.

[11] Posted by Branford on 12-28-2009 at 12:30 PM · [top]

Hmmmm, didn’t someone say that $1 a month will serve to make you a contributing member in good standing?

[12] Posted by Jackie on 12-28-2009 at 12:46 PM · [top]

From such a secular organization, one has to wonder what canon they have in place for ignoring their own mandates?

[13] Posted by Jackie on 12-28-2009 at 12:47 PM · [top]

Daniel (#9) - In my diocese, a portion of each congregation’s diocesan “asking” is designated for TEC. The parish can instruct the dioceses as to how much, if any, of that amount actually goes to TEC. The diocese does not add any money to the total amount disignated by all the congregations of the diocese. So, in my case, my parish has elected to not have any of our diocesan asking go to TEC, and the diocese is not allowed to make up that money from elsewhere. So I am able to give to my parish in good conscience.

[14] Posted by Scott K on 12-28-2009 at 12:58 PM · [top]

The blood innocent Able cried out to God, as does the money held back from the labourer.

Only two things I recall that cry out to God (for all the other sins those who live cry to God about the sin).

Christ have mercy on us, for our land is polluted with murders and with those who keep what is due the labourer…

If you stop giving to the plate, find some way to continue to support your priest and bishop (if they are of God), don’t without his wage and be guilty of the second of these two self-announcing sins…

[15] Posted by Bo on 12-28-2009 at 01:07 PM · [top]

Used to be, so probably still is, that to be a “member in good standing” one gave $1.00 a year…thus being a “giver of record”...and attended a mim of three services.
Lois Smith

[16] Posted by LoieMom on 12-28-2009 at 02:03 PM · [top]

Bo - Sorry if I was not clear on that issue.  I believe we all need to contribute as much of the bounty God has provided us as possible to causes that serve Him.  Check out upcoming posts for ideas that may help those wondering what to do with those year end dollars.  smile

[17] Posted by Jackie on 12-28-2009 at 02:39 PM · [top]

However, based on her actions I would say the odds are 10 to 1 she isn’t telling the truth.

Make that even money…
Intercessor

[18] Posted by Intercessor on 12-28-2009 at 03:55 PM · [top]

that to be a “member in good standing” one gave $1.00 a year…thus being a “giver of record”...and attended a mim of three services.

I could handle the buck but 3 revisionist services???...that is a tough one.
Intercessor

[19] Posted by Intercessor on 12-28-2009 at 03:59 PM · [top]

Just out of curiosity, was any other resolution that passed the 2008 Diocesan Convention not forwarded to GC2009?

[20] Posted by driver8 on 12-28-2009 at 04:21 PM · [top]

In virtually any other situation involving a similar customer/organization encounter, the organization would be seen as intentionally negligent.  In fact, in my previous life as a customer care trainer (before the internet boom and bust) our team would have used this story as an example of the polar opposite of customer service.  The fact that a reasonable customer request was met with stonewalling adds yet another episode to the book TEC to Orthodox: We Include Everybody (But You), Now Be Good and Leave Us the Keys.

[21] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 12-28-2009 at 04:43 PM · [top]

driver8, I believe that the 2007 diocesan convention produced 0 resolutions for GC09, the 2008 convention produced 1, and the 2009 convention produced 3. The fact that the RCRC resolution was the only one from a previous year would have made it easier to forget.  However, the direct involvement of Father Green and Bp Mathes and the clear record online are factors against forgetting.

[22] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 12-28-2009 at 04:49 PM · [top]

Having been to numerous General Conventions (not as a deputy, thankfully), I have seen quite a bit of the legislative process. I know what Jill was trying to do, but unfortunately, the resolution as adopted by the Convention in San Diego was not in the form required to get a resolution considered by General Convention. In the form in which it was adopted in San Diego, it would be termed, within the rules and procedures of General Convention, as a “Memorial,” not a “Resolution.” Memorials are sent for information only to Legislative Committee chairs; there is no requirement that they be acted on and they are generally ignored (with 400+ resolutions that actually have to be dealt with, it is likely that a Memorial will be ignored).

For those who wish to fight for little stone bridges in TEC, may I offer the following as the form in which such a resolution should be presented to a diocesan convention:

First, delete all the “whereas” clauses and move such rationale to the “Explanation” section. General Convention resolutions do not have “whereas” clauses.

Second, submit something to the Diocesan Convention in this form, calling upon the Diocese in question to act by resolution “to submit a resolution” to the General Convention, and then going on to give the exact wording of the proposed resolution that General Convention is to consider:

“Resolved, that the [year] Convention of the Diocese of [Name of Diocese] submit the following resolution to the 77th General Convention of The Episcopal Church meeting in Indianapolis Indiana:
‘Resolved, the House of ____________ concurring, that the 77th General Convention hereby ends the affiliation of The Episcopal Church with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice and directs the Executive Council to take all necessary steps to end this affiliation.’”

In this form, the resolution cannot be ignored by General Convention. It does NOT have to be voted on by either the full House of Deputies or the full House of Bishops, but at least it will have to be considered by the relevant committee (likely, the Social and Urban Affairs Committee) and be the subject of an open hearing at which any person (not just a deputy or bishop) can testify.

I could explain the General Convention legislative process in more detail, but that is probably enough for now.

Shortstop

[23] Posted by shortstop on 12-28-2009 at 06:13 PM · [top]

Shortstop #23, that may well be the case.  However, it was the responsibility of the diocesan chancellor and others at the diocesan convention to insure it was in the proper form for its intended purpose.

[24] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 12-28-2009 at 06:37 PM · [top]

Jill (24), one would hope that knowledgeable people would help the delegates do their work in the proper form. Either they, too, did not know the proper form or allowed a resolution they did not like to go forward knowing it would be ignored.

[25] Posted by shortstop on 12-28-2009 at 06:42 PM · [top]

There were estimated to be over 21,000,000 deaths attributed to WWI and over 65,000,000 deaths in WWII, of which nearly 50% were civilians (over 45 million deaths in Russia alone). Of course, we mustn’t forget the holocaust and the Armenian martyrs as well, all of which have demanded an intense public outcry.

Yet there are over 42 million babies aborted on average worldwide EVERY YEAR (http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html), yet there appears to be so few voices left to cry out for these innocents.

Funny, but some of the most recalcitrant people when it comes to the unborn are those who are plenty loud when it comes to the horrors of war and the slaughter of the baby harp seals and whales. (Not that I condone any of these.)

Pardon my saying so, but this presents a massive contradiction (shall we say “hypocrisy”)I just can’t reconcile in my heart, mind and soul. Let’s be honest, it really come down to a person’s heart. So, let us pray that hearts will be changed, through the mercy of Christ Jesus.

[26] Posted by Albeit on 12-28-2009 at 06:49 PM · [top]

Shortstop, #23, what you describe is what happened to a resolution introduced by the same San Diego delegate at the diocesan 2006 convention (in February, just after the Executive Council voted on TEC’s RCRC membership). That resolution was for GC06 to vote as a body on whether TEC should be a member of the RCRC. A phone call to her from the diocesan office was received a few days before GC06 saying that they had heard from convention officials that the resolution was not in a correct form. Of course, there was not time to change anything at that point.

And that is exactly why, at the 2008 diocesan convention, the resolution was to be that the Diocese of San Diego would dissociate from the actions of the Executive Council. This would require no action on the part of the General Convention. But that would be “taking a stand” against something TEC had done, and so had to be changed (in my opinion). And once again, perhaps (we don’t know since no one at the GC office received the 08 resolution) this resolution would have been rejected because of how it was written.

[27] Posted by Branford on 12-28-2009 at 07:10 PM · [top]

Had the resolution made it to the GCO, there is no question that the president of the HoD would have assigned it to a committee where it would have met a sure death.  If the diocese did not forward the resolution by a calculated decision, why?  What was to be gained?  There would be no 5-10 minute platform in a GC committee meeting for a pro-life voice to be heard.  There would also be a clear signal to the remaining pro-life communicants that they were not valued within the life of the diocese.
Whether the resolution did not go forward due to bureaucratic incompetence and apathy to the pro-life position, or malice, it is hardly “inclusive” to pro-life communicants.

[28] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 12-28-2009 at 07:29 PM · [top]

i just can’t fathom why anyone stays within the confines of a “denomination” that is so Biblically off base. it isn’t just the abortion issue…it’s theological issue after theological issue. on top of the glaring theological heresy, the lawsuits, the pro-abortion support, pro-anything that goes against Biblical Christianity…

follow the money. if you tithe in a tec church your money goes to support radical abortion rights groups and whatever other flavor of the week liberal social program that happens to be in style.

how long do you sit on the “heritic-titanic” and still say to yourself that you aren’t passengers?

[29] Posted by joshmistake on 12-28-2009 at 10:00 PM · [top]

joshmistake at #29:

Good question!

[30] Posted by MichaelA on 12-28-2009 at 10:05 PM · [top]

The Episcopal Church’s Executive Council’s obstinate allegiance to the RCRC is the reason I designate my contributions to be for parish use only. This may be only a feeble attempt to deprive the executive council of money to support the RCRC but it is also meant to provide support for local priests and vestry who are willing to go against the tide and provide real Christian leadership for our parish.

[31] Posted by Betty See on 12-29-2009 at 12:42 AM · [top]

I have long felt that March 10th should be added as a fast day - the “Fast of the Modern Holy Innocents”, to remember the victims of abortion. 

Why March 10th?  For a number of years it has been used as the National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers.  (Although its observance has waned of late.)

[32] Posted by R. Scott Purdy on 12-29-2009 at 07:54 AM · [top]

RE: “and still say to yourself that you aren’t passengers? . . . “

An odd question.  Who of us in TEC are saying we aren’t passengers?

[33] Posted by Sarah on 12-29-2009 at 08:28 AM · [top]

i guess i am wondering “why” are you still passengers? i know there are many faithful within tec…but how do they stay? is there a time when you say “i’ve had enough of heresy…or enough with the abortion support…the blatant support of evil?” most of the people that i know got up and left…let the ship sink. it’s sinking under the weight of it’s own heresy. so do you reach a point where you say “i’m out”? i mean this in a respectful way because i read what many of you post and appreciate you carrying the banner of Truth regardless of being within the confines of tec.

[34] Posted by joshmistake on 12-29-2009 at 03:17 PM · [top]

to clarify, i read someone post about “assigning their tithe to parish ministry” etc…so people on one hand say “i’m not supporting the hierarchy with my money” but regardless they are still sitting in pews of tec churches and by default are active within a denomination that is bankrupt…at the top.

[35] Posted by joshmistake on 12-29-2009 at 03:20 PM · [top]

Hi, joshmistake, your question is a legitimate one. I can only answer for myself.  I believe God is calling different people to stand in different places. 
I have many dear friends now in ACNA.  I delight in their successes and mourn their losses, and they do the same for me.
However, God has called us to wait upon Him within TEC.  For what reasons, I do not know.  It is a discernment made with spiritual eyes, rather than natural eyes.
I sincerely believe that, although He hates our sin, Jesus still loves the people within the Episcopal Church.

[36] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 12-29-2009 at 11:44 PM · [top]

The Gospel has often been spread in a hostile environment and not everyone can or should pack up and leave.
I am thankful for those leaders who stay and preach the Gospel to those of us who, for various reasons, have no where to go and I am also thankful for those leaders who have left in order to preach the Gospel and to provide wholesome loving Christian environment for their congregations.

[37] Posted by Betty See on 12-30-2009 at 12:27 AM · [top]

Just wanted to remind everyone that you can give to Anglicans for Life. They even have their website set up to take online contributions.  (Perfect for end-of-the-year, tax deductible giving!)  Sanctity of Human Life Sunday is coming up in January (bulletin inserts available), and AFL now has an adult Sunday school curriculum available, as well as some other important projects in the works.

[38] Posted by Jill C. on 12-30-2009 at 01:18 AM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.