[Bumped] “Preparing” for the 2012 General Convention ... in One Parish in the Diocese of Georgia

Some parishes in that diocese lost literally half their membership in the aftermath of 2003. They went to evangelical Protestant denominations and have never looked back. Some are struggling for survival.

That being said, DioGA has been on the conservative side as far as its parishioners go, but I’m told that the clergy are becoming more and more liberal-minded. Bp. Louttit voted against the ordination of VGR, whereas Bp. Benhase voted for the ordination of Mary Glasspool, but the Standing Committee voted against it.

All Saints Thomasville has the reputation of being quite conservative, as does its rector. The parish is relatively new, having been formed for the “preservation of the traditional doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Anglican Communion in Thomasville.” They use the 1928 BCP. This letter is astonishing in its concessions.

That being said, “living faithfully together” means not being in a sexual relationship with each other. Period. This priest seems confused about the difference between “being in a relationship” and “having sex.” He also seems to be falling victim to the “born gay” hoax.

He needs to stop drinking the Koolaid before his parish becomes another whitewashed tomb.

should Bishop Benhase approve the use of that rite; and should he, our Vestry and me be in complete agreement about this, then I can see presiding at such a Blessing upon that couple’s intention to live faithfully together.

All Saints Thomasville has the reputation of being quite conservative, as does its rector.

Obviously not anymore, at least as far as the rector is concerned. He has the same viewpoint as the “traditional” priest up here in “da UP” who said to me “I am a conservative.  I will never perform a SSB, unless the bishop tells me to.”
What this rector is really saying is: “I am in agreement that we should have SSBs and gay marriage, but I know you don’t want that.  So, at least until the vestry is 51% revisionist, and the bishop OKs it, I will not perform one.”
This is a far cry from the position taken by SC and the few remaining actual rectors in revisionist dioceses, who are saying “NO”.

DGA voted to approve the Windsor Report but no one remembers doing it.

This is a strange letter, to say the least. But I find it most interesting that in his quest to understand Biblical mandate, Fr. Buechner cites Plato.  And while he seems to believe GC is wrong, he is going to go along to get along.  The Church Pension Fund remains the glue that continues to hold TEC together. This also reminds me of the story of the two orthodox priests in the back of the National Cathedral, circa 2020, when the PB performs a human sacrifice on the altar; and one priest turns to the other and says “One more thing and I’m outta here.”

These groups undermine the geographical authority of the bishop as defined in the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church and observed in historical Anglican practice.

Yeah, those Samaritans thought the same thing.

Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship.” Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” - John 4:20-24

So what followed Jesus?

Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed to them the Christ. - Acts 8:5

And finally…

So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was being built up. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it multiplied. - Acts 9:31

Oh - and emphasis on multiplied. TEC’s worst nightmare.

“In 2003 I failed All Saints miserably by not preparing the parish for the outcome of that General Convention.”

I love how he starts this: It’s such a foregone conclusion that he can prepare the parish for the outcome in advance. Speak volumes about the dollars and hours wasted on this triennial charade. It’s devolved into nothing more than a chance for the ever-dwindling number of True Believers to party on the pew-sitters’ dime. And let all the people say, “Whatever.”

No quibble with any of the critiques posted so far.

Just a couple of thoughts from a 23 year TEC priest who, while maybe not chugging the kool aid, has certainly sipped too much of it at various times and helped enable the crisis:

1) Lay people are a big part of drafting, passing and then sitting on the bodies that apply criteria for the selection of clergy.  If you’ve ever taken part in this, and moved or supported positions like “We need thinking clergy who can see all sides and keep all of us together,” “Clergy should be ‘pastoral’ people who help us process our feelings without judging us or simplistically quoting the Bible,” “Laity run the church; clergy are there to do services and have a nice message on Sunday,” or any number of other church-stunting, sub-Biblical models of church order, consider yourself a kool aid drinker as well.  Sloppy emotionalism displaced theological fidelity and a cadre of weak, compliant clergy were set up to enable revisionism by just such discernment and deployment principles - driven in large part by the lay order.

2) I’m not sure I buy the “conservative people overrun by revisionist clergy” idea as much as I used to, even though surveys of clergy and laity do tend to show that divide at the level of opinion on issues.  But at least in parishes, the people considerable power in calling clergy.  There’s little reason they couldn’t hold out for quite some time, with faithful lay people offering MP until a suitable candidate is on the list and called.  Oh, but that would anger the little pew sitters.  I suspect that revisionist and orthodox combined are less numerous than Mr/Mrs/Ms “nice person in the pew who doesn’t care about all that stuff and just wants the reverend to give a nice message and give me my communion.”  Perhaps TEC’s struggle over the decades has been less between orthodoxy and revisionism and between Christianity and functional atheism.  Functional atheism clearly holds sway, and it is in large part a lay movement.

This is the classic line from the closet revisionist cleric, “I won’t do it because the Bishop won’t allow it, nor will the State.”
Those words should be exposed falsehood. Glad you posted them.

“...I can see presiding at such a Blessing…”

In terms of worldview - this priest might as well be at All Saint’s Pasadena.  All the ‘shoulds’ are mere window dressing, feeble human constructs.

“...upon that couple’s intention to live faithfully together.”

Once again we see this tiring add-on.  How can this be any sort of a requirement, when the underlying relationship is not scripturally permitted?  He may as well make up a requirement that they intend to pledge to public radio. 

How insulting to the parishioners that he would even try a sugarcoating of an appearance of Christian morality.  This fictitious moral requirement is simply a ruse. 

#10 tired - you are correct.

But is we take the LGBT agenda out of it, and make the question, “Will you solemnize the fourth marriage for church pillar Mrs. Worthington-Warbucks’ son-who-never-comes-to-church?”, then we know that a priest who said “NO” might be called on the carpet by Mrs. W-W’s appeal to the bishop, citing Diocesan canons which clearly allow for fourth marriages with proper paperwork submitted.

Christmas season is near - there’s a reason that the characters (let the viewer understand) in The Bishop’s Wife ring true.

It’s a church dysfunction, not an orthodoxy vs. revisionism issue from that POV.

Apologies for all the typos… hit “enter” while taking a phone call.

I do not see how you can “prepare” the congregation without driving away even more members. The problem is not with the parish priest but with TEC leadership which is willing to lose members who do not share their beliefs.

Pb, the best way to prepare the parish is to be entirely honest.  Some may leave, and I respect that decision, and will do all that I can to help them find a church in which they can worship. 
The source of the problem may not be the parish priest, but the parish priest can certainly make it worse.  One way to do that is to be less than clear about where we stand.  If you are in a parish with a shrinking attendance and a shrinking budget, it can be tempting to play both sides, to say something that people can interpret as they wish.  That does no one any favors, because eventually decisions will have to be made.  Part of leadership is communicating a clear message.  Clearly ambiguous is not leadership. 
Timothy [8] I think there is some element of clergy running over the people.  I’ve actually seen it coming from both revisionist and orthodox.  People are asked to make decisions that they just don’t understand.  I have also seen plenty of what you describe.  Even in a parish where the vast majority are orthodox, a handful of revisionists can pressure the rector to cave if the revisionists are better organized, more assertive, and more “supportive”.  This is not to excuse the rector who violates his conscience.  We must inform our conscience and follow our conscience even when the heat is turned up on high.  However, it is always helpful to have active, organized and supportive orthodox parishioners to stand by your side.

“I have long felt that of the three issues I’ve had to deal with as a priest, (Prayerbook, Women Clergy and Sex) by far the most important is the Prayerbook.  What we pray is what we believe.  As long as we have the privilege to use the traditional Book of Common Prayer of our Church, the other two issues will not bother me as much as they used to.”
I guess this priest isn’t thinking about how he will be praying for and blessing that which God calls sin when he performs a same-sex blessing. 
This parish may be more enamored with their tradition and their prayerbook than the actual content of their faith. Their Tuesday “Bible” Study outlined in the September newsletter is an “art historical study of religious images in western Europe from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance.” Whatever happened to good old Bible study?

#15 Ralinda I noticed that distinction as well and my first thought was how far the 79 Prayerbook strayed from the really strong contractual language in the ‘28 book.  Most of the “shall’s” became “should’s” and the “promises” became “prayers”.  The whole book seemed to be about letting ourselves off the hook.

KTF!...mrb

Once again we see liberal hubris of the inevitable triumph of their position.  If only folks are “prepared” or their positions are explained properly we’ll understand or tolerate their brilliant enlightened positions.

Good luck with all that.

#17, I don’t see it as hubris but rather fear. What’s going on is damage control. Prudent priests who intend to remain in the Episcopal Church do a lot of it in preparation for the General Convention as well as in its aftermath.

We all know that the GC is set to debate, then approve a same sex liturgy. The smart money is betting that will happen. Less likely, but also possible (however remotely) is that the GC will kick the matter down the road to the next GC (“further study needed”). Either way, the parish priests will have some ‘splainin’ to do.

There is also a high probability the the <s>nutters</s> delegates will pass some other, additional lunatic provisions. What seems like a good idea on the third day GC rarely seems that way in the parish hall two weeks later.

The Rev. Frederick A. Buechner’s parish preparation document is almost as incomprehensible as anything his dear leader Rowan Williams has said or written since occupying his office and as theologically sound as any of Shori’s emissions.  I think they purposely make their words confusing so their spiritually and biblically ignorant cannot refute them and will believe anything they tell them.  The main objective of the typical aristocratic pew potato is to have lovely services, pleasant meals, jolly coffee hours, proper dignified funerals, beautiful weddings, dutiful christenings, etc.

#18, Unfortunately, I think that what is going on is more than just damage control.  If it were only that, then he should say that GC is probably going to pass it, but I’m not going to do it regardless of whether we call it a blessing or a marriage.  That is the faithful, orthodox response.

It seems to me like a priest, who I thought was quite orthodox in his faith, has now completely turned and is supporting the revisionist agenda, and I say this because not only did he state that he would perform a same-sex blessing, but he also laid out the typical revisionist argument for homosexuality that rejects clear Biblical witness.  Maybe it is because of battle-weariness or old age.  Maybe he was threatened by the bishop.  Or maybe both, since there is evidence of both in his this article.  I grieve for this congregation and the fallout and heartbreak that it will cause and I pray that the members of this congregation will stand strong for the gospel in spite of a leader who is falling away.

Translation:

“Same Sex Blessings are going to happen, and I’m going to do them before too long, but the Bishop and I would be very pleased if you didn’t get too upset.

Oooh, and by the way, isn’t that 1928 Prayer book something. [Waves hand in vague direction of horizon].”

#20, on reflection I think you are right.

I did check out their statistics. The parish has been in a bit of a decline since 2007, which was their peak year for ASA.

A burnt out priest who doesn’t want trouble from either bishop or congregation and is looking at a declining church would explain a lot of what is in the missive.

The natural human tendency would be to try to keep everything together until retirement.