August 6, 2012

Smoking Landscapes, Marauding Bands, Feudal Lords: Three Faithful Acts in a Faithless Organization

I’ve engaged in a number of phone calls and emails over the past several weeks and decided I’d try to put down in an article some of the things fellow Episcopal friends have been discussing.

In another article I hope to offer a “birds-eye-view” of life “on the ground” here in the Diocese of Upper South Carolina—it’s always so interesting to observe the effect of another General-Convention-tsunami of buffoonery and insanity sweeping over the landscape and scrubbing more key bits of the landscape bare.

But for now, I wanted to offer a more holistic view of the scene.

For some years now—hopefully for more than a decade—any traditional Episcopalians who have troubled to inform themselves have recognized that The Episcopal Church as a whole is irreformable. It tipped over the edge long ago and, to mix metaphors, is now a runaway train picking up more and more speed, until it eventually loses its wheels, burns up the rails, and ends up a mass of twisted, molten metal. At the national level, people who do not believe the Gospel are completely and entirely in charge, which means that each and every national church commission or committee is stacked with leftist, Code-Pink style revisionist activists who also do not believe the Gospel.

Most of the diocesan bishops—the same. Most of the deputies [though still a wonderful minority remains, even in revisionist dioceses]—the same. Finally, unlike the US House of Representatives, the dioceses are in no way “representationally-elected.” Each diocese gets the same number of deputies, regardless of size, and those deputies are elected by delegates to diocesan conventions who are themselves often *appointed* by “leaders” in various parishes. So no matter how catastrophically a diocese fails in attendance, members, or money, it will still get to send its tinpot bishop and crew of eight revisionist activists to vote at the General Convention. And in no way do those deputies “represent” the values, foundational worldview, or vision of the parishioners back home in the pews. They aren’t elected by them and they don’t represent them.

There won’t magically be elected a majority of bishops who believe the Gospel. There won’t magically be elected a President of the House of Deputies or a Presiding Bishop who believes the Gospel. There won’t magically be elected a bunch of deputies who believe the Gospel. That’s just not going to happen—not even “moderate” deputies will end up—as a majority—attending the monstrously self-important, and grandiose orgy of faux MoveOn.org preeners that General Convention now represents.

With the above being the case, and with the laws of the universe still in force, what can Episcopalians who are remaining in TEC expect to see in the coming decades? And how does that guide our actions while we remain within such an organizational entity as TEC?

First, I think we can depend on TEC’s continuing to auger into the ground in rather blazingly spectacular fashion. We all noticed the budget battles for 2012—the first real sign that the massive losses of people, and the accompanying redirection of funds by faithful Episcopalians towards healthy and Christian organizations are having a good effect. Those budget battles will only increase, as the buzzards at the national level continue to fight over the remaining scraps of flesh on the carcase.

Beyond the ever-more-slender budgets, we’ll have emptier pews. There’s just not a large enough market for non-Christian, liturgical tastelessness that involves lots of sexually confused people as leaders. There’s a limited number of very very liberal activist people who also happen to be interested in attending church and pretending to engage in religious activities that purport to be a part of the Christian faith—it’s an incredibly small percentage of people.

Along with emptier pews comes increasingly detached and distanced conservative Episcopalians. In the traditional strongholds of TECdom, you’ve got quite a number of people who won’t be leaving TEC, but also won’t be attending as frequently, giving readily to capital campaigns, volunteering in church venues as much, and on and on it goes. I see this in my friends’ and allies’ lives, and in my own as well.

That’s not to say that we’re “inactive”—we’re blazingly active. Just not active in places we once were active a decade and more ago. Our activity, energy, money, and enthusiasm has been transferred to other places that need our help.

With all of that distance and detachment, many small parishes—and some mid-sized ones—simply won’t make it. Dioceses will be pared down considerably and a number of them—if their bishops and staffs and Standing Committees and deputies and the assorted other apparatchiks can be induced to surrender their tin-pot power—will merge. Camps and conference centers will go away, and—shocking and horrific as this may seem to some—even diocesan staffs will become smaller, despite their being the seat of so much evangelism, competence, and sanctification in our dioceses.

Ultimately, for TEC, this “doesn’t end well.” As I’ve said many times before, organizations that have lost this many clients, made this many terrible product decisions, narrowed their market this much, angered this many current customers such that they lose their word-of-mouth referral prospects, continue to lose this much money, and have this level of incompetence in leadership at the highest levels, do not survive.

What does this mean for us—those of us in moderate dioceses, liberal dioceses, moderate parishes, conservative parishes, or wherever else we find ourselves—and who are staying in TEC?

It means that at some point in the future—25 years from now, 20 years, 15 years, even 10 years—conservative Episcopalians will emerge from wherever they’ve been hunkered down, to survey the smoking landscape and the crumbling ruins of TECdom, the blighted and far less powerful national church, the empty church buildings on the national registers and in small-city downtowns, the greatly straitened diocesan staffs, their small entourages and posses riding about dioceses causing trouble and chaos like the marauding bands of tiny feudal lords ... and we’ll shake hands with one another, squint into the sun, roll up our sleeves, and say, “well then ... let’s begin.”

Friends, that is the future we have. It’s not a shining one, or an easy one—but that’s it.

We’re not going to have, as I’ve said time and time again, a deus ex machina springing down and rescuing us from the consequences of our bad choices, laziness, cowardice, incompetence, slackness, inattention, and lack of regard for the import and joys of doing battle within organizations in order to preserve good things.

The Episcopal Church will be hollowed out, and its carapace collapsed, before we can do any kind of rebuilding or salvaging operation of what is left.

Recognizing that fact is a good and healthy thing. It allows you to pace yourself, and deal with the things you should deal with now, while ignoring other things about which you can do absolutely nothing.

Practically, then, in recognizing this reality, there are three things that we should focus on as Episcopalians who believe the Gospel, yet who exist in an entity that is plummeting towards destruction.

1) Once you have recognized, and visualized in your mind’s eye, just what is happening to The Episcopal Church—complete destruction before our very eyes—and once you have accepted that reality, then the obvious practical hope for all of us is summed up in two words: “Faster, please.”

That is why I look forward to General Conventions so much—they give us all a chance to educate ever more aghast and horrified parishioners about the nature of the leaders currently in charge of TEC, which then allows these same parishioners to become a part of the consequences of repeated bad actions by our leadership.

Every three years, those in charge of the national structures of TEC back up slowly and laboriously, gather up a good head of steam, and take another run at the iceberg. They did that in spades in 2012, and they will do so again in 2015, and 2018, and 2021, and 2024. The people in charge of the TECtanic are unable to stop themselves—they’re pathological.

The very best that we can hope for as Christians in regards to the national structures of TEC—that visible edifice that grinds ever downward—is that it increase its pace of collapse and complete the destruction in a timely manner. The visible edifice—made up of the various corrupt national structures, committees, commissions, councils and processes—is not the thing that I love—and it is not the thing that you love either. I’ll always love The Episcopal Church—but its current leadership has taken over the structural aspects of the national entity, and those aspects will be ground into a fine powder.

This doesn’t mean that everything about what we have loved gets destroyed—although it will certainly be a rocky and uncomfortable ride downward. Sometimes, though, the fever just has to burn through, while the patient survives, greatly weakened, and greatly humbled.

Once one realizes that the natural consequences of the actions of our current leaders are devastating and pulverizing—we need to hope for the application of those consequences in spades. For the application of consequences leads to as fast a pulverization of the structures held by the current leadership as possible—as opposed to the destruction of The Church, which is a very different thing, even when it resides within an organization like the current manifestation of TEC. All of that is a good thing.

So when you blog, when you write letters or emails to your Episcopal friends sharing information and reality, when you redirect your funds, when you write letters to the editor being clear about the current situation of the structures of this organization, when you communicate with the media, when you write comments on national articles, that is all a part of the application of swifter and swifter consequences to the destructive actions of the leadership of our church—and that is a “Faster Please” endeavor.

Is it tough to watch budgets dwindle, and parishes close, and pews empty, and leaders behave incompetently throughout our church? Yes, it is—but the laws of the universe dictate that those are the consequences of sinful and disordered actions; People of the Lie are intrinsically destructive. They cannot create anything original, only destroy that over which they have gained power.

The faster the current structures destroy themselves, the sooner we can step out of our respective hovels, do our complimenting of those who have survived, and roll up our sleeves.

Fortunately, there is much that is positive we can engage in, even as we highlight the actions of our leaders in TEC and watch the structures of TEC experience the consequences of those actions.

2) The most positive thing we can do is attempt to preserve something from the wreckage of the current structures of TEC. That something may be our family—no trivial thing at all. It may be a particular Episcopal para-church ministry in which we are engaged—a diocesan Cursillo community, or a DOK, or some other smaller organization that is good and true and can be strengthened and salvaged. It may be a camp and conference center. Perhaps a seminary. Or a small-town parish. Or even a cathedral. Maybe, if God has blessed you, it will be an entire diocese.

Those salvage operations will be the only things left standing in the current TEC, and will be foundation-stones of whatever good there is that will follow.

In order for that to happen, you will need to do all in your power to protect that small treasure, that artifact of what was healthy and wholesome in The Episcopal Church. It will mean doing all the little things that are a part of being faithful: vestry elections, search committees, foundation boards, strengthened bylaws that can hinder the efforts of revisionist activists, strategic board appointments and recruiting, clearer canons and constitutions, creative 501(c)3s, well-developed discipleship programs, careful networking and relationship building, and on and on and on it goes.

Those are positive and good things that each of us can work through in our own small gardens even as we surrender to the wasteland things that cannot be tilled any longer and that cannot bear fruit.

In other words, once you recognize that you cannot save the large vault from the fire, you make do with the journal, the box of letters, the gemstone, or the child—and those are enough.

3) At the same time that you are protecting and strengthening the artifacts of our church, you must also be very clear in your communications about who you are and what your values, principles and Gospel are. In a word, you must differentiate.

I’ve used the old example of the cyanide in the Tylenol as an example of the dire need to differentiate before. Had the national brand of Tylenol refused to enact its various protective policies at the time of the crisis—stopping all production, clearing the manufacturing facilities, taking the Tylenol off the shelves, producing stronger child-proof caps—the local pharmacies would have had to jump through all sorts of complex hoops in order to continue to sell Tylenol to a frightened populace, while demonstrating publicly and clearly that the local pharmacy’s Tylenol was entirely different from the national brand. The local pharmacy would have had to institute stringent quality control standards and testing. It would have had to put on its own child-proof caps. It would have had to protect itself from the feckless and incompetent leaders at the national level and assure everyone that there would be no way for those same feckless national leaders to sweep in locally and enact their incompetent policies. It would have had to trumpet all these changes to the hills and beyond. It would have had to, in essence, create its own internal-Tylenol-brand in order to convince customers to purchase in and prevent loyal patrons from switching to another brand.

The loonier the acts of the current leadership of the national structures of The Episcopal Church, the more strongly, clearly, and openly must local members of The Episcopal Church distinguish themselves from that current leadership and those national structures.

In effect, each parish, organization, committee, commission, camp and conference center, para-church organization, and whatever else you’re attempting to salvage, must say “we are not that over there . . . we are this over here.”

The consequences of not doing so are very stark.

If whatever entity you are attempting to salvage does not differentiate itself, the people engaged in that entity that make it what it is will steadily leave that entity and you will ultimately be unable to salvage the treasure.

If there is anything that seems to befuddle traditional Episcopalians it seems to be this principle of differentiation. Every three years I hear laments from rectors and bishops and other leaders about the fact that the General Convention Tsunami washes away more traditional leaders. And organizations can only lose chunks of 50 and more leaders at a time before the departures start to show, not merely in the pews but also in the level of volunteerism and the quality of lay leadership.

If you are only strengthening, and not differentiating—if you are only “focusing on mission and ministry” while ignoring the fact that your organization is not sufficiently distinguished from the national church brand—you will lose it, because you will lose the people who are making the entity what it is.

Lay leaders need to be able to look to a flag—something they can gather and rally round in the smoke and fog and confusion of the blasts from the national church—or they will understandably and rightly “lose their way” and wander away. They will ask “what exactly are we fighting for in this place, since the trumpet blasts from TEC are so loud and overpowering?” It is simply a fact of life.

If I were going to name one thing that drives traditional Episcopalians away from their local cherished parishes it is that failure to differentiate. If the local entity is “the same as” the national entity in the eyes of the observing populace, then why would traditional Episcopalians wish to stay in the local entity either? Further, the national brand garners a greater amount of attention, media credibility, and volume due to its status as the national entity. If you are not vocally and strategically competing with the national brand with the message of your counter-brand from the inside, that national brand will overpower your own smaller voice; people will come to think that the national voice is the voice of the organization, rather than simply one of several antithetical voices.

I see two main reasons for this failure by smaller entities to differentiate themselves from the larger national brand led by our current leadership. The first is fairly predictable. Moderate rectors and bishops do not differentiate because they either like the national brand and don’t have the guts to inform their parishioners, or they do not differentiate for political reasons.

Consider the plight of a moderate and ambitious rector. If he takes strong actions to differentiate the parish from the actions of our national leadership, he loses many many “vocational options” in his chosen career and industry. Further, if he takes strong actions to differentiate, he brings into the open the conflict and division that is so endemic to our church.

TEC is not unified because it is not unified. We don’t share the same Gospel and cannot be unified around two antithetical and mutually opposing worldviews. But if that is brought to light in a parish, it can lead to a lot of open conflict, rather than simply maintaining the hidden conflict already there. And for moderate rectors and bishops, open conflict is anathema. It can do serious damage to “stewardship” and other Vitally Important aspects of “ministry.”

Further, to differentiate also means that more and more people will be informed about the actions of the national church. And quite frankly the last thing that a moderate rector or bishop needs is for more of the church to become informed—a ghastly and radical idea indeed!

The second reason why people within TEC fail to differentiate seems to me to be because of a lack of imagination. “How do we know when we’ve differentiated?” “And how exactly do we differentiate?”

One way you know you’ve done enough is when anyone who cares to be informed is well aware that whatever organization you’re attempting to salvage within The Episcopal Church does not support the actions of our current leadership at the national level.

Another way you know you’ve done enough is when revisionist activists within TEC are enraged and hate you and your organization. You’re then a threat, and they know it. Bingo—you’re sufficiently differentiated.

Another way you know you’ve done enough is when those who believe the Gospel want to become a part of your organization. Recruitment does not suffer one bit!

Obviously the Diocese of South Carolina wins on all three counts. They’re well-differentiated.

The lack of ideas for differentiation puzzles me. For it only takes three or four repeatedly well-publicized actions on the style side, and on the substance side, and you’ll be well on your way towards differentiation.

What might some of these differentiating actions be?

Style [symbolic actions]
—a black flag waving outside of the parish
—a new sign
—a full-page ad in the newspaper

Substance [content heavy]
—a well-written, lengthy vestry resolution, with bylaws changes detailing how your parish will stand
—a seminar on sexual faithfulness for persons of all sexual attractions
—public alliances with other churches that are faithful and Gospel-promoting

Of course, that’s just at the parish level. But there are literally scores of activities that dioceses, parishes, para-church organizations, committees, and commissions may take that demonstrate fully, clearly, and publicly where they stand.

I’ll offer just one differentiating idea on a national level, just for kicks.

I find it quite stunning that the dioceses represented on the Indianapolis Statement, along with traditional parishes in revisionist and moderate dioceses, and delegates from para-church organizations and other entities have not created their own, national, synod-like meeting at which they gather, take counsel, pass resolutions, worship together, and generally make decisions representative of that segment of The Episcopal Church that believes and promotes the Gospel.

Why on earth don’t we have our own national convention? Rather obviously, the General Convention’s actions don’t even come close to representing the Gospel which we believe and promote. Why do we allow that meeting to speak for us?

I honestly don’t get that.

Think of what a witness it would be to the watching world, as an entire segment of a church announces what it stands for, which happens to be antithetical to what its current national leadership stands for.

Would that get attention? Would it reveal consequences? Would it further spread the word about what the current leadership of TEC believes, as contrasted with what those who believe the Gospel believe? Would it differentiate?

Yes, to all of those questions.

Regardless, I do believe that it is possible for traditional dioceses, parishes, and other Episcopal entities to fail quite dramatically in the coming decade. There will be many laments about such failures and purported explanations, including “our inner city has gone to the dogs,” and “people won’t come to an Episcopal parish any more,” and “our downtown is dead and our little town is struggling to survive anyway,” and other explanations focusing on demographics, culture, and the overall poisonous effect of the national church brand. And some of those explanations will be adequate ones.

But there will also be some amazing successes, and some parishes, dioceses, and other entities will come out of the coming spectacular crash of The Episcopal Church nationally quite whole, healthy, and flourishing. I believe those who do survive and thrive will have either consciously or unconsciously followed the path I’ve outlined above. They’ll have acknowledged the reality of the failure of the national brand, and recognize that the faster the inevitable demolition occurs the better off everyone will be. They’ll communicate it clearly and articulately to others, they’ll strengthen and further form what they’ve chosen to preserve, and they will engage in very public, open, and increasing efforts to differentiate from the national brand.

We’ll see in the coming years which entities choose to follow that path. At least we can’t say we’ll be bored, as Episcopalians who believe the Gospel, hurtling along on this runaway locomotive we call TEC.

Wow, what an adventure!

[Please note that it’s been two weeks since the close of General Convention. We’ve been around the bend once again on a couple of other threads with certain people who are unable to follow our long-standing and clearly stated commenting standards and proceeded to screw up yet another thread with their obsessions and anger. The Instant Bannings Protocol has now been joyfully re-instated, as a result.]

Share this story:

Recent Related Posts

Facebook comments are closed.

47 47 comments

Great essay, Sarah. But at the risk of banishment, why did you ‘double down’ on the text?

[1] Posted by Fr. Chip, SF on 8-6-2012 at 07:41 AM · [top]

I wanted to make absolutely certain everybody read the entire piece twice! : > )

Seriously, it somehow got copied twice—apologies.

[2] Posted by Sarah on 8-6-2012 at 08:39 AM · [top]

At the time that it was constituted, I always assumed that the Anglican Communion Network was supposed to fill that role and yet, in retrospect, it never seems to have functioned as a confessing church, always as a church-in-waiting.

I believe Philip Wainwright - now retired in Pittsburgh - takes much the same view you do about conservative remnant emerging in the post-apocalyptic twilight.

[3] Posted by Jeremy Bonner on 8-6-2012 at 08:50 AM · [top]

“Why on earth don’t we have our own national convention?”

Hmmm…

I can only speculate, but if such a convention were to be held, and if clergy were to be among the organizers, then they could possibly be charged with abandonment under the disciplinary canons.

If however a group of lay people organized it…

[4] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 8-6-2012 at 08:52 AM · [top]

Speaking as someone who left for CANA/ACNA, I personally think you raise a good question for us as well. To borrow from the old imagery of rescuing people from a sinking ship, the initial panic and confusion is dieing down. are out of the water, the injured have been treated and fed, and getting the last few in the lifeboats aboard is proceeding in an orderly fashion. However, before departing, there is the need to search the area for stragglers, and the few remaining bits of wreckage which are of value, can be salvaged, and may be of help the survivors.

I am not certain that many have begun to think in these terms. There is still so much to do in consolidating the new Anglican structure(s). The time is not here yet, but we may need to at least modify our current planting plans, and actively seek those in collapsing TEC parishes who would accept our help and ministry. (Tea Party Anglicans?) That time where something along these lines will be here sooner than we think, and we need to be ready.

[5] Posted by APB on 8-6-2012 at 09:04 AM · [top]

My sense of mercy and kindness compels me to remind everyone: The quickest way to bans-ville on this thread is to launch into a tirade about how the only faithful course of action is to leave TEC for [insert your favorite destination here].

So argue for or against the points Sarah’s making in the context of staying, but please steer clear of “run for the hills” talk.

A lot of people need solid advice on what to do given their decision to stay. Please don’t derail it with arguments that don’t help them.

[6] Posted by Greg Griffith on 8-6-2012 at 10:43 AM · [top]

Here’s what I don’t understand about Sarah’s proposal/plan. Whereas I can see a diocese remaining within (but not of) TEO, differentiated, and able to fulfill the Great Commission vigorously (not only making disciples, but planting churches to expand the beachhead within the culture), I don’t see how single churches or groups of lay and clergy are effective in doing this. The latter is surely good practice for the tie when Christianity has to operate out of the catacombs in a hostile land, but that Mere Christianity isn’t made special by the residuum of Anglican expression. Frankly, I’ve seen a more robust appropriation of the best of Anglican contributions within non-Anglican churches adopting Alpha.

In some sense it comes down to whether TEO is a latter-day Judah or Israel. Judah was taken into captivity and the remnant maintained its differentiated identity and was restored to the promised land years later. The ten northern tribes were absorbed and scattered because of their idolatry (with sexual dimensions chillingly reminiscent of the current state of affairs in TEO). One glaring difference - when Judah was in captivity, there were no other chosen people. In the present age, no one in their right kind would say TEO or the Anglican Communion constituted the whole of the church.

Therefore, at a risk of being banned, I have to say that stayers do run the risk of performing strenuous CPR on a cooling corpse while ignoring the living patients in need of help (e.g., their kids and neighbors). Don’t be surprised that when you come out of the bunkers that God has created vigorous growth. As for the leavers, take TEO as an object lesson and be quick to drive out “strange doctrine” but do it biblically and follow the guidance in Scripture about correcting the erring brother.

I don’t claim any special knowledge about the wisdom of Staying and Differentiating, but I pray that the Lord bless and strengthen you and make your paths straight in a crooked landscape - and that you listen to his daily course corrections.

[7] Posted by Doug Stein on 8-6-2012 at 12:58 PM · [top]

Fantastic and insightful essay Sarah! A few thoughts on it:

1. I think that a lot of conservative TEC members haven’t yet accepted the complete and utter domination at the national level by the revisionist leaders. They think that there are only two options: a) Fight for control of the diocese/national church; or 2) leave TEC. Most people I talk to about this seem somewhat puzzled and that is because they don’t look to the long-term. The concept that we should let go the national or diocesan political fight seems to them like a surrender. But its not. Its simply not pouring resources into a lost battle. Focus your resources on building something that can survive. On to the next point.

2. Very rarely is anything completely destroyed. Consider wild fires (I am out West, so this is a good example). Wild fires can be incredibly destructive - incredibly destructive. But when you drive through a burned out area, you can drive by 10 charred foundations and one house that is basically unscathed. Many trees actually survive fires. Warfare is like that too. There is much destruction, but much also survives. Often that which survives is the stronger for it.

3. My guess as to why there isn’t a conservative synod (which I wish there was also) is probably because of the debacle of the Anglican Communion Network and related groups. Everyone will assume that it is just another organization preparing to leave TEC - many will refuse to join for this reason, and those that would join would be targeted in ways that may very well cause them to be driven out of TEC (its fine to be targeted by liberals for doing something important, but most stayers would probably see this as painting a target on themselves for something that has - in the past - been shown to be a dismal failure). On this score, I think that the only way such an organization could come into being would be if it started at a grassroots level - say small regional convocations of conservative Episcopalians that grew out and allied with other groups, and these would have to have a very clearly stated long-term objective (I personally think that your essay here would be perfect).

4. I think that differentiation will mean very different things for different people. It’s one thing if you have a strong, united diocese, or even a strong, united parish. But you don’t need to have those in order to do the hard work of differentiation. You might be in a “moderate/don’t rock the boat” parish. You can still differentiate and work towards the Gospel being proclaimed. People know I am conservative. Many know I do a lot to support our congregation, so they like me even while thinking “he’s too conservative, we don’t need to make waves.” But now I can do a very brief summary of Sarah’s points, and I begin to look very prophetic and insightful (“hmmmm….he’s not causing any trouble, and he does seem to be right about how things are going…”).

5. Don’t chicken out on withholding money. This is the key. Liberals can only survive with YOUR money. Once the conservative money spiggots are finally turned off, the empty properties and endowments will dry up much more quickly than you might realize. As Sarah says, the diocese can only lay claim to money that you give to your parish. There are all sorts of ways to circumvent your money being “given to the parish"whilst still supporting the things you want to support. Be creative.

[8] Posted by jamesw on 8-6-2012 at 01:18 PM · [top]

RE: “I don’t see how single churches or groups of lay and clergy are effective in doing this.”

Interesting.

I certainly know many parishes in revisionist and moderate dioceses that are doing so. I don’t know what to say other than that.

RE: “but that Mere Christianity isn’t made special by the residuum of Anglican expression.”

Sure—but these are Episcopalians who wish to remain in TEC. They’re not somehow seeking to be “made special”—they’re seeking to remain in TEC while differentiating, acknowledging the impending demise of TEC, and preserving and strengthening the treasure which they have.

RE: “Frankly, I’ve seen a more robust appropriation of the best of Anglican contributions within non-Anglican churches adopting Alpha.”

That’s nice—but I’m not sure how that’s relevant to the thread, which isn’t about “non-Anglican churches.”

RE: “In some sense it comes down to whether TEO is a latter-day Judah or Israel.”

Oh, I wouldn’t say so, since I don’t think TEC is either. I’d say it’s Babylon or Egypt.

RE: “I have to say that stayers do run the risk of performing strenuous CPR on a cooling corpse while ignoring the living patients in need of help (e.g., their kids and neighbors).”

I’m not certain why you “have to say” something so obviously foolish. Nobody on this thread is talking about resuscitating TEC—and if you’ve read the article you know quite well that it’s quite the opposite.

Further—what on earth does preserving a wonderful parish have to do with “ignoring” anybody living?

RE: “Don’t be surprised that when you come out of the bunkers that God has created vigorous growth.”

We won’t be surprised—after all, such “vigorous growth” is taking place in many parishes and dioceses within TEC.

So here’s my two questions, Doug.

1) Did you actually read the article? If so, can you point me to the passage in the article that spells out precisely the opposite of “performing strenuous CPR on a cooling corpse”? I’d appreciate it if you’d do so on this thread—just the quote would be great. Right here in the comments section.

2) And secondly—and not for answering on this thread, since it’s off-topic, but you’re welcome to Private Message me an answer: Why on earth would you feel impelled to enter a thread that is clearly about and for people staying in TEC, and attempt to act like Sanballat? What emotion or value drives this sort of behavior?

I’m genuinely curious and look forward to the Private Message.

[9] Posted by Sarah on 8-6-2012 at 01:21 PM · [top]

#7 Doug - in many places the most vibrant Christian witness comes through non-denominational churches and even parachurch ministries. And even among denominational churches, the most effective witness is more often in the local church than via a diocese.

What Sarah describes is not CPR on TEO - it is just the opposite. It is to let it die - even hasten the demise of the non-Gospel superstructure from which most all of the apostasy is advanced.

If we want to use OT analogies, I prefer to stick with Kendall Harmon’s: the Babylonians have breached the walls, and we are going into exile. It resides with us to maintain our Anglican Christian identity in our imperfect, foreign settings until God calls us to rebuild a more coherent witness.

I think it important to hold onto the understanding that we are all under judgment. Orthodox Episcopalians will not escape the consequences of the destruction that’s underway, but can assume God’s mercy and preservation to bear future fruit for Him.

[10] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 8-6-2012 at 01:30 PM · [top]

Thanks for that thoughtful comment, JamesW.

I almost think that the more radical “differentiating” actions need to be done in the more conservative and powerful places. It’s difficult for the Diocese of SC to demonstrate and differentiate more strongly than it has—but I know that they must as they hold such a powerful and strong conservative majority there. If they *don’t* radically and substantively and publicly and repeatedly differentiate, they will discourage and demoralize many of their conservatives.

It’s easier, I think, and simpler, for a person to “differentiate” in a moderate diocese. Believe you me, I’m quite the hated person [by some] in my diocese. ; > ) And it’s quite easy to acquire that reputation too, since I’m, well . . . here and saying things out loud.

As I’ve often said before, no where else in America but The Episcopal Church can one be a fairly moderate, thoughtful, granola, creative, quiet person in one place—and a right-wing, homophobic, bigoted, fundamentalist, hateful, mean mean mean mean, divisive hater hater in another! ; > )

So—in order to differentiate in, say, a revisionist parish, all you need to do is create and send a little email with two or three little links to blogs like T19 informing your good friends and you’re Quite Differentiated, at least within your parish! Redirect your pledge, and you’ll be so well-differentiated that they will beg you to go.

[11] Posted by Sarah on 8-6-2012 at 02:07 PM · [top]

Sarah,

I think the image of the Babylonian captivity is a good one. Even so, there were some difficult times for the nation after its release, and it took a lot of teaching on the part of those that had preserved the heritage and scriptures to rebuild Jerusalem.

[12] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 8-6-2012 at 02:26 PM · [top]

Sarah- Thanks for your very clear statement of your strategy for remaining in TEC. My wife’s family’s TEC parish is a moderate-conservative parish with an orthodox rector, but is in a revisionist diocese. Her family wants to stay and wants the parish to remain as it is. However, as I see it there are several factors beyond the control of the parish at work that will make it difficult for it to survive as an orthodox parish in the medium to long term, and possibly even the short term. First, I seriously doubt the current bishop or his successor would permit them to chose an orthodox Episcopal priest when their current priest retires or leaves (assuming there are any left by then, especially any who are willing to come to a small town). Second, even in the short term, there are tools the diocese can (and probably will) use to “bend” the parish in TEC’s direction. While some money can be directed away from the parish (and therefore from the diocese and national church), the rector has to eat and the lights have to stay on. Therefore, some money has to be given to the parish and the diocese is going to get its share of that or the church leadership will be dissolved. In addition, while TEC claims that no priest will be forced to do same-sex “marriages” its clear that that protection probably won’t last past the next General Convention. Therefore the current orthodox rector and vestry will soon be faced with either approving the ceremony or being replaced. All of these threats to the leadership of the parish will seriously weaken it’s ability to differentiate itself and to attract enough new replacement orthodox parishioners for the parish to retain its orthodox character. (Most of its new growth has been moderate-liberal parishioners who are moving to the area.) Finally, I’m not as sure that TEC will destroy itself as fast as you believe it will. The UCC and Unitarian Universalists have been at this longer than TEC and they are still around. Bottom line - I’m not optimistic that this parish will survive long enough as an orthodox parish to be able to rise from the rubble once TEC self-destructs.

[13] Posted by Already Gone on 8-6-2012 at 04:20 PM · [top]

“Wherever men tilled, the earth bore no corn because the land was all done for by such doings; an they said openly that Christ and his saints slept. Such things, and more than we know how to tell, we suffered 19 years for our sins”
- from the Peterborough Chronicle, on the anarchy in the reign of Stephen

[14] Posted by MichaelA on 8-6-2012 at 05:45 PM · [top]

I know its easy for me to say from 10,000 miles away, but I think some people assume too easily that all is lost, or that all will inevitably be lost in TEC.

If you read some of the comments from two years ago on SF and T19, the actions of this GC would come as no surprise, BUT what would come as a great surprise are the positive things:

- Dio SC still standing and with most of the parishes and all of the senior clergy behind the bishop (which in turn makes it likely that the next bishop whenever he comes will also be orthodox)

- The Indianopolis statement and the 12 or whatever it was bishops that signed it.

- Dean Limehouse leading the Cathedral Chapter in Alabama in an open statement of defiance of GC on SSB’s, and the bishop acknowledging that he had to go with them.

And there are actually quite a long list more.

[15] Posted by MichaelA on 8-6-2012 at 05:57 PM · [top]

I think APB’s post in #5 may have been misunderstood. What he (she?) seems to be saying is that ACNA should be ready to fellowship and support those in TEC, not for the purpose of getting them to leave, but to help them maintain their ministry within TEC. If so, I think its a good idea.

[16] Posted by MichaelA on 8-6-2012 at 06:00 PM · [top]

Hi Sarah,

I’m sorry if I came off as dismissive or confrontational - and certainly sorry that I wasn’t as clear as your original article. Let me restate:

1) I see a strong witness possible and practical (and laudatory) at a diocesan level (especially in states where the legal climate leaves the Bishop and Standing Committee better able to resist foreign incursions from 815).

2) At the parish level, the note above [13] from Already Gone indicates the practical difficulties of remaining differentiated and still Anglican within TEO.

3) If your diocese and parish have already succumbed, then it’s even harder to remain and fight. I’m not saying you should go or stay, but am asking how that will work in practice.

My questions are aimed at understanding *how* to do this at the sub-diocesan level. My (unfortunate) comment about CPR on a corpse was not to indicate that I think it’s worth bothering with the accreted national structures (clearly a later innovation than the dioceses that joined to form TEC in the beginning). I am interested in what stayers need to thrive in their local ministry and walk with Christ - and what leavers can do to best help the stayers while avoiding the tendency to focus on the past to the detriment of the present. How do you purge the infection from a parish when the bishop is constantly sending plague victims, the priest is running a fever, and the laypeople won’t cover their mouths or wash their hands? Worse yet, they think spots and a runny nose shows they’ve been liberated from all that talk about germs being harmful. Walking around in a mask and demonstrating prophylactic hygiene isn’t enough. It’s only when everyone starts dropping that you might get a response from some of the survivors.

Some of the suggested ideas seem laudatory, but taken to their conclusion, you have the essence without any trace of the Anglican brand name. When you drop the name “aspirin” and use “natural willowbark extract” you won’t be allowed to use the Bayer brand name. When you’ve differentiated and TEO uses the secular courts to drop all branding, then how is that different from leaving? (Again, this is a question I have related to staying as sub-diocesan groups; the natural unit of the Anglican church is the Diocese gathered around its Bishop.)

Lest this be an abstract exercise, let me give examples from my own (limited) experience:
1) I became a Christian in 1981 through the grace of God and by His working through a faithful Episcopal parish in Long Island, NY. They differentiated - and during the 80s were able to fly under the radar of the diocese. They had a good ministry of evangelism and healing, but always had difficulties maintaining sufficient scale to be self-supporting because believers would get fed up with the shenanigans of the Diocese and split.

2) I moved to the Boston area in 1983 after Grad School and found isolated pockets of faithful laypeople (sometimes with and sometimes without the rector). Hunkered down, there wasn’t much energy for evangelism - which I cared about as a “completed” Jew. I left one congregation when the rector and assistant rector both stated baldly that there was no need to share the Gospel with our sizable community of Jewish neighbors because “God had already saved them by the covenant with Abraham”. Needless to say, I was astonished that they didn’t see the obvious contradiction with Scripture (including Jesus’ quoted words, at that) and refused to change their minds when I pointed out that ritual alone is ineffectual. When you have to evangelize the clergy and the laypeople are comfortable with Things As They Are.

3) I moved to Oregon in 2003 and quickly found a parish with a decent concentration of believers and clergy that seemed orthodox in their teaching, but they started advocating for us to support the innovations in 2003 (or at least ignore them as far-away and not likely to affect us). The pressure increased with gay supply clergy, gay support activist groups, and a firm effort by the parish leadership to get us to hold hands and sing kumbaya.

4) Finally, I threw in the towel in 2006 when it was clear that the parish had been captured. I spent a good bit of time in the Anglican tradition and initially looked to see if there were vibrant Anglican offshoots in the area. There weren’t - just a couple of small struggling groups that had peeled off in previous schisms. My wife and I have spent the past 6 years in a non-Anglican congregation that’s strong and is networked with other strong congregations (across multiple denominations). Other than the fact that many use Alpha in a consistent and coordinated way to do primary evangelism - and that the pastors tackle the Word with respect and depth, there not much in the outward forms that resemble Anglicanism.

In this area, unfortunately, the situation has degraded to the point where TEO is viewed as oddly as the LDS (although the LDS is better at growing families).

I read the original article wondering two things - “what could I have done to be more effective while I stayed” and “why did I stay and incur such additional risk to my kids spiritual formation”.

Already Gone’s comment is also correct in that the UCC and UU keep decaying without dying. Neither is recognizably Christian - and all the Christians fled a long time ago. My wife was baptized as an infant in UCC and raised UU and came to the Lord about 1.5 years after I did. There was nothing in UU that would have led her to the Lord - He broke in to her life after she left their influence. TEO might spend on lawsuits and pensions and successive GenCons so quickly that they blow past the financial tipping point before they realize it.

Isolated Christians and groups can certainly thrive inside TEO - but it’s a hard row to hoe and you’d better be certain of the call whether you stay or leave. If I ever find myself in a part of the country where there’s a strong Diocese I could certainly see us joining and helping shore up the defenses and mount offensive sallies to expand the Kingdom.

I repeat that if you stay or go that I pray the Lord bless your choice and strengthen you to faithfully follow Him. (*Follow* is the critical choice we all need to make - whether that works itself out as staying or going.)

[17] Posted by Doug Stein on 8-6-2012 at 06:38 PM · [top]

Already Gone:

A few thoughts in response to your comments. First, there is honor in fighting a good fight even if you lose. It sounds like this parish is hanging in the balance. If nobody stands up, it is lost for sure. If someone stands up, it still might be lost, but maybe not.

Second, it is no secret in many (probably most) TEC moderate or liberal dioceses that the diocesan machinery is exerting whatever subtle or not-so-subtle power it can to place stealth liberals (i.e. supposed moderates who either support or don’t oppose the liberal agenda). An informed, committed and political savvy parish might be able to fend off the diocesan plants, and might even be able to slide in a stealth-conservative. But to have such a parish requires the work Sarah speaks of.

Third, there are creative ways to ensure the priest has food on his or her table and the lights stay on without money necessarily going through the church. These ways may require committed people willing to do a lot of legwork, but it is possible. Alternatively, it may be that you let the people who don’t care give the money to fund the priest’s salary and that others funnel their money through other channels.

Fourth, I think that it will still be some time before TEC demands priests agree to conduct same-sex marriages. Some will push it, I am sure, but I don’t think that will pass for some time, if ever.

Fifth, the difference between TEC and the UCC and UU is that the latter groups made their conversion to liberal activism much earlier. Had TEC made this jump in the 1950s and 60s, they could probably have counted on less losses. Over the last 30 odd years, it has become MUCH less fashionable to attend church. Non-TEC liberals, who support TEC’s moves, have no desire to join TEC. On the flip side, TEC’s sustaining members are typically either old or conservative. The conservatives are leaving and the old are dying. The TEC liberal activists can’t sustain TEC and non-TEC liberals won’t join. As Sarah says

There’s a limited number of very very liberal activist people who also happen to be interested in attending church and pretending to engage in religious activities that purport to be a part of the Christian faith—it’s an incredibly small percentage of people.

And they are pretty much all in TEC, UCC or UU already. I think that TEC’s collapse will track the death rate of its aging sustaining parishioners. Once they die, there goes the money. That said, there will be a small rump that will be able to hold on for quite a long time after that. However, I think that the dynamics of the situation will change significantly by then, and who knows what things will look like then. But I think that the time frame we are looking at is 10-25 years.

Sixth, I think that each of us needs to make the call for what we are called to do. If I had kids and my only TEC choices were moderate/wishy-washy TEC parishes, I wouldn’t stay and fight. My kids would come first, and I would find a Gospel-centered church (preferably Anglican). We all have our own talents, gifts, and circumstances. Whether we stay in TEC or leave it, we should all be motivated to help create advantageous conditions for the long term health and vitality of a Gospel-centered Anglicanism in North America.

[18] Posted by jamesw on 8-6-2012 at 06:43 PM · [top]

One of the very best articles on the current unpleasantness I have ever read. Thanks!

[19] Posted by A Senior Priest on 8-6-2012 at 07:10 PM · [top]

Rebuilding will never work until the survivors emerge and drive out the remaining liberals, root and branch. Unfortunately, I think you’re too nice, and you’ll accommodate the rump, who will then eat you like a cancer like they did the first time. I wouldn’t go in to battle with you.

[20] Posted by paradoxymoron on 8-6-2012 at 08:44 PM · [top]

RE: “Unfortunately, I think you’re too nice, and you’ll accommodate the rump, who will then eat you like a cancer like they did the first time.”

I think you’re underestimating the extent of the future dissolution of TEC.

RE: “I wouldn’t go in to battle with you.”

Likewise, I’m sure. : > )

Blessedly, neither of us desire to go into battle with the other, so we are both relieved of that option.

[21] Posted by Sarah on 8-6-2012 at 08:57 PM · [top]

Hmph. I’d go into battle with folks like Sarah.

[22] Posted by J Eppinga on 8-6-2012 at 09:05 PM · [top]

#13 Already Gone said: “However, as I see it there are several factors beyond the control of the parish at work that will make it difficult for it to survive as an orthodox parish in the medium to long term, and possibly even the short term.”

That orthodox parish may or may not have the shelf life of a Twinkie, but time spent preserving it is not wasted. It could mean a whole generation is discipled in the Christian faith. And many of your concerns have workarounds that have been addressed by StandFirm contributors.

[23] Posted by Ralinda on 8-6-2012 at 09:40 PM · [top]

Thanks for your comments, Sarah. As a reasonably conservative TEC’er, I am trying to stay in the church—and in a fairly liberal diocese. Your points are good ones.

My concern is liturgy. I fear that in the next 20 years, the TEC libs will impose a new BCP that is completely intolerable to remaining moderates and conservatives. Already, we see current-day clergy 1) refusing to use male pronouns or adjectives to describe God the Father, 2) refusing to refer to God or Jesus as “Lord,” 3) incorporating various prayer and incantations from “Enriching Our Worship”—and the list can go on. Imagine what the next “baptismal covenant” will promise.

Prayer Books do not come with an opt-out clause. When this hammer comes down, when we cannot worship on Sunday morning without using such language, then the rest of us will leave. I do not want to see that day—I do not want to say “Faster, Please” to these liturgical revisionists—but I struggle to envision how we will survive such a liturgical disaster.

[24] Posted by Dick Mitchell on 8-6-2012 at 10:40 PM · [top]

RE: “I’d go into battle with folks like Sarah.”

Thanks very much for the kind words, Moot.

Honestly, I’m not sure I’d go into battle with me. I was just talking about this with my Mother this morning. I don’t know how I’d react in the heat of battle and stress. I think, for instance, of the awful choices that martyrs have had to make in order to remain faithful to Christ—and I’m not certain I’d make them.

I’m just so glad that my salvation is not dependent on my faithfulness to Christ.

[25] Posted by Sarah on 8-7-2012 at 12:02 AM · [top]

You’re most welcome, Sarah.

RE: “Honestly, I’m not sure I’d go into battle with me. I was just talking about this with my Mother this morning. I don’t know how I’d react in the heat of battle and stress.”

Having an active, thriving community that doesn’t have to sit through J.D. Crosson wannabe sermons every Sunday would be a must. Having a network where anyone could go at any time would be a must. Having ad hoc retreats would also be a necessity.

My last rector has an appreciation for monastacism. He told a story to us once about some Methodists who visited a monastary for a weekend retreat. One time, while the abbot was entertaining the group, one of them raised their hand and asked whether it was really necessary to maintain a monastary when there was so much need and suffering in the world. Wouldn’t another mission trip be more appropo, e.g.,? The abbot grinned and said, “Oh you busy, busy, Protestants.”

Yeah, it was a cheap shot. But I think it’s one we need.

As for heat of battle type stuff, I’m not incredibly concerned about the big things. There is very little TEC can do to suprise us now, so by now, our imaginations have imagined doing Y in the face of stimulus X. These things happen quickly, so it’s important to act quickly and stick to one’s guns. They can be difficult to endure, but not in the ways we expect.

The thing that concerns me is my demeanor towards my family. That tends to be my failing, when things are stressful.

RE: “I’m just so glad that my salvation is not dependent on my faithfulness to Christ. “

And don’t you forget it, Young Lady. It was that knowledge with some other gems I won’t go into here, that allowed me to become an Episcopalian in the first place!

[26] Posted by J Eppinga on 8-7-2012 at 02:54 AM · [top]

Sarah:

Earth gets its price for what Earth gives us;
The beggar is taxed for a corner to die in,
The priest hath his fee who comes and shrives us,
We bargain for the graves we lie in;
At the devil’s booth are all things sold,
Each ounce of dross costs its ounce of gold;
For a cap and bells our lives we pay,
Bubbles we buy with a whole soul’s tasking:
‘Tis heaven alone that is given away,
‘Tis only God may be had for the asking;

—James Russell Lowell

“But be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.”

[27] Posted by episcopalienated on 8-7-2012 at 11:10 AM · [top]

I think you’re underestimating the extent of the future dissolution of TEC.

One of the things I think that many conservatives make the mistake of doing is thinking that the current situation will continue unchanged into the long-term future with the only variable being that the liberals will get loonier.

Granted, the liberals are getting loonier, but there are many, many other variables at play that will affect things in ways we might not expect. These will include
1) A continued trickle of conservatives out of the denomination as the liberals get loonier.
2) An ever increasing attrition of current major financial sustainers as elderly members die off (these are a non-renewable resource in TEC).
3) As parish funds dry up, there will be increasing pressure to down-size diocesan budgets.
4) As parish and diocesan funds dry up, there will be increasing pressure to down-size National Church funding.
5) As parish, diocesan and national church funding dries up, there will be increasing fights and fissures on how to apportion the little money that is left.
6) My guess is that when push come to shove, you are going to see larger, more powerful parishes begin to exert their power to keep their money for themselves. Dioceses will need to pare down and smaller congregations will close.
7) You will see smaller dioceses merge into larger ones.
8) Liberals are aging too and I don’t think that young liberals are interested in joining a church. The older liberal activists will become angrier and angrier as they realize that their Great Prize is shrinking, imploding and becoming completely irrelevant to wider society. The next fight within TEC will be liberal on liberal.
9) The younger liberals who do remain in TEC, and who will largely inherit what remains, will likely NOT have the same drive to dominate that their elders have.

Overall, my guess is that in the middle to long term future in TEC there will be smaller diocesan and national staff bureaucracies; power will shift to larger parishes and these parishes will become increasingly insular; and TEC will become a live-and-let-live association of surviving parishes. There will likely be no standards, no unified Gospel, but on the other hand, no great interest in what other parishes are doing so long as those other parishes don’t try to take YOUR parishes money.

[28] Posted by jamesw on 8-7-2012 at 12:40 PM · [top]

Honest question. Is it (based on the scenario given here) better than to keep giving money to your local parish in order to keep the buildings and grounds in good shape so that they will be in good condition for any future change over or should money be withheld to speed along the change?

I think if orthodox want to be authors of change they should start infiltrating the seats of power (in a manner of speaking), in my view this would mean paying attention from where most of the heresy arises and trying to get appointed or elected to such positions. I might be wrong but a lot of the current mess seems to have its orgins in church bodies that are heavily controlled by women. So I think orthodox women will be the key to success. Just a thought.

[29] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 8-7-2012 at 01:10 PM · [top]

Orthodox women infiltrating the seats of power… Hmm. Where is the iron Lady?

[30] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 8-7-2012 at 01:19 PM · [top]

Sad to see what has become of TEC by the leadership being full of heretics. I agree it is “full speed ahead”. I am thinking that, convention over convention, the budget will be reduced 10% due to continuing losses. Pretty soon there will only be $ for lawsuits.

[31] Posted by B. Hunter on 8-7-2012 at 01:48 PM · [top]

RE: “I think if orthodox want to be authors of change they should start infiltrating the seats of power (in a manner of speaking), in my view this would mean paying attention from where most of the heresy arises and trying to get appointed or elected to such positions.”

I think one problem with this is that if an orthodox woman were able to maneuver herself into getting appointed—remember, most of these seats of power are *appointed* not elected—she’d be surrounded by the 30 members of the commission who don’t remotely believe the Gospel.

At the national level, it’s simply not worthwhile from a political standpoint to be engaged in that kind of work, although I’m all for somebody going to be a witness to the heathen [thank God He has not called me to do that!]

The key thing when attempting to take over seats of power is to get a *majority* of people each term appointed who actually believe the Gospel. Then one could slowly—over a 3 to 4 year process—infiltrate. But the numbers don’t work if it’s just one at a time, because even if you were to gain one at a time every year, you haven’t really gotten anywhere, organizationally or structurally speaking.

RE: “Honest question. Is it (based on the scenario given here) better than to keep giving money to your local parish in order to keep the buildings and grounds in good shape so that they will be in good condition for any future change over or should money be withheld to speed along the change?”

My thesis is that the very best thing is for no money to go to the national church, and most likely none to the diocese. If there’s a way for you to restrict in that way, and it’s in place, then go for it—give to the local parish, if it can be trusted.

But if not . . . ah well, then, they shall have to go without, too.

Typically when enough people announce that they have redirected their pledge to more worthy causes because they do not wish to support the frankly pagan activities of the national church, rectors and bishops bustle about and find a way. ; > )

JamesW—thanks for that excellent summary of the impending dissolution.

Dick Mitchell—interesting comments about liturgy. Oddly enough . . . I think BCPs *can* come with an opt-out clause! ; > ) Recall that many bishops allowed parishes to keep their 1928 BCP. It was up to them to allow or disallow. Of course, most of the bishops were fascists—as they are now—and stripped those BCPs right out of the parishes and aged parishioners hands. I *still* come across people in our diocese who recall Beckham’s purge. Some parishes simply plunged in those years and never recovered. It’s a pity that so few bishops keep track of diocesan history and might learn from the past’s mistakes.

At any rate though—think about this for a moment. If the dissolution and decline is what I think it will be, I suspect that there will be plenty of “flexibility” amongst the smart bishops by the time that thing is produced.

[32] Posted by Sarah on 8-7-2012 at 05:58 PM · [top]

Typically when enough people announce that they have redirected their pledge to more worthy causes because they do not wish to support the frankly pagan activities of the national church, rectors and bishops bustle about and find a way.

I heard about one diocese that had a “restricted by conscience” policy for a few years that allowed parishioners to restrict their pledge. The church would then inform the diocese that $x of the total diocesan tax was “restricted” and the diocese then cut a check for that amount to a list of pre-approved causes. All TEC seminaries were on the list. This was a very good policy, but it was quietly retired. But I know one congregation that has simply continued to mark its funds as “restricted” and the diocese has continued to honor that.

I think that (depending on your diocese) if the diocesan authorities realize that they have two choices - either agree to a reasonable conscience clause or deal with a failing parish, they may very well quietly agree to the conscience clause.

[33] Posted by jamesw on 8-7-2012 at 06:53 PM · [top]

The situation predicted by James W in [28] above is very like that of the early Episcopal church. The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel had helped support missionary work north of Maryland and south of Virginia but withdrew support after the peace in 1783. Virginia and Maryland had supported the church by a head tax of about two to three per cent of income (30 pounds of tobacco for adult white males and male and female slaves when a field hand could make between 1000 and 1500 pounds of tobacco) but the new state governments refused to permit the tax to be collected. In Maryland the vestries kept the property; in parts of Virginia churches and furnishings were sold.

The self-supporting urban parishes survived and clergy who had family farms continued to serve as volunteers. Bishops were also rectors of parish churches, presided over conventions, made summer visits to confirm and ordain. Between Seabury’s consecration in Scotland 1784, White and Provoost 1787 and Madison 1790 in England, and their joint consecration of Claggett in 1792 and the consecration of Hobart and A.V. Griswold in 1812 the Episcopal Church barely survived. New work began with Hobart in New York and Griswold in New England outside Connecticut. It took a generation to move through the trauma of Revolution.

Tom Rightmyer, Asheville, NC

[34] Posted by TomRightmyer on 8-7-2012 at 07:16 PM · [top]

So, a Griswold played a major part in establishing TEC, and another Griswold played a major part in its massive decline - are they related?

[35] Posted by MichaelA on 8-8-2012 at 12:37 AM · [top]

JamesW—you make an interesting point here:

Fifth, the difference between TEC and the UCC and UU is that the latter groups made their conversion to liberal activism much earlier. Had TEC made this jump in the 1950s and 60s, they could probably have counted on less losses. Over the last 30 odd years, it has become MUCH less fashionable to attend church. Non-TEC liberals, who support TEC’s moves, have no desire to join TEC.

TEC sort of “cast off the shackles of the Gospel” a little late—and they’ve lost a massive customer niche just by virtue of the fact that most liberals in America don’t want to go to church or be engaged in Christian activities.

Further to Already Gone’s point about the UCC/UU—just how much actual power do the UCC/UU denominations wield over their congregations? Though I could be wrong, my impression is very very little.

And that’s the point—sure, they’ve “hung on”—but they’re effectively neutered. People pay even less attention to them then to the Amish or the Mennonites. So yes, I completely agree that the superstructures and commissions and organizations in TEC as a hollowed-out carapace will “survive” in that sense—dead things take a long long long time to decompose. Just imagine how much scrapping there will be once there’s *half* the money to fight over that they had this year! ; > )

But hollowed-out carapaces have a *whole lot* less effective power than they did.

RE: “Bottom line - I’m not optimistic that this parish will survive long enough as an orthodox parish to be able to rise from the rubble once TEC self-destructs.”

Well you could be right. But I’ve been absolutely *amazed* at what willful parishes with willful, smart, strategic parishioners for leaders have been able to accomplish once they get their ducks in a row and their goals in place. I could provide names and contact information too, of such leaders, who have been through all of the successor choosing and necessary wiles to get what they wanted and to become healthy.

RE: “First, I seriously doubt the current bishop or his successor would permit them to chose an orthodox Episcopal priest when their current priest retires or leaves (assuming there are any left by then, especially any who are willing to come to a small town).”

There are literally hundreds of great clergy out there who are excellent in TEC—there are plenty of available clergy and there will be for the forseeable future too.

Now—maybe the bishop has a death-wish for the parish. If so, there’s not a whole lot you can do about a bishop determined for your parish to die. But my experience with most bishops is that they’re basically pretty weak and passive. They just want peace, and they want their own agenda—which they will have at the diocesan level, usually. They often feel like they can “afford” to have a parish or two or three or five have conservative clergy and grow and thrive. ; > )

So if your wife’s family is desperate enough to salvage and strengthen and grow the parish—generally speaking, and again, if the revisionist bishop doesn’t have a death wish [and there are a few out there], it can be done.

[36] Posted by Sarah on 8-8-2012 at 07:25 AM · [top]

Based on my experience in ACoC, a very healthy step for our church was to “re-tool” from survivalist mode to evangelism mode. Build fishing boats not life boats. You have correctly anticipated the final end of the TECtanic, now start training the new generation of leaders that you will need in 15 years. Teach them how to study the Bible, how to teach and how to preach, and teach them to treasure what you treasure in the historical Episcopal Church.

Caution, however: the TECtanic’s bridge crew will see each fishing boat you build as potential fuel for their failing boilers. They will want to “help” your project and then they will consume it. Or they will see it as mutiny, and then you have a choice to make.

[37] Posted by Michael D on 8-8-2012 at 08:45 AM · [top]

A technique to reduce the budget of a parish, and hence its obligation to the diocese, is for a stable group of parishioners to undertake to pay bills on behalf of the church. If John & Mary Smith pay the electric bill and Old George sends his gardener over to mow the lawn the parish shows no income from those events. If the Smiths and George value their tax deductions, they can form a non for profit association in support of St Sophie’s over the Swamp. In that case it is better that the vestry members not be involved.

[38] Posted by off2 on 8-8-2012 at 12:02 PM · [top]

Two thoughts:

1) Regarding UCC/UU and my earlier comment, I agree with Sarah - these are really irrelevant denominations now. But there are other differences. Up until the 1970s I think, most people simply went to church. That was the social convention and many people didn’t put a lot of thought into it. This is when the UCC and UU transitioned. Thus, in the 1980s and 1990s when social convention changed, these denominations simply lost the numbers everyone did. TEC didn’t take its hard left turn until after the social convention changed. One aspect of the social convention changing is that many of the people left in churches had definite reasons to be there. They tended to be more thoughtful about their faith. Thus, I would argue that TEC’s hard left turn has had, and will continue to have, and much greater effect on TEC than what happened with the UUs and UCCs. Another difference is that TEC is used to living “high on the hog” as befits their supposed elite status. That costs money. Thus, I would imagine that it will be harder for TEC to get its spending in order, than it will have been for other denominations that didn’t have that social elite status. Lastly, the UUs and UCCs have been small and irrelevant for a long time and have gotten used to it gradually. TEC is imploding at a pretty fast pace, and there will be some nasty funding fights before this is over. I have heard larger parishes complain that they are being forced to subsidize smaller congregations and dioceses and they don’t want to do this anymore. This is just the beginning.

2) Sarah writes

Now—maybe the bishop has a death-wish for the parish. If so, there’s not a whole lot you can do about a bishop determined for your parish to die. But my experience with most bishops is that they’re basically pretty weak and passive. They just want peace, and they want their own agenda—which they will have at the diocesan level, usually. They often feel like they can “afford” to have a parish or two or three or five have conservative clergy and grow and thrive.

I think that Sarah is generally correct, but don’t overlook the possibility that the canon to the ordinary is pulling the levers. Based on my observations, most moderate/liberal bishops or canons (depending on who pulls the levers of power) are somewhat strategic. They can assess a parish pretty well. I have witnessed the following situation a number of times: Parish X is led by a conservative priest and is thought of as a conservative parish. Parish conservatives assume that everyone else is as conservative as they are. What they don’t realize is that many of the parishioners are very conflict averse and don’t want to really address “the issues.” They want to be left alone. Often, the conservative priest has set them up for this, being conflict-averse themselves and give off the vibe of “We’re conservative and the diocese appreciates this. Don’t worry, they won’t appoint a liberal. Never mind those divisive ultra-conservatives who are being mean and divisive.” The diocese can spot this, and often have already sweet-talked the most vulnerable moderate members into diocesan positions. The bishop or canon then is careful to feed only stealth liberals to the parish for consideration. The balance of power on the search and selection committees rest with the muddled moderates who will ask the question “will you perform same-sex marriages?” to which the reply will be “there is no canonical permission for me to do so. I wouldn’t do anything that the bishop would not approve of” and the moderates hear “no, I won’t”, which is, of course, not what was said. Or sometimes, the stealth liberal will say “no, I won’t” and then evolve a year later.

My point is that many formerly conservative parishes that get stuck with liberal clergy are so stuck because they weren’t informed, they didn’t strategize and they didn’t ask the right questions. I seriously doubt that any moderate or liberal TEC bishop will appoint a known conservative to a parish that isn’t demanding one. Nor will they likely appoint an outspoken conservative priest to a known conservative parish that they are concerned about. However, I do agree with Sarah that if your parish has been well-prepared and ready to stand its ground in the search process, the bishop will likely not prevent a conservative priest from being called there, especially if that priest has been wise enough to be somewhat stealthy themselves. It takes work and preparation though.

[39] Posted by jamesw on 8-8-2012 at 02:51 PM · [top]

“The bishop or canon then is careful to feed only stealth liberals to the parish for consideration. The balance of power on the search and selection committees rest with the muddled moderates who will ask the question “will you perform same-sex marriages?” to which the reply will be “there is no canonical permission for me to do so. I wouldn’t do anything that the bishop would not approve of” and the moderates hear “no, I won’t”, which is, of course, not what was said. Or sometimes, the stealth liberal will say “no, I won’t” and then evolve a year later.”

I so agree with this.

I’m assuming in my comments that a hapless conservative parish within a revisionist diocese *has* 1) carefully developed strategically thoughtful conservatives, 2) they are on the vestry at the time that the rector resigns, 3) they appoint equally strategically thoughtful conservatives to the search committee, 4) that same search committee seeks candidates high and low—as in, they advertise in The Living Church, they each send out blanket emails to all of their Episcopal contacts begging for likely names [a great way to get good names], they advertise it on their website, they search the CDO profiles, they network like crazy people, they contact the persons in charge of placement at Trinity Seminary and Nashotah House, they scavenge through great parish websites and great dioceses looking for likely names of assistants and associates who “surely ought to be promoted”, and that 5) the vestry is strong enough and unified enough and strategic enough to go to bat for the chosen candidate when the time comes.

If these things can’t be done now, then those who are thinking about such things should swing into action quite quickly.

[40] Posted by Sarah on 8-8-2012 at 03:03 PM · [top]

If these things can’t be done now, then those who are thinking about such things should swing into action quite quickly.

Hmm, Sarah, are you speaking indirectly about the unspeakable (unspeakable that is, on this blog) ?

[41] Posted by Michael D on 8-8-2012 at 04:30 PM · [top]

Moot’s words in #26 remind me of a Scripture passage I’ve long considered essential guidance for those called to stay in TEC.

Moot wrote:

Having an active, thriving community that doesn’t have to sit through J.D. Crosson wannabe sermons every Sunday would be a must. Having a network where anyone could go at any time would be a must. Having ad hoc retreats would also be a necessity.

The Scripture I’m thinking about is from Jude 20 - 23, but I’ll start at vs. 17 because it gives the context which shows how appropriate is for TEC’s situation in our time:

Jude 17-23
17 But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold.
18 They said to you, “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.”
19 These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.
20 But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit.
21 Keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.
22 Be merciful to those who doubt;
23 snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.
(NIV)

Build yourselves up in the faith. Keep yourselves in God’s love. Needed commands and counsel for all of us, but especially those who are staying in TEC and actively fighting aganst apostasy and heresy.

May God show each of you how you can do it in your contexts!

[42] Posted by Karen B. on 8-8-2012 at 04:32 PM · [top]

RE: “Hmm, Sarah, are you speaking indirectly about the unspeakable (unspeakable that is, on this blog) ?”

I’m not sure what you mean by the “unspeakable” but you’re welcome to email me via Private Message to inquire.

Just to add to my comment—I’m kind of a slow-but-surely kind of person anyway. If a parish doesn’t find that it has many strategic thoughtful conservatives *right now* and it doesn’t have a good vestry *right now* it’s not as if this is disaster.

One can quite easily swing into action and begin working towards those goals.

I’m reminded of another parish in a revisionist diocese who carefully—over a three year period—had me and others do coaching seminars to groups of people within her parish, slowly educating them on strategy and action, and taking step by step actions, the result of which was 1) a transformed vestry, 2) reductions in giving to the diocese 3) an “early retirement” revisionist rector, 4) an inspired and careful search committee, 5) a faithful, Gospel-loving, strategic new rector, and a salvaged parish in a mid-sized city.

It can be done.

I’m not saying it’s a “sure thing” or that it’s a happy/happy joy/joy time of it either.

I’m just saying that it’s possible in a 5-10 year plan. In the case of the parish I mentioned in an earlier comment, it was a 20-year plan.

Talk about “long-term vision” . . . not easy to do.

[43] Posted by Sarah on 8-8-2012 at 05:09 PM · [top]

Sarah, Jamesw. Thanks for you thoughtful comments. Much to ponder.

[44] Posted by Already Gone on 8-8-2012 at 06:09 PM · [top]

One small step at a time. Our rector is a charming fellow. We enjoy his company, and have him frequently to dinner. We see his viewpoint slowly changing to questioning the actions of diocese (Massachusetts) and TEC. He is increasingly focussed on pastoring. Last night, our adult education team got him to approve our study of Romans in the Fall. While our small aging congregation struggles to survive, we draw
closer together. Even though they know I am an Anglican Evangelical in spirit, they
are glad to have my participation. We will post our bible study in the local paper, which, as Mark Twain remarked about telling the truth, will astonish our friends and confound our enemies.

[45] Posted by profpk on 8-10-2012 at 10:04 AM · [top]

Sara wrote:
Finally, unlike the US House of Representatives, the dioceses are in no way “representationally-elected.”

You know… I have wondered how the House of Deputies would look IF representation in that house was proportional to the number of members in the Diocese. For example,The Diocese of South Carolina has approx. 29,000 baptized members and about 100 priests actively serving in parishes. Surely that would grant us a much larger representation at GC than currently. Think of the small numbers of deputies from more liberal dioceses. Make the House of Deputies ‘representational’ like the US House of Representatives and the House of Bishops can be like the US Senate with one or two bishops/diocese.

Surely we could put together a resolution for next GC??? This would be in line with the needed structural changes for the church. Worth thinking about. I wonder why no one thought of this long ago?

[46] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 8-10-2012 at 01:51 PM · [top]

SC blu cat lady (#46),

The question of proprtional (or graduated) representation has come up several times in the last 150 years; it has always been rejected precisely because it would necessarily change the representational nature of the House of Deputies.

In 1877, the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution recommended no change, on the ground that the framers intended dioceses to be equally represented, and made the same recommendation in 1883, being sustained by the House on both occasions.

In 1916, a proposal to give each diocese three deputies plus one additional deputy for every hundred clergymen in the diocese, up to a total representation of six was overwhelmingly defeated.

A call to base representation on communicant strength was tabled at the General Convention of 1967 and defeated when reintroduced in both 1970 and 1973.

It’s hard to square diocesan autonomy with proprtional representation, even taking the House of Bishops into account.

[47] Posted by Jeremy Bonner on 8-10-2012 at 02:32 PM · [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.

Are you reading this?
Advertising on Stand Firm works!
Click here for details.