Perception is Not the Problem: A Response to Dan Martins
Several people have sent me the link to this post by Dan Martins, suggesting that it’s a hard-nosed, no-nonsense piece that deserves all of our attention. It’s his prescription for how to fix the mess surrounding the “botched” inhibitions of Bishops Cox and Schofield, in which Katharine Schori ran roughshod over the canons pertaining to their removal.
Before I comment on it, I want to emphasize that while I’ve disagreed with Dan on more than one occasion, sometimes sharply, I’ve always tried to indicate my respect for him. I’ve never met him in person, but what I sense from his writings and our exchanges online is that he’s a smart, kind, gentle soul and a tremendous asset to the orthodox cause. I’d like for commenters on this thread to keep that in mind.
My criticism of his latest piece can be summarized as this: Dan mis-characterizes the root of the problem with the actions of the presiding bishop and her revisionist cronies, and his mis-characterization results from his fundamental misunderstanding of who these people are, what they’re doing, and how they’re doing it.
Above, I put “botched” in quotes because it is a relative term the meaning of which depends on which side of the theological/ideological debate one occupies. For the orthodox, it was “botched” because of two things: It was clearly not done according to the canons; and the revisionists in power are, to say the least, sticklers about canons when it comes to property matters. For the orthodox, this hypocrisy is a key component of their description of the proceedings as “botched.”
For the revisionists - particularly the ones who supervised this farce of a proceeding - it is “botched” only to the extent that they may not get away with it, or to the extent that it may complicate future proceedings, whether against departing bishops individually, or against departing parishes and dioceses collectively. If the controversy subsides, and has no significant effect on 815’s ability to depose bishops in the future, or to pursue property litigation, then it will not have been “botched” at all. To the contrary, I’d say that on balance, so far this little episode has been a win for Schori: She is able to demonstrate to the entire House of Bishops that, yes, I can do what I want regardless of what the canons say, and you won’t do a thing about it, so just watch yourselves, capisce?
Here is the first clear sign in Dan’s post that he misunderstands the nature of the people we’re up against, as well as the ones we’re counting on as our allies:
...I, for one, do not attribute any dishonorable or malevolent motives to the Presiding Bishop or to Chancellor Beers with respect to how the depositions were handled at the March HOB meeting. I think it was an honest mistake on their part. I agree that they were following established precedent. Nor do I blame the bishops for not objecting at the time; they too were following precedent and assumed everything was on the up and up. They may have been culpably ignorant, but they were, I would wager, nonetheless ignorant. Nobody was trying to pull a fast one, and nobody was sitting mutely while an injustice was being perpetrated.
Perhaps this is Dan’s way of leaving open a door of polite opportunity, the same way a police officer responding to a disturbance involving someone with an open container of alcohol might say, “I’m sure you weren’t deliberately breaking the law… I’m sure that, had you been aware there was an ordinance against open containers, you wouldn’t have been out here with one… right?” This gives the offender a way of saving face by playing along and doing the right thing. The officer doesn’t have to escalate the confrontation, nobody goes to jail, and there’s no need for all that paperwork.
The problem with this approach, if this is in fact what Dan is doing, is that Dan carries no moral or legal weight over Katharine Schori and David Beers. He commands no respect from them at all. If they stare at him through squinted eyes and say nothing, there will be no repercussions for them, as there would be for the intoxicated pedestrian doing the same with the police officer.
But if not - if Dan’s intention was not to leave open a door of polite opportunity - then he misunderstands the nature and intent of the people we’re up against, and the lack of courage and resolve on the part of the bishops some of us like to think are on our side.
Let’s be clear about a couple of things:
First: Katharine Schori and David Beers are quite aware of what the canons say, and what they mean. They are quite aware of how parliamentary procedure works. They are not stupid people, and in the case of the canons of TEC, neither are they ignorant. If they are in fact unaware of the particular details of the canons in question, they are certainly intelligent enough to know that they are unaware, and to brief themselves on the details before pursuing action. Besides, legal advice is not something that is in short supply at 815 these days.
Second, canonical lawlessness has been the modus operandi of Episcopal revisionists for decades now, stretching back at least to the Philadelphia Eleven in the mid-70’s. This is the way they have advanced their agenda. It is part of their strategy, and this is the key part of Dan’s misunderstanding. While there are the rare revisionist activists who make it a point to play by the rules, as a class they are completely untrustworthy when it comes to this. Remember: Frank Griswold signed the primates’ communique in October of 2003, then immediately returned to the U.S. to serve as chief consecrator of Gene Robinson. Talk to “moderate” bishops who voted for C051 at General Convention 2003, and they’ll tell you that the resolution was sold to them as a harmless “acknowledgement that SSB’s are occurring,” in other words, “descriptive,” not “prescriptive.” But do any of us now have serious doubt that it will be used as the springboard for a “prescriptive” resolution next year? Katharine Schori agreed to the Dar es Salaam communique, and proceeded to ignore it the moment she set foot back in New York. Remember the wailing and gnashing of teeth over B033 in Columbus - what a disgrace it was that General Convention “had” to pass it, and the insult to gays’ and lesbians’ dignity it constituted? Boy, that really threw a monkey wrench into their works, right? Right?
The list of this kind of behavior goes on, and on, and on. It is long enough if you confine it only to the national level; it is exponentially longer at the diocesan and parish level.
So let’s put aside, once and for all, any notion that Schori and Beers - and Stacy Sauls, and Joe Morris Doss, and the rest of the many lawyer-bishops in the HoB - are neither aware of, nor unable to follow, the canons as clearly written and easily available to them for further research. If a suggestion on how to move forward from such a blatant disregard of the canons is to have any hope of working, it has to proceed from the assumption that the revisionists in power today in the Episcopal Church are by nature deceitful and dishonest, with no intention - and no desire - to deal from the top of the deck. Any other reading of their character and motives is naive.
On to the bishops who sat by while this farce was played out: The minutiae of the presiding bishop’s failures in the depositions of Bishops Cox and Schofield are detailed at length elsewhere, so there’s no need to go into them here. Suffice it to say they are numerous, and some are complex. However, it’s not the case that all of the violations of procedure are complex, or that one had to have a complete understanding right then and there - of everything that took experts weeks to document and describe - in order to raise on objection. There were two simple, obvious problems that should have been immediately evident to anyone who regularly engages in parliamentary procedure: The lack of a quorum, and insufficient ‘yea’ votes. Let’s not forget that there are two or three House of Bishops meeting every year at which some amount of official business is conducted by parliamentary procedure. There are Executive Council meetings every year at which some number of bishops are present, there is a General Convention every three years, and each bishop presides over his own convention once a year. If you are an Episcopal bishop, you engage in parliamentary procedure on average about once every ten weeks. Is it really reasonable to believe that none of those bishops identified a problem in the proceedings?
I think it’s accurate to say that the odds approach zero that not one single bishop present at the proceedings identified neither of these two glaring problems, which leaves us with what I submit are only two possible explanations: Either our allies in the HoB have been intimidated into keeping silent, or they have simply given up hope that there is any chance the presiding bishop can be made to conduct herself in a canonically lawful manner. Perhaps it’s some of both. Whatever the mix, it blinks at reality, to borrow a phrase, to suggest that of the entire House of Bishops - a disturbingly high percentage of whom are former lawyers - not one bishop failed to see, right then and there, that there was procedural abuse being perpetrated by the presiding bishop serious enough to warrant an objection.
Dan continues:
Fixing the mess, and restoring some modicum of confidence that we are abiding by our own rules, is difficult but not impossible. There are multiple ways this could happen, but the simplest one, in Bishop Schofield’s case, would be for the HOB, by a telephone poll, to accept his letter of resignation from the HOB as tantamount to resignation from ministry in TEC, and just be done with it. But if some find that objectionable, then the Title IV Review Committee should meet (a half-hour conference call should suffice) to form the charges against Bishops Cox and Schofield, either using the same “abandonment” canon or, better still, filing a presentment and scheduling a proper trial. My guess is that neither gentleman would show up to contest the charges, so it need not be a matter of inordinate expense. But the benefits of such a move—especially if combined with an effort to face up to the boondoggle that was made of San Joaquin—would be immediately palpable.
The nuts and bolts of Dan’s proposal are fine - the telephone poll, a proper trial, etc. - but to say that the results of Schori’s facing up to her abuses (they are not “mistakes”) would be “palpable” is far-fetched to say the least, if by “palpable” Dan means “improved.” It might give some cover to institutional leftists on the rare occasion when they’re asked by parishioners back home in their diocese to explain what’s going on, but that’s about it. It will certainly not improve relations between 815 and the bishop of San Joaquin, or the Virginia parishes, or the tens of thousands of orthodox who follow the blogs, or the tens of thousands of others who see Katharine Schori and her agenda for what they really are.
Consider this analogy: You have a next-door neighbor beside whom you’ve lived for years. One day you realize your sprinkler is missing. Soon afterward, it shows up… in your neighbor’s yard, watering his lawn. You decide not to say anything about it - the grief that would ensue isn’t worth the cost of a $20 sprinkler. The following year, you notice that your child’s bike is missing. Soon afterward, it shows up - with your neighbor’s child riding it down the street. The kid looks happy, and you had been meaning to buy your child a bigger bike anyway, so you let it go.
Then the third year, you notice your riding lawn mower is missing. You walk to the edge of your property and you see it, plain as day, sitting inside your neighbor’s garage. You stomp around to the neighbor’s front door, bang on the door, and demand that he return your mower. He goes out to the garage, starts it up, and rides it back over to your house.
You have your property back. Your neighbor has acknowledged his error. Does this change your opinion of your neighbor? It wouldn’t change mine. He may have acknowledged his thievery, he may even have apologized. I can forgive him, but does it improve our relationship? Does it lower the tension between us? If anything, I know better now that my neighbor will probably steal my property if I leave it unguarded. I know that my neighbor is untrustworthy, and, given the opportunity, has a disturbing tendency to escalate his thievery. His return of my riding mower, only after my calling him on his thievery, does nothing to restore my confidence in him and in fact only serves to convince me that unless I want more of my property to disappear, I need to go around making sure it’s all more secure than it used to be. It makes me inclined to extend less trust, not more, to my neighbor in the future.
This is what the Episcopal left has been doing to us all these years: They have repeatedly broken our trust, and escalated both the nature of the matters over which they will break that trust, as well as the brazenness with which they will do so. Here’s one of the latest examples, as revealed over at TitusOneNine: Commenter Kevin S. pointed out that in the document “Claiming the Blessing,” which has since its release in 2003 been Integrity’s manifesto/apologia for what it wants in the way of same-sex blessings, right there on page one, we read:
We know and accept that such a rite will not be used or even allowed to be used universally. We are quite deliberately advocating for a rite whose use would be optional for the sake of the unity of the Church we love. We believe in our heart of hearts that our relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships, whether or not the term “marriage” is appropriate for them, and so, in our heart of hearts, we believe the rite used to publicly celebrate them should be equal. But that is not what we are asking for.
In the very next comment, Susan Russell, currently president of Integrity, in reply wrote:
Re: 2003 ... that was then, this is now. We are committed [to] the full inclusion of all the baptized in all the sacraments and marriage equality was certainly part of that goal.
In other words - and if Dan and others take only one thing away from my essay here I hope this is it - they lied to us. They have been lying to us for years. They lied to us in “Claiming the Blessing,” and they have lied to us every time one of their leaders has said or written that “all they want” is something that’s not quite this, or not quite that, or that their intention is in no way to redefine marriage.
This is the same thing Katharine Schori has done with the Cox/Schofield depositions: She has made countless claims about the importance of the canons, the importance of following them to the letter, even to the point of characterizing her relentless litigation as “Aw shucks… I’m just following the canons… I have to.” She and her chancellor spend enormous amounts of time scouring the canons for ways to litigate for property, incurring millions of dollars in legal fees in the process. And then, when it’s time to depose +Cox and +Schofield, oh well… the canons aren’t really that important, are they? What she has said, in effect, is: “When we started suing parishes for their property, we did so only because the canons required us to. Following the canons strictly is of the utmost importance. But that was then, this is now. Now we need to depose a couple of troublesome bishops, and strictly following the canons was never part of our plan.”
There are many people in this church who come here to this site looking for advice, looking for detailed maps on a way out of this mess. There are, I’m sure, many people reading this post right now, who fully expect the Big Message here to be: It is not too late to save your church; and: Saving your church will not be that difficult. There are many people, I’m sure, who still believe that the problem is one of “process,” or that as soon as we can find a way to “communicate” better, all the tension will go away and we’ll be able to settle in for a brief and painless discussion after which all of our problems will be solved.
In case we have not been clear: Nothing could be further from the truth.
It may in fact be too late to save this church. Win or lose, it will be horrendously difficult. You must pray, but prayer alone will not save your church. You must be charitable, but charity alone will not save your church. You must be political, you must be strategic, you must be organized, and you must not be complacent.
But whatever you do or don’t do, you must come to terms with the fact that you are not engaged in conflict with honest opponents. Worthy Opponents, yes, because as we’ve always defined the term, it means opponents who are skilled at achieving their goals. It does not speak to their trustworthiness or their honesty.
You are, rather, engaged in a conflict with liars - people who cannot be trusted, and who have proved that they cannot be trusted over and over again. Yes, there is Sarah Dylan Breuer, and Scott Gunn, and a few others on the other side of the debate I believe are genuinely honest and trustworthy, but they are the exceptions. As a whole, and certainly throughout the top of the leadership, they are liars, beginning with Katharine Jefferts Schori and David Booth Beers, and moving downward and outward to Jon Bruno, to Susan Russell and most of the leadership of Integrity, and on and on.
We may still lose this battle, but if we are to lose it, let it not be because we continued to extend trust to our opponents well past the point at which it was obvious they were untrustworthy. This is the folly of those who insist that a perfunctory apology here, a procedural do-over there, and a general “de-escalation” of tensions on both sides is all that’s needed to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
It is not, as Dan writes, the “perception” of dishonesty that’s the problem. It is the fact of dishonesty, and the willingness of those in the national TEC leadership to engage in it so openly, so frequently, and so brazenly.
The problem is not that a few procedural corners were cut by people who are good at heart and want to play by the rules. The problem is that our opponents have every intention of breaking the rules whenever doing so advances their agenda.
The problem is not that some well-meaning revisionists made a few honest mistakes in applying the canons here or there. It is that canonical lawlessness is part of who they are. It is how they get things done.
We are in the midst of a battle that is in no small part about incoherence: How can it be, we ask our opponents, that the Bible says this about homosexuality, but you insist it means that? How can it be, we ask them, that the Bible says this about the uniqueness of Christ, yet you insist it allows for an interpretation like that? How can it be, we ask them, that the Bible says the crucifixion and resurrection took place for the purpose of this, yet you insist something entirely different and contradictory?
If we are to have any hope at all of emerging from this crisis with anything remotely resembling a victory, it will be, in part, because we have identified, disassembled, and removed this kind of incoherence from the church and its leaders. But we are piling our own incoherence on top of our opponents’ incoherence, when we continue to labor under the illusion that they are honest brokers. Worthy opponents, yes; but let go - Dan and everyone else - of any illusion that they are honest.
Comments
Facebook comments are closed.
66 comments
If there is one flaw to your essay, it’s that you credit our adversaries with too much competence and consequently malice. Yes, a fair number of our bishops were or are attorneys. That is not to say that they were very good attorneys.
Even more of our bishops are former middle management. They are genuinely nice people. But they will go with the flow, follow anyone who promises them leadership and they will not ever make waves. We have a church led by mediocrities. I do not include Mr. Beers in that category. But he is an advisor, rather than someone who is in a position of authority.
You find it difficult that no one caught the lack of quorum and attribute it to intention. I do not find it implausible at all. Our leadership is not serious. A large percentage of them are not bishops, in any Platonic sense. They are playing at being bishops. They are shadows of the shadows of the images of the shadows of the platonic ideal of ‘bishop’.
The Episcopal Church: Where vox populi is always received as Vox Dei.
[1] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 5-26-2008 at 04:24 PM · [top]
Finally, the issue of trustworthiness is on display in this important post.
Folks, the leftist party of Jefferts Schori, Beers, Anderson, Griswold, Chane, Russell, Kaeton, Crew, Bennison, Bruno, Pike, Spong, Righter, Howard, Adams, Smith…
are demonstrably, absolutely Not worthy of any trust whatsoever. None. Period. Now whadduhwegonnadoboudit? Don’t see any presentment charges coming from those who are the only ones in positions to bring them. They waitin’ on somethin’?
[2] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 5-26-2008 at 05:00 PM · [top]
“Either our allies in the HoB have been intimidated into keeping silent”
Pledge night at the fraternity. We make all the pledges eat worms…no big deal, we all go along. Next we make all the pledges strip and run around the frat house yard in their altogether. Little bigger deal because my sister, who lives across the street from the frat house, might see all this. Register a complaint. Told its no big deal, and don’t be a party pooper…..Next the pledges in their altogether must run the gauntlet of paddles which will draw blood. Well now brothers, I think we must temper this with common sense. Brother’s glare at you. Really brothers, I don’t think this is legal and certainly not manly, manorly, or quite right. Brothers not only ignor what you said, not only glare, but quietly tell you to shut up before we decide you get to walk the gaunlet…....disagree, make one more polite protest and you will face the consequences. Being no more a part of the fraturnity…...of brotherly love….
I think many a bishop, priest, and deacon has been silenced since 2003….thank God for those who refused to be silenced…...I like Iker and The Duncan…..
[3] Posted by Dee in Iowa on 5-26-2008 at 05:32 PM · [top]
RANT ON:
Translation:
I,Father Dan, am covering my A**.
What a Crock…after 13 years of the good Father’s plotting against Bp. Schofield, Dan skips town to join the VGR syncophant Ed Little and you paint him as a Reasserter?
Frankly Greg it is quite obvious that Fr. Dan is not the gentle loving can’t we all get along priest in a sleepy Indiana hamlet.
He is the worst kind of collaborator and I hope that he has not sucked you in like he did Sarah.
RANT OFF
Intercessor
[4] Posted by Intercessor on 5-26-2008 at 05:41 PM · [top]
A little info from Robert’s Rules, which as Greg points out has to be second nature to all bishops:
TO DO THIS: Protest breach of rules or conduct
YOU SAY THIS: “I rise to a point of order”
May you interrupt the speaker? YES
Do you need a second? NO
Is it debatable? NO
Can it be amended? NO
What vote is needed? NO VOTE
Can it be reconsidered? NO
TO DO THIS: Verify a voice vote by having members stand
YOU SAY THIS: “I call for a division” or “Division”
May you interrupt the speaker? YES
Do you need a second? NO
Is it debatable? NO
Can it be amended? NO
What vote is needed? NO VOTE
Can it be reconsidered? NO
Note that +Geralyn Wolf called for a voice vote in September, and she was ignored. The vaunted Camp Allen bishops thus should have known that this might be repeated and should have been ready with points of order and if need be, walking out of the meeting, or filibuster or something!
[5] Posted by robroy on 5-26-2008 at 05:47 PM · [top]
Well, Greg, I expect that Babyblue may weigh in with her famous HHHB principle: the Hammerstein Hierarchy of Human Behavior. Perhaps you’ll all recall it. As I remember it, it says that when things go wrong, 50% of the time it’s due to sheer laziness, 25% of the time to sheer stupidity, and only 15% of the time to outright malice and intentional evil. And the remaining 10% of the time it’s due to misguided altruism gone awry.
So you may well be right. Maybe these scandalous depositions were done with malice and a blithe disregard for the “fine points” of the canons. I wouldn’t be surprised in the least. I have no respect for the PB. She is a despictable, incompentent jerk, for whom I have nothing but contempt.
But I admit that I’m also sometimes left wondering, like Dr. Phil Turner of ACI, if she really knows what she is doing. I think sometimes she really is out of her depth and just bungling things out of laziness and incompetence.
But either way, it’s not good. Either way, she ought to be deposed before she wrecks even more havoc on TEC. Either way, her tenure is a disaster.
David Handy+
[6] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 5-26-2008 at 05:59 PM · [top]
It will be interesting to observe which bishops, if any, are willing to respond appropriately the next time KJS attempts to play fast and loose with the canons. Want to guess what I’m talking about?
[7] Posted by Ann Castro on 5-26-2008 at 06:01 PM · [top]
Intercessor . . . what on earth?
If he were a collaborater than why the heck is he continuously sounding the horn about the canonical travesties of the Schofield deposition and the Cox deposition and the other abuses of power in the San Joaquin debacle that the PB engineered????
Why would he take the time and trouble to write a score or more of essays, and getting bashed on the HOBD listserve for his troubles? Why would he spend more time on this issue—when he never left TEC—than any other single blogger in all of TEC or outside of TEC?
If this kind of continual and persistent dripping by Dan Martins is “collaborating” then I sure as heck wish we had more of such collaboration, more clergy in TEC speaking up about this ridiculous mess that the PB has delivered on a platter.
If Dan is a collaborater then . . . send in the collaboraters! Any more blogging collaboraters out there that we can link to?
I entirely agree with Greg’s analysis. It is excellent.
But Dan’s talents are clearly wasted as a collaborater. He’s too much of an annoyance to revisionists and he’s too practical and critical of their efforts. And there’s not enough of the collaborative talk of listening, “getting beyond all of this,” and “refocusing on mission and ministry.”
No, Dan is a ComCon who is using his talents at argument and writing and blogging to the best of his abilities. May as well cut Dan’s hair into a mohawk and paint up his face and declare him a member of the 101st Airborne Division as call him a collaborater.
[8] Posted by Sarah on 5-26-2008 at 06:25 PM · [top]
ALL OF YOU FROM THE CONSERVATIVE-ORTHODOX RIGHT, ESPECIALLY THE ONES WHO RUN STAND FIRM, IT WOULD BE MORE THEN FOOLISH TO TRUST THE NEST OF BLOOD SUCKING VIPERS FROM THE LEFT WITH 815. DO NOT BE SURPRISED IF YOU GET BITTEN IF YOU DANCE WITH THE DEVIL.
[9] Posted by BishopOfSaintJames on 5-26-2008 at 06:39 PM · [top]
I’m just sad about how you characterize “the nature of the people whom we’re up against,” as if everyone who disagreed with you about, for example, the morality of faithful, life-long, monogamous relationships between Christians of the same sex were some Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy not only in lock-step with respect to praxis, but also somehow sharing an ontology apart from that of conservatives or reasserters.
Nuance doesn’t raise funds or get people riled up as other approaches—as people on all sides of every aisle know—but it does tend to be more reflective of the truth of most matters. I think this post would be more persuasive with more nuanced rhetoric. But maybe that’s just me.
Blessings,
Dylan
[10] Posted by Sarah Dylan Breuer on 5-26-2008 at 06:51 PM · [top]
RE: “as if everyone who disagreed with you about, for example, the morality of faithful, life-long, monogamous relationships between Christians of the same sex . . . “
But Greg did not do that—he named two sterling exceptions to his general rule.
RE: “I think this post would be more persuasive with more nuanced rhetoric.”
I did not get the sense that Greg was attempting to persuade revisionists, but rather to articulate his reasons, clearly and forthrightly stated, why he disagrees with Dan Martins’ latest essay.
[11] Posted by Sarah on 5-26-2008 at 07:00 PM · [top]
One of the more striking comments I ever saw regarding John Shelby Spong was in the Roman Catholic magazine Commonweal some years ago in which he was described as an “aging flower child of the Episcopal heirarchy” and summed up with this, “If [Spong] is an innocent, he is the type who cheerfully tosses you a live handgrenade.” Since an innocent may be every bit as dangerous and untrustworthy as an enemy, it seems to these eyes to matter very little whether there was or was not malevolent intent on the part of Schori, et. al. with regard to the San Juaquin debacle or attempted depositions of Bishops Schofield and Cox.
I think the most perceptive thing said here concerns the centrality of incoherence to the dispute. The progressives’ theology (not, mind, their politics) is hopelessly incoherent as it is fundamentally ad hoc, being entirely in service of their political agenda. The same can be said for their arguments, hermeneutics, and approach to canon law, none of which will be either consistent or coherent as all serve the political agenda and only the political agenda. The idea is to use whatever will work for however long is necessary to advance the agenda, which is only coherent or consistent thing, and indeed the only thing.
[12] Posted by Daniel Muth on 5-26-2008 at 07:30 PM · [top]
An amazing exchange of views, both on this thread and the one referenced, with “young joe”. Very timely, and most welcome—-thank you, Greg, Sarah and Matt (and Jackie, and David).
To Greg’s observations on the nature of our “worthy opponents,” I can only add this: The law has no way of judging a person’s intent except by their actions. Thus—-did the Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor intend to depose Bishops Cox and Schofield? Clearly they did, for they placed the item on the agenda at the HoB meeting.
Did they intend to break the canons to do so? In the final analysis, yes, they clearly did—-because when they were confronted with unanswerable objections and arguments as to why the procedure they claimed to have followed was wrong, they have continued to insist that what they had done was right. By thus knowingly choosing to ratify their wrongdoing rather than to correct it, they have demonstrated their wrongful intent for all to see, just as though they had openly declared it to everyone at the HoB meeting.
One hope remains: that there are currently pending, confidentially as the canons require, proceedings in the HoB to halt Schori’s continued intent to violate the canons with +Duncan, as she did with +Cox and +Schofield.
[13] Posted by Chancellor on 5-26-2008 at 07:49 PM · [top]
Greg,
In the very last paragraph of your post you wrote :
Rather than dissembled, I believe you intended to write disassembled. This would make much more sense, given the balance of both that paragraph and the essay itself.
Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist
[14] Posted by H. Potter (aka Martial Artist) on 5-26-2008 at 07:58 PM · [top]
Chancellor’s comment took the words from my mouth. Had the depositions been an error of canonical application, Schori et alia would have seen to it they were vacated and proper procedure followed. But their continued defense of them, combined with the kangaroo court-like proceedings that brought them about, makes it clear this was no misstep, but the intentional abrogation of the Canons in a political purge.
Greg is 100% correct: With few exceptions, these are not honorable or trustworthy people.
[15] Posted by Jeffersonian on 5-26-2008 at 07:59 PM · [top]
MA,
Thank you. I’m also constantly typing things like “server her” instead of “serve her,” which is lame but understandable. I also keep typing “Time Jones” instead of “Tim Jones,” which is just stupid and inexplicable.
[16] Posted by Greg Griffith on 5-26-2008 at 08:03 PM · [top]
I often type beerages instead of beverages. What’s up with that?
bb
[17] Posted by BabyBlue on 5-26-2008 at 08:11 PM · [top]
Thanks Greg for this succinct piece. You ‘nail it’.
Reading the comment of Mr. Muth, I had a quick flashback to Grahame Greens’s The Quiet American, not a perfect parallel but, “since and innocent may be every bit as dangerous and untrustworthy as an enemy” and “incoherence” and “use whatever will work for however long…to advance the agenda”, enough of what we have been viewing on display and the accelerated bad behaviour on the part of the bishops and executive committee of ECUSA certainly fills the bill, as it were. A mess.
[18] Posted by southernvirginia1 on 5-26-2008 at 08:19 PM · [top]
Our enfant bleu writes:
Two things:
1) You are becoming obsessed with DBB.
2) You are not using Firefox as your browser to which you can load a free dictionary which will catch such mistakes but not Greg’s dissembling. (er, I am not saying that Greg is deviating from the truth!)
Of course, Sarah is correct about Father Dan being a comm-con. But I would add that a timid comm-con does play into the hands of the usurpers. “We really need to protest this latest violation, perhaps an ad hoc committee to write a letter?”
I might compare the comm-cons, Father Rob Eaton and Father Dan. Father Rob stayed and got pummeled (and presumably is still getting pummeled?). But Father Rob would say that Father Dan is doing a very good job about bringing light on the seedy side of the TEO which is true.
What about “...VGR syncophant Ed Little and you paint him as a Reasserter”? Did Ed Little vote for VGR?
[19] Posted by robroy on 5-26-2008 at 08:51 PM · [top]
Off-topic note: spell checkers are very little help when the spelled word is an actual dictionary word. I can’t count the number of times, in major news outlets and other places where a modicum of literacy was to be hoped for, that I have seen “reign” used where “rein” was intended, and vice-versa. After a lifetime as an accurate typist, I now find myself automatically spelling words with phonetically rather than correctly.
On-topic. As Derrida and Foucault-inspired relativists (or keeping close company with those who are), I think it apt to say, as I read Mr. Griffith’s article doing, that the left’s agenda has been and will be moved forward opportunistically rather than in a principled manner, and that to expect principled behavior is foolish at best.
[20] Posted by ears2hear on 5-26-2008 at 09:17 PM · [top]
For another example of the untrustworthiness (but, actually, quite honest), check here on Susan Russell’s explanation of the justification of having same-sex marriages at All Saints Pasadena.
[21] Posted by Branford on 5-26-2008 at 09:43 PM · [top]
In the meeting following the meeting:
DBB: “Ha ha – can you believe it? Can you believe what we just did? Ha ha ha.”
KJS: “You nailed it – you absolutely nailed it. And not a single person objected. Nary a peep. Ha ha ha. ‘Meetings adjourned’ ha ha ha.”
[22] Posted by AngloTex on 5-26-2008 at 09:50 PM · [top]
Terrific post Greg. The evidence of the motive is made obvious by the simple fact that all thses little “mistakes” benefit the revisionists.
[23] Posted by AngloTex on 5-26-2008 at 09:55 PM · [top]
[17] BabyBlue,
You wrote
It sounds to me like a dietary deficiency. You are clearly not getting enough good single malt scotch whisky in your diet.
Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist
———————-
—”The common belief that whisky improves with age is true. The older I get, the more I like it.”—[Ronnie Corbett]
[24] Posted by H. Potter (aka Martial Artist) on 5-26-2008 at 10:29 PM · [top]
Creepy. The detailed chronology tells the tale. I had the same blood-draining feeling reading this as I did when I first heard the phrase, “Soylent Green is PEOPLE!!”
It’s bad. It’s real. And it’s coming for YOUR church.
[25] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 5-26-2008 at 10:47 PM · [top]
Greg—
You present an interesting and, very likely, accurate assessment of the situation. Certainly, from your perspective (that is, from your position in this, shall we call it politely, “on-going debate”), you likely see the process and the alignments with a great deal more detail and context than I, or any other outsider, would.
Nonetheless, I have seen enough traditional American institutions weakened and in some cases destroyed to recognize that the processes we see occurring in TEC are not simply chance. It is an organized sort of subversion and I will continue to believe that at least until someone can present me sufficiently convincing evidence to the contrary.
You speak about the possibility of “losing”. On that count, I must disagree. The orthodox have already won. They are now refining the definition of their victory—the struggle against evil is victory in itself.
As to the church, it cannot be destroyed because it is not a human institution. In olden times, when the barbarians came, they might have killed the bishop and all the priests; they might have killed many of the parishioners; they might have defiled the altar and knocked down much of the structure, but when two or more of the survivors came together in the name of the Lord…..
Take heart, Satan cannot win.
Who is this TEC? Might they not be a little like the barbarians? So they now sit in your church and they defile your altars. They try to run off your bishops and your priests. Will you run or will you fight the Lord’s battle?
Take heart. Nothing takes place that is not seen. This is the moment for those who believe to shine.
[26] Posted by George Hood on 5-26-2008 at 11:27 PM · [top]
It may be that it was an honest mistake in that revisionists have a habit of misinterpreting Scripture and that bent to misinterpretation may have influenced their reading skills so that they do not comprehend either Canon law or Robert‘s Rules of Order.
[27] Posted by Betty See on 5-27-2008 at 01:10 AM · [top]
Now, I may be wrong, but I think that the PB, DBB, JJB, Stripper Sauls, et al. and their lickspittle lackies are doing the devil’s work, trying to destroy this church. I personally can attribute no other motive. After all this time, and all that they have done, sloppiness or laziness or stupidity are no longer an apt description of the havoc the revisionists have raised in what once was a church with true Christian leadership. Satan takes many guises, and so does the AntiChrist. “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Ephesians 6:12 KJV
[28] Posted by Charles III on 5-27-2008 at 01:42 AM · [top]
Talk, talk, talk. Complain, complain, complain. Yammer, yammer, yammer. Dither, dither, dither.
What is going to be done about the thoroughly untrustworthy, lying left? No wonder they hold the power. No one (with exceptions of folks such as Duncan, Iker, and the entire Global South) does flippin’ anything about it. We just sit around our computers and yammer and whine. Shouldn’t SF also be a no whine zone? Do something! Emphasis on do! Act up!
For pity’s sake!
[29] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 5-27-2008 at 05:55 AM · [top]
Oops, it is a no whining zone. Signing off, Chief Whiner
[30] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 5-27-2008 at 05:58 AM · [top]
One note ...I, for one, do not attribute any dishonorable or malevolent motives to the Presiding Bishop or to Chancellor Beers…
Very few people actually believe what they are doing is “evil” or an attempt to “destroy.” Most, under delusions or misguided notions, believe they are doing “good.” I think +KJS and BBeers believe they are “saving” the Episcopal church—from anacronism, from fundies, from small boxes, from overpopulation, or whatever else they have cooked up. Litigation, intimidation, obfuscation, and canon abuse are just means to a noble end for them. From their perspective, it’s not an attempt to destroy the church, it’s an attempt to bring the church out of the dark ages and into the New Age, and the process is regrettably painful for those being left behind.
It’s all rot, of course, but they sleep well at night and see no blood on their hands.
The scariest villans are the ones most passionately dedicated to their causes in their pursuit of “what is right.” The irony is that they become fundamentalists of the “liberal” persuasion.
But this is news to no one.
[31] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 5-27-2008 at 06:26 AM · [top]
I keep thinking of That Hideous Strength. Most of the leaders of the N.I.C.E. were well-intentioned but quite deceived. They were still highly skilled politically, however. There was one character, Lord Feverstone, who cheerfully used those lower in the organization—completely unaware that he himself was being played. The real inner core knew what they were doing—but they did not know that they were playing into the hands of evil, and that what they planned to happen was not all that was going to happen—nor that they would be engulfed by the power they were seeking to unleash.
Mark Studdock was taken in by the leaders of the N.I.C.E., but eventually came to his senses and was freed. May it be so with our Worthy Opponents. After all, we are not those who love and trust Jesus out of our own intelligence and insight, but through the mercy and power of God.
[32] Posted by AnglicanXn on 5-27-2008 at 06:27 AM · [top]
#29 is spot on. The problem here is not nuanced philosophy, but rather immasculated institutionalism. Greg’s piece amplifies the problem in spades: the Loon Left currently running TEO are immoral tyrants of the worst kind whose calculated activity furthers their own agenda while placating the weak, passive institutionalist neo-cons. No one takes substantive action against these revisionists, so they get away with their Stalinist tactics repeatedly.
In short, you do not negotiate with terrorists like the Loon Left - you must defeat them.
When I listen to the orthodox faithful in TEO, they keep hoping something will change. Well, in the words of GEN Gordon Sullivan, “Hope is not a method.” There is no strategy to effectively deal with the Loon Left coming forward from the neo-cons in the HOB or from Diocese like Pittsburgh or Albany. This leaves scattered groups in the various diocese without leadership and a valid plan for an orthodox revolution in TEO.
The orthodox cannot defeat the Loon Left because they totally lost power and have no method to regain it. So until someone steps up to lead a rebellion against this mess, status quo remains.
And because I see no one willing to step up and lead, I believe the war in TEO is over and it is time for the orthodox faithful to get out.
Not whining or freaking-out
-Jim+
[33] Posted by FrJim on 5-27-2008 at 06:30 AM · [top]
I’ve no direct insights into the HoB. Observing from a distance, I’ve wondered if there isn’t at times a fear of being labeled, the fear of being labeled narrow-minded or a troublemaker or a prude or a fundamentalist or an ally of the above. If we could see with our natural eyes what this fear, or stronghold, looks like, I think it would be a cattle chute.
Wicked strongholds are built in high places of pride, trusting in one’s superior understanding and wealth, which is, after all, a form of idolatry.
God builds holy strongholds as we submit to His authority. He admonishes us to write His word on the back of our hands, to etch it on the chambers of our hearts, to bind it between our eyes for a purpose. When we embody His word, we embody His love. His love drives out the fear of being labeled. When we embody His word, we don’t fit into the cattle chute.
I pray that more bishops will come to the Lord in fear and humility.
[34] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 5-27-2008 at 07:03 AM · [top]
“And because I see no one willing to step up and lead, I believe the war in TEO is over and it is time for the orthodox faithful to get out.”
I completely disagree with Jim’s last sentence.. The war in ECUSA may be lost, many of the orthodox faithful have indeed left, but many of the orthodox faithful still feel called to remain in ECUSA and are fighting the good fight, not from positions of power, but as missionaries who have been called to remain -at least for now.
I am a kibbitzer on the HoB/D listserv and every day deal with twenty to 40 posts. I have come to know and be able to predict the comments by most of the revisionist writers and deleted 80 to 90% of the posts automatically (takes about 10 seconds) and retain posts by the very small number of faithful and regular orthodox writers, of whom Dan+ is one. I am told that there were once many more orthodox on the listserv and that they have left or given up due to the hopelessness or constant vituperation of the revisionist writers.
I respect and appreciate +Dan’s steady, reasoned responses in what is is often a very hostile and mocking environment, and am glad that there remain a few voices there who stand firm in our sense of the phrase.
No, it is not time for the orthodox to leave. ECUSA is now a mission field, and the missionaries who are called to remain my not experience spears in their backs as did Nate Saint and Jim Elliot in Ecuador, but in many ways folk like Dan+ have an even tougher job, working with those who have lost their connection and understanding of the Christian life that which many of them once knew.
By the way I like bb’s use of the HHHB hierarchy although the percentages can slide up or down. I think that the deliberate agenda (and malicious determination of many on the left to achieve their ends) of the left deserves a higher percentage than bb allocates: think of the composition of the house of bishops.
[35] Posted by Bill C on 5-27-2008 at 07:48 AM · [top]
“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.” Eph 6:12
Satan is the “organizer” of the revisionist movement, calling evil good. Shori, Beers et al have been decieved. I agree with Cindy T. that they truly believe they are “doing good”. However, please note they have been confronted with the truth AND HAVE REJECTED IT.
It is our duty to “call out” evil wherever we see it. We are to be bold, yet loving and compassionate to sinners in calling out sin.
It is not for us to judge anyone’s heart; that is for God alone. However, we are to judge people’s actions by the “fruits of their labors”. Given this, you can’t trust the leadership of TEC as far as you can throw ‘em. Whether the breeches of the Canons was intentional or accidental is really irrelevant; the breeches must be dealt with regardless.
To close - “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”. The TEC leadership CANNOT BE TRUSTED, so don’t trust ‘em. Don’t believe words - watch actions.
[36] Posted by B. Hunter on 5-27-2008 at 08:50 AM · [top]
“No, it is not time to leave” is not a strategy. The best I’ve heard is, “We’re really gonna be a pain in the {body part} of TEC, yes we are, whoo boy!
Hope is hope, indeed, but it is equally NOT a strategy as I paraphrase the wonderfully astute above comment of FrJim+. Act up. Organize. Tell your parish priest EXACTLY how things are. Tell the diocesan standing committee. Tell your bishop. Tell everybody. Then, for pity’s sake DO SOMETHING!
My strategy? Pray for the remainers (of which I very soon will not be among their number). Pray for all Christ followers! Bring others to Christ (something I don’t hear much about in TEC after the vaunted decade of evangelism and here in the age of heresy and nominal Christianity). Be ready. Pray. Act.
[37] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 5-27-2008 at 09:27 AM · [top]
With all respect, Ms. Brauer, you may be the only person left for whom a “more nuanced” presentation would mean anything. IMO, Greg is being blunt because anything less would be able to be misunderstood. The Church Fathers understood this, see Athanasius’ Apologia Contra Arianos as an example of some fairly direct language.
In my forensic audit work, guilty people invent the most complicated stories imaginable and then try explain the internal contradictions by attempting to nuance or redefine words that have a plain meaning. Claiming the Blessing appears to have that same problem of a fantastically complicated story with internal contradictions that have to be explained away by inventing new definitions for words that already have a plain meaning. It is not surprising that it doesn’t convince the skeptics among us conservatives.
I hope Greg and the rest of the Stand Firm crew continue posting plain speech.
[38] Posted by Bill in Ottawa on 5-27-2008 at 10:53 AM · [top]
I made a mistake: “No, it is not time for the orthodox to leave. ECUSA is now a mission field, ...” I ought to have said “No, it is not time for all the orthodox to leave.”
Athanasius, why have you waited until now to leave?? Many were called to leave several years ago. And many have not yet been called to leave. Some have been called to stay. Strategy???? Don’t you think that rather than forming our own strategy, we should be listening to our Master’s voice. He is the one who tells us what and when to act.
“Be ready. Pray. Act.” I would say ‘Be ready. Pray. Listen to the Holy Spirit. Act upon what you hear from the Holy Spirit.
[39] Posted by Bill C on 5-27-2008 at 11:39 AM · [top]
I have a few questions. It is about issues that have troubled me since I began researching this matter.
1) If you all walk away (and I do not dispute either your right or justification), to whom do you leave the institution? What exists in the absence of good, if there are only two forces in the world?
2) Do you believe that the Church is a divine institution? If it cannot be destroyed, then why do you fear? If the Devil sits in the physical structures of your institution, that is, your churches and defiles them with his profanities, does it not make sense then to throw him and his followers out? Who better to confront Satan than he who is armed with the Word of God (or would you send your youngest parishioners to fight Satan)?
3) Assuming that the world is composed of only good and evil, does flight now lead to anything but a temporary respite? Will you not, or those who follow after you, have to deal with this very issue sooner or later (or do you believe that Satan will leave you alone)? The disease grows and spreads until the doctor comes with the appropriate treatment. The doctor is the church. The medicine is the word of God.
4) Are you all not the Church? Do those who have abandoned THE WORD, THE LAW, have any rightful claim to the institution? Will you respect the claim of the followers of Satan to your institution, a gift from your Lord, by not fighting for it? How do you, as “medical” professionals deliver the medicine and cure the disease?
5) If you are the leaders, then does it not make sense for you to all be brave and steadfast in the face of the enemy? Your parishioners depend on your courage. Will you not go fight for them laying down all that you have if necessary? Are you not the champions of the Lord?
6) Why do you not fight?
[40] Posted by George Hood on 5-27-2008 at 11:41 AM · [top]
It strikes me that there once was a man who found money changers in the House of the Lord and who, by their actions, defiled it. He did not hesitate.
[41] Posted by George Hood on 5-27-2008 at 12:09 PM · [top]
Indeed, BillC! My impetuosity got the best of me in my hasty reply.
FWIW, I have had to disentangle my TEC ties very carefully (and to my liking, pathetically slowly) as several persons have a stake in my decision. I sense others are having similar strategic concerns. But go, I must, and my leading away from TEC has been very specific. I could not have cooked up a more promising departure if I had written the script and hand-selected the players.
Folks, pray like there’s no tomorrow, because there might not be.
[42] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 5-27-2008 at 12:49 PM · [top]
Too much to contribute but am following along intrigued by all comments. Besides my point of view is very bias and would not bring much if anything to the conversation. But, want to keep up.
[43] Posted by TLDillon on 5-27-2008 at 12:56 PM · [top]
Bill C says this:
To me this is most revelatory about how the institutionalists react and behave to the whole problem of TEO. Those who remain “feel called” to remain. There is no rational or cogent argument…rather, it is a matter of personal “feeling.” This response reminds me of my teenagers’ reaction when confronted with doing something incredibly stupid: “Why did you do that?” I ask. “Because I felt like it,” they respond. Feelings are important to human behavior. I am a very emotional man (just ask people who know me). But a “feeling” - even to being “called” - remains a weak foundation for the type of counter-revolution required to bring TEO back to the Christian faith.
Another telling aspect of the post involves how Bill C is fighting against the Stalinist Loon Left. He visits the HOB/D listserv and encourages people like Dan+ who post there.
Hardly a “Damn the torpedoes…Full steam ahead!” or “Remember Pearl Harbor!”
When faced with heterodoxy, the Church has always had one simple response: disfellowshiping. Athanasius never said for the faithful to remain in Arian churches to be “a witness.”
No, it is not the time to invest one’s life in pointless symbolism in TEC. Since it has become a truly vermin-infested shack, it is time for the faithful to eschew fumigation in favor of demolition - and resettlement.
But if Bill C and those who agree with him insist on staying, let them show the Stalinist Loon Left leaders and indeed the rest of us by DOING SOMETHING instead of simply having “conversation.”
Until then, my assessment stands.
-Jim+
[44] Posted by FrJim on 5-27-2008 at 01:17 PM · [top]
Called to remain and be a faithful remnant and missionary? Reminds me of:
There was a man whose farm was located on the banks of a flood-swollen river. As the water rose, a neighbor drove up in a Jeep, urging him to leave before the farm was flooded. “Oh, no,” said the man confidently, “God will save me.”
The water rose higher, and the man was forced to move into the second story of the farmhouse. A police boat soon came, and the officers called for the man to hurry and get into their boat. “Oh, no, that won’t be necessary,” the man insisted. “God will save me.”
Finally the house was completely engulfed in water, and a Coast Guard helicopter swooped in to rescue the man, now perched on the roof. Again he refused. Just then, a huge wave of water swept over the house, and the man drowned.
When he got to heaven, he stormed at the Lord, asking WHY God had let him die when his faith had been so strong. “What do you mean?” asked the heavenly Father. “I sent a Jeep, a boat, and a helicopter … and you wouldn’t budge!”
So when God asks you why you stayed in an apostate church, be prepared to explain why you ignored the many times he was calling you out of bondage in Egypt. AMiA, CANA, Southern Cone, Uganda….....
[45] Posted by DaveG on 5-27-2008 at 02:07 PM · [top]
Jim+
The issue is neither political nor a matter of staying in TEC to make a point. This is not about the “Stalinist Loon Left”—Stalin and his police had no love for homosexuals. This is truly about Satan and his designs on the world. If it comes cloaked as the “Left”, it is because Satan finds that is the best way to make his advance.
The entire world can be reduced, quite simply, to “Right” and “Wrong”. We can dispense with “Right” and “Left”—they are meaningless labels. I offer to you the fact that we have had years of “Conservative” leadership at the presidential level and Roe v. Wade still stands. People who are “Right” (obey the Law) are not political. God’s Law transcends party affiliation.
Perhaps you find my observation a bit extreme. I see the world not as a political place. It is very truly a spiritual battlefield in my estimation.
Stay or go—I am not advocating anything to you or the others here. I am simply asking a series of questions. Jesus did not walk away. He challenged and he fought. His actions were clearly illegal under existing law. Imagine what would happen today if one were to walk into a church and throw the homosexual at the altar (I refrain from using the word “priest”) out the front door. Is that much different than throwing the money changers out of the House of the Lord?
If we are asked to observe and follow the example, then how can it be that some would walk away from the fight?
I would observe that Bishop Schofield for years refused to contribute anything to TEC—no money flowed from San Joaquin to the coffers of the corrupt.
Finally, he led his diocese into the Southern Cone. He probably did so because no one rushed to stand by his side while the liberal bloggers verbally pilloried him and 815 plotted. Seeing himself isolated, he undoubtedly felt the need to separate his diocese to protect it. Still he did not run. He fought a rear guard action, rather skillfully, I think.
Why has no one written to 815 saying something to the effect of “Hey, folks, Bishop Schofield is still a member of the House of Bishops and we are going to march him into the next meeting surrounded by the faithful?”
How far will you folks allow yourselves to be pushed before you stand and fight? Do you think they will stop if you cower and run?
Look at TEC’s fight with Bishop Schofield. That fight is still not over. TEC is trying to organize another diocese underneath his and has taken legal actions against him. Does the man have to fight alone? Who will stand by his side and help him win that which he alone cannot?
My questions still stand. Who will answer me? Undoubtedly your answers (or silence) will find their way into one of my future articles. I believe that the examination of this fight has tremendous value.
[46] Posted by George Hood on 5-27-2008 at 02:29 PM · [top]
So - did God call Lot to remain in Sodom as a missionary?
Did He call Israel to remain as a missionary people in Egypt? Did God call Israel to live as missionaries among the Phlistines, Amorites, Canaanites, etc? Did Jesus tell the disciples to stay and be missionaries in the villages where they were rejected? Did St. Paul tell the Corinthians to stay in communion with the man living with his father’s wife? If you are waiting for God’s call, I suggest you pick up the phone. It has been ringing for years.
[47] Posted by DaveG on 5-27-2008 at 02:39 PM · [top]
I have been answering the phone and here’s what it tells me: the Sodomites did not have a secular legal system that reached all across the world. In all of the examples you gave, it was easy - expedient - and perhaps even wiser to leave rather than to stay.
In the present instance, if you run without fighting, you will be pursued and the reach of your enemy is truly great. If you believe that we live in a just society, try losing a civil action. Then try telling the sheriffs that come to take your property that you are right. Is that not what Bishop Schofield faces?
The issue is simply that when you present weakness - as in unwillingness to get into the fight, this beast will come at you all the harder.
The problem with present day America is that it may already be a modern version of Sodom and we may ultimately find that there is no where else to go.
Look around you. We have homosexuals in the military, in the police, in the government, in the churches. If their sexual orientation (perversion) is not enough to concern you, then consider what travels with it: denial of the Law of God. This is not “pick and choose”—you are either with the program or you are a sinner.
What will be rewritten next? If “love” and “marriage” of people of the same sex occurs today, is it hard to imagine that one day there will be movements to legal sex with children? or dogs? How far does this go? When do we say “no” and when do the faithful stand together?
When a priest is thrown out of his diocese by his perverted bishop, who rushes to afford him the protection of an orthodox diocese?
Who stands by those bishops who take seriously their obligation to defend the faith?
Is there a way to fight against this and to protect the faithful? There is. It is called an aggressive offense against the revisionists.
Look at procedure. Some say that following procedure is important. How so? Especially if that procedure yields a completely morally wrong end? Secular law and institutional procedure may not avail you. Escape may not be possible.
The world has dramatically changed. The commonly understood moral standard that just a few years ago defined our society no longer exists. The disease spreads. As the older, more conservative folks leave the legal system, they will be replaced with younger “more progressive” ones.
This likely development means that the “mission field” and your actions on it may be crucial to your own survival. Every person saved is one less to fight.
In the future, you may be trapped in Sodom. You may have to fight to keep your door closed. You may feel compelled to afford shelter to those who happen by your house and to fight to defend them.
If this doesn’t motivate a person, I don’t know what will.
Is the answer to my series of questions then that you will all leave TEC? What will you all do if and when this problem spreads? Will you leave America too?
[48] Posted by George Hood on 5-27-2008 at 03:16 PM · [top]
Sorry, that should be “legalize” in paragraph 6.
[49] Posted by George Hood on 5-27-2008 at 03:23 PM · [top]
George:
You write as though the church has never been a minorty in a pagan culture. Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, etc., etc. We don’t have to leave an immoral US. We can stay in the US and bear witness by being the church. We are to be in the world but not of the world. That is different from staying in TEC and being part of the problem.
[50] Posted by DaveG on 5-27-2008 at 03:30 PM · [top]
No, I write as though the Church has always been in a struggle for the world, whether that world was Rome or is now modern America.
In fact, my question is “why do you not struggle for the church” because that seems to me to be a microcosm of the world.
Can you yield to sinners and still be the same? I am not suggesting “kamikaze” acts. I just wonder how you see your obligations under the Word of God in this matter. What do you do when confronted by sin or sinners?
[51] Posted by George Hood on 5-27-2008 at 03:48 PM · [top]
For me, personally, the issue becomes a question of am I being a Christ bearer today (and the next day and so on)? Are we truly being Christ bearers in our situations? It is a daunting and sobering, but necessary question.
We cannot ourselves save the Episcopal Church, but we are under gracious orders to be ambassadors for Christ. If TEC is to be saved it will only be through a distinct and unbelievably powerful movement of the Holy Spirit.
[52] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 5-27-2008 at 03:55 PM · [top]
George,
Thanks for taking the time to write. Let me answer your questions.
1. When do we fight? We fight now! We fight by abandoning a field where we cannot win (the political arena you correctly assess as secondary) to attack our enemy by indeed being Soldiers in the Kingdom of God! Instead of wasting our time with Roberts Rules of Order or gathering enough people to take over a committee, we move forward with our allies at our flanks to storm the gates of hell with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
2. Your question about who will follow the example of Bishop Schofield is somewhat rhetorical, since I have heard no one in the HOB threatening to do anything about his “deposition.” Even Bishop Schofield understands that TEO is a lost cause and really doesn’t care to be back at the HOB. Has he left the field? I suggest to you that his army moved to another location to continue the war mentioned above.
3. The next real battles will be fought by the Anglican Archbishops who stand with the orthodox faithful. This battlefield shows tremendous promise of victory.
4. As to the secular powers and its encroaching moral vapidness, I say only that the world has been going to hell since long before Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem. If the Stalinist Loon Left political figures want to persecute us for the truth - SO BE IT. I have no real choice about being an American - but walking away from TEO was easy.
-Jim+
[53] Posted by FrJim on 5-27-2008 at 04:04 PM · [top]
Amen to that, Athanasius.
DaveG,
The questions many of us ask ourselves are, if I left today, would it put other souls in jeopardy? If I stay tomorrow, will it put souls in jeopardy?
Regardless of whether I stay or leave, my own soul is in jeopardy, because I am a human sinner. I sinned today, and will probably do so tomorrow.
The answer to the 2 questions above have a lot to do with whether one is still in TEC. Sure, there are polity issues- some of us for tradition or whatever reason have an affinity for Canterbury, for example. But the main issue for every orthodox Anglican I know has to do with the question of the spiritual health of others. I know priests who left and took most of the congregation with them- to protect the congregation from a heretical bishop. I know 80 year old priests still in TEC, long retired, who still take every interim assignment available so that they can preach the gospel to congregations long written off as revisionist. I know one who does that, even though he has advised his own grown children to join Rome. They are each doing the work the Lord has given them to do- whether they are in or out of TEC.
Those bishops who have denied the Faith have divorced themselves from Apostolic authority. They have no power over me or any other orthodox in TEC. Their ideas of power are mere fantasies. They cannot harm us unless we allow them to. Could they harm children, or the weak, or those who are uncertain of their faith? Yes, indeed they can. The answer may indeed be to shield our families and children- and if you have taken your children from here to a safer church, I commend you for it.
What I found when I arrived in this diocese was a place where a few self-styled “theologians” were trying to invent a new religion inside the shell of TEC (the best description I could give is that it is universalist gnosticism). What they commonly “affirm” here has little or nothing to do with Christianity, other than the occasional use of the name “Jesus” and the facade of the liturgy. It is nothing short of desecration. So, my choice is to leave and complain from the outside, or to let my voice be heard inside the church. I have it on good authority that there is a welcome for me in conservative dioceses, and in churches under the authority of Southern Cone and Uganda, if and when it is time to go. In the meanwhile, if I can delay the plans to sweep this diocese over the cliff into the abyss of a new pagan religion, I will.
[54] Posted by tjmcmahon on 5-27-2008 at 04:33 PM · [top]
Breaking news: See Father Dan’s Blog:
A Statement from the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Northern Indiana
[55] Posted by robroy on 5-27-2008 at 05:01 PM · [top]
Well said, Standing Commmittee of the Diocese of Northern Indiana!
[56] Posted by oscewicee on 5-27-2008 at 05:07 PM · [top]
Very good news from the Diocese of Northern Indiana.
It is clear that the big problems that TEC has did not happen overnight or in the last five years. They’ve been a long time coming. In my opinion, they center around the kind of theological training (or was it theological?) that clergy received before ordination. The problems also center around the great desire in TEC (in great contrast to another Anglican province where I served) to keep our pastoral praxis separate from our theology. So our theology is often uninformed by pastoral praxis, and our pastoral praxis in some cases seems to become exercises in entrepreneurship, “how I run my parish good,” and other essentially political and financial pursuits.
The election and ordination of Gene Robinson was bad enough, but in my opinion what was worse is the pervasive understanding that we didn’t need to do our theological homework before GC or any entity of the national church made such a momentous change. TEC failed to deal with the issue of practicing homosexual persons in ordained ministry as a theological and moral issue. In about five minutes, it became a political issue. The appeal to the question of justice became the leitmotif and thus trumped everything else.
The mess we’re in can’t get better without a true renewal of theology in this church. I don’t mean theological politics. I don’t mean a sociological or cultural analysis of church and society. I mean theology, starting with the exegesis of biblical texts that impact on the issue of sexuality. And, I would say, we’d need to continue the analysis of sexual behavior as a moral theological issue. Not a historical analysis of how badly homosexuals have been treated by the church for 2000 years, but something that really gets at how you deal with the Bible and specific biblical texts and somehow come up with moral arguments about specific behaviors.
Without a truly theological analysis of these problems, I just don’t see how The Episcopal Church can get out of the thicket we’re in. Certainly the courageous statements of faithful bishops and standing committees are very much in order. But it’s not fundamentally about our polity.
It’s clear that it’s going to take a number of years to even begin to do this.
Rudy+
[57] Posted by Rudy on 5-27-2008 at 05:20 PM · [top]
#48 George Hood
I’m hearing you brother and I say the future we are facing doesn’t look all that great. Just take a real good look at what the homosexual agenda has proven! Lest we get too comfy and forget!
[58] Posted by TLDillon on 5-27-2008 at 05:40 PM · [top]
Thank you TJ, Well Said! For those of us who remain in TEC, Stand Firm remains a great source of strength and support. Over the past two years, I have really come to appreciate the friends and colleagues I have met online.
And thank you, DaveG, as someone who always gives a clear and crisp alternative.
[59] Posted by Dick Mitchell on 5-27-2008 at 09:13 PM · [top]
#42 Fr. Jim: Perhaps I should not have used the word “feel” in my statement ‘...feel called to remain…’. What I really meant to say was that the =Lord calls on us individually. I believe that some hear God’s call to them to remain -not to be institutionalists- but because He has a reason for them to stay (for a short or longer time). One singled, solitary soul who is called to freedom outside ECUSA through the witness of a missionary.
As a matter of fact, Fr. Jim, I am not and never have been a member of ECUSA. I am an English evangelical Anglican who has never found an evangelical orthodox anglican church in my years in this country close enough to worship at. Do I belong in this fight? You bet. I can hardly wait for the day when an orthodox Anglican province exists in North America. But for now, I go to a good, Bible believing church where my family is nurtured and grows. I would never take my wife and daughter through the doors of an Episcopal church.
I believe that ECUSA as an institution is well down the universal unitarian road and, as a church, will not repent. But within this institution are thousands of Christians to rescue.
TJ has expressed this really well.
“What do you do when confronted by sin or sinners?” George, we stand before them with the word of God and the message of salvation through Jesus Christ and his atonement for us on the cross. ECUSANS can reject or accept this free gift and freedom from the clutches of an apostate and heretical church.
[60] Posted by Bill C on 5-27-2008 at 09:55 PM · [top]
Sarah,
Thank you for your abusive reply. Fr. Dan’s only interest is in his cronies that made up the now flacid Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin. He has no interest in the mission of Br. Schofield only in his own long time collaborative politics against him for 13 years. He may be your nearest and dearest friend but he is no friend to the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin.
Intercessor
[61] Posted by Intercessor on 5-29-2008 at 09:02 PM · [top]
RE: “Thank you for your abusive reply.”
Heh. ; > )
Rich Irony, after this . . . perfectly charming . . . comment from Intercessor.
[62] Posted by Sarah on 5-29-2008 at 09:09 PM · [top]
Intercessor,
I’m with Sarah. I let [4] go even though I wasn’t happy with it. I’d like to be able to post things about San Joaquin, or people who were once in San Joaquin, or the weather report from San Joaquin, without you turning it into an opportunity to talk trash. Thank you.
[63] Posted by Greg Griffith on 5-29-2008 at 09:15 PM · [top]
Furthermore, let us hear of Fr. Dan’s current mission and work and growth in his own church and diocese or is that not as entertaining as ours as we battle the lawsuits,yes plural,filed by 815 and the Vichy Diocese. Let us learn of your struggles Sarah as attorneys batter your beloved clergy, as I am sure you do love, as I dearly love mine. You see these are the most important men in my and my families life right now…Bp Schofield, Fr.Ken Richards,Dean Carlos Raines and many others who are growing our church through prayer and God’s mighty providence despite 815 and Comcons like Dan Martins. Have you two witnessed the reptile Jerry Lamb sit at Easter service in your church to glower at Bp. Schofield as he delivered a sermon for the ages without a script to be found. No I think not. Did you sit with Cennydd to witness the power of Greg Venables as he defended scripture and prepared us for the war and sacrifice for Jesus that we must fight. No did not see you there. You see at this point you are either for us or against us. As for Fr. Dan there is no trust to be found.
Intercessor
[64] Posted by Intercessor on 5-29-2008 at 09:19 PM · [top]
RE: “Furthermore, let us hear of Fr. Dan’s current mission and work and growth in his own church and diocese or is that not as entertaining as ours as we battle the lawsuits,yes plural,filed by 815 and the Vichy Diocese.”
Well, no, Intercessor, in this particular thread we will be hearing of Matt Kennedy’s excellent response to Dan Martins’ ideas. We won’t be hearing about Dan’s “current mission” and whatever, and in fact such things would be irrelevant and off-topic.
RE: “Let us learn of your struggles Sarah as attorneys batter your beloved clergy, as I am sure you do love, as I dearly love mine.”
Well no, Intercessor— in this particular thread we will be hearing of Matt Kennedy’s excellent response to Dan Martins’ ideas. We won’t be hearing about my “struggles”, and in fact such things would be irrelevant on this particular thread and off-topic.
RE: “You see these are the most important men in my and my families life right now…Bp Schofield, Fr.Ken Richards,Dean Carlos Raines and many others who are growing our church through prayer and God’s mighty providence despite 815 and Comcons like Dan Martins.”
All of which have precisely nothing to do with this thread.
RE: “Have you two witnessed the reptile Jerry Lamb sit at Easter service in your church to glower at Bp. Schofield as he delivered a sermon for the ages without a script to be found.”
And this has nothing to do with this thread. In this particular thread we will be hearing of Matt Kennedy’s excellent response to Dan Martins’ ideas. We won’t be hearing about Jerry Lamb and whatever, and in fact such things would be irrelevant and off-topic.
RE: “Did you sit with Cennydd to witness the power of Greg Venables as he defended scripture and prepared us for the war and sacrifice for Jesus that we must fight. No did not see you there.”
And however lovely that must have been, that too has nothing to do with this thread. In this particular thread we will be hearing of Matt Kennedy’s excellent response to Dan Martins’ ideas.
RE: “As for Fr. Dan there is no trust to be found.”
Your personal animus against Dan Martins is not only irrelevant to this thread, it’s also boring. This thread is about Matt Kennedy’s excellent response to Dan Martin’s ideas—not Dan Martin personally, but Dan Martin’s ideas. Matt was able to make such a response—it’s a pity that you’re unable.
But setting your inability aside, this thread will not be turned into a discussion of Intercessor’s issues with or beliefs about Dan Martins.
Please cease with the irrelevant comments about your opinions on Dan Martins and your past and present bitternesses about him not only on this thread but on all San Joaquin threads. They are boring. And in this case they take a thread that should rightly be concerned with the critique of Dan’s ideas onto a side trail of “how much Intercessor hates Dan Martins.”
This is a warning.
[65] Posted by Sarah on 5-29-2008 at 09:35 PM · [top]
I hate no one.
Intercessor
[66] Posted by Intercessor on 5-29-2008 at 09:40 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. 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.