July 22, 2014

Advertise with Stand Firm

February 13, 2012


[Bumped In Honor of Ragsdale Week] Circus Entertainment: Lesbian “Marriage” in Boston Cathedral

Here come the scary clowns…

Lesbian infanticide advocate seminary dean “marries” her clergy partner in historic Cathedral—Bishop Shaw presiding

Historic Lesbian Marriage in Boston Cathedral Unites Top Clergy of Episcopal Church

The Episcopalian bishop of Massachusetts began 2011 by solemnizing the first lesbian marriage - of two senior Episcopalian clergy - at Boston’s St Paul’s Cathedral Saturday (January 1).

The marriage of Episcopal Divinity School, dean and president, the Very Reverend Katherine Hancock Ragsdale and Mally Lloyd, Canon to the Ordinary, was the first lesbian marriage solemnized by the Right Reverend M Thomas Shaw SSJE, Bishop Diocesan of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts.

At the marriage attended by close to 400 guests, Bishop Shaw commented: “God always rejoices when two people who love each other make a life long commitment in marriage to go deeper into the heart of God through each other. It’s a profound pleasure for me to celebrate with God and my friends, the marriage of Katherine and Mally.”

The couple met on June 30, 2008, at the urging of a mutual friend. At the time, Canon Lloyd, 57, said, “We were both travelling a lot and so we would talk by phone. And somehow when you talk a lot by phone, a relationship can go deeper more quickly than when you spend time in person. At least that is what happened to us.”

Although this is a second marriage for Canon Lloyd, it is the first for Dean Ragsdale,52. “It’s astonishing how the world is changing,’’ Dean Ragsdale said, “when I grew up, I never believed I would be able to have someone special in my life and now to have almost 400 people show up to support us at our marriage ceremony is wonderful.”

Canon Lloyd says: “We have a lot in common, we each have a spiritual life that the other understands and respects and we also understand the amount of travelling and often late hours that our work requires. Somehow too when you are in your fifties, certain things just aren’t as big a problem as they seemed in your twenties.”

Though the Episcopal Church’s canons and formularly still state that marriage is between a man and a woman, the church at its General Convention in July of 2009 decided to allow that “bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this church.”

In November 2009, Shaw announced his decision to allow clergy in the Diocese of Massachusetts to solemnize all marriages—a long wait for many given that same-gender marriage had been legalized in Massachusetts more than five years earlier…more

On the bright side, at least in a lesbian “marriage” Dean Ragsdale and her watchamacalit won’t produce any babies to murder.


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

Facebook comments are closed.

143 comments

Wrong Matt.  No doubt they’ll go to work to get the clergy health care benefits to pay for “in vitro”.  If the current clergy benefits don’t pay for it, they’ll start working on that through General Convention and/or lawsuits…under the guise of “justice”.  The question is how many unborn fetuses will be destroyed/murdered in the process?

[1] Posted by midwestnorwegian on 1-3-2011 at 08:44 AM · [top]

Romans 1 is proving to be true with a vengeance.

As Jesus noted in the parable of the talents, those who refuse to use what God has given them will lose everything.

[2] Posted by AnglicanXn on 1-3-2011 at 08:48 AM · [top]

On the bright side, at least in a lesbian “marriage” Dean Ragsdale and her watchamacalit won’t produce any babies to murder.

Sad that in this Brave New World the first thing that comes to mind is that in vitro fertilization offers this new couple the opportunity to participate in the “blessing of abortion”. Let us hope that Johnson’s Law of TEC* does not manifest.

* “It is impossible to parody the Episcopal Church because they will always get in ahead of you.”

[3] Posted by Creedal Episcopalian on 1-3-2011 at 11:00 AM · [top]

Waiting for moderate Communion Partners, Camp Allen and Windsor bishops to speak out against such as this, and this<a> and <a >this is like waiting for moderate moslems to speak out against this and this and this.

Or like Waiting for Godot.

One can only conclude that moderate means lukewarm.

[4] Posted by St. Nikao on 1-3-2011 at 11:14 AM · [top]

Don’t look for outrage, fall-out or conflict as a result of this ‘marriage.’
Don’t look for the Communion Partners, Camp Allen or Windsor bishops to even squeak in protest.
Don’t look for the ACI to do more than issue another statement.

By allowing the ‘sexual orientation’ language* (see * below) into the documents of TEC and by allowing the LBGTQ, etc. crowd (ie, Ragsdale) to enter into leadership TEC has effectively muzzled any objections to this faux marriage. 

In addition, TEC Bishops are free to participate in pride parades, to tell young people to explore their sexual gifts, invent and to promote a whole alphabet of sexual orientations, to reinterpret Scripture as they wish sexualizing any loving relationship, turning any Bible character into a ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’. They are free to embrace homosexual marriage and adoption, and abortion without fear of reprisal (or God). 

Being free from these constraints, they are also free to change or ignore constitution and canons as they wish. 

Thus, as a result of the addition of ‘sexual orientation’ (and sexual identity, both unbiblical concepts and positions) lawlessness and anarchy now reign in TEC.

*The European Union recently and wisely did not include ‘sexual orientation’ (SO, aka, ‘sexual identity’ (SI)) in their list of rights to be protected.  If SO or SI are included, chaos results…because the sexual orientation/identity possibilities are endless, including ‘autosexuality’ (See Feature Story at Midwest Conservative Journal)

[5] Posted by St. Nikao on 1-4-2011 at 06:40 AM · [top]

Nothing that TEC does has the capacity to surprise anymore.  What will be so very telling is the paucity of bishops, or the ABC himself, who will speak out against it.  Whether from fear, indifference, agreement, whatever.  Sodom and Gommorah are knocking at the door.  It is time to flee, to fight another day, do not look back.

[6] Posted by Capt. Father Warren on 1-4-2011 at 07:59 AM · [top]

#4 - it may be worse than you think.  Muslim governments and leaders are speaking up and condemning the bombings in Egypt.  I’ve read statements from Iraqi leaders, Palestinian leaders, Muslim Imams here in the US, North African presidents, all attacking the violence.

So, you may need to find another analogy re: the wait for a statement by Communion Partners etc. about these events in Massachusetts.

[7] Posted by Karen B. on 1-4-2011 at 08:40 AM · [top]

Another couple of short haired lesbian priests in the Ep. Church.  It strikes me as ordinary at this point.

[8] Posted by Looking for Leaders on 1-4-2011 at 08:43 AM · [top]

Re: “Waiting for moderate Communion Partners . . . “

Well, they’re not moderate—they’re conservative.  There are plenty of so-called “moderate” bishops in TECusa who aren’t frothing revisionists but also aren’t a part of CP.  Unless . . . “moderate” means “they didn’t leave TECusa.”  Which just makes me roll my eyes.  Not to mention that there are all sorts of groupings within the CP—like Lawrence, on the one end, and Ed Little on the other.

But setting aside whether “conservative” now means “they didn’t leave TECusa” in which case I can’t be a conservative either, or Greg, or Jackie, I’m not sure why they should issue any sort of statement at all.  Why?  To what purpose?

This is TECusa.  How does issuing another statement do anything?  You would then say “ah, more words, no action.”

So I think the opposite.  I think they should remain firmly silent.  There is nothing really for them to say.

[9] Posted by Sarah on 1-4-2011 at 08:52 AM · [top]

Sarah, we could stand a bit of good news, if there is any.  Search high and low, and see if you can find something good that is happening in TEC.  There may not be anything.  Just askin’.

[10] Posted by Looking for Leaders on 1-4-2011 at 08:55 AM · [top]

Hi LfL—not sure what that comment means.  Of course there are plenty of marvelous things happening in TEC—I see them all the time.

That’s pretty irrelevant, though, don’t you think? 

I’m not sure if I care whether there are marvelous things happening in TEC or not.  What matters is that the current leaders of TEC are corrupt and grotesque parodies of the Christian faith, and preach another gospel.

[11] Posted by Sarah on 1-4-2011 at 09:10 AM · [top]

This is already as passe as a letter of concern from Rowan Williams.  Wake me when they marry three lesbians.

[12] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 1-4-2011 at 09:26 AM · [top]

I should add that I think the only “good news” that people will believe to be “good news” in the present circumstances of TEC are actually people doing things that are fruitful in response to the grotesque and corrupt caricatures currently leading TECusa.

In other words, there are indeed all sorts of wonderful things that Christians are doing in TEC—just as there were, say, all sorts of wonderful things going on in stalinist Russia and now in North Korea or deep in the bowels of China’s oppressive government.

But within the specific context of corrupt and grotesque caricatures currently leading TECusa, what matters and what is “good news” is “this is what we have actively done in response that puts sticks in their spokes and aids our cause of an actual Christian gospel.”

That’s what matters and is “good news.”

I don’t see a whole lot of people willing or interested in doing those things—“sticks in their spokes” and “aiding the cause.”

That being the case, there is not going to be much “good news in TEC.”

Oh sure—there will be this or that clergyman or layperson proclaiming great work in this or that place.  But again—in the specific context of the circus entertainment of TEC, we need specific response and specific actions.  That stuff isn’t coming and people aren’t doing it.

In the old days, it was the AAC.  But they [rather unwisely as I stated at the time] decided to cast the lot with action for ACNA.  And of course, I’m sure they do great work with ACNA stuff.

That’s why—as has been my consistent plaint for some 4 years now—there should be a specific group of people tasked and funded for the Spokes In Wheels and the Aiding The Cause activities in TECusa. 

I don’t see any sign of that happening.  In part that’s because the actual “doing leaders” in TECusa all left.  Which should [but probably doesn’t] make those who stayed behind in TECusa sputter in outrage and look askance at themselves.  But there you are.

; > )

[13] Posted by Sarah on 1-4-2011 at 09:30 AM · [top]

And in 2011, why is this news about TEC?

[14] Posted by Festivus on 1-4-2011 at 09:44 AM · [top]

A “generous pastoral response.”  It may be inconsistent with the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer, at least for another 7 years, but disobedience of rubrics in a post-modern age is called prophesy.

[15] Posted by TomRightmyer on 1-4-2011 at 10:10 AM · [top]

WELCOME TO EPISCOPAL DIVINITY SCHOOL. Our purpose is to educate lay and ordained leaders for Christ’s Church and for the world who serve and advance God’s mission of justice, compassion, and reconciliation.

Does anyone know how long this has been the mission statement of EDS? It could just as easily come from the Social Work program at U.W. Madison.

The mission of the UW Madison School of Social Work is to enhance human well-being and promote social and economic justice for people who are disadvantaged to achieve an equitable, healthy and productive society.

The critical skills for higher education in TEC are no longer publication and teaching or even grant writing. It is a history of activism and agenda advancement.

[16] Posted by Fr. Dale on 1-4-2011 at 10:30 AM · [top]

If this latest act of blatant, in-your-face defiance doesn’t cause the you-know-what to hit the fan with the “moderate” Communion Partners, Windsor bishops, ABC, etc., then nothing will. They ordained Glasspool; and fnow this. TEC knows it can do whatever it likes and nothing will happen. Maybe there will be more discussion, more indaba. They can talk forever - no problem. Meanwhile they will do the devil’s work unhindered by those who have some moral convictions but don’t have the will or the courage to uphold them. “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” - Edmund Burke. Good men are indeed doing nothing - nothing but talking, and talk is cheap and not very convincing to those with a radical agenda. The time for action came sa long time ago; it’s now long overdue. I agree with Sarah that htose who left TEC for the ACNA left the inmates in charge of the asylum, so to speak. However, it has seemed inevitable for a long time that the radicals would take over. TEC is not a god; unity is not a god. Unity may be a good thing, but it’s not more important than truth; it’s not more important than the word of God. It’s time to “stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the Cross.” It’s TIME! It’s TEC who has broken communion, not those who uphold the teachings of the Bible.

[17] Posted by Nellie on 1-4-2011 at 10:39 AM · [top]

Fr. Dale - looks like Episcopal Divinity School lifted the general idea of the mission statement directly from UW Madison - sticking in a couple of references to “Christ” and “God” of course.

[18] Posted by Nellie on 1-4-2011 at 10:42 AM · [top]

Yawn.  Sniff.  Scratch.

Well, I’m sure there will be a letter condemning this relationship by RW anytime now…or not…

Amazes me that folks are all a-gush to something scripture clearly forbids.  But, in blogging with some liberal folks the other day, you get the “it’s genetic” and “Jesus never said it is wrong” arguments, so I guess we can rationalize about anything, huh.

[19] Posted by B. Hunter on 1-4-2011 at 10:45 AM · [top]

Words fail me.

Wait a second. Here’s a good one: “Anathema!”

The LORD cometh.

[20] Posted by Ralph on 1-4-2011 at 10:47 AM · [top]

RE: “If this latest act of blatant, in-your-face defiance doesn’t cause the you-know-what to hit the fan with the “moderate” Communion Partners, Windsor bishops, ABC, etc., then nothing will.”

But again—I don’t know what the Windsor/CP/etc bishops are supposed to do.  They’re not leaving—that’s off the table.  So what actual *action* should they take.  Issuing a statement does not count as an action.  Frankly, there’s absolutely *NOTHING* that they can do other than calmly build up their own dioceses and hunker down.

It’s a bit like saying “If this latest act of blatant, in-your-face defiance doesn’t cause the you-know-what to hit the fan with the [conservative laypeople in TEC] then nothing will.”

What are the conservative laypeople in TEC to do?  Obviously there are small local things.  Make sure not a penny of money goes to a diocese that is funding TEC—that’s obvious.  But again—other than calmly building up their own parish and hunkering down, what are the laypeople/clergy/bishops of TEC to do?  The inmates RULE all national levers of influence.  There will be no stopping that.  They rule those.  So they can continue on as they please.

RE: “I agree with Sarah that htose who left TEC for the ACNA left the inmates in charge of the asylum, so to speak.”

Please note that I wasn’t saying a thing negative about those who left—but rather was pointing out the negative about those of us who stayed.

[21] Posted by Sarah on 1-4-2011 at 10:49 AM · [top]

It has been said that ‘the truth will set you free,’ and it’s true!  The Truth has indeed set us (the Anglican Church in North America) free.

[22] Posted by cennydd13 on 1-4-2011 at 11:01 AM · [top]

Me too, Cennydd, over here in TEC.

Thank God for The Truth!

[23] Posted by Sarah on 1-4-2011 at 11:06 AM · [top]

“What are the conservative laypeople in TEC to do?”

Well, one thing might be to write Lambeth Palace enough letters that they have to put on more staff just to read them, letting ++Rowan know that KJS and the other official representatives to the “instruments of communion” don’t speak for us and demanding that some sort of Covenant discipline is essential if the Communion is to survive.

I know that ++Rowan has been the the chief culprit when it comes to weakening the Covenant, but you can bet he doesn’t read Stand Firm or hear much from conservatives, and he doesn’t know just how many members of TEC have been thrown under the bus by the official leadership.  It is time we helped him find out. 

The Archbishop of Canterbury
Lambeth Palace
London SE1 7JU
Tel:  020 7898 1200 (switchboard)
Fax: 020 7401 9886
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

[24] Posted by ToAllTheWorld on 1-4-2011 at 11:18 AM · [top]

Sarah (#11), I think Looking for Leaders’ point (#10) may be that in addition to this steady stream of grotesqueries from the ersatz revisionist leadership of the HMS A New Kind of Gospel (TEC) we should be favored (via StandFirm) with as many of the positive stories from the orthodox leadership and parishioners as can be reported. On the other hand, members and visitors of SF ought to direct themselves to the other blogs, many of which contain quite encouraging material.  Encouragement of orthodox would seem to be a hot coal on the head of or thorn in the side of the perpetrators of the grotesqueries.

[25] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 1-4-2011 at 11:21 AM · [top]

Hey AR—maybe your’e right and that’s what he meant.  I missed his meaning, then.

I have an intriguing post I’m working on.  I don’t know if it’s a “positive news” thing but there are certainly some small positive elements in it.

Today is “earn a living day”—but I hope to have it up at some point this week.  It could be of interest to people wanting to look at “undercurrents of TEC” stuff.

[26] Posted by Sarah on 1-4-2011 at 11:27 AM · [top]

Re comment #21, that’s sort of my point. The conservative bishops in TEC can’t do much except talk (which is worse than useless at this point) because the liberals are are in charge now, having patiently worked away at their agenda for decades and having taken over all the power structures in TEC. And the laity can’t do much either, other than not give a penny to TEC. We can indeed write or email the ABC, but I don’t think that will have much effect. The question that arises in my mind is that if all this is true - that none of us, clergy or laity, can do anything to stem the ever-rising tide of evil actions by TEC, then why are we sdtill here, aboard a clearly sinking ship?

[27] Posted by Nellie on 1-4-2011 at 11:42 AM · [top]

Sarah, got it.  Understand.  Hate it.  Reality is tough.
“just lie to me, baby!”—Just kidding.

[28] Posted by Looking for Leaders on 1-4-2011 at 11:55 AM · [top]

RE: “The question that arises in my mind is that if all this is true - that none of us, clergy or laity, can do anything to stem the ever-rising tide of evil actions by TEC, then why are we sdtill here, aboard a clearly sinking ship?”

Well each person can answer that question best for himself I suppose.  As for me, I am very clear about why I am still aboard TEC—and very pleased and thankful and joyful to be so, too.

If others are not pleased, thankful, and joyful to be in TEC, then there are several possibilities.  1) They should not be in TEC and have not been so called.  2) They know they should still be in TEC but have not developed a clear call and mission within TEC.  3) They have false theology that makes them believe—despite a clear call for them to be in TEC—that they should only be a part of organizations that are not corrupt and are healthy and really thriving and functional.  4) They have other painful issues in their lives—relationships, work, personal, etc—that are depriving them of joy and thankfulness.

[29] Posted by Sarah on 1-4-2011 at 11:57 AM · [top]

#27 Nellie
I can think of several stay put reasons that are Biblical.  I think the array of folks still in TEC are here for a number of reasons, some of which include:

1) They are part of a remnant that God wants in place.  The ship is sinking from a human point of view, but God sees a future for it;
2) Because the Lord’s strength is made perfect in weakness, some of us can progress, spiritually, only in an environment in which we suffer powerlessness;
3) Some of us are so guilty of having enabled the current corruption that our salvation must be “as those escaping through a fire.”  The Lord saves us, but we must suffer the destruction of our shoddy works;
4) Our desire to leave comes from our flesh’s desire for relief.  We’ve received no guidance from the Spirit to leave.

I’m sure there are other reasons that others stay.  Some of those might not be all that noble.  But winning/losing institutional power is not a decisive issue in the short term.  God wants the church cleansed and perfected, but the means and timing of that are likely to surprise us.

[30] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 1-4-2011 at 11:59 AM · [top]

#24 TatW

I know that ++Rowan has been the the chief culprit when it comes to weakening the Covenant, but you can bet he doesn’t read Stand Firm or hear much from conservatives

Heh heh - I would be very surprised if he and his staff don’t keep a close eye on what is being said on SF and elsewhere, particularly where it is about him.

No, he knows exactly what is going on, but for his own aims and purposes.  His is a deep knowing and personal culpability for the betrayal of Christians.

He will only act when his own position is on the line, and only then will he do the absolute minimum to lull people back into a false sense of security and encouragement to believe there is any hope while he is ABC.  Then he will be back to his old tricks, taking money for promoting a pro-gay listening process from revisionists, subverting the Communion Instruments to his will, and undermining the Church of England by liberal catholic senior appointments.

There is only one hope for the Communion and that is from a united and active Global South, something he will do everything in his power to thwart.  Letters to the Global South Primates and prayers for them would be my recommendation.

And if you want to know how to really rile and get some activity out of RDW, just cut him out of the loop - you will never see such panic stations.

But heh - what do I know?

[31] Posted by Pageantmaster [Katie bought Welby] on 1-4-2011 at 12:14 PM · [top]

What do faithful Stayers do?  They build community.  And they stop talking to liberals. 

http://elderoyster.wordpress.com/2011/01/02/how-a-gas-station-might-be-like-the-hypothetical-third-way-movement/

[32] Posted by Elder Oyster on 1-4-2011 at 12:15 PM · [top]

The article is a press release from EDS, not even a newspaper article.The great commission and commandment remain the same and that is our job. In the world of politics this would be called “getting someone off message”. Although I can be rightfully accused of numerous snarky and sarcastic comments in the blogosphere [of which I repent], The Holy Spirit has always led me to preach Christ and him crucified (1 Cor.2:2). I am also reminded of Christ’s comment to Peter, “What is that to you? follow me.” (John 21:22) I can get caught up in the awfulizing too but we will not be judged by the quality of our finger pointing. Yes, there needs to be a prophetic voice but one must ask if it is her/his gift. Not all are called to be prophets. For those who are called to remain in TEC, they must answer the question, “Remain and do what?” Do not become what C.S. Lewis referred to as a “Grumble” in the Great Divorce.

[33] Posted by Fr. Dale on 1-4-2011 at 12:21 PM · [top]

It also has to be said that Rowan is not directly responsible for the actions of TEC, such as that in this thread, but he bears indirect responsibility, by taking the heat off them at every opportunity, he has encouraged him to go further and further - and now, having invited KJS to Dublin, they know they are home and dry and can do whatever they please, in the knowledge that RDW will continue in impotence, if not active encouragement, and in any event will do his level best to resist any Communion action, save for promoting an empty and ineffective shadow of a Covenant that could have been, and pushing his wretched and unlawful Druidic Council of the Anglican Communion into power.

[34] Posted by Pageantmaster [Katie bought Welby] on 1-4-2011 at 12:29 PM · [top]

Good analysis, Sarah, but there are a couple of things I think are wrong here. I agree completely with possibilities 1 and 2. As for 3 - the thing is, there’s “church” and then there’s “Church.”  A “church” may be a group or an organization of people living out their beliefs; but “Church” is supposed to be the body of Christ. It is supposed to be the guardian of the faith once delivered. If a “church” is not doing that, maybe it’s not part of the Church that Christ established. The “Church” is more than just an “organization.” The Roman Catholic Church is certainly not without corruption - maybe never has been - but at its core, it has always maintained and defended the faith once delivered. My point is that in any group comprised of human beings there will be corruption and sickness, but TEC is rife with it, and through the powers that be are actually sanctioning evil.
As for possibility 4 that you raise,the presence of painful issues in one’s life does not necessarily deprive him of joyfulness at being part of a church. I’ve had plenty of personal experience with painful issues - cancer and other illnesses, caring for an elderly mother who alll her life was narcissistic and mean, a husband who is handicapped, a son who’s a Marine and who has been to Iraq and is soon going to Afghanistan, financial worries, deaths (sometimes untimely) of loved ones, etc. That hasn’t prevented me from finding joy and fulfillment in my faith, and often in church. In fact, it was faith that carried me through, and often it was the people with whom I was associated at church who helped me stay joyful and hopeful. But I don’t live in a fool’s paradise, and I don’t see much to be joyful about in TEC today. I am joyful and thankful that Christ was born and died for me and rose again - truly joyfuland thankful. But I am truly sad that TEC, which is blessed to be part of the Anglican Communion with all its richness, has become what it is today.

[35] Posted by Nellie on 1-4-2011 at 12:36 PM · [top]

#34. Pageantmaster,

save for promoting an empty and ineffective shadow of a Covenant that could have been

Is this a more recent conclusion on your part? Where does the WWAC go from here?

[36] Posted by Fr. Dale on 1-4-2011 at 12:37 PM · [top]

#34, what makes this perhaps more interesting is that the person who presided at the faux wedding is a diocesan bishop, not a parish priest. His fellow bishops worldwide, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, have an absolute moral responsibility to condemn this action and (in unity) bring about discipline - both in DioMass and in the TEC leadership. Heck, even the Bishop of Rome has every right to say something, and I hope he does.

Does anyone know whether the BCP 1979 was used for the service? Was it “The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage” with Holy Eucharist? If so, that doesn’t make it worse - because it can’t be any worse than what we already know. But, it would add strength to the forthcoming letters of condemnation.

In my mind, DioMass is sede vacante.

Ole Rafe, The Anglican Donatist.

[37] Posted by Ralph on 1-4-2011 at 12:38 PM · [top]

Good points, #30, 32, and 34.

[38] Posted by Nellie on 1-4-2011 at 12:38 PM · [top]

RE: “Letters to the Global South Primates and prayers for them would be my recommendation.”

I do heartily agree with Pageantmaster on this—AND bishops of the provinces of the Communion.  It’s the bishops who talk to the Primates—and when people *at the grass roots* in other Provinces understand just how gross and anti-gospel the current TEC leaders are that’s what strengthens the Primates’ spines and encourages further distance from those same corrupt current TEC leaders.  The more bishops of Provinces who know about these things, the less they will wish to have anything at all to do with current TEC leaders.

ON THE OTHER HAND—I’ve also said that looking internationally is the wrong focus.  Sure send the letters—but that appeals to the notion that there will be some sort of help internationally.  There won’t be.  We’re on our own and each parishioner, clergyperson, bishop, etc, must work out his or her own strategies and activities with their own posse.

[39] Posted by Sarah on 1-4-2011 at 12:39 PM · [top]

RE: “The “Church” is more than just an “organization.”

Oh I agree—that’s why I take pains to refer to TECusa as an organization only.  ; > )

But again—being a part of an organization is not intrinsically wrong.

RE: “As for possibility 4 that you raise,the presence of painful issues in one’s life does not necessarily deprive him of joyfulness at being part of a church.”

I agree—even if only of an organization rather than “a church”!  But sometimes that is what happens to folks.  Illness and caretaking and job issues *can* and sometimes do deprive people of joy in other situations.  It’s sort of the “final straw” thingy—people sometimes say the equivalent of “that’s it—I hate my job, I’m sick, I’m poor—I’m definitely leaving TEC.”

RE: “That hasn’t prevented me from finding joy and fulfillment in my faith, and often in church. In fact, it was faith that carried me through, and often it was the people with whom I was associated at church who helped me stay joyful and hopeful.”

I understand and I agree that many are able to take joy in their sufferings.  But not every Christian does that.  So I was only postulating potential reasons why some people are in TEC but not at all thankful and joyful to be so.

RE: “I don’t see much to be joyful about in TEC today.”

Well, perhaps it is one of reasons #1, #2, or #3 for you?

RE: “But I am truly sad that TEC, which is blessed to be part of the Anglican Communion with all its richness, has become what it is today.”

I too—very very grieved over it.  But nevertheless, I am very joyful and thankful to be a part of TEC.  I believe that God has called me to be right here, and He has blessed me greatly in it.

[40] Posted by Sarah on 1-4-2011 at 12:46 PM · [top]

With impecable timing Dr Radner has a piece up, which I have read just now with many of my concerns, although I will have to think a bit about his conclusions.

#36 Fr Dale

save for promoting an empty and ineffective shadow of a Covenant that could have been
Is this a more recent conclusion on your part? Where does the WWAC go from here?

It is relatively recent, in that it is post Jamaica.  The most obvious failing of the Covenant draft as it is, is the usurper ‘Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion’ stuffed to the gills with revisionists, and whose first few meetings have been characterised by an inability to follow even their own constitution and rules.  It is the most obvious thing which must be sorted out before Rowan’s Covenant has any credibility whatever.  The Global South at Singapore, the African Bishops at the CAPA conference and the CAPA and GAFCON primates have all raised other points on the Covenant…all of which, RDW has ignored.

What hope for the Communion?  Well, as Christians, we look to the East, don’t we?

#37 Ol Rafe - there has been no pretence that this is anything other than a public rite of blessing of a same-sex union performed with the participation of, if not by, a diocesan TEC bishop.  TEC’s official news organ describes it as ‘wedding’.  It is deliberate, in your face, typically TEC sticking its tongue out at the Communion.  It is not meant to be, nor should it be ignored.

#39 Sarah - yes, tell everyone you can.

But as for:

ON THE OTHER HAND—I’ve also said that looking internationally is the wrong focus.  Sure send the letters—but that appeals to the notion that there will be some sort of help internationally.  There won’t be.  We’re on our own and each parishioner, clergyperson, bishop, etc, must work out his or her own strategies and activities with their own posse.

Yes, in the sense that there will only ever be an American solution to an American problem; but there is no need to feel that there is no support from the rest of the Communion which can help.  The Communion has helped as a body in the past in the case of provinces whose leaders go off the rails.  A recent example was Rwanda in the aftermath of the genocide.  The Communion action has led to a godly and flourishing Anglican church in Rwanda.  God is in charge, and He will provide help and assistance in ways and from places, which may surprise us.

[41] Posted by Pageantmaster [Katie bought Welby] on 1-4-2011 at 01:06 PM · [top]

Sarah, I don’t see why you feel it necessary to make this a personal issue. I got the impression that was what you were doing when I first read your possibility #4: “They have other painful issues in their lives—relationships, work, personal, etc—that are depriving them of joy and thankfulness.”
Please note, by the way, that I never said I was able to “take joy in” my “sufferings.” I’m not a masochist. Finding joy in other things in life, while suffering, is not the same thing as enjoying your sufferings. I enjoy the companionship of a good, decent husband; I enjoy my grandchildren; I enjoy nature; I enjoy my church community a great deal. I have not ever enjoyed any of my “sufferings.” ( I don’t think that even saints who suffered necessarily enjoyed it. I doubt that Thomas More enjoyed being beheaded for standing by his convictions.) And by the way, I’m not suffering anything at the moment except my son’s imminent deployment. We’re financially sound, my cancer is in remission, my mother has thankfully left us. (See - I’m thankful!) Yet it is now, when life is easier than it has been for most of my life, that I am thoroughly disgusted, disappointed, and disillusioned with TEC. By the way, I also never said in my original comment that <i>I<> intended to leave. I raised the question of why conservatives are staying.
RE: “But again—being a part of an organization is not intrinsically wrong.” - Well yes, I think it can be, if the organization has become intrinsically evil or intrinsically wrong, however you want to say it. Because by being part of it one is supporting it - maybe not financially if one stops giving, but just by one’s presence.
I think that in #30, Timothy Fountain makes a better case for staying. His reasons why one might stay make sense. He makes some good points.

[42] Posted by Nellie on 1-4-2011 at 01:27 PM · [top]

Tom Rightmeyer, #15, says,

A “generous pastoral response.”  It may be inconsistent with the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer, at least for another 7 years, but disobedience of rubrics in a post-modern age is called prophesy.

If this action is a “generous pastoral response,” then so is taking your alcoholic friend to a bar and buying him a drink when he tells you he is desperate for one.

If the “progressives” can break the rubrics at will, they should not get upset when conservatives leave and take their property with them.  The rule either apply to all or to no one.  Take your pick - but be consistent.

[43] Posted by AnglicanXn on 1-4-2011 at 02:01 PM · [top]

Oh, and I almost missed it, but there is another article by Dr Radner, this time dealing with the Primates’ Meeting.

[44] Posted by Pageantmaster [Katie bought Welby] on 1-4-2011 at 02:17 PM · [top]

#My mistake -the article at #44 is not by Dr Radner, it is by Philip Turner.  However, it does not really address the real issue at the heart of the Communion problems, which just is Rowan Williams himself.

[45] Posted by Pageantmaster [Katie bought Welby] on 1-4-2011 at 02:35 PM · [top]

I was a postulant in the Order of the Holy Cross.  Towards the end of my six months there, Thomas Shaw was the Novice Master of SSJE and brought his novices and postulants for a visit.  Both noviciates, Holy Cross and SSJE, were treated to a ‘night out’ at Primetime, the local gay bar and disco down the street from Holy Cross Monastery.

What a treat for Jesus!

[46] Posted by priestwalter on 1-4-2011 at 03:21 PM · [top]

BTW, I left Holy Cross a week afterwards.

[47] Posted by priestwalter on 1-4-2011 at 03:23 PM · [top]

1 Corinthians 5:11 - But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

I have argued for many years that Broken Communion, especially among bishops, is the necessary and appropriate response to obdurate heresy and immorality within the Church. I would argue further that Paul’s exhortation not to associate with heretics includes avoiding Holy Communion and other worship and also official church meetings at which they are seated.

So for this reason, I sent the following message to the “Church of Uganda Leaders listserve”:

Dear COU Leaders,

The latest from USA: “Historic Lesbian Marriage in Boston Cathedral Unites Top Clergy of Episcopal Church”
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/1/prweb8041704.htm

Note that this sham marriage was performed by the Bishop of Massachusetts for his Diocesan Secretary, who is a divorced (from a man, I presume) lesbian, and the Principal (aka Dean) of one of the Episcopal seminaries which continually dangles scholarship money to African students and from which one Professor, Ian Douglas, was made bishop in Connecticut, where he also serves on the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion, along with Katherine Schori. This same Dean wrote an article in which she claimed that “abortion is a blessing.”

I truly doubt that Abp. Rowan Williams will say anything about this event, much less try to do anything about it.

This is a reminder why the Church of Uganda has rightly broken ties with the Episcopal Church USA and why Abp. Orombi and other GAFCON Primates will not be attending the Primates’ Meeting later this month.

Rev. Prof. Stephen Noll

[48] Posted by Stephen Noll on 1-4-2011 at 03:29 PM · [top]

Dr. Radner’s article demonstrate’s yet again his (and the ACI’s) utter blindness to the reality that the greatest danger at present is not that various clerics from various parts of the globe no longer meet together for various chats and discussions…he writes:

“Instead, our shepherds here often provide little evidence that they have a sympathetic sense of the weakness of others, and that time – far more time than their own virtues might require – is needed. And with this sense, they offer little encouragement to those taking steps, however small, in the direction of the Communion’s integral healing (e.g. the Church of England leadership in Synod). And this lack of encouragement is a blow to human hope, since, many (like myself) agree with much of the substance of their witness, but yearn for greater strength in the midst of difficult locales, which they seem instead to indicate are worthless places of ministry altogether.

Hope is subverted, because they say they will not go, as it were, to “Jerusalem” (ironic in terms of their named Declaration), there to meet their Herods, Pilates, Sanhedrins, and yes, false friends, disciples, and brethren. But is not this our calling as a people? How then can we hope to follow where our leaders will not go?”

Um, no. Our calling as PASTORS is proclaim the gospel, to teach all that Christ commands, and to DEFEND the flock from wolves—not meet with, not sit down and have a chat with them, not seek anything from them short of outright repentance and recantation (2 John 7-11) And since that has been called for and rejected, they are to be treated not as brothers and sisters who err but as those who devour and destroy—we should give them no comfort, no hospitality, no legitimacy…and certainly not the public respectability that a face to face meeting would provide…as if they are genuine Christian leaders.

[49] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 1-4-2011 at 03:37 PM · [top]

RE: “Sarah, I don’t see why you feel it necessary to make this a personal issue.”

Yikes—not sure where you get the idea that this is personal.  I merely postulated potential reasons why someone would still be “aboard TEC—and very pleased and thankful and joyful to be so, too” and why some might still be “aboard TEC” and *not* very pleased and thankful and joyful to be so.  In short, a multitude of broad category possibilities.  I simply noted a few general possibilities.  I knew nothing about you at all when I posted my #4 reason [how could I?], nor even after you listed some troubles did I believe they were all connected to you so again, am very clueless about you or your reasons either way.  My response was and remains general and broadly principled, offering up some categories of reasons why folks might still be “aboard” TEC and not joyful.

RE: “By the way, I also never said in my original comment that <i>I<> intended to leave.”

I didn’t mean to imply that you did.

RE: “Well yes, I think it can be, if the organization has become intrinsically evil or intrinsically wrong . . . “

Now see, that may be the core of our disagreement in principle.  I think it possible for a Christian believer to be a member of the Hitler Youth, or of the China politburo, or the rules of Stalinist Russia.  Indeed, we know that Christian believers were and are.  And we have as a guide to behavior of the faithful within such corrupt and evil organizations the examples of Joseph [second in command—boy don’t you think *he* saw a lot of evil] and Daniel [advisor to a very very evil tyrant in Babylon, among other things.]

RE: “He makes some good points.”

I agree—I always appreciate Tim’s comments and his stalwart faithfulness while in TEC is a model of effective and consistent action.

There I can agree with bells on!

[50] Posted by Sarah on 1-4-2011 at 03:39 PM · [top]

#45 - I disagree the “problem” is RW.  I am no fan of his and am not defending him.  I do believe his “mandate” is to hold the Communion together at all costs, which just means delaying the inevitable - the splitting of the Communion.

The real issue here is the authority of Holy Scripture, and the unwillingness of the lawless leaders of TEC to submit to what the Bible plainly teaches.

You are correct that RW COULD take the stand we all want him to take, which is to call heresy what it is and sever ties with those who refuse to submit to the authority of Holy Scripture.  And he IS creating problems by not being this leader.  But he is just a part of the problem.

[51] Posted by B. Hunter on 1-4-2011 at 04:33 PM · [top]

#51 B. Hunter - I used to think as you do, but I have been watching the Archbishop closely for some years.  I may explain exactly what it is in his scheming and manipulation that has led me to the view I have, perhaps, if I can be bothered.  But meanwhile let’s see what he will do with some extra rope.

Trust me - the Archbishop’s scheming continues, and it is worse than ever, as the last standing committee demonstrated.  He seeks just sufficient GS members to turn up in Dublin to give him a figleaf of process with which to steam off to the next Standing Committee and ACC meetings, having neutered the Primates and having collected the votes of a few of the gullible to his Covenant as it stands.  He is the problem.

[52] Posted by Pageantmaster [Katie bought Welby] on 1-4-2011 at 06:13 PM · [top]

I also disagree with Drs Radner and Turner - to just turn up to Dublin for ‘conversation’ is all the ABC wants - as he did with Lambeth - if people don’t come, he does care, but won’t admit it.  He wants them to turn up to show that they are still going along with his scheming, without them, it all falls apart for him as he has nothing to hide behind.

The shame is that this is what Primates Meetings have become under Rowan Williams - an expensive waste of everybodies’ time and the Communion’s money - an opportunity to heal and sort out things will have been lost, for as Dr Radner states, by inviting KJS, Rowan Williams knowingly ensured that the Primates Meeting would fail, just as he intended.

[53] Posted by Pageantmaster [Katie bought Welby] on 1-4-2011 at 06:22 PM · [top]

Re #53 Sorry, that is Dr Turner who said this rather than Dr Radner:
<blockquote>The Archbishop of Canterbury has invited the Primates to meet in Dublin, but he has done so in a way that guarantees that no significant business will be done. By inviting the Primate of a Church that has acted against the request of all the Instruments of Communion he has called for a meeting a significant number of Primates feel they in good conscience cannot attend.</blockquote
Too many ACI articles running together in my brain at the moment.  Perhaps if I refer to Dr McTuradeitz I will have some chance of being 25% right rather than completely wrong.

[54] Posted by Pageantmaster [Katie bought Welby] on 1-4-2011 at 06:39 PM · [top]

My goodness, #46! Your preposterous-sounding story leaves one wanting more details! For example, what would Mrs. Shaw say about such a thing?

[55] Posted by Ralph on 1-4-2011 at 06:59 PM · [top]

#49. Matt Kennedy

Um, no. Our calling as PASTORS is proclaim the gospel, to teach all that Christ commands, and to DEFEND the flock from wolves—not meet with, not sit down and have a chat with them, not seek anything from them short of outright repentance and recantation (2 John 7-11) And since that has been called for and rejected, they are to be treated not as brothers and sisters who err but as those who devour and destroy—we should give them no comfort, no hospitality, no legitimacy…and certainly not the public respectability that a face to face meeting would provide…as if they are genuine Christian leaders.

This bears repeating and could have been written by St. Paul. This is what I mean when I refer to a prophetic voice.

[56] Posted by Fr. Dale on 1-4-2011 at 07:17 PM · [top]

Ralph, there is no Mrs Shaw; the bishop is a professed monk.  However, his order (SSJE) is one that was in the forefront of the “Gay is OK” movement in ECUSA.  I attended a midweek eucharist at their mother house in Cambridge back in the 70’s, and it was a strange experience.  Lots of same-sex couples scattered among the congregation.  Once was enough for me….

[57] Posted by AnglicanXn on 1-4-2011 at 07:20 PM · [top]

Oh. Then the question that naturally follows really can’t be asked directly, I suppose.

Here’s one way to ask it. Do Anglican monks take vows of celibacy and chastity (as those terms are traditionally understood), and are there temporal consequences for breaking such vows?

I think knowing the answer to this is relevant to the posting, but the bloggers might not agree.

[58] Posted by Ralph on 1-4-2011 at 08:03 PM · [top]

I think that the question of “have you left TEC?” or “did you join the ACNA?” is much less important than *why* you did or did not do so, and *what* you are doing in your current place.  Personally I can muster little enthusiasm for TEC - it’s foibles are clearly well documented in this posting.  Similarly, there is much that makes me deeply uneasy about the ACNA.  Although I consider myself deeply an Anglican, I can’t say that any of the Anglican options in the USA excite me.

I like Ephraim Radner’s and Kendall Harmon’s analogy of North American Anglicans being in a state of exile.  We are ecclesiastical refugees if you like.  I see Anglicanism as being in a state of anarchy right now.  As Sarah rightly suggests, there is no overarching North American Anglican flag out there to rally around, thus our individual tasks are to build as best as possible a viable Anglican network in North America with a vision towards a future renewed North American Anglicanism.  If you are in TEC, then your task is to starve the parasitic national and diocesan organizations of money, while building robust local orthodox communities.  If you are in the ACNA, then your task is to tamper down ego’s, work for unity, insist on accountability and honesty (i.e. don’t pretend to be something you aren’t), and work towards submission to the wider Communion.

Speaking now of TEC, I also think that we need to take a longer range look at what is and what isn’t “good news” or “bad news” in TEC.  The national leadership is imploding TEC at an alarming rate, and they are in complete denial about it.  IMHO, the only way to stop the revisionists is for them to completely, utterly and finally implode as an institution - something I think that they are closer to doing then many of us realize.  Thus publicity for breathtaking stupidity, heresy, etc., while being shocking, heretical, apostate, and “bad news” is actually “good news” in a way.

Think about it this way - suppose that you are an advocate for conservative politics - you want lower taxes, smaller government, etc.  Then suppose you are watching the news and you see some fat white guy with his pants hanging low with a big teapot hat on their head holding a sign that says “Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist plant” dancing about, would you say “Oh, good news!  Our side is getting publicity!”  Or would you groan, shake your head and hope that not that many people were watching the news.  If you were a Democrat, you’d probably be very happy.

Thus, I see any evidence of events of further implosion by TEC to be good.  In other words, it’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better.  But it’s what needs to happen before things can start to improve again.  The pus needs to drain before the wound can heal.

Speaking of Anglican Communion politics, folks are right when they say that Rowan Williams will ensure that nothing is done.  My prediction is that the Communion Instruments will become worthless, toothless paper tigers, but that the no-one will actually ever formally leave “the Communion”.  But being in “the Communion” won’t really mean that much for a while.  Gradually, as the western liberal provinces begin to implode and dry up financially, their power will wane, and gradually (I hope, and this is what we must work for) a new Communion will rise from the ashes.

But all of this will take time, and it won’t be accomplished by today’s leaders.  We must exercise patience, be governed by God’s time, and look more towards creating favorable conditions TODAY so that the longer term solutions can take shape TOMORROW (and I mean “tomorrow” figuratively of course).

[59] Posted by jamesw on 1-4-2011 at 08:35 PM · [top]

Actually, Ralph, I stated that Thomas Shaw was the Novice Master when, in fact he was not.  He was the Superior of SSJE and accompanied the Novice Master while their noviciate visited Holy Cross Monastery, West Park.  This was back in 1983 when such events took place and the monks ‘carried on’ on the sly.  Now Holy Cross openly celebrates Gay Pride Week among other things.  How monastic!

[60] Posted by priestwalter on 1-4-2011 at 08:39 PM · [top]

#59 jamesw

Speaking now of TEC, I also think that we need to take a longer range look at what is and what isn’t “good news” or “bad news” in TEC.  The national leadership is imploding TEC at an alarming rate, and they are in complete denial about it.  IMHO, the only way to stop the revisionists is for them to completely, utterly and finally implode as an institution - something I think that they are closer to doing then many of us realize.

Just using the business analogy, by the time that a business becomes aware that there are financial problems, it is well past the time when things can usually be done about it.  A business can continue for a while with declining customers and business.  For a time this will be hidden by receipts from past years coming in and cushioned by past reserves built up.  But when these dry up, and it becomes time to renew bank borrowing, the figures are not looking plausible to the bankers.

I suspect you are quite right, but the financial position may well be considerably worse than has been admitted, or perhaps understood.  I think a key matter is whether anyone will be prepared to refinance 815’s revolving credit facility from Bank of New York, even with mortgages of 815 and pledges of trust endowment assets, knowing that cashflow financing raised will be used for the financing of the Presiding Bishop’s aggresive litigation rather than proper cashflow purposes for the church.  I wouldn’t bet on it, but they will probably not admit it.  Probably the best way of finding out is to keep a watch on whether a mortgage is registered against 815, which I presume is possible in the US.

I can’t speak for things in the US, but as far as the Communion is concerned, we are seeing the formation of a faithful group of Global South provincial leaders coming together, RDW notwithstanding, so I am hopeful for the future of the Communion; and without the need to wait for some period in the wilderness, or the arrival of new leaders.  They are here, and we should pray for and encourage and support them.

[61] Posted by Pageantmaster [Katie bought Welby] on 1-4-2011 at 08:51 PM · [top]

We are dancing around what I think is a very important and relevant issue, but I defer to the bloggers on whether to go there.

In the meantime, we have a cute wedding photo (not for the faint of heart).

[62] Posted by Ralph on 1-4-2011 at 08:51 PM · [top]

The cathedral has been defiled. Remind me to never attend services there unless it is a re-consecration service.

[63] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 1-4-2011 at 08:56 PM · [top]

That ‘re-consecration’ is not likely to happen anytime soon, I’m afraid, and if it were, we wouldn’t recognize the rite, I think.

[64] Posted by cennydd13 on 1-4-2011 at 09:22 PM · [top]

Hmmm…a harlequin pattern on Shaw’s “mitre” instead of a customary Christian design.  That’s appropriate.

[65] Posted by Nikolaus on 1-4-2011 at 09:23 PM · [top]

#65 Yes I had noticed that - +Shaw could be mistaken for an orange Christmas cracker in that outfit.

[66] Posted by Pageantmaster [Katie bought Welby] on 1-4-2011 at 09:29 PM · [top]

#59. jamesw,

Similarly, there is much that makes me deeply uneasy about the ACNA.  Although I consider myself deeply an Anglican, I can’t say that any of the Anglican options in the USA excite me.

Yes, as a member of the ACNA I understand your deep unease. We are not in the excitement business. We specialize in Evangelizing, Church Planting and Equipping.

If you are in the ACNA, then your task is to tamper down ego’s, work for unity, insist on accountability and honesty (i.e. don’t pretend to be something you aren’t), and work towards submission to the wider Communion.

And thanks for this tip too. My ego was beginning to metastasize again.

[67] Posted by Fr. Dale on 1-4-2011 at 09:30 PM · [top]

“and work towards submission to the wider Communion…”

Personally, I think this should be toward the last tail end of the ACNA goals…especially if the Covenant becomes the “way in.”

There is presently no confessional boundary within the communion—we are unmoored and drifting with no basis from which and authority by which to hold any member church to biblical standards….and if, heaven forbid, the Covenant is adopted then the only measure of the Communion becomes the Communion itself—Sola Ecclesia—which is why the Covenant is a sub-Christian document.

The ACNA is somewhat dysfunctional as it is…why on earth would we want to add to that by “working toward submission” to the sick man of Christendom that is the Anglican Communion

[68] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 1-4-2011 at 09:46 PM · [top]

#68 Good point - I am trying to think of another province which has “worked towards submission to the Anglican Communion”.

Church in Wales, Church of Nigeria [Anglican Communion], New Zealand, Pakistan?  I can’t think of any who have done so, and am not sure why ACNA should, although no doubt they could benefit from the wisdom, guidance and help of other provinces.  If by that is meant allowing Kearon and Williams to interfere then I hope they will tell them clearly where they can take themselves off to.

[69] Posted by Pageantmaster [Katie bought Welby] on 1-4-2011 at 09:56 PM · [top]

I am trying to think of another province which has “worked towards submission to the Anglican Communion”.

Try even suggesting such a thing in TEC and you may be deposed for treason against the general convention.  And one can imagine that to suggest such a thing within the Church of England would lead to an afternoon of discussion between the two camps at Synod- the one that will want to behead you, and the other that insists you must be burnt at the stake.

[70] Posted by tjmcmahon on 1-4-2011 at 10:26 PM · [top]

This lesbian ceremony was performed by the same bishop who famously said, “I am a conservative” in a Lambeth Conference video.  He is not a conservative.  He is a liar.

[71] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 1-4-2011 at 10:41 PM · [top]

Jill, this creates a good definition of the new classification, the neo-con bishop!

[72] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 1-4-2011 at 10:49 PM · [top]

#70 TJ

And one can imagine that to suggest such a thing within the Church of England would lead to an afternoon of discussion between the two camps at Synod- the one that will want to behead you, and the other that insists you must be burnt at the stake.

Oh dear no, that is not at all the CofE way; although they might well decide to talk you to death.

[73] Posted by Pageantmaster [Katie bought Welby] on 1-4-2011 at 10:50 PM · [top]

Re #50, Sarah - I don’t see any point in beating this to death, but I did get the idea you were implying that I was saying I intended to leave, and that you were actually saying that people who want to leave may want to do so because of personal unhappiness or concerns in other areas of their lives. That seemed such a groundless thing to say that it struck me that you didn’t have anything better to offer. It’s playground stuff - even if you did mena it in a general sense. I mentioned my own problems to make the point that they have nothing to do with my disgust with TEC,and that one can be quite content in some areas of life while having difficulties in others. I will agree to disagree with you on the issue of whether it’s possoble for a Christian (a true, believing, honest Christian) to be a Nazi or a Stalinist or a member of the Chinese political structure. I don’t think so. In any case, we’re talking about TEC - supposedly a church - not some fascit or communist government.

[74] Posted by Nellie on 1-4-2011 at 11:06 PM · [top]

subscribing ...
Intercessor

[75] Posted by Intercessor on 1-4-2011 at 11:15 PM · [top]

RE: “It’s playground stuff - even if you did mena it in a general sense.”

Nope, not at all playground—although now that you’ve offered that metaphor, I’m beginning to wonder just from what stance *you’ve* been approaching this interesting exchange.  ; > )

I stand behind it as a perfectly accurate reason for why *some* people might not “be pleased, thankful, and joyful to be in TEC” just as I stand behind the three other perfectly accurate reasons I named for why *some* people “are not pleased, thankful, and joyful to be in TEC.”  I’m sure there are plenty of other good reasons too.

But I don’t mind if you state that you think it playground and I think it perfectly reasonable and accurate.  These things happen and people disagree all the time.

Hey Jill Woodliff—nice catch.

Here was just a bit of the fun we had with Bishop “I am a conservative” Shaw.

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/sf/page/14966/

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/sf/page/15090/

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/sf/page/15074/

What a hoot.  Just goes to show that the revisionist activists understand that most people they’d like to influence like conservative ideas and disapprove of revisionist activist ideas—which explains why so many of them try to steal the word and attempt to deceive people into who they actually are and what they actually believe.

[76] Posted by Sarah on 1-5-2011 at 01:44 AM · [top]

Okay, since some of my comments have ignited some ire, permit me to explain…

If you are in the ACNA, then your task is to tamper down ego’s

Okay, is there really a need for the degree of purple fever and turf protection that is going on in the ACNA?

work for unity,

Still seems to me to be a coalition of groups rather then one group.  While there is some merit in identity group networking, I don’t think it is really a catholic way of organizing a church.

insist on accountability and honesty (i.e. don’t pretend to be something you aren’t),

Much has already been written about how the “we are all united and one Province” line went as regards the AM pulling out.  The ACNA remains still a coalition of loosely federated groups and not a single Province.

and work towards submission to the wider Communion.

And this seems to be the big one.  Note, however, that I pointedly did NOT say “submission to the ACO”, “submission to Rowan Williams”, or “submission to the Standing Committee.”  I said submission to the “wider Communion.”  What I mean is that the ACNA should stop declaring itself to be the North American Province, and perhaps declare themselves to be a North American jurisdiction formed to protect orthodox Anglicanism here and ask for the wider Communion to recognize it.  One of the big problems for North Americans (both TEC and the ACNA) is that we scorn the idea of submission to the wider Communion.  We don’t trust anyone but ourselves.  When I say “work towards submission to the wider Communion” I mean develop some humility.

[77] Posted by jamesw on 1-5-2011 at 02:31 AM · [top]

I could perhaps add:
If you are in the ACNA, then your task is to tamper down ego’s, work for unity, insist on accountability and honesty (i.e. don’t pretend to be something you aren’t), work towards submission to the wider Communion and stop being so defensive all the time (a little critical self-reflection is not a bad thing and criticism of aspects of the ACNA does not equal condemnation of it).

[78] Posted by jamesw on 1-5-2011 at 02:35 AM · [top]

On a related note, Matt wrote:

There is presently no confessional boundary within the communion—we are unmoored and drifting with no basis from which and authority by which to hold any member church to biblical standards

While I agree that it is important to have some confessional basis in a Covenant, we must remember that confessions are only so good as their enforcement mechanisms.

Let me recount some informative history.  Back in 1982, Canada brought in its new constitution, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  A good deal of thought was given to drafting the Charter, and it was deliberately decided to EXCLUDE any mention of “sexual orientation”, whilst religious freedom was explicitly mentioned and intentionally (apparently) given a great deal of protection.  Thus reading the Charter in 1982, one would have believed that the “confessional basis” of Canadian constitutional law would be a strong protection of religious freedom, with no special rights for the homosexual lobby.

The only problem is that the clever Liberal PM Pierre Trudeau and his liberal/Liberal cronies outsmarted everyone else.  They knew that it didn’t really matter all that much what the Charter actually said.  What mattered was who authoritatively decided what it said.  And the Liberal government knew it controlled the judicial and academic elites from which the Supreme Court judges came.

And thus, within 25 years, despite the actual language of the Charter non-existent homosexual rights trump the supposedly strongly entrenched religious freedom rights every time.  The problem was that teh pre-1982 conservatives were too concerned with the actual Charter language (i.e. the “confessional standards”) but paid no attention to the enforcement mechanisms (i.e. who interpreted the Charter and how these individuals were chosen). 

Confessional standards are important, yes, but, in themselves, they protect nothing.  Thus a Covenant is rightly concerned with issues of enforcement, which in the Anglican Communion are very complex issues.  The current Covenant doesn’t get it right, but I think it is unrealistic to think that simply stating strong confessional standards will solve our problems.  Enforcement provisions can not just refer back to the language being enforced, but are necessarily concerned with political structures.  You can validly criticize the political structures as unsuitable to proper enforcement or as being biased, etc., but I don’t think you can validly criticize the Covenant just because it attempts to create enforcement structures instead of just referring back to the confessional standards.

I have little doubt that TEC would be quite happy to let Matt Kennedy and GAFCON draft the confessional standards, if TEC would get to draft the enforcement mechanisms of a Covenant.  After all, what section of the Covenant has ever been the one to so upset TEC throughout the process?  Always the enforcement section.

The majority of the Anglican Communion are orthodox.  It is the wealthy western provinces, along with the ACO and the ABC that are not.  Thus, I think that the key to a solid Anglican Covenant is to have basic confessional standards (and I think there already is some of that, but there could be more), but then insist on broadly based/dispersed enforcement authority to prevent it from being manipulated by the ACO, the ABC and their western liberal allies.

[79] Posted by jamesw on 1-5-2011 at 03:00 AM · [top]

And Matt, the reason why I say what I do in post #79 is because you are honest and you mean what you say, while, as Jill said in post #71:

This lesbian ceremony was performed by the same bishop who famously said, “I am a conservative” in a Lambeth Conference video.  He is not a conservative.  He is a liar.

When Matt Kennedy says “I believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ”, I know what he means.
When a TEC bishop says “I believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ”, I have no idea what he means.
Thus, if our confessional statement is “belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ”, and a TEC bishop says “oh yes, I believe in the idea of resurrection.  I can recite in unity with the early Christians a belief in the bodily resurrection as that is what their primitive minds believed at the time, even though I know that it is the memory of the Jewish fable of the Christ consciousness that is alive today.  This is what I believe the resurrection of Jesus Christ to be” then I want judges on whatever enforcement panel to say “uhhh??!!???!!???!!???.......no.”
Just because we have honor and courage to say what we believe and believe what we say, doesn’t mean that liberals do.  I work in an academic law school environment and I see on a daily basis that one of the prime goals of legal-minded liberals is to invent ever more creative ways to twist, manipulate and escape the clear meaning of the English language in order to advance their agenda.

[80] Posted by jamesw on 1-5-2011 at 03:18 AM · [top]

Jamesw said

one of the prime goals of legal-minded liberals is to invent ever more creative ways to twist, manipulate and escape the clear meaning of the English language in order to advance their agenda.

Truer words were never spoken.  This sentence should go on the masthead of Stand Firm.  It shows what we are up against.

[81] Posted by AnglicanXn on 1-5-2011 at 06:26 AM · [top]

#76, Sarah. What about this, especially comments 27, 29, and 36?

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/15074

[82] Posted by Ralph on 1-5-2011 at 06:38 AM · [top]

Hi Jamesw,

I don’t think confessional standards are as powerless as you suggest. Articulating very clear and specific definitions of the faith is precisely the method whereby the Church from the very beginning has guarded the faith against heretics.

When heresy rises up, the Church rearticulates biblical revelation in a way that clearly disallows the specific heresy of the day.

So, for example, while the Covenant is now sub Christian because it fails to articulate any standard beyond whatever arises from the common mind of the participants, that could be rectified by simply adding the following

Confession: Marriage is the life-long union of one man and one woman before God and is the sole relationship within which and for which God created the gift of human sexual expression.

1. To be considered for Covenant membership a province must pledge unchanging commitment to the doctrinal standard of Lambeth 1.10 in which in accordance with the clear teaching of scripture homosexual behavior is recognized as a sinful.

2. In keeping with Lambeth 1.10, Covenant members pledge to listen to the experiences of those who are caught up in the sin of homosexual behavior for the purpose of pastorally guiding them to live lives of celibacy or to enter into the state of faithful heterosexual marriage.

3. All Covenant provinces must as a condition of membership pledge unconditional and unchanging commitment never: 1. to permit any ordained leader to perform or enter into same sex blessings, so called “marriages”, and/or unions or 2. permit the ordination or consecration of any person who unrepentantly engages in homosexual behavior or teaches that homosexual behavior constitutes anything other than a sin before God.

4. Any violation of this standard shall represent a de-facto withdrawal from the Covenant community.

I think that would be sufficient to prevent our modern day heretics from entering the Covenant.

Of course, as you say Jamesw, one day down the line another heresy will rise up and, as it always has, the church will then need to rise up and define the true faith in very specific heresy denying terms

[83] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 1-5-2011 at 07:51 AM · [top]

Peter Ould adds this liturgical comparison between the liturgy used in Boston and the 79 BCP.
Assuming St John Chrysostom is correct about paving and lampposts in hell, the TEC Memorial Highway will be multi-laned and well lit.

[84] Posted by tjmcmahon on 1-5-2011 at 08:20 AM · [top]

This is the 5th day since this event. 

Has there still been no outcry from the occupant of the Lambeth Palace, nor from the Communion Partner, Camp Allen, Windsor bishops?

No response means that all the meetings and documents from 2003 on are null, void, worthless and ineffectual.  It also means Lambeth 1998, Resolution 1.10 is also for all practical purposes, null, void, worthless, and ineffectual as far as the dominant apostate leadership of the Canterbury Communion is concerned.

Playing games with cheats is always a folly.

[85] Posted by St. Nikao on 1-5-2011 at 08:39 AM · [top]

Thank you, Peter Ould! (I think.)

We now know that there was a celebration of black mass as part of the diabolical service, and that one of the “scripture” readings was “THE SECOND READING: From ‘Goodridge vs. Department of Health.’”

Eeeeeuuuuuw!

Peter correctly draws parallels to the infamous “marriage” of 2 priests at Great St. Bart’s. But, this trumps that - because a diocesan bishop presided. This absolutely REQUIRES all other Christian bishops to take action. Silence is affirmation.

[86] Posted by Ralph on 1-5-2011 at 08:44 AM · [top]

jamesw,

“but I don’t think you can validly criticize the Covenant just because it attempts to create enforcement structures instead of just referring back to the confessional standards.”

Good because that’s not what I am doing. I am criticizing the Covenant because the enforcement structures do not seek to keep member bodies to clear, concise and specific biblical standards but rather seek to keep member bodies “together” by upholding “together” whatever the lot of them feel like upholding.

[87] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 1-5-2011 at 08:53 AM · [top]

#84 Yes, I saw that TJ.  Peter Ould summarises:

Examining the two liturgies side by side, it is very clear that the Boston liturgy is to all intents and purposes identical to the 1979 marriage liturgy, with small textual changes to reflect the fact that there are two women being married rather that two people of the opposite sex.

So someone, presumably with the approval of the tangerine faced and hatted Bishop Shaw, and perhaps he himself, has amended the TEC 1979 Prayer Book Marriage Service for this event.  Isn’t that the grounds on which the Genpo Lama, Kevin G. Thew Forrester was refused consent to his bid to become a bishop?

When TEC General Convention suggested developing new liturgies for blessing SS unions, did they really have in mind rewriting the ‘79 marriage service?

[88] Posted by Pageantmaster [Katie bought Welby] on 1-5-2011 at 09:40 AM · [top]

St. nikao and Ralph, good point about the silence. Maybe the ABC and the Windsor bishops are carefully preparing a strongly-worded statement grin. Matt’s criticism of the Covenatn is dead on. The Covenant was a problem from the beginning, I think, because no one was really satisfied with it. The liberals objected to any reference to enforcement of standards, and the orthodox didn’t think it went far enough. I think a big part of the problem is that Anglicans don’t like the idea of enforcement - it’s too Roman. This is ironic, since
Rome has had its own problems with radical theologians, nuns who advocate abortion, etc., but the difference is that Rome has excommunicated people who stray too far from Church teaching. We don’t have a Pope, College of Bishops, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. While the idea of a pope, or of some central authority deciding what we believe is distasteful to Anglicans, there’s something to be said for it. Otherwise you have different groups within the communion deciding matters of faith on their own, and there’s no uniformity of doctrine within the church.

[89] Posted by Nellie on 1-5-2011 at 09:45 AM · [top]

It is crystal clear that Fr. Kennedy is correct.  The sole aim of the Covenant is to hold the AC together, not to stop heresy or to roll it back.  The Covenant supporters have from inception said that the Covenant is not intended to address the situation in North America.  It is prospective only. 

The sole wish of the ABC is to hold the AC together and he can only do that by making sure that nothing of substance happens either way.

[90] Posted by Br. Michael on 1-5-2011 at 09:46 AM · [top]

The ‘79 Marriage Service starts:

Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony.

The Tangerine ‘Bishop’ starts in Abortionist Ragsdale’s Liturgy:

Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of these women in Holy Matrimony.

Couldn’t be clearer than that, could he?

[91] Posted by Pageantmaster [Katie bought Welby] on 1-5-2011 at 09:49 AM · [top]

As I understand it, “via media” originally referred to a middle way between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Now it has become a term signifying “anything goes,” or “please don’t let us offend you - just believe whatever you want.”

[92] Posted by Nellie on 1-5-2011 at 09:49 AM · [top]

What Shaw did is exactly what kept Thew-Forrester from getting the consents in NoMich.

[93] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 1-5-2011 at 09:54 AM · [top]

#91, the words “...joining together of these women in Holy Matrimony,” spoken by the diocesan bishop, have the weight of doctrine in that diocese, and constitute a full-frontal assault on the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. That’s what makes this incident especially important to the Anglican Communion, and (more generally) to Christianity as a whole.

The cope and miter do seem to have been an apt choice for the occasion, if black hadn’t been obtainable.

Ick!

[94] Posted by Ralph on 1-5-2011 at 10:04 AM · [top]

Funerary vestments would’ve been more appropriate.

[95] Posted by cennydd13 on 1-5-2011 at 10:13 AM · [top]

When TEC General Convention suggested developing new liturgies for blessing SS unions, did they really have in mind rewriting the ‘79 marriage service?

Yes, that was precisely what they had in mind.  Of course, rather than amend the prayer book itself, they will just issue an authorized liturgy with its own rubrics that counter those of the prayer book.  It is the Anglican Way, in modern times- keep the unused book in the pew intact, and write whatever you want on the laminated card you hand out at the beginning of the service.  Then claim that nothing has changed because you haven’t changed the prayer book.
Clearly the liturgy used in this case is authorized in the diocese of Massachusetts- since the bishop performed the service.  If it is not authorized by GC, then no doubt the bishop will be brought up on charges and deposed.  Much more likely, of course, is that anyone bringing presentment against Mr. Shaw will himself be deposed.  All that will actually happen is that between now and the primates meeting, Rowan will issue a statement that this was a regrettable action by Mr. Shaw (although Rowan will continue to refer to Shaw as a bishop), and suggest that he will consider perhaps, maybe, discouraging any nomination of Mr. Shaw to an Anglican faith and order committee, unless, of course, Mr. Shaw is the next PB, or joins Sea of Faith, in which case, he will be awarded the leadership of the SC.

[96] Posted by tjmcmahon on 1-5-2011 at 10:52 AM · [top]

#93 Fr Tim
Yes, it was Thew Forrester’s liturgical innovations including writing his own collects which got to so many bishops, but what really did for him was when he rewrote the BCP 1979 Baptismal liturgy.  I found some of the reactions from the Bishops here

But +Shaw has gone even further by rewriting the BCP 1979 Marriage Service without approval by General Convention or anybody else.

What he has done goes beyond anything approved in Resolution CO56 of GC2009 to:

...call forth a renewed pastoral response from this Church, and for an open process for the consideration of theological and liturgical resources for the blessing of same gender relationships

Pastoral responses and blessings are one thing; rewriting the ‘79 BCP Marriage Service is another, and +Shaw has gone beyond anything General Convention approved, indeed without authority he has amended its Book of Common Prayer.

And the action of +Shaw in relation to the assurances given to the Communion on General Convention Resolution CO56, like that of the election of +Glasspool and consecration of her by the Presiding Bishop and +Ian Douglas in relation to General Convention Resolution DO25, just proves the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies to have been liars when they wrote to the ABC and Primates giving them assurances about what General Convention 2009 had done.

This isn’t a Buddhist priest in Northern Michigan who rewrote TEC’s Marriage Service, it is a TEC diocesan bishop.

It summarises the anarchy and deceit at the heart of TEC and its unfitness for purpose; as Paul Marshall, Bishop of Bethlehem put it in his reasons for declining Thew Forrester’s approval:

As a Church we are increasingly a laughing-stock. Not because we welcome lesbian and gay people, and carry on social ministries that enact the sacrifice of Christ on a corporate basis, and certainly not because of our latitude and the conversation it engenders. We are a laughing stock because we do not consistently proclaim a solid core, words as simple as ‘all have sinned and come short of the glory of God,” yet “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself’.

Actually Bishop Marshall, it is all of the above, and because of the way you do it all.  You are a joke church and an embarrasment to the Communion as well as yourselves.  This time Bishop Shaw has shown this up once again.

[97] Posted by Pageantmaster [Katie bought Welby] on 1-5-2011 at 11:04 AM · [top]

#97, in no way would I rise to defend Bp. Shaw or his actions. However, as a US diocesan bishop, he does have some degree of authority and power to define doctrine and liturgical practice in his diocese. The US church has no archbishop, and KJS could not have stopped this even if she had wanted to. A diocesan bishop is very much the prince of a principality. His fellow bishops can express concern (and I hope that they will), and if they believe that national canons have been violated, they can file charges.

For him to do what he did in no way changes or amends the Book of Common Prayer. It has no direct effect outside the boundaries of his diocese. However, what he did might well encourage other bishops to do similar things. Furthermore, his actions are certainly a betrayal of trust given to him by the Church in his ordinations and consecrations.

Because of the oddities of US polity, it’s very hard to get rid of a diocesan bishop; witness the problem in Pennsylvania.

[98] Posted by Ralph on 1-5-2011 at 11:26 AM · [top]

Ralph, Tell that to Bishop Duncan

[99] Posted by JustOneVoice on 1-5-2011 at 11:44 AM · [top]

Pageantmaster #97 thanks for that good summation.  I guess that all of the lying, misdirecting, manipulating and such doesn’t violate their great promise to “respect the dignity of every human being.”

Apart from lethal force, it becomes hard to see much spiritual difference between TEC leadership and those who terrorize Christians in other countries.  In both cases, bullies use “the weapons of this world,” knowing that these will give them immediate advantage over those practicing the Christian Way.

History shows that the bullies will do great harm in the short run, but pay a terrible price long term.  God’s removal of them will be much worse than any paper sanction from a denomination or Communion.

[100] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 1-5-2011 at 11:49 AM · [top]

#98 Ol Rafe

in no way would I rise to defend Bp. Shaw or his actions.

Ah, but you are doing exactly that in your comment.

However, as a US diocesan bishop, he does have some degree of authority and power to define doctrine and liturgical practice in his diocese.

No, he operates under the Book of Common Prayer and doctrine of his church which at his consecration he undertook to uphold.  He may have some discretion to allow variant services which do not use that liturgy, but he may not rewrite it.

For him to do what he did in no way changes or amends the Book of Common Prayer.

This is incorrect.  He has stated his intention clearly at the start of the service to be that he is holding a service of Holy Matrimony, and he has used not the prescribed form for that which is laid out in the BCP for the marriage of a man and a woman which is the only form of matrimonial celebration the BCP ‘79 permits, but has instead adapted and rewritten it to be Holy Matrimony for a same sex couple.

It has no direct effect outside the boundaries of his diocese.

That is irrelevant.

However, what he did might well encourage other bishops to do similar things.

That is also irrelevant, although it might well also encourage others to lawlessly amend the form of BCP liturgies used in their churches.

Furthermore, his actions are certainly a betrayal of trust given to him by the Church in his ordinations and consecrations.

It is more than that - he has rewritten the liturgy of the Service of Holy Matrimony set out in the BCP 1979 in violation of his oaths and his authority as a diocesan bishop consecrated and ordained in TEC.

Because of the oddities of US polity, it’s very hard to get rid of a diocesan bishop; witness the problem in Pennsylvania.

Possibly true, but irrelevant - the Bishop of Pennsylvania was tried and acquitted on the ground of time-bar, which is not the case here.
Finally you mention:

The US church has no archbishop, and KJS could not have stopped this even if she had wanted to. A diocesan bishop is very much the prince of a principality. His fellow bishops can express concern (and I hope that they will), and if they believe that national canons have been violated, they can file charges.

This is again irrelevant to the issue of whether +Shaw in rewriting the Marriage Service from TEC’s Prayer Book has acted outwith the authority granted to him as a bishop of that church, and its constitution and canons.  The fact that they have been so blatently ignored and circumvented, not least by TEC’s Presiding Bishop, does not affect the issue of the legality of +Shaw’s actions.

The response to this will be telling.

[101] Posted by Pageantmaster [Katie bought Welby] on 1-5-2011 at 11:52 AM · [top]

Actually, he could be deposed under the abandonment canons, but those are only used against orthodox bishops.

[102] Posted by Br. Michael on 1-5-2011 at 11:57 AM · [top]

#100 Fr Tim - that is right.

I also think that in this event there is an element of TEC toys being thrown out of the pram, ahead of the upcoming Primates’ Meeting, not that that is up to much either.

[103] Posted by Pageantmaster [Katie bought Welby] on 1-5-2011 at 11:59 AM · [top]

Hey Pageantmaster, I don’t understand your comment about the toys out of the pram.

That implies the actions of some sort of angry child. 

No, I think these are the actions of a rational adult who recognizes that there are no consequences to his proceeding on with what he believes and acting in a way that will cement the changes in practice and doctrine that he desires within TEC.

It’s yet another calculated action to force the changes ahead of time.

I don’t see it at all as the actions of an angry child - -there is nothing to be angry about.  The Primates Meeting will go on as planned, and TEC will be an equal participant in it.

End of story.

RE: “Has there still been no outcry from the occupant of the Lambeth Palace, nor from the Communion Partner, Camp Allen, Windsor bishops?”

St. Nikao—I’ll point out again:

How does issuing another statement do anything?  You would then say “ah, more words, no action.”

So I think the opposite.  I think they should remain firmly silent.  There is nothing really for them to say.

They can say—yet again—“this is a really bad thing.”  And I’m sure at some point some or all of them will.

And then everybody will say “words again, no action.”  Which is true.

There are no effective actions that they can take.

[104] Posted by Sarah on 1-5-2011 at 12:14 PM · [top]

#194 Hi Sarah

Hey Pageantmaster, I don’t understand your comment about the toys out of the pram.

I suppose what I meant was that these senior TECies, including the Tangerine Bish Shaw have taken a particular action 3 weeks before the Primates Meeting; in doing so +Shaw has been prepared to push the bounds of his actions even beyond anything conceivably authorised in GC2009.  He may well have done so, on the assumption that there will be no consequences, but it is a political act, designed to create new facts on the ground prior to that meeting.  It is TEC’s standard response when something is happening which they don’t like to do something as provocative as possible to try to rally the opposition to them so long as it has a chance of scupper things like a Primates Meeting intended by RW to push forward a Covenant that TEC hates.

Hence my comment about toys out of prams.

[105] Posted by Pageantmaster [Katie bought Welby] on 1-5-2011 at 12:35 PM · [top]

I suppose that in his haste to achieve his aim, Bishop Shaw is prepared to trash his own vows, canons and his church’s authorised Prayer Book.

But nothing must be allowed to get in the way of the overriding agenda, unsurprising really if you dress up like the tangerine queen.

[106] Posted by Pageantmaster [Katie bought Welby] on 1-5-2011 at 12:53 PM · [top]

I’d had hopes for the Primates’ Meeting, but I don’t know what it can accomplish. As Sarah says, more statements are useless. Other than a statement, what can the meeting do in the framework of what they have to work with? In any case, the ABC’s main goal - if not his only goal - is to preserve unity. Of course, that’s ridiculous, since - de facto - that unity is already cracked. Almost a third of the invited primates are staying away from the meeting. TEC will undoubtedly get away with this as they have with everything else. Thye know no one is going to stop them. The timing of this “marriage” is no coincidence, I’m sure. They’re making a point, pushing the envelope.

[107] Posted by Nellie on 1-5-2011 at 12:56 PM · [top]

I think that what Shaw did was a very astute political action designed to “push the envelope” ever farther immediately prior to the Primates Meeting.  This was done knowing that there would be absolutely no consequences from the ABC nor the Primates Meeting.  It is more the actions of a bully who knows that he has his prey on the run.

At this point TEC knows that no consequences will ever come from their actions, and so their best strategy now is to make ever increasing displays of the impotence of the Communion Instruments they perceive as least friendly to their cause.  It’s all about establishing precedent at this point.

[108] Posted by jamesw on 1-5-2011 at 01:03 PM · [top]

RE: “It is TEC’s standard response when something is happening which they don’t like. . . “

But what is happening that they don’t like?  I don’t think they give a hoot that the Communion is divided, so long as they will always be able to claim that they are a part of the Anglican Communion and attend all of its Instruments.  SO that’s not a problem.

And unlike the ABC they don’t give a hoot that a few of the Primates [how many—maybe 7-8?] won’t be attending the Meeting.  They didn’t care that bishops didn’t attend Lambeth either.

At the end of the day, politically speaking, they’ve got all they need—confirmed membership in the AC, attendance and participation in the Instruments, and moving forward their gospel.

[109] Posted by Sarah on 1-5-2011 at 01:12 PM · [top]

With TEC’s utter and open control of the SC, you will be lucky if there is no vote to openly applaud Shaw and his little ceremony.

Don’t know why this is such a big deal.  Remember that a month before Lambeth (almost 3 years ago) an ANGLICAN bishop (who remains in full communion with Canterbury) married his gay partner in a similar ceremony.  Not a word from Cantaur about that.  Not a peep from CP bishops (in public), no complaints at GC09.
Actually, this one is staid by comparison, as everyone was decorous enough to leave their purple shoes at home.

TEC is just making the point that this IS within the modern definition of “full communion with the See of Canterbury”, while it can depose faithful priests and bishops at will, and these depositions (other than the one of an English bishop) are recognized as removing one from the Anglican Communion by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

And people wonder why the actual bishops and primates stay away from Lambeth and the coming primates meeting.

[110] Posted by tjmcmahon on 1-5-2011 at 01:13 PM · [top]

#109

But what is happening that they don’t like?

They really don’t like the Covenant - really, not at all.  Even in its emasculated form they hate and fear it.

And consequences there are for them, much as they would like you to think there aren’t any.  Most of the Communion is out of Communion with them and it is only the shennanigans of the ABC which is keeping them tenuously in.

He has even sacrificed his own position by inviting KJS to Dublin - but then he is a fool.

[111] Posted by Pageantmaster [Katie bought Welby] on 1-5-2011 at 01:18 PM · [top]

RE: “And consequences there are for them, much as they would like you to think there aren’t any.  Most of the Communion is out of Communion with them and it is only the shennanigans of the ABC which is keeping them tenuously in.”

As I pointed out—“most of the Communion” being out of Communion with TEC is not a meaningful consequence for TEC current leaders—not at all.

And sure they don’t like the Covenant—but I think they’re pretty safe, given the Standing Committee’s being locked up nice and tight.

No, things are looking mighty sweet for the current TEC leaders.

[112] Posted by Sarah on 1-5-2011 at 01:43 PM · [top]

alas, the sweetness isn’t the honeycomb, but saccharine or splenda….

it may not be soon, but eventually they’ll discover that.

[113] Posted by maineiac on 1-5-2011 at 01:50 PM · [top]

[112] Sarah

No, things are looking mighty sweet for the current TEC leaders.

Well, yeah, unless you consider their looming fiscal crisis which is being driven by their looming demographic crisis.  TEC won’t look so important and powerful to the rest of (what’s left of) the AC when TEC’s national staff is selling apples on a NYC street corner.  TECs ascendancy is the very definition of ‘transient.’

carl

[114] Posted by carl on 1-5-2011 at 01:53 PM · [top]

Our Good Friend Gene “I-always-wanted-to-be-a-June-bride” Robinson had the public blessing of a civil union. The blessing service was done in a church. That was bad. Very bad. Blasphemous, heretical, etc.

This more recent debacle used the words “Holy Matrimony” and was presided over by a diocesan bishop. In doing so, this bishop entered the history books by redefining the meaning of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony for his diocese. In doing so, he has hit rock bottom. There are other opportunities for defilement and desecration, some of which might match this depth and breadth of depravity, but I cannot imagine anything worse.

The silence from the other bishops and the primates is utterly deafening.

Pageantmaster, by your use of the phrase “tangerine queen” do you intend to imply that the Bishop of Massachusetts might be - on the wrong bus?

[115] Posted by Ralph on 1-5-2011 at 01:58 PM · [top]

RE: “Well, yeah, unless you consider their looming fiscal crisis which is being driven by their looming demographic crisis.”

I agree, Carl, that that is a bright spot for all of us.

And I also agree that the current structure of TEC will eventually fail.  Everything I have learned about organizations and corporate structures tells me that it cannot last.  It is already dead—but a dead elephant plunging downhill can still keep moving for a while.

BUT . . . remember, that the way liberal activists advance their ideas in society is not through creation but through using a host—a current and once creatively produced structure—and consuming it from the inside, while maintaining the facade.  That’s how they work—they destroy but use the image of the host that they have invaded.

So from an advancing-the-cause point of view, they only need the facade—and that’s why membership in the Anglican Communion and continue participation and attendance at the Instruments is so very very important to them.  They *must* have hosts to advance their agenda, as they cannot create the vehicles on their own.

[116] Posted by Sarah on 1-5-2011 at 02:08 PM · [top]

Oh, how I do look forward to the time when TEC’s leaders will be nothing but a bad memory.  Right now, they’re an embarrassment to Christianity.

[117] Posted by cennydd13 on 1-5-2011 at 02:29 PM · [top]

Sarah,
I don’t often disagree with you.  However, I am not sure that the leadership of TEC cares about being recognized as a member of the AC at this point.  Certainly, there are many bishops who do care, but I am not at all sure about the leadership at the top.  Perhaps the only concern is that if TEC is some how officially out, which I don’t think will happen, it may give some of the bishops who do care pause in the speed at which they are moving. 
I do agree on most of what you have said.  Politically they do have everything they want.  The new powers of the Title IV revisions, the courts going their way, for the most part, and no one who can frustrate their agenda at GC for the forseable future. 
I don’t think the timing was politcally motivated.  The impact on the rest of the communion, or the continued involvement of the Communion Partners in TEC was not even an afterthought.  Conservatives are so insignificant to TEC that the need not think about us.

[118] Posted by revrj on 1-5-2011 at 03:40 PM · [top]

According to thinkinganglican.org, as of last month 10 primates are not going to Dublin. Anglicanmainstream has the number at 11. I believe 37 or 38 were invited. And the primates whop are not going represent most of the Anglicans in the world, numberswise, if not in terms of financial wealth.

[119] Posted by Nellie on 1-5-2011 at 04:32 PM · [top]

Oh, but you see, Nellie, the only thing that matters to ++RDW and Mrs KJS is TEC’s money, and their misuse of it, because as we all know, TEC’s largesse is what greases the Standing Committee’s axles and keeps the wheels turning.  And of course, we all know who runs things, don’t we?

[120] Posted by cennydd13 on 1-5-2011 at 08:01 PM · [top]

the only thing that matters to ++RDW and Mrs KJS is TEC’s money

True.  They haven’t my pieces of silver any longer.  I am giving them to a Godly Church.  Goodbye dear friend.  So sorry to see my beloved Church crumble.  Goodbye to them all:  St. Paul’s, Chittenango; Trinity, Watertown; St. Matthew’s, Liverpool; Christ Church, Cambridge; and others St. Andrews; St. Johns.  My parents told me I would always have a home in the Episcopal Church, anywhere in the world.  It is no longer true.

[121] Posted by episcopal100 on 1-5-2011 at 09:19 PM · [top]

Sarah - #116 - This reminds me of Screwtape’s letter to Wormwood in which he describes their inability to create anything, but can only produce a warped copy of something truly created by The Enemy. 
(not sure why, as it sounds more like a biological explanation of parasites.)

[122] Posted by maineiac on 1-5-2011 at 10:34 PM · [top]

#116 Sarah. Well said. Now that is an analogy I can understand. Yep parasites absolutely need their hosts.  Host dies? So does the parasite.  There are ways of killing parasites without killing the host. Now if we could find the Anglican equivalent of these medicines.

[123] Posted by Blue Cat Man on 1-5-2011 at 10:53 PM · [top]

BCM - some of those ways are <very<> messy.  But worth going through to restore health.

[124] Posted by maineiac on 1-5-2011 at 11:43 PM · [top]

Episcopal100, what saddens me is the way in which Grace Church, Utica, went downhill.  I remember when The Rev Stanley P. Gasek….God rest his soul….was rector there for so many years (over 20, as I recall), and the church was a bastion of Christianity in the city.  Sadly, my wife and I can no longer bring ourselves to worship there whenever we come home to my hometown.

[125] Posted by cennydd13 on 1-5-2011 at 11:53 PM · [top]

I met Fr Gasek when I served as assistant (to Steve Jecko) at Zion, Rome, in the mid-80’s.  He was a godly man. I think that there were many clergy who were ordained in the first decade after WWII who were good and faithful men, but they trusted the Episcopal Church and did not believe that it was abandoning the Faith.  On the whole, they did not recognize that, although the same words were being used, the clergy trained in ECUSA seminaries from the 60’s onwards meant something different than the orthodox meaning.  The relativists were taking over.

After Fr Jecko left Zion, the vestry had to take those candidates for rector that were approved by the deployment office of the diocese.  Over the course of three rectors, Zion was taken slowly but firmly into the grips of the revisionists.  I am sure that the same happened to Grace, Utica.

[126] Posted by AnglicanXn on 1-6-2011 at 05:12 AM · [top]

Did not have occasion to attend in Utica, though grew up in central ny.  One of my high school recollections was of my parent’s friends marriage ending, the husband a priest, and the wife marrying the bishop.  Really?  Just watched the newly ordained deacon from a previous church move on to find a job.  We discussed the disposition of her kids as she moved out of state.  I expressed the sadness for kids losing schools, etc.  She said it would be hard for kids to be w/o dad.  I said, “wow, can’t dad find work there?”, reply “no we’re divorced.”  Oh, well at least older siblings can be a comfort, “no, they’re not coming, but I am not married to their dad either (divorced).”

[127] Posted by episcopal100 on 1-6-2011 at 07:03 AM · [top]

So it comes as no surprise that, as in so many dioceses, the small churches are either hanging on by the skin of their teeth by sharing rectors and vicars, or are closing, with their properties sold for other uses.  TEC’s rampant revisionism is driving the sheep away from the flock….never to return….and it’s sad, because creeping revisionist relativism was deliberately introduced and permitted to take hold.  What we now have in place of a once-great and highly respected Church is a separate ‘religion’ called Episcopalianism.  It has the trappings of that once-great Church in which so many of us were raised, but nothing else; it’s all gone.

[128] Posted by cennydd13 on 1-6-2011 at 10:44 AM · [top]

Or should I call it ‘Episcopalianity?’

[129] Posted by cennydd13 on 1-6-2011 at 02:33 PM · [top]

Any resemblance between it and the once-great and highly-respected Church is purely intentional….and phony.

[130] Posted by cennydd13 on 1-6-2011 at 02:42 PM · [top]

I agree with Pageantmaster that TEC hates the Covenant, no matter that they have the SC in their back pocket.  TEC hates the Covenant for what it stands for - no matter if that Covenant will be utterly without teeth.

I agree with Sarah (and con revrj) that TEC’s leadership still very, very badly wants to remain “officially” a part of the Anglican Communion (which for them means continued recognition by Canterbury and continued participation in the IU’s).  Granted, TEC’s leadership would abandon the AC if they had to, but they don’t, and so it still serves a valuable purpose.

My guess is that TEC’s leadership knows that there is very little chance that the Covenant will ever be adopted by a critical mass of Provinces, given GAFCON’s rejection of it.  Still, TEC doesn’t want anyone to sign on.

Thus, I think that the publicity related to this abomination in Boston was done strategically and with the purpose of high-lighting to anyone in the Communion who cares that TEC will continue full steam ahead with its sexual innovations and that they have complete and utter scorn for the one Instrument of Unity - the Primates - that once had the authority to block its progress.

This is all about a dog peeing in your lawn to mark his territory while your dog is stuck inside looking out the window and going impotently crazy.

[131] Posted by jamesw on 1-6-2011 at 04:14 PM · [top]

I agree with Jamesw (in #131), Pageantmaster, and Sarah concerning the strategic calculations behind TEC’s actions now, including the “wedding”. Here are a few extra thoughts:

TEC’s defiance is really aimed at the ABC, even though he remains their ally. TEC calculates that he is the only Instrument left that has not already been destroyed or eviscerated. Inasmuch as TEC cannot really control Rowan, they fear what he could theoretically do [i.e. stop inviting TEC to Communion events]. TEC wants Rowan clearly to understand that TEC is not turning back from its agenda, even if TEC loses its membership in the Communion, which it won’t, of course.

I agree that there is little purpose in orthodox primates attending AC meetings so long as Rowan is in charge. Rowan will see to it that any decisions to sanction TEC cannot be made, and if they are made, Rowan will sabotage them. We cannot hope for any productive action from the Instruments so long as Rowan remains, and probably not thereafter in light of TEC’s domination of the Standing Committee. The “structure” of the AC, and the Instruments, are inoperable now.

Although using the Instuments will be impossible for a long time, if not forever, there are solid Christians in TEC, in the C of E, and in the Anglican Church of Canada, both lay and ordained. The best thing to do is for orthodox people in those churches to strengthen relationships with each other and with orthodox Anglicans in other jurisdictions. We should focus on practical working relationships, rather than legally binding things such as the Covenant or “recognition”. Reassembling the AC as an orthodox Communion will take many decades and will likely not happen in our lifetimes.

[132] Posted by Publius on 1-6-2011 at 05:07 PM · [top]

#131 jamesw / 132 Publius
I have been thinking about this - I think it is the case that TEC most fears the Covenant; not perhaps this one, but perhaps what might happen if an effective one were put in place.

What most puzzles me is that the Druid has just survived in the CofE a Synod vote on the Covenant, which TEC through its little helpers, notably the St Albans crowd headed by Simon Sarmiento, has done its best not only to undermine, but also to make his position untenable.  I think that is why we all rallied round; not because we think the current draft Covenant is adequate, nor because we think that he is anything but a walking disaster area, but because we were not going to let TEC interfere internally through their fifth column.

Members of Synod reported active attempts even in the meeting to stir up an anti-Covenant feeling, which probably was counter-productive.  They might have had more success with the last Synod, but the new one were just not having it.

So, what does the Druid think he is doing by supporting TEC even in the face of its attempts to assassinate him?  What is more he has gone out of his way to entrench TEC on the Druidical Council of the Anglican Communion - not only +Schori, but is actively promoting Ian Douglas, not to mention the risible Janet Trisk.  One can only conclude that he is not only stubborn, but a complete idiot.

[133] Posted by Pageantmaster [Katie bought Welby] on 1-6-2011 at 09:46 PM · [top]

There is absolutely no point in even discussing the Covenant until a) the CoE formally adopts one and b) TEC formally rejects the one that the CoE adopts, and c) the SC is restricted to those who sign the Covenant.  The only reason to sign Rowan’s personal covenant (given that it was rewritten after Jamaica to his personal specifications, taking into account all of KJS demands, and rejecting every suggestion from the moderates of the GS) is to be in communion with Rowan.  At present, you cannot sign it unless you are willing to kneel and kiss the ring of KJS - you admit her supremacy by signing, since she effectively runs the Communion via the SC.  SC last time voted no consequences for TEC after Glasspool, and in a couple weeks, it will vote no consequences for Shaw.  It will, in all probability, soon vote sanctions against Nigeria, Uganda, and no doubt had a major hand in the sanctions already imposed on Southern Cone.

[134] Posted by tjmcmahon on 1-6-2011 at 11:24 PM · [top]

“Sexual innovations,” jamesw?  More like sexual deviance and wanton dalliances.

[135] Posted by cennydd13 on 1-7-2011 at 12:24 AM · [top]

One source of problems within the institutional church is that many conservatives just want to “get on with the work” and leave maintenance of the institutions to the revisionists, who then reshape it to their liking.

In Sydney, the conservatives have made a deliberate effort over the last half century to be the ones responsible for maintaining the institutions. Could this also happen within TEC?  Is there enough passion from conservatives to take back the various (lay?) councils, and wrest back control from those who have lost faith in God and his gospel?

[136] Posted by Andrew W on 1-7-2011 at 12:56 AM · [top]

Those conservatives are a shrinking minority within The Episcopal Church as a direct result of the deliberate marginalization campaign against them waged by the liberal revisionist heretics now running the dog and pony show, and the situation won’t change unless and until they rise up in righteous anger and toss the leadership out the door.

[137] Posted by cennydd13 on 1-7-2011 at 09:51 AM · [top]

Otherwise, TEC will continue to degenerate and eventually end up on the scrap heap of history.

[138] Posted by cennydd13 on 1-7-2011 at 09:53 AM · [top]

Andrew, for the “progressives,” the gospel IS politics (and psychology) so they have honed their political skills to the max.  Biblical Episcopalians trusted what been a reasonable way to conduct business for a Christian organization, but the “progressives” took advantage of that trust to insidiously infiltrate the organization and take command of the structures.

I am glad that Sydney’s biblical people have kept a close watch on the structures as well as on the ministry.  That is being as innocent as doves and as wise as serpents.

[139] Posted by AnglicanXn on 1-7-2011 at 10:06 AM · [top]

Wasn’t there a photograph of Reverend Katherine Hancock Ragsdale and Mally Lloyd that accompanied the EDS article with Matt’s link? It seems the photograph is no longer a part of the article. What is that about?

[140] Posted by Fr. Dale on 1-11-2011 at 09:27 AM · [top]

The world is laughing at the bishop’s choice of vestments for the black mass. Pageantmaster has taken to calling him the Tangerine Queen, which does have a ring to it.

[141] Posted by Ralph on 1-11-2011 at 09:45 AM · [top]

#14 Fr Dale - not to worry about the disappearing photo - it remains forever part of the ether record in the Church Times and Church of England Newspaper where the the photo cannot just be made to disappear, unlike the American PR Web and ENS sites - you don’t think they are embarrassed by it do you?  Is the shameless church suddenly less than shameless for once?

#115/141 Ralph - I was trying to find something to rhyme with tangerine dream, and up came queen.  I did think twice about whether to post it, but decided that if Bishop Shaw is part of an institution that approves the induction of postulants to the church by taking them to gay bars, then it is probably not far off.  Certainly the stories are that anyone not fully on board with his gay agenda in the diocese is encouraged to leave and .... then there is his dress sense.

[142] Posted by Pageantmaster [Katie bought Welby] on 1-18-2011 at 12:51 PM · [top]

Lord have Mercy. Prayers ascending.

[143] Posted by ammakate on 2-14-2012 at 11:21 AM · [top]

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

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