The Co-Chair of the CLC [Colorado] Sends a Resignation Letter

Deb,
You fought the hard fight with grace and dignity.  Now rest and grieve.  May the peace of our Lord carry you until you can run again and may His light warm your heart and draw you near to Him.

Whodathunk that the generation of the “Summer of Love” would have produced a group that when they reached the tops of their organization would have been so mean, petty and small-minded?  This group has infected, and in my opinion ruined this once great church.  I can’t call them evil, just self-serving, self-involved, arrogant dummies.  I guess all that dope they blew has had longer term effects.  They have run many a good person out of the church.  It’s a cryin’ shame.

#2—I will happily take your challenge—They’re evil.

This marvelous letter is indeed a model for gracious departures.  There is no rancor, nor any accusations, and the overall tone is one of grief and sadness.  Yet it is also very clear and emphatic and forthright.  When John Henry Newman preached his last sermon as an Anglican, he gave it the famous and amicable title, “The Parting of Friends.”  Deb strikes the same appropriate note.  Well done, Deb!

David Handy+
Reformations need not be bitter, even though they are divisive

“I know they are making this decision faithfully and sacrificially, and I pray that God gives them strength to persevere. But I have reached a crossroad of conscience that takes me in a different direction. I can no longer be part of a church that presents a distorted hollow Christian witness to a culture crying out for salvation found only by laying down sin at the foot of the Cross”

Looking:  “just self-serving, self-involved, arrogant dummies. “???
David:    read the above carefully… ‘evil’????

Looking and David:  How can you read her words and then respond as you have?  The Bible clearly says that salvation is found only by laying down sin at the foot of the Cross ... where Jesus gave up His life for us

Bill C. - you are misreading posts #2 and 3.  They are referring to TEC’s leadership as being evil for forcing Ms. Tenney out of the church.

Yes Bill C, I believe the leadership of TEC is arrogant, and self-serving.  I also think that they fallaciously believe that political correctness is the same thing as wisdom.  As my mother used to say, “They would cut off their nose to spite their face.”
To say that their plans and actions are evil would invest in them a level of intelligence that I don’t believe that they posess.  When I started educating myself about the leaders of the Episcopal church, I knew these people were well educated, and at the time, I believed them to be extremely intelligent.  Now, I just believe they are well educated.  So, I guess I still stand by my assesement that many of them are dumb.  Well educated, but dumb.  I sure can’t say they are wise.  Is dumb the opposite of wise?

PS—-By well educated, I must rephrase that to say “many degrees”.  I certainly don’t mean well educated in the classical sense.

Have you noticed that almost from the beginning the Christian Church has been fighting among ourselves and those whose heresies would corrupt the Gospel? I’m beginning to wonder whether without greater intervention from the Holy Spirit we will continue to fight until the end. I don’t like strife, but it seems to come with the territory called the human condition—or sin. Notice too, how we tear each other apart over adiaphora along with the big stuff, too.

Clergy leadership has changed several times in the CLC since its inception.  However, Deb was the constant, faithful, self-effacing, lay leader who has kept us organized and connected.  She and I have travelled all of this land to conferences, we’ve prayed with modern day saints from around the globe, we’ve talked theology and strategy over many a Guiness.  Deb is a gracious and strong believer, which I’m glad you all got to see in her letter. 
The CLC will be going through some changes as a fellowship this Spring and Summer.  This business of living in a time of judgment is no fun at all…as you all know all too well.  “Differentiating” in an organization (TEC) that is so bent on conformity and imposing its reappraisals of faith and morals on the world is tricky.  As Elizabeth Bennett said of Mr. Wickham: “How is such a man to be worked upon?”

[7] Looking for Leaders,

You asked

  Is dumb the opposite of wise?

Without going into great detail, most folks would generally agree that the opposite of wise is foolish. The word dumb (using dumb in the sense of stupid) is the opposite of intelligent (in the sense of mentally smart).

As to your comment that

(t)o say that their plans and actions are evil would invest in them a level of intelligence …

I would suggest that evil does not require great intelligence. Perhaps the best example of evil (I happen to strongly suspect that this is precisely the cause of the arrogant, deceitful and dishonest behavior—in both words and tone—which we are seeing from much of the TEC leadership) is original sin. If I understand original sin correctly, and the following is an understanding given to me by wise clergy whom I consider to be Christian examplars, it is the arrogance of thinking that one’s demonstrated intelligence, that is to say one’s understanding of this world and how it works, leads one to think that he might be like God, that he can decide what is good and what is evil. This makes great sense to me on a variety of theological and experiential levels. This was the temptation offered to Adam and Eve by the serpent in the garden. It is the absolute certainty and confidence displayed by the PB and many in the HoB concerning the rightness of their espoused cause (e.g., the full and indiscriminate inclusion of all the baptized into all levels of the church, regardless of sexual practice) which betrays the arrogance of those who believe that their understanding is not only correct but perfect—as perfect as God’s understanding. One sees not humility, but rather “cocksureness” in their every expression that the Holy Spirit is doing a “new thing.” IMHO, this is more likely to be the mark of overarching arrogance and conceit, reinforced by mutual self-congratulatory assertions that they are all doing God’s will, than it is to be the workings of the “still, small voice” of the Holy Spirit.

If my analysis is correct (and I feel reasonably confident that it is), then, their actions being neither more nor less than a rehearsal of original sin, what more appropriate word is there to describe it than evil?

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

Sarah in her most recent book talked about various leadership qualities. Deb is a spider in that she developed a wonderful, intricate web of connectedness with the orthodox in Colorado. This was very helpful for the group.

It is difficult to keep lay leaders involved in this struggle. The laity are not as invested in ecclesiastical structures, and they are growing weary. This is critical for the clergy to remember. To be honest, if I were in Denver, I would be going to an AMiA or other alternative church. In fact, I was in Denver this past weekend and went to AMiA church and felt a sense of relief, as if a layer of dirt had been washed off me. Thus, I am somewhat jealous of Deb but also relieved for her. She is free.

It certainly makes me tip my hat to the lay leaders, such as those that bring us this blog, that they have stuck it out in the trenches for so long.

Amen to that hat tip to some awesome, amazingly dedicated lay leaders, robroy (#12).  You are one of them yourself.  I don’t know Deb, but she sounds like a true gem of a disciple and change agent.  May her tribe increase!

It’s been said before many times, but it bears repeating because it’s not only true, but so significant.  It was the laity that saved orthodoxy in the fourth century, when a whole series of Arian emperors kept attempting to foist Arian clergy on the Church.  Of course, there were also orthodox clergy heroes like Athanasius who often seemed to stand “contra mundum,” against the whole world, and later the famous trio of Cappodocian theologians (Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and above all Gregory of Nazianzus) who did their essential part too and some orthodox emperors who also played a key role in the fight.  But ultimately, it was the steadfastness of the laity in refusing to accept the Arian heresy that saved the Church (humanly speaking).

I believe the same may be true in our day.  The laity are the least corrupted part of TEC, although they are often poorly informed, both theologically and in terms of actual church politics (that they naturally tend to shun).  But when I read of people like Deb, or see a surgeon like robroy dedicating themselves to this fight, I take renewed courage.  The battle is ultimately the Lord’s, of course, but in another sense, it all comes down to the laity in the end, and how they vote with their feet and their dollars and their time.

Thank God for the laity.  He must love them.  He made so many more of them than clergy!

David Handy+

how many of us are in this very same point of decision….

To the Martial Artist #11

IMHO being ‘dumb’ is a passive state of being . . . to be ‘stupid’ is the aggressive pursuit of dumbness.

I hope the Commenatrix will not delete this, but I don’t think it is out of line to ask.  And this is an honest question—I would really like to know.  I am curious as to how one goes about “differentiating” within TEC.  How will a visitor to your area find out that your parish is different from the Episcopal Church in another part of the city or the next town over?  How can you make this fact known?

Hi Ann Castro . . . I think Kendall Harmon communicates the big picture in his series of lectures held at CLC.  Have you already read/heard those?

[I’m asking just because I’m wondering where you are at pondering these things.]

You can hear her pain in every word.  Thank you for giving it the good fight, Deb.  I hope your new AMiA home brings you peace and joy.  It is a shame that such a small group of people weild so much power and cause so much pain in the name of inclusiveness.  I will pray for you.

how one goes about “differentiating” within TEC

1. Wear a bright orange hat that says “Differentiated” on the front.
2. Fly a Jolly Roger from the church flagpole.
3. Get the whole congregation to wear dark sunglasses in church.
4. Pour Old Spice cologne around the entire perimeter of the church.
5. Sound a foghorn every time the church door opens.
6. All the men in the parish grow Rastafarian dreadlocks.
7. All the women in the parish dye their hair green.
8. Cover the whole exterior of the church with fur.
9. Install a flock of peacocks in the church courtyard.
10. Preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Actually, Sarah, I was at the Colorado lectures and was eagerly awaiting his ideas on differentiation. In the end, he only offered symbolic differentiation “gestures.” And none of them as fun as those listed by Chazaq! I was disappointed to say the least.

Ephraim was mentioned not attending General Convention and holding an alternative. That idea was mentioned once and never repeated.

As Theron points out in Colorado as well as the proposed changes in Louisiana that you cited, parish differentiation will be more and more difficult. One can’t even remove Episcopal from the signs in front of the churches in most dioceses, I am pretty sure.

To stay and differentiate as a reasserter plan will be vigorously opposed and differentiation options will be removed as soon as they are used. Thus, Chazaq, I am afraid if you fly the skull and cross bones this week, it will be grounds for inhibition next week. So OK you wear the sunglasses the following week, etc. Chazaq only lists 10 options. That won’t last 3 months and then every one will be goose stepping with the heretics.

Just a silly question here.  I always thought that Sarah Hey was the Commenatrix.  It’s somebody else?  I haven’t received warnings, so I don’t know. I thought the Commenatrix went along with Sarah’s other titles in relation to a grand StandFirm southern feminist organization.  I just don’t keep up around here!

Sarah, I have not read them, but Robroy suggests that they were not especially helpful.  I would still like to see actual, plausible suggestions from any parish who feels that they have accomplished a successful differentiation.  Chazaq’s last suggestion is, of course, the obvious one, but you have to have people inside first in order for them to find out that you do that.

Martial, you are correct.  When I got home last night, I thought, “Boy am I dumb, the word is foolish”.  Hard to work and comment at the same time.

RE: “Actually, Sarah, I was at the Colorado lectures and was eagerly awaiting his ideas on differentiation. In the end, he only offered symbolic differentiation “gestures.””

Hi RobRoy, that’s why I said, above, “I think Kendall Harmon communicates the big picture in his series of lectures held at CLC.”

The reason why Kendall stated he wasn’t offering specifics is because every parish in every diocese is different and has different strengths as well as constraints as well as context.  So any person helping with differentiation would need to know all of that.

But his talks are—as I said above—a good way to get your mind absorbing the big picture of life in TEC [as well as life outside of TEC] so that you can then go home and brainstorm effectively.

Ann, perhaps some parishes will enter in here . . . but I kind of doubt it, as much of their work is done quietly and specifically in their contexts.  In other words, they are nicely “differentiated” in their diocese, but Sarah Hey or Rob Roy may never hear of them.

For some reason I had thought you were a part of the diocese of Pittsburgh???

Sarah, I am in the Diocese of Pittsburgh and fully supportive of my bishop.  The reason I asked the question is that I have never seen or heard of a “differentiated” parish.  If I am planning to visit in Wisconsin, just as an example, and want to find a differentiated Episcopal Church, how will I go about it?  In the past we have just picked one out of the phone book and said little prayer (unless we know someone living in the area).  Sometimes we drop by an check a bulletin (if possible), but that is all I can think of to do.  But, in actuality, for quite some time now we have (sadly) avoided anything with the word “Episcopal” in it.  But that’s just when visiting.  How are people who are new in town and “church shopping” going to find that differentiated Episcopal parish unless they know what to look for.  The only things I can think of are negative ones, e.g., if the sign outside says “welcoming and inclusive,” run away!

Ann, the lectures are available from here. I agree with Sarah that they are very good.

There was a point at the end where Kendall asked for the tape recorder to be shut off and then…nothing really. No specific suggestions on differentiation as Ann asks and as we all thought we would hear. As I said, differentiation in the TEC is a short lived game, whatever technique you use will be declared out of bounds by the next convention. A parish withholding money will get itself declared a mission, and the next thing you know your clergy is replaced with a islamopalian or hindupalian or partnered lesbian, etc.

I stated over at Titus that it is time that the Camp Allen bishops need to take a differentiated stand that might even risk inhibition. But this would compromise their chumminess with the purple shirt club. The church is built on the blood of the martyrs. We have the examples of the Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley. But today, our bishops aren’t willing to give up their discount cards at the 815 cafeteria. One inhibition of a comm-con bishop would provide a wake up call. Alas, this was dismissed as “silly” by Chris Seitz.

RE: “As I said, differentiation in the TEC is a short lived game, whatever technique you use will be declared out of bounds by the next convention. A parish withholding money will get itself declared a mission, and the next thing you know your clergy is replaced with a islamopalian or hindupalian or partnered lesbian, etc.”

A fine example of RobRoy’s speaking with practically NO knowledge or indeed any concern of any context.

1) Canonical changes almost always require two successive conventions, not one.

2) A parish withholding money—depending on the diocesan canons—could get into no trouble at all, or piles of trouble.

But of course . . . there are many ways that parishes can withold money, even under draconian canons, that result in no trouble at all.  And parish after parish after parish after parish, RobRoy, has done so.

I understand that the strewing of vague, and sweeping, generalities, actually ignorant of process is attractive when it comes to talking about differentiation as it appears that the only kind of differentiation that RobRoy desires is that of a kamikaze pilot auguring into a ship and it wouldn’t be helpful to his ultimate interests—that of getting all traditional Episcopalians to throw up their hands and say “aw, shucks, RobRoy is right, we can’t differentiate—guess we’ll all leave TEC.”

But couldn’t there be some subtlety about it?  A little less transparence in the effort?

Or simply a surrender that no, those of us in TEC are just going to keep on doing—diocese by diocese and parish by parish—what we deem necessary and right, no matter the bleating and nay-saying of the RobRoys of this world?

In response to Ann Castro’s practical question about finding a parish in Wisconsin, I advise checking the AAC parish listings as well as the ACN parish listings.  That’s what I have done for years when I travel.  That, as well as ask various listserves and blogs for advice.

Sarah, you are quite correct about my not knowing explicitly which changes require two readings and which only require one. For example, the Dennis canon has been criticized for not having a second reading, but I have read accounts from canon legal eagles that a second reading was not needed.

So your point is that instead of canon law being changed in one year, it will take two in the case of diocesan protocol or six years instead of three in the case of the national church? (Given the liberties the executive council plays with the canon, I think it would be foolhardy to assume that one can get away with this or that strategy for six years. They do what they want.) Regardless differentiation is a short lived process in the TEC whether it takes 1, 2, 3 or 6 years for the authorities to put kibosh on it.

Subtle differentiation (differentiation gestures) is of little value in demonstrating to the TEc that one disagrees with their positions. We are called to be witnesses for the Gospel. Put it under a bushel? No. I am going to let it shine.

RE: “Regardless differentiation is a short lived process in the TEC whether it takes 1, 2, 3 or 6 years for the authorities to put kibosh on it.”

I doubt it—but if you wish to think so, that’s cool by me.

RE: “I am going to let it shine.”

Sounds great—I look forward to seeing it.

[15] gilwilkes,

I would have to disagree somewhat with your differentiation between dumb as passive, and stupid as active. I think, however harmlessly, you are conflating two completely different aspects of human behavior, some might say human performance. Most people use dumb and stupid very nearly interchangeably to mean unintelligent. The principal difference in usage that I have sensed from those who make a distinction has nothing to do with passivity, but rather with the level of inanity of thought and action of the person to whom they apply the adjective.

In my slightly over twenty years in the US Navy, I came to realize that there were two axes on which leaders could be placed, namely intelligence and initiative. I found this simplistic analysis quite useful in dealing with seniors who could be identified as the more problematic in terms of affecting how I executed my responsibilites. Thus, you might find it useful to assign people to any one of four broad categories: active intelligent, passive intelligent, passive stupid and active stupid. In the above listing I have named them in order of increasing harm to morale and efficiency.

The active intelligent leader understands how to improve the organization and, on his or her own initiative, designs changes to structure and procedures that enhance morale and efficiency. The passive intelligent leader understands how to improve the organization as well, but does not actively look for opportunities to introduce changes unless problems are brought to his attention. The passive stupid leader (whom you would tend to call simply “dumb”) is the less destructive of the two classes of stupid, because, although he has no idea how to intelligently reorder the workings of the organization, he does not actively look for opportunities to inflict his incapacity on the organization, rather choosing only to react to “messages” that something is broken and needs to be fixed. Whereupon, he generally manages to redesign the form of the breakage. The last category, active stupid, also doesn’t understand how to intelligently reorder the workings of the organization, but takes the initiative to screw it up in hopes of advancing his career.

I find this construct, while something of an oversimplification, very helpful in dealing with seniors (i.e., supervisors, managers, etc.) who are in the two stupid categories to help me avoid triggering some needless organizational disimprovement.

Of course, you are welcome to maintain the usage you prefer, but I think you run the risk of expecting others to understand a construct that you understand implicitly, but which they do not share.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

presents a distorted hollow Christian witness

is a brilliant turn of phrase describing TEC to a t.

If I may, can I suggest adding one more adjective?  So, the phrase would read <i> presents a distorted hollow ersatz Christian witness<i>.  Seems to round out the rhetoric.  Just sayin’.

Kudos to Deb Tenney for the witness she brings to a sad situation.