Tiny dioceses created in the missionary era of our church…

“Divide to Grow” was the purported reason for the creation of new dioceses in recent decades.  With the exception of a handful of these newer dioceses such as Western Louisiana, the most common result was the election and consecration of more liberal bishops.

Hmm, it’s the ‘break away rival groups’ that grow into themselves and ‘break all the rules’ in the face of the breakage of the same by the ascendant power group.  I’m getting a little cognitive dissonance here, Fr. Tony.  The noted abandonment of doctrine and rules by the ascending liberals is given a pass as is their search for homgeneity?  while the ‘break away’ groups are faintly damned for the same activity?

This seems very far from noting reaction to said (current) ascending abandonment as reaction and not causative.  It’s the ass and cart problem.  But the retrenchment of the oligarchy is very polite speech for the attempted Stalinist-style purges which the PB and her Chancellor have attempted with the acquiescence of the HOB “Windsor bishops” and “Camp Allen bishops” and “moderate bishops”.  What’s canon breakage amongst those marginalizing all who disagree with them...including the Anglican Communion.

And the weather forecast in TEC today is ......More hot air from Indiana!

The Median ASA (expressed in thousands) is between 3 and 4 thousand.  I did some very basic analysis of ASA and Dioceses here.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

I have noticed a trend in that yes a fair number of the worst Tec liberals are converts from Roman Catholicism or Fundamentalism, and yes they do in large part frame TEC as a progressive,tolerant antidote to their hated churches of origin. Now I have no problems with people changing churches , but I do have a problem with one church kind of becoming a garbage dump for other churches misfits,heretics,perverts and losers,like Matthew Fox or Bishop Spong. These people than make everything about their pathologies and hurts. Frankly I am sick of lesbos,pro-choicers and other losers whining about how the big ,bad mean Catholic Church or the mean,unenlightened Baptist they grew up with didn’t do a good enough job affirming his or hers pet sins and disorders and telling them how special and awesome they are. It sucks that TEC has been sort of the Yucca Mountain for the reception of all this spiritual toxic waste. I read a website for a Affirming Anglo Catholic TEC parish in the Diocese of Newark and their whole stic. was that they where Catholics without the rules, beauty without the dogma and guilt,etc. That is pretty thin stuff and yes in ecumenical relations it does cause difficulty, if your church is defined solely as a liberal alternative to other church bodies,filled with deranged,hostile malcontents, from those other churches. These liberal converts are poison and frankly unwelcome, TEC was/is a church, not a playground for deviants,perverts misfits and whiny baby-boomers with silly agendas,unresolved daddy issues and untreated mental illness. Not to mention the deficulty created in relating to the rest of the Anglican Communion, of course these creeps, in reality no more belong in Anglicanism, than they did where ever they slitthered out of. Bishop Spong is gift to TEC from a fundamentalist church or so he says, and frankly has no business leading in anything remotely Christian. The baby-boomers or more fairly and precisely the radicals in that age cohort in TEC and society at large are ahistorical, oddities and freaks, and hopefully the 1960s and their war againest,nature,truth,reality,common sense and history and its aftermath will all pass like a bad dream. I for one look forward to the coming passing of the 1960s generation.

Such a love affair with structure is not the product of vigor and growth. Rather it is espoused because it works for those in power. It preserves our present governing oligarchy.

Sometimes, I think we should be renamed the Oligarchic Church, rather than the Episcopal Church.  The oligarchy sets the agenda for the HoB meetings, minimizing plenary sessions and maximizing small group talk. 
The oligarchy uses parliamentary procedure to gag the voice of the bishops.  For example, PB Schori referred resolutions painstakingly drafted by coalitions of bishops for the New Orleans HoB meeting to a working group she appointed, to be rewritten.  Another example--after claiming for years that only the GC could respond to the Windsor Report, Bonnie Anderson rules the Windsor language resolution as unconstitutional, thereby preventing the HoD and HoB from voting on it.
The Executive Council joins the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, a decision that should have been made at a full GC, with the HoB and HoD voting.
Bonnie Anderson is paid an executive salary to travel.  Some of her meetings are bishop-bashing sessions.
The HoB is not informed as to the source of funding for litigation.  There has been no public accounting of the monies collected for Hurricane Katrina, at least not that I’ve seen.  (I don’t know if the Katrina bishops have been provided an accounting or not.)
On the other hand, I must say that the few occasions when the HoB has been in control of the ball, they have dropped it.  An example would be the failure to challenge the canonical validity of the recent depositions.

Overall, I think it’s a well written article with many good points, however, he also completely misses the mark:

Yet the real threat to TEC, whatever the causes of a dwindling “membership” is not Africa or the Southern Cone, and certainly not the tiny rump of “traditionalism” within the church, but rather internal collapse through the weight of obsolete institutions.

It’s not a obsolete institution, but an institution that has been made obsolete by the Lord removing it’s lamp stand! In abandoning the Scripture and the Gospel, the Lord stopped blessing it. Yet, “quirky” groups that continue to embrace the classical Christian message and uphold Scripture have grown so much that “mainline Protestantism” should mean Assemblies of God or Southern Baptist or other denominations you’re likely to meet on the street.

If we are to confine ourselves to those like ourselves we shall succumb ironically to the sin of many first Christians secure in their heritage, who didn’t want or need those pesky Gentiles.

A hint of the need to share the Gospel. Granted the Lord tends to bless only one type of Gospel, an Act 2 type of trust in Jesus the Christ and repentance—it’s not popular & frequently ended up getting it’s proclaimers thrown into prison or killed, yet the Church grew.

Hmm, it’s the ‘break away rival groups’ that grow into themselves and ‘break all the rules’ in the face of the breakage of the same by the ascendant power group.  I’m getting a little cognitive dissonance here, Fr. Tony.  The noted abandonment of doctrine and rules by the ascending liberals is given a pass as is their search for homgeneity?  while the ‘break away’ groups are faintly damned for the same activity?

I think Fr. Clavier is stating the catholic point of view.  I recall several years ago, when I really became aware of the “cognitive dissonance” within TEC, reading a post, perhaps on SF, although I don’t specifically recall, that postulated that the end result of the breakup in TEC would be 2.3 individual churches made of of 1 person each- as we all strove to make a church as a perfect reflection of our personal theology.  While this is obviously taken to the absurd, we see this premise reflected today in both liberal and orthodox camps.  In the diocese of N. Michigan, the chief philosopher is postulating in the newsletter that we are all “incarnations of the Trinity” (this apparently an improvement on last fall’s pronouncement that we are each and every one of us an “only begotten child of God). While here on Stand Firm, just yesterday, +Jack Iker and ++Greg Venables were virtually being accused of selling out the faith for announcing that they would attend Lambeth.  TEC, in its arrogance, has determined that it is the prophetic voice of Christianity in the modern world.  I, in my own arrogance, see fit to post what I see as “correction” of some of my fellows for “drawing lines in the sand” when they choose to define orthodoxy according to who does and who does not attend a tea party in England.
In 2003, the majority of the bishops and deputies of TEC decided to walk apart from the Anglican Communion.  Since then, the orthodox in the Communion have been torn over what the correct, and most Christian, response to that is.  Many (especially within TEC) still want to ignore what happened, and go on with the pretense that we are all still Anglican, and it will eventually work itself out. Some want to bring the “leadership” of TEC back into the Christian mainstream.  Some want to let them walk away in peace, but provide for a new Anglican structure in North America, retaining a degree of Communion with those orthodox who remain in TEC.  Some want to formally break Communion with TEC, forever, cast it out of the AC.  Some are suggesting a break with Canterbury if he refuses- or even delays- to break with TEC.
The Anglican Communion can come out of this as a stronger Church, but only if we recognize that the orthodox are indeed our brothers and sisters in Christ, regardless of their opinion on the best political/polity solution to the current crisis.  If we divide along lines of a variety of secondary issues, then we end up even weaker than we are now.  Witness what happened in the 70s and 80s to the Continuing Churches- would they not be a much more powerful voice for Christ had they remained unified?  Indeed, would they not form the very basis of a new Anglican province?
I’ve been writing this in bits and pieces over coffee breaks and stolen moments, so I apologize if it is a bit disjointed, or if I am reiterating points already made.
TJ

Good point ACJ!  VGR & KJS are products of the Disciples of Christ and Roman Catholic Churches.

One thing that I do not understand, and maybe someone out there can explain it to me.  The Bishops who have allegedly been deposed for “Abandoning the Communion” have not as far as I can understand.  TEC Church is NOT a communion as far as I know, The Anglican Communion is a Communion.  TEC is part of that Communion.  So if a bishop or priest goes to another part of the Anglican Communion, how are they abandoning the communion?

AC-Jihadi,
You certainly have a point.  I am beginning to think that some dioceses require that you be a refugee from some other denomination in order to consider you for ordination.  And being a former Roman Catholic with a degree in something other than theology seems a sure route to the purple.

A prayer for mercy.

“...voices still tell us that “smaller is better” particularly if what results is more homogeneous, more unified, and more on message.”

New T-Shirt idea, “Smaller is Better” on the front, and “The Voice that Shall Be Obeyed.” on the back.

“If we are to confine ourselves to those like ourselves we shall succumb ironically to the sin of many first Christians secure in their heritage, who didn’t want or need those pesky Gentiles. Who needs the poor, or the “conservative” or those who lack good taste? Of course we do as a “cause”. But how about as a constituency?”

New T-Shirt idea #2, “Have you hugged a conservative today?”

I think Fr. Clavier has written a very good assessment of the petrifying forces of power and institutionalism on the church.  He should be applauded for his keen insight into the nature of the church he observes.

Yet I can’t help but notice that he describes both Ryle and Staley as defensive as they contend for their positions (Evangelical or Anglo-Catholic).  This is the same kind of language Gene Robinson uses when describing his experience as a student questioning the Creeds with the school chaplain who he describes as being “undefensive” and therefore open to doubt.

Is it now considered to be “defensive” to hold firmly to the faith that one has received and has been passed down to you from previous generations?  Must someone who holds strongly to their convictions and viewpoint against all comers be described as defensive?

This, to me, is pejorative language that assumes the writer or observer is automatically undefensive or prefers a lack of strident contention for the faith by those who hold to their convictions concerning the faith they have received.

I wonder if Fr. Clavier couldn’t have found a more positive description that said less about the way he sees men and women who put forth their position with conviction.  I also wonder if Fr. Clavier would see himself as being defensive in his efforts to hold to the Communion Conservative viewpoint that he often espouses.

If you want to know the future ideological drift of any organization, ask yourself who is going to join the organization and why.  For example, in Ireland, Anglicanism is very Protestant in contrast to the Catholic majority.  In Scotland those that joined it were those unwilling to join the established Presbyterian Church, so you get lots of high church types.

so, if you have a religious tradition that spent the first few hundred years defining itself against the “superstitious Papists” and “fanatical Puritans”, where “enthusiasm” was once considered a insult, that is subject to the secular state in its core country and is closely identified with the rich in other countries (remember the bit about camels?), you get lots of people joining it that are more interested in social reasons than solid theological convictions.

"Now I have no problems with people changing churches , but I do have a problem with one church kind of becoming a garbage dump for other churches misfits,heretics,perverts and losers,like Matthew Fox or Bishop Spong.”

Jihadi - your overall point is well-taken, but Spong was cradle Episcopalian.  He described himself as a “fundamentalist,” but truth be told, even back then, North Carolina Anglicanism was for the most part very middle-of-the-road, not too liberal, not too fundamentalist, not too low, not too high, not too anything.

The solution offered by those “traditionalists” marginalized by an ascendant party which cheerfully broke many essential doctrinal standards and disciplinary practices in the name of “progress” is to break all the rules by wandering off into a hinterland of rival groups which daily grow into themselves as they occupy “safe-ground”.

They didn’t break many “essential doctrinal standards.” They apostatised. They walked right out of the Christian faith.  What is a believer to do in such a situation?  Remaining in a non-Christian denomination (albeit with Christian symbols and vocabulary) for the sake of ‘rules’ doesn’t seem like much of an option.

carl

I wrote comments remarkably similar to ACJ’s on Fr Tony’s blog only to find that comments are restricted. I share ACJ’s frustration. The Yucca Mountain metaphore is most appropriate. But although the converts may be among the most toxic, a quick look at the HoB/D listserve reveals there is no shortage of cradle Piskie fellow travelers mostly from the same generation. ACJ rightly looks forward to their passing; they will not be missed by those who are left to clean up after them.

When Spong defined himself as fundamentalist, he meant someone who is a Christian.  He really should have left Christianity long ago but his only selling point is in pretending to be a bishop.  Lewis describes him very aptly in his example of the bishop in The Great Divorce.

#2 I certainly give no “pass” to the ascendant establishmentarians as I think my texts demonstrates. I would say, however, that in method although not in madness many who leave TEC demonstrate the same devotion to structural solutions as has been the case with dissenters in TEC for decades. If in doubt form a group, a structure, a network and now an extra-mural entity, as if structure solves the problem or gives protection.

There’s much natural in all this. One seeks friends and allies. The problem arises when the group develops its own internal loyalties, perhaps anoints a leader, and then becomes isolated from others, primarily defending turf and heritage.

Obviously the Gospel exists within what +Michael Ramsey termed “the Catholic Church”. However structure is the servant of the Gospel and not its raison d’etre. Unless life and the freedom of servanthood emerge from the structure, the structure defeats its Dominical purpose.

Are there statistics on how many people have been initiated into the Episcopal Church by the missionary zeal of Bishop Spong who travels the country, presenting lectures to innocent college students who percieve the Episcopal Church as Bishop Spong wishes it to be rather than as it is?

Conflict is inevitable when Bishop Spong’s converts realize that Episcopalians really do honor and believe Scripture and Episcopalians really do have a creed and Episcopalians really do have a Christian theology which is expressed very clearly in the Book of Common Prayer.

I can understand why Bishop Spong’s converts may feel they have been deceived when they discover this but they were not deceived by Episcopalians who take their religion seriously, or the easily accessible Book of Common Prayer, they were deceived by Bishop Spong and those (like our Presiding Bishop) who are teaching a new religion.

Violent Papist said, “Spong was cradle Episcopalian.”

I don’t think so.  I think that he has said that he was a Presbyterian. I used to have one or two of his books, which had some biographical notes in them—but they were purged from my library some time ago.

One of the things that has frustrated me is that he alleges some form of hidebound conservatism in the congregation of his youth, but has never identified it, so that one could find other members and get some hard data on what was said and taught there in his childhood and youth.

It is entirely possible that he grew up in a congregation, Episcopal or Presbyterian, that was socially conservative and had all sorts of “reasons” for segregation, not ordaining women, etc.—but which also questioned the reliability of Scripture.  While the 50’s were filled with church growth and did not have a lot of the practices that are present in liberal congregations now, the view of the Bible that had been taught for decades beforehand was undermining faith in God as a self-revealing God.  Seeds were sown for the weeds we now see.

Who knows what Spong’s childhood was really like?  He has been such a skilled self-promoter that the truth is probably well hidden in a lot of rhetorical fog.

"#2 I certainly give no “pass” to the ascendant establishmentarians as I think my texts demonstrates. I would say, however, that in method although not in madness many who leave TEC demonstrate the same devotion to structural solutions as has been the case with dissenters in TEC for decades. If in doubt form a group, a structure, a network and now an extra-mural entity, as if structure solves the problem or gives protection.”

Thanks for the clarification.  I did not -in fact- grasp your point at all.  The worship of structure as problem solver or protection would seem to apply as you indicate but more assuredly to the institutionalists who affirm that one must stay in the institution as obstructed and erroneous as it may be because it makes an increasingly transparent attempt at “catholic” order.  The operative word being transmogrified in good postmodern fashion to achieve the oligarchy’s goal of being the power it has achieved.  This line of reasoning would seem to hold that one can never leave the institution because to do so is to abandon catholicity.  I find the abrogation of catholicity can be accomplished quite as easily within the institution as without.  Surely you do not mean that such association is inherently evil if it oppose the oligarchy?

“There’s much natural in all this. One seeks friends and allies. The problem arises when the group develops its own internal loyalties, perhaps anoints a leader, and then becomes isolated from others, primarily defending turf and heritage.”

Yes, Paul. Apollos, Peter, Junia(s), et cetera. 

“Obviously the Gospel exists within what +Michael Ramsey termed “the Catholic Church”. However structure is the servant of the Gospel and not its raison d’etre. Unless life and the freedom of servanthood emerge from the structure, the structure defeats its Dominical purpose.”

Here we agree completely and I think the form/structure of ECUSA/TEC has rendered it the General Convention Church at best and the Episcopal Organiztion-Political Action Committee at its usual.  All of which have served to deny the Gospel and the catholicity of The Church Catholic from which it is deviated and deviating, as particualrly pointed out by its sister churches in the Anglican Communion.

Lukewarmness and spewing out seem to go together, Dominically speaking, where the collaborators with culture and the false prophet and the beast get spewed by the One with authority.  That warning yet stands.

#6

Bonnie Anderson is paid an executive salary to travel.

Jill: I think I pretty much agree with your larger point, but simply to say: the President of the House of Deputies has a travel/expense account, but there is no salary.

Bruce Robison

Thanks, Bruce.  I made a false assumption.  I had tried to check it some time back by looking at the budget, but the HoD expenditures were not itemized.
I apologize.

traditionalists” marginalized by an ascendant party which cheerfully broke many essential doctrinal standards and disciplinary practices in the name of “progress” is to break all the rules by wandering off into a hinterland of rival groups which daily grow into themselves as they occupy “safe-ground”

It does not seem to me that those who have made the decision to leave TEC for the leadership of other Primates of the Anglican Communion have “wandered off into a hinterland of rival groups“, these Christians are still united with the Anglican Communion and they have not lost that link with Episcopalians who have not left TEC. Most Episcopalians have no animosity towards those who attend an Anglican Church, rather than an Episcopal Church and it remains to be seen if the Common Cause Partners or GAFCON will be able bring Christians (including those still in TEC) together in Christian unity.
It is even remotely possible (but not likely) that the Lambeth meeting may cause some of the radical liberals in the Episcopal Church to understand how they are isolating Christians from their own religion.

The 1979 American Prayer Book is often derided by conservatives. Its irony remains that in a sense it was the last great triumph of American Anglo-Catholicism at a time when that party was being marginalized by converts to Liberalism in the 60’s and 70s. Ascendant parties in Anglicanism often “win” too late!

This to me is so wrong a statement.  79BCP has some of the more Anglo-Catholic elements of the liturgy contained within it.  But the change in the theology is also there which is in many places anything but catholic.  Fr Clavier was a bishop in the 28BCP movement, he really should know better.

"Such a love affair with structure is not the product of vigor and growth. Rather it is espoused because it works for those in power. It preserves our present governing oligarchy”

Very perceptive article.

#5 A good rant against my generation of Boomers. I pray the Church can survive long enough for us to be all in the grave. Then, the Church can be re-invigorated by fresh non-cynical ideals again.