Thanks for getting this out, Sarah. It needs to be known.  Upper SC is not a “Windsor Diocese” as Dorsey has claimed, and the people of Upper SC need to know the truth.

The increasingly rapid pace of TEC’s decline flows from two sources: (1) the Loon Left leadership, which has innovated tremendous heterodoxy and outright heresy, and; (2) the passive, weak so-called orthodox who talk but do precious little.  TEC’s death rests not only in the idiocy of people like Dr. Jefferts-Schori but also in the cowardice of people like Bishop Henderson who refuse to do something substantive to stem the flood.

Now it is too late.

This is very sad, but not surprising.  What I don’t understand is how the remaining moderate-to-conservative TEC bishops can fail to see the handwriting on the wall, and act to build up the Christian church rather than to see more people depart.  I live in a diocese I consider hopeless (NC), but for you and others in dioceses not so far gone, this kind of loss is discouraging.

The latest newsletter from Trinity Cathedral in Columbia, SC is illuminating . . .

http://images.acswebnetworks.com/1/739/tidings051108.pdf

David+

A church property worth 3 million dollars reduced to mission status? With the track record of mission churches in SC being less than stellar, I would guess we will see this one up for sale in the next 3 years. It is a sad commentary on Bishop Henderson’s approach to these national issues and how to apply them on a local level.

When I was rector in Shelby, NC, a family moved from St. Christopher’s to Shelby and later back to St. Christopher’s, and I was honored to meet Dr. Gray at a Greenville meeting of concerned clergy and lay people. I am sorry to read of the division at St. Christopher’s, but now think such division is inevitable.

I feel it necessary to write that I am not the FrJim above. Call this CYA. I serve as a rector in the Diocese of Upper SC and am on the Diocese Executive Council. The Bishop knows me to be evangelical in my theology, so I don’t need anyone forwarding a comment to him from FrJim about St. Christophers using language like “loon left.”

George Gray is a friend. I pray for him and for all of us, that we may find God’s path in these difficult days.

(The Rev’d) Jim Workman

I assume from your account, Sarah, that Father Gray is not leaving TEC for the Roman Catholic Church, or some other church not in communion with the Anglican Communion. That being the case, I for one do not understand why Bishop Henderson has to resort to the “abandonment of communion charge"---such abuses of the Canons by the Bishops of TEC are resulting only in its balkanization, for the reasons well explained here and here. Bishop Henderson does have a better alternative: he can wait for Father Gray to decide which province of the AC he is going to join, and then issue him letters dimissory. No recriminations; the priest is removed from the rolls of TEC as is required, and two Christians can part in love, mutual respect, and peace.

Thank you for putting this in a clear form, sarah. it is obvious how painfull it is for you. TEC history in its many forms has been a journey of tears for so long. God bless!

Bishop Henderson is a good man and orthodox in his convictions.  The troubles he encounters are the consequence of trying to serve faithully in an institution which most Christians do not recognize as belonging to the Christian family.  What comes to mind is the moral dilemma faced by the leaders of Vichy France.  Pray for +Dorsey and his episcopal colleagues, because the personal spiritual dangers they face are grave and urgent.

subscribing for now

So sad.

the consequences of the heretical actions of the national church’s leadership [General Conventions, House of Bishops, Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori, and the Executive Council] over the past four years, the effects of which have been felt in every parish in the diocese.

Really, this is not the cause.  Rather it is the failure of the eunichoid leadership to apply the Biblical injunctions to exert church discipline for decades and not just beginning with Pike, Spong, Richter, etc.  Now the payday train is comming into the station.

It is difficult to comfort in this awful situation, but everyone just needs to understand that TEC has been admited to a hospice and there appears to be no exit.  You have my condolences.

Bishop Henderson is a good man and orthodox in his convictions.

These actions suggest otherwise. There’s no need to inhibit and depose these clergy. Just let them go gracefully with letters dismissory. If he’s caving under pressure, perhaps Bps. Iker, Duncan and Venables can offer some advice and support.  (comment edited to delete inappropriate personal remark)

The troubles he encounters are the consequence of trying to serve faithfully in an institution which most Christians do not recognize as belonging to the Christian family.

Interesting point of moral theology. Saying, “I vasss only followink ordersss!!!” is the Nuernberg defense. It didn’t work at Nuernberg, and one suspects that it won’t work in heaven.

Pray for +Dorsey and his episcopal colleagues, because the personal spiritual dangers they face are grave and urgent.

Very true. This is nothing less than a full assault on the church from the devil. Prayer request duly noted. 

#10, Hippo--I probably shouldn’t get onvolved in this debate, becuse it is a too bit personal for me, but I respectfully disagree.  When Dorsey decided to throw his lot in with Kate, he made his decision against ttraditional orthodoxy.  He may still be orthodox in his out look, but his actions do not speak to “orthodox convictions”.  He is a lawyer, yet participated in the attempted railraoding of Bp. Duncan at Kate’s and Beer’s request.  He ought to know you can’t indict people for what they might do at some future date.  But the palyed along anyway. He has gone from being very pastoral to people who oppose the direction of TEC, as manifested in the consecration of VGR, to this.  He has gone from pastor to martinet, from inclusive to enforcer in three years.  I do not understand the hold the institution and its Unitarian leader has on these bishops.  I am personally heartsick.

Let’s not forget that +Henderson was part of the ridiculous lawyer-bishops’ report right before New Orleans, then he wasn’t a part of it, then yeah, he was asked to put his name on it but didn’t have much to do with it afterwards… forgive me if I don’t give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

I’ve always thought that +Dorsey had ‘designs” on the Dio of SC (lower diocese).  We noticed his behavior changing just before, in the middle of, and after the final election of + Lawrence. 

Its just a suspicion, but I think someone suggested that SC might need only one diocese (after all, he’s not that far away), so he might have been more inclined to go along and get along.

I know one should not suggest motive on the part of another, but this one sure makes sense to me (and has for a long time) If KJS had any idea at the time, one can be almost certain +Lawrence wouldn’t be a “+).  I also believe she only went through with it because it had become so well known throughout the AC.

Oh well, thanks be to God, we do have +Lawrence, a Godly Man........

Grannie Gloria

All is well, all
is well,
all
i
s
w
e
l
l.
TEC: R.I.P.
Dumb Sheep

I hate having to say it as well, but as member of the DUSC, I no longer have faith in our Bishop to act in a “Windsor” fashion.  He refuses to make a public stand against our church being torn apart.  He is supposed to be our leader, but he is publically following our PB down a path that “orthodox” leaders don’t go.  I don’t know what he says privately to those he uses as counsel/mentors, but I certainly know that in a public setting he refuses to make a decision. 

He will never answer direct questions.  I have personally asked him numerous questions about what is going on in the national church and he simply says that it is “not his job to watch over what other bishops are doing.” I think it is funny to think that I was told my several members at my church that they think Dorsey is now afraid to come to visit our church because he doesn’t want to face my questions to him any more.  Actually, on second thought, I think that is terribly sad to think it might in some small way be true.  I want him to come and visit.  I want him to stand up and proudly proclaim the Good News!  We are all sinners, but some of us want to reinterpret the Bible for our own purposes and our leadership, save but a few, are afraid to pronounce a sin a sin. 

I just wish the line between the Diocese of South Carolina and the Diocese of Upper South Carolina could be moved north just a little bit further.

As gently as I am able, please allow me to remind commenters of the rules of posting. Please refrain from making any personal attacks and confine your comments to the subject matter at hand.  It would be well to remember that gentle is not a dominant character trait for me.

The most chilling part of this article, Sarah, is that the bishop is threatening to reduce the stayers to mission status.  Even the liberal remnants in Virginia resisted such things that could be threatened by the bishop (one of the oddest coalitions at Council has been between the orthodox and the liberals over limiting the bishop’s power - the bishop tried to change the canons last year and the orthodox remnant and liberals banded together so that the chancellor withdrew the canon changes before it could come to a vote).  To allow a bishop to reduce (or threaten to reduce) a parish to missionstatus is to hand over complete power to the bishop so that he will control all aspects of the parish.  It’s a major, major loss on so many levels.

It’s a threat not only to this parish, but to other parishes who may be thinking of the same thing.  Of all the things in this article - the threat or the action to actually reduce a parish to mission status is the most insidious.  He’s punishing those who are departing and he’s constraining those who remain - it’s awful.  I can’t even find the words.  I know you love your bishop, but this is appalling behavior and laity and clergy must resist if there is to be any hope left in Upper South Carolina.

Mark my words.

bb

This is very sad. 

I hesitate to say this.  I know I will be flamed for it, but I feel it needs to be said…

For those who are close to this it must be quite painful.  However, I think we should prepare ourselves and look at this as an example of things to come all across TEC.  I also think that it should cause us (at least those of us not too close to this) to ponder about which strategies are effective and which ones are not.  I think it cannot be overstated that when a parish is unified in its strategy that the results are much more promising than the results in this case.  I pray that the orthodox will be of one mind with regards to strategy as well as theology.

#7, just want to reiterate your comments.  We are not the same person.  I don’t have a personal or political horse in this race, so please don’t slap Fr. Workman with my words.

On the other hand, please feel free to pin them on me because I don’t apologize for the term “Loon Left” in the least!

-Jim+

I am both saddened & gladdened by this.  Saddened because I really, really dislike all the pain & grief this breakup of communion is causing those involved and also that there appears to be no end in sight for any of it - only more & more confusion & hurt.
I’m glad beause this is the first sign I’ve seen in DUSC that there are more than a very small percentage of parishioners awake & aware of what is going on at the higher levels of the diocese & TEC.
I’ve been involved in DUSC convocations & conventions for the past several years and each year promise myself that it will be the last because the most we seem to be able to muster are a few red “NO” cards for any proposed change to the set agenda & budget (Statement of Mission).
So as horrible as the situation at St. Christopher’s is, it does give me renewed hope that yes, parishioners are getting involved & making Godly decisions even here. 
I will keep ALL of St. Christopher’s congregation in my prayers & Bishop Henderson too.

I have to agree with johnd(23)...many things have upset me over the past few years...there have been many disappointments when people I have valued and respected have not spoken up for the WORD OF GOD (which does not need to be reinterpreted vicky!) but the thing that has upset me the most has been than most people don’t know/don’t want to know what is really going on within the Episcopal Church today. St. Christopher’s and Father Gray have despite the hard consequences to come, stood up ...they have been willing to “leave father mother” etc for the correct road.  It is a sad day and a happy day..now that it is openly in our back yard perhaps others will be willing to find out what is really going on and at stake.

Dear Sarah:
Thank you for including the Jr. Warden’s statement. I think he has captured the malaise that has struck TEC. How can we hope to thrive with little VGR’s running around spouting perversion as a norm by caricaturing God’s will for us (which I think of as blasphemy not heresy)… Some in our society may embrace abortion, but I don’t believe anyone thinks a Church should...Liturgies that are shallow, meaningless, saying nothing… Our churches no longer practice “common prayer,” per se, only the “common.” Pardon my blather…

I think Fr. Workman’s feeling that he must be sure not to be perceived as the person writing “loon left” says volumes about all concerned.  Thank God I don’t have to pretend that my brainwashing isn’t in need of a refresher course from the loon left like the little boy bouncing his ball out of synch in Wrinkle in Time.

I have this picture in my head of the loon left workers working in the Lord’s ricefields ... with overhead speakers repeating endlessly their condemnations of cultural decadence (all of history B.T.) and glorifying the party leaders as gods.  It’s sad.  We’ve lost a war and only those already displaced from their homes seem to realize it.  We should be glad that Schori and Co. at the NICE 815 Place can only depose for thought crimes rather than imprison.

"abandonment of the Communion” rather than “abandonment of Communion” seems to be the typo that tells it all.

I think it is a mistake to give Bishop Henderson a mulligan because he orthodox in his personal beliefs, or is a genuinely nice guy, which I believe. For believers, the bar is higher than it is for the rest of society who “don’t know their right hand from their left” to quote from the Old Testament.  For believers that are Bishops, the bar is about has high as you can get in terms of doing what is required regardless of the cost. That means standing fearlessly for the Gospel, and opposing with all of your heart efforts to dilute or misrepresent it.  That means repudiating and opposing with every means at your disposal the Church’s endorsement and tolerance of conduct expressly prohibited by Scriputre. It means supporting those that are doing just that. By any measure, it means not supporting the work of the national church on a “business as usual” basis at this point in history. Why would anyone give a penny to a parish that is supporting the Diocese of Upper South Carolina? What am I missing here?

“Our diocese will be the lesser for that failure, as it has been with the departure of parishioners from Trinity Cathedral [to a church plant in Columbia]”
I’m a relative new-comer to Anglicanism, so could someone please help me?  What is the name of the “church plant” in Columbia?  I’ve been attending Trinity Cathedral (more or less as a “lurker") for several months now.

[29] SH is referring to Church of the Apostles

Hi folks, I’ve been slaving away in the salt mines for clients.  I seem to be the only one. 
; > )

RE: “Bishop Henderson does have a better alternative: he can wait for Father Gray to decide which province of the AC he is going to join, and then issue him letters dimissory. No recriminations; the priest is removed from the rolls of TEC as is required, and two Christians can part in love, mutual respect, and peace.”

Chancellor, I agree with you that that is a possibility—as Bishop Howe, and I believe Bishop Stanton have proven.  But let’s face it—most bishops, even “Windsor bishops” do no such thing.  So when I say “I understand it” I mean only that.  I don’t necessarily approve of it—but I sure understand the sentiments behind it.  Bishops simply don’t want competition in their dioceses—they can ill afford it, believe me.  And a functioning priest within a diocese, who has been issued a letter dimissory to another Anglican Communion province, is nothing more than competition in the minds of bishops.

hookemhooker—thank you for the empathetic words.  It is painful.  So I try to write as objectively as possible about topics that mean a lot to me.  The “easier” I am about a topic, the more frivolous and expressive I can become, I guess.  But the harder they are . . . the more I need to work to be calm and try to state the facts as best I have found them.

Hippo—I’m glad you like Bishop Henderson. I can’t help but like him too. 

PM—ah, but prior to appropriate church discipline must come actual heretical acts!  ; > ) So I still see this as the fallout from immense corruption in the church.  I said back in late 03 and all through 04 that the operative “Episcopal word for the year” was going to be “consequences.” We simply can’t escape “consequences” and I do believe that the consequences will be demonstrated time and time again.

DK, I guess it all depends on what the definition of a “Windsor Bishop” is.  Strictly speaking, it’s probably “a bishop who will adhere to the three requests of the Windsor Report” and by that definition Bishop Henderson is a “Windsor Bishop.”

On the other hand, he never participated in any meetings or work together with the Windsor Bishops group.

But on the other hand, David . . . just how many “Windsor Bishops” [non-Network] are you actually satisfied with?

I mean . . . do you want to trade out our bishop for [insert any non-Network Windsor Bishop here]? 

It’s not like they have been particularly active, strategic, wise, brave, or articulate, is it? 

I was amused to read recently in an article about “the voice of the Windsor Bishops” and I couldn’t help but immediately wonder “What voice?  Where?  There is no “voice of the Windsor Bishops.”

So why try to hold our bishop to a higher standard than all the other Windsor Bishops?

Hi folks, I’ve been slaving away in the salt mines for clients.  I seem to be the only one. 
; > )

I’m on a low salt diet…

RE: “The most chilling part of this article, Sarah, is that the bishop is threatening to reduce the stayers to mission status.”

Baby Blue—you raise a good point.  Were I one of the “Stayers” at the parish I’d want to try to reform ourselves with as much autonomy as possible and make some decisions that would stabilize us.  I’d want to attempt to shape our destiny.

But on the other hand, I don’t think anyone on the ground over here can deny that the parish is decimated.  Two more staff members, I understand, have given notice.  So that would leave two staff members total. 

Last Sunday—prior to the vestry meeting, so many people had already decided to leave, based on their disappointment with the DEPO offer.  The 8 a.m. service had 25, the 11 a.m. 60.  And this was prior to the meeting and the resignations.  And, as I mentioned, 75% of the budget was designated for parish use only.  It’s hard for me to believe that the parishioners who gave that 75% are all going to stay.

So I can see—if only for financial reasons—the diocese taking it over as a mission.  By any stretch of the imagination, it’s a mission, and will start over at Ground Zero again.  That doesn’t mean it can’t recover, but right now . . . it’s going to be pretty tough I think.

FrVan . . . and from a priest too!

We all know that TEC priests have a three day work-week.  And you certainly don’t have clients.  You’re the client, and the parishioners are the “wait staff.”
; > )

We peons, on the other hand, have to get out there and labor for our bread, serving demanding cranky people.

3 Days! My contract refers only to Sunday! The rest of my time is spent drinking scotch with my priest cronies, talking about the old prayer book, and perusing Almy catalogs...Oh yes, and, of course, waiting for a call from the PB telling me to keep up the good work.

FrVan . . . I thought that you might indulge in several hours of reading the patristics and Aquinas . . . and meditating in your book-lined study.  Please don’t burst my dream.

See Bishop Henderson. See him sit. He likes to sit. He sits while church cracks. He sits while church crashes. He always stays cool. His hair always stays combed. Churchquake, no sweat!

Then Fr. Gray leaves St. Christopher’s. Bang! Bishop Henderson turns him into plain Mr. Gray. Lots of other people leave. Bang! See if we care. Not so many people left now at St. Christopher’s. Bang! Bishop appoints colonial governor! Ha, ha!

Now Bishop sits. He likes to sit. He sits while church cracks. He sits while church crashes. “Where’s the file for 8-15,” he says. He always stays cool.

Sarah, I know I’m preaching to the choir, but the problem with the spate of current “abandonment” charges is that after he has pronounced the deposition, the Bishop still ends up with “a functioning priest in [his] Diocese” who presents competition to him. So all his denunciations have availed him nothing; he ends up in the same spot, having taken the less charitable route to get there. Whereas, if he had issued letters dimissory on a cooperative basis to another Bishop in the AC, at least he would still have a relationship which is tantamount to granting true alternative episcopal oversight, and where the visit of that other Bishop to the departing congregation would be an occasion for Anglican fellowship, rather than for vain protest. An enlightened Bishop could propose cooperative local joint ventures that would still benefit the diocese (without sending any money to 815), because the departing congregation doesn’t have that much of a “diocese” to call its own, and its members might jump at the chance to stay in touch with other congregations in the area through working together on local Christian outreach projects.

There is too much personal pride and ego involved, and not enough focus on mission! Until Bishops recognize that their vaunted territorial dioceses are only as incursion-proof as the Church they serve is faithful to the other partners of the Anglican Communion, they are condemned to repeat the dismal cycle: ordain, license, visit, direct, inhibit, and depose; then wonder what has happened to ASA, and the diocesan assessments.

Irenaeus (#37)---great minds think alike; we just express our thoughts differently. Between us, I think we’ve covered the readership at this hour.

At this hour? Thanks, Chancellirenaeus. Just what I was thinking too.
The Rabbit.

Chancellor, I believe that you are under an illusion or delusion.

RE: “Whereas, if he had issued letters dimissory on a cooperative basis to another Bishop in the AC, at least he would still have a relationship which is tantamount to granting true alternative episcopal oversight, and where the visit of that other Bishop to the departing congregation would be an occasion for Anglican fellowship, rather than for vain protest.”

First—bishops don’t wish to “have a relationships” with the departed any more than they wish to have a relationship with the Baptists.

Second, they do not wish to have “Anglican fellowship” and they are just fine, in general, with no protest whatsoever, however vain. 

What they do wish is to have no *official* Anglican Communion presence within their geography.  And they are achieving that desire, Chancellor.  Until Rowan Williams himself does something, they will continue to achieve that desire.

I’ve said it until I’m ready to expire from lack of oxygen—the gold ring in all of this is official Anglican Communion recognition of the franchise as TEC.  All other flailings and gnashings and pretences by the “dissenters” is as nothing compared to that gold ring.  Although there will always be “token protest” over the “ancient traditions” [hah hah!] of not interfering in geographical territories, the real thing—The Prize—is official AC recognition. 

Were that to ever change, then we will see true weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth by the bureacracy of TEC.  At that point, the power of the ring would be broken.

And they know it.

And Sarah is right as usual. On a parish level, if I hear nothing more consistently it is that the priest is in relationship with his bishop. And the bishop is calling the shots on that relationship is all. And that to be an anglican is to be related directly through the local bishop to Canterbury.
What isn’t said directly is that to be in relationship is do as requested by the bishop and pay the assessments.
As long as the laity is tied to the local priests and want to hold on to their church as church, all is well, and as long as the priest functions in an orthodox manner, the laity can shudder at the goings-on and protest in many little ways. No matter how bizarre it seems, until Canterbury sings a new tune, the little, and in some cases, not so little parishes will continue to marry, baptise, and bury and offer up a few for confirmation. The new additions to membership will be noted. Low ASA will not matter as long as the assessments are paid. And how many are leaving or transferring out will not be noted.

FWIW, the big problem is that the HoB and the bishopric executive level seems to be succumbing to such corruption that it hardly seems worthwhile for laity to hold on. Sarah, I think must be the blogger who is the Tolkein fan. Her picture exactly captures what is going on. The grip on the ring is being tightened. And as in all regimes that show corruption, the squeeze is on. On the international level the tear is visible. That it is increasing seen in local parishes such as this one in SC, is not surprising.

We’ll learn yet what it means to persevere.
Locally, a large and prosperous parish has gone, is going, through a similar thing as this SC parish. The folks I know there, press on. The Stayers stayed, the Leavers left.

I have labored in the ecumenical vineyard for many years on various local,diocesan, state, and national committees. I have a radical committment to Jesus’ prayer that we may be one as he and the father are one. I wish I could say I find that radical committment in the church as a whole or in the clergy of any church as a body.

In 2000 - 2003 the Episcopal Church opened a national dialogue with the Reformed Episcopal Church and the Anglican Province in America. The REC includes the ecclesiastical descendants of the evangelicals and low churchmen who followed Bishop Cummings of Kentucky out of the Episcopal Church in 1873. The APA includes the ecclesiastical descendants of the Prayer Book Catholics who concluded in the 1960’s that they were not on the same theological and political trajectory as the General Convention. My experience with both churches leads me to believe that they are well within the Anglican church tradition.  We had some interesting and helpful meetings - in Washington, at Virginia Seminary, and at the APA cathedral near Orlando.  The possibility of a full communion agreement like the one between the Episcopal Church and the ELCA was there - until the General Convention of 2003 chose its own understanding of “justice” over unity.

Sarah is right - so long as the General Convention clings to the myth that it is the only recognized expression of the Anglican Communion in the United States cooperation between General Convention churches and other expressions of Anglicanism in this country will not be possible.

The water has been heating up for a while and the result is frog soup! 

Ecumenicism based on a theoretical unity apart from structure has not payed much dividends in Protestantism.  If something doesn’t work for four hundred years, and continues to not work, it may be time to reexamine the disease and our answer to it.  I think the original poison, the separation of the “I” self from the Church of course began as a type in the Garden but it also has a powerful manifestation in the claim to supremacy by the Bishop of Rome.  Rome’s presumption led to innovations apart from the whole church and that led directly to the split of that Church into today’s Catholicism and the many, many Protestant bodies.  Since that time, self understanding has often been in terms of dicotomies, Rome versus Protestantism, Tillich versus Barth, etc.  All very fraught.  All false dicototomies that have not led to any genuine unity of historical ecclesiology but only talk of eschatological unity.  Sure, there is hope for rediscovering such unity at the end of time in the realized Kingdom.

Talk of unity where there is no unity is fruitless.  God has given Tom a heart for dialog and love for sundry worshipping communities.  I do not discredit his heart.

the split of that Church into today’s Catholicism and the many, many Protestant bodies

"There is too much personal pride and ego involved… Until Bishops recognize that their vaunted territorial dioceses are only as incursion-proof as the Church they serve is faithful to the other partners of the Anglican Communion, they are condemned to repeat the dismal cycle”
---Chancellor [#38]

Excellent comment.

Synagogue:  Moses who wrote out my dowry is witness that the finger of the Most High sealed my marriage document.  The Father has entrusted me with His house, for I am the heiress.

Church:  Moses whom you invoke is indeed witness - that he saw your adultery and so broke the tablets.  Adultresses do not inherit:  your document is annulled, so why do you boast?

from the ancient Syriac liturgical texts for Palm Sunday. Please note that I make this reference not speaking to the old tribal nation of the Jews but to Christian hearts who have darkened the Nous with sin.  Here is a fundamental juxtaposition that is helpful to me: the solitary self who by sin separates from the Body of Christ, who finds she has no wedding garment ... versus the members of the Body of Christ whose wedding garment is Baptism and whose ontological reality is membership in the being of God, life within the community of the Trinity in the Son by the Holy Spirit.  It may not be an accomplished dicotomy in this historical moment but it is becoming so.

I have invited You, Lord, to a wedding feast of song, but the wine - the utterance of praise - at our feast has failed.  You are the guest who filled the jars with good wine, fill my mouth with Your praise.

The wine that was in the jars was akin and related to this eloquent Wine that gives birth to praise, seeing that wine too gave birth to praise from those who drank it and beheld the wonder.

You who are so just, if at a wedding feast not Your own You filled six jars with good wine, do You at this wedding feast fill, not the jars, but the ten thousand ears with its sweetness.

Jesus, You were invited to a wedding feast of others, here is Your own pure and fair wedding feast: gladden your rejuvenated people, for Your guests too, O Lord, need Your songs:  let Your harp utter.

The soul is Your bride, the body Your bridal chamber, Your guests are the senses and the thoughts.  And if a single body is a wedding feast for You, how great is Your banquet for the whole Church! (Ephraim the Syrian, Faith 14:15)

Brother Rabbit, I do not think it particuarly clarifying in this context to talk about Roman Catholicism as ‘many Catholic bodies’.  I was referring to a name of a particular church, hence the capitalization.  I guess such habits do not have the same usage everywhere.  Protestantism has not evolved in dialog and reaction with the Uniates or the Eastern Orthodox but principally with the Church of Rome.

I guess there are probably some proselytizing Protestant bodies so separated from the historical faith that they may have no particular memory of Rome except as the “Whore of Babylon” or some such thing.  That’s why we find them considering Catholics and Orthodox as a mission field, since they aren’t considered Christian and are damned to hell and the lake of fire unless they find their way into whatever particular sect is being sold.

Not delusional, but just idealistic, Sarah (#41). I grew up with a Bishop who was the real embodiment of that term, and he’s been my standard. I have little stomach for today’s Realpolitik; my hat is off to you. But I shall continue to hold Bishops to the standard I grew up with.

Meanwhile, as Bishops let their egos take precedence over their mission, the Church fractures . . .

What was it about the DEPO plan that these folk could not accept? I am beginning to think that reasserters are akin to the Palastenians (sp?) and that no amount of concessions from reappraisers i.e. Israel is enough. It’s all or nothing.

archangelica, funny. That’s how revisionists look to us.

[#51] archangelica wrote:

What was it about the DEPO plan that these folks could not accept?

Perhaps it was the “Yes, you have to keep giving your full assessment to the diocese no matter what” and “No, you can’t prevent your money from being forwarded to the apostate national church” parts.  Maybe also it was the “No, you can’t dictate to me the theology of your future leadership” part.  Just a thought. Those are the usual kinds of sticking points. 

Or perhaps I should just ask “What concessions were you referring to exactly?” Because there generally aren’t any concessions offered.  Just a friendly reminder to “Pay up, keep quiet, and do what you are told because that’s an awfully nice church you have there and it would be a shame if anything happened to it.”

carl

Carl,
By concessions I mean that TEC is willing to allow “conservative/orthodox bishops” to meet the needs of reasserters. You tell me what other Christian denomination has been willing to go to such extreme measures as to provide minorities in the church alternative oversight and pastoral care from someone who they deem Theologically pure enough not to “taint” their orthodox sensibilities?! Still, it is never enough!

[#54] Archangelica,

By concession I mean that TEC is willing to allow “conservative/orthodox bishops” to meet the needs of reasserters.

The ‘needs’ of the reasserters that must be addressed are:

1.  Continued access to orthodox clery.
2.  Freedom from enforced support of apostacy.
3.  Freedom from enforced submission to apostacy.

How have liberal bishops ever provided for those needs?  Those are precisely the areas in which liberal bishops will never concede control.  They desire to expunge orthodox clergy.  They demand support for apostacy.  And they brook no opposition to their theologically apostate innovations.  Hence the intractibility of the conflict.

carl

If all I ever heard at church, from the pulpit, from my parish leadership et al was negative comments, I might be inclined to go elsewhere as well.  Most folks look for an element of positivity in their faith community relationships, rather than constant bashing and whining.  There has never been a time in the history of all of Christendom when somebody wasn’t upset with somebody else over something.  We either got over our differences or we moved elsewhere.  It’s not a new phenomenon.

I am blessed to be in a large and active parish.  On Sunday the bishop will confirm about 30 young folks who have completed the J2A program and another 20 - 25 adults will be confirmed/receive/reaffirmed.  These are pretty much our normal numbers.

Last Sunday the Primary and Junior choirs lead the singing at the 11:15 service.  There were 51 children in the combined choirs. There were 502 folks in the congregation that day.  Two graduating seniors delivered homilies and did an excellent job.

The two seniors are both part of our 90 member acolyte corps.  Even with 6 member teams, the young folks don’t get to serve more than a couple of times a year:  the blessing and the downside of a large group.

Sure we have had folks leave us over the years.  The reasons varied from not liking the hymns to not liking the color or the apse ceiling to whatever else they did not like.  Yes a few left over issues of human sexuality but more came to join us over that issue than left.

Every Sunday we hear a Gospel-grounded and based sermon that gives us the nourishment we need for the coming week.  That with the nourishment we receive at the table of the Eucharist generally helps us make it through. 

Do we want to dwell on the negativity and the whining or do we want to focus on what binds us together?  I fear that the former will continue to drive folks away. 

May God richly bless all who participate in this list.

Bruce Garner
Atlanta

Oops...I forgot to mention that we baptized 6 babies at the 9am service last week.  Three of them delighted the congregation with their total fascination with the water in the font!  The looks on those babies’ faces was truly angelic and priceless...and not a one cried when the water was poured over them!

Bruce

Bruce Garner#56
“Or do we want to focus on what binds us together”

Could you elaborate for us what it is that is supposed to be binding us together?
Baptismal Covenant--2 or more interpretations and applications to faith and practice
The Gospel--multiple interpretations, some outside Tradition, some inside Tradition
The Creeds--some cross their fingers, some don’t even say it, others fervently believe every line
7 Church Councils--no longer needed by some or cherry-picked into Swiss cheese by others, very few accept all 7
39 Articles--long gone from the scene on all sides apparently
Bishops--some submit, some don’t, some bishops encourage submission, others don’t, thus no unity here either
General Convention--generally ends with bitterness on one side or the other, sometimes both
Love--read the posts at Virtue and at Fr Jake’s, or even the beloved HoB/D listserve, not a lot of love is lost among some in TEC towards others

Can you help me out here Bruce?  I’m out of ideas.

The above list doesn’t even include Scripture, but the divisions there ought to be obvious by this point in time.

Oops...I forgot to mention that we baptized 6 babies at the 9am service last week.  Three of them delighted the congregation with their total fascination with the water in the font!  The looks on those babies’ faces was truly angelic and priceless...and not a one cried when the water was poured over them!

Bruce,

All of this is very sweet and sounds so nice, but how does any of it relate to the fact Episcopalians ordain and consecrate those God forbids (I’m not talking about 8/5/03, but long before that with heterosexual sins). That the current leader is saying Jesus is “a” way, “a” truth and “ a” life and not The way, the truth and the life as it says in Scripture then flat out-right contradicts Scripture with a awfully small box comment, when the very next verse demands that small box. Also in crying for ancient customs, obviously has not read the cannon just before the one claimed from those councils for they make clear things said by leadership of Episcopalians calls for them to be an anathema.

Mostly, how does anything about last Sunday in your parish relate to the topic of St. Christopher decision?

RE: “If all I ever heard at church, from the pulpit, from my parish leadership et al was negative comments, I might be inclined to go elsewhere as well.”

Not certain what that has to do with St. Chris’s.  The people who are leaving TEC are crystal clear as to why they are leaving and it is because they are appalled at the corruption in the highest levels of leadership of their denomination.  I know you don’t appreciate that, Bruce—but that’s why they’re leaving.

As for the rest of your comment, I’m happy for you that you enjoy your progressive parish. I’d frankly expect nothing less.  But why it belongs in this thread about St. Chris’s split I’ve no idea, other than that you’re trying to point out that progressive parishes are quite thrilled with TEC—which we kinda already know.

Do we want to dwell on the negativity and the whining or do we want to focus on what binds us together?  I fear that the former will continue to drive folks away.

Sorry, but if a self-conscious commitment to “not being negative” is what keeps the dead wood in the pews, then you guys have truly built your house on sand; as witnessed by (e.g.,) Robinson’s penchant for self-pity, and Schori’s nagging over cow-flatulence and sporks. 

However, if you like positive messages, I recommend that you do what is most counter-intuitive:  Find a parish loaded with expatriated Episcopalians, and attend worship in their rented gymnasium.  In fact, I’d wager (if I were a wagering man) that the more egregious their expatriation, the more sweet the message from the pulpit would be. 

The most inspiring sermon I’ve heard about forgiveness, came from an AMiA bishop, preaching to one such congregation.

Ah.  “Negativity and whining” was probably what they said about St. Athanasius, too.  Stand firm, even when you’re called a negative whiner.

Murbles and Moot, I’m afraid that Bruce Garner is still under the happy illusion that if only the clergy would hide the activities of the national leadership of the Episcopal Church, that the laity of St. Christopher’s would never have known.  ; > )

Well now Bruce, that is just heart warming. What an image, Happy Progressive families, 1.2 children each, with freshly scrubbed faces glowing in the first light of dawn, dancing with joy while waiting for Mother to begin her homily. All are serene knowing that there will be no citing of offensive passages from Scripture, that they are now oldspeakbadwordsgone. I mean, like, dude, no embarrasing references to men lying with men like women in Mother’s Our New Thing Lectionary, I promise you. Bishop Potemkin has seen to that my dears. Go in peace.  Anyway, if you ever actually meet God, all She will ask is, like, if you ate a lot of cow meat.

Hey teddy mak—I wouldn’t be quite so quick to buy the heart warming image of Productivity and Growth of The People that Bruce has painted.

Even in a progressive parish like All Saints, their parish stats show that between 2002 and 2006 they’ve lost about 100 in ASA.

http://12.0.101.92/reports/PR_ChartsDemo/exports/ParishRPT_5102008105745AM.pdf

I find it extraordinarily interesting that Bruce claims that “more came to join us over that issue than left”, yet they have a net ASA loss since The Glorious Revolution and Installation of the Second Five-Year Plan.  ; > )

Reading Bruce Garner’s post made me shudder with a chill...thinking of those infants and children being taught nothing about the holiness of life God requires of us, but being brought up to believe that we should follow what we feel and want and that one does not have to crucify, deny and overcome the flesh and the thoughts of the natural mind. 

Jesus’ negative whinings in Matthew 23 came to mind, especially Matthew 23:15.

Archangelica (#51 and #54),you may no longer be following this thread, but if you want to read the details of a typical TEC attempt to offer DEPO and the reasons why it was inadequate, go to this link and read (especially pages 13-19).

Despite the “O” in its acronym, “DEPO” does not stand for “oversight”. It stands for “Disguised Episcopal Parish Oppression.”

Yuda Man, Chancellor.  Firmly attached to reality, you are.

Some questioned why I posted what I did and how it related to St. Christopher’s situation.  From my perspective, and that’s all I am putting forth, folks in the pews don’t just get up one morning and decide they are disatisfied with this or that in the church.  It is a gradual process and one that is often influenced by clergy and other leadership in the parish.  If all that people hear is negative comments, regardless of the subject, they will eventually develop a negative attitude. 

If the folks who are leaving are happy, more power to them and my God bless their journey. 

Our primary points of disagreement aren’t really related to gender or sexual orientation.  Nor are they really related to interpretation of Scripture.  Interpretation of Scripture has been going on for thousands of years, from the point the oral narratives were put to paper.  Rabbi Hillel made the comment:  “Love God and love your neighbor.  That is Torah.  All else is commentary.” He had a valid point.

The real source of our disagreement still revolves around power and authority and who has it and who does not and who wants it.  There are some who cannot fathom that straight white males are not running everything any longer.  Some can’t seem themselves subjected to the authority of a woman (in the secular workplace, that may not be an option).  Similarly, some can’t see themselves subjected to the authority of someone who is lesbian or gay.  And still, most sadly, there are some who can’t see themselves subjected to the authority of anyone who has darker skin than they do.

I have always held the position that if people wanted to leave a parish or diocese or the Episcopal Church, such is their prerogative.  I don’t want to see them go, but they have to make their own decisions.  I still wish them well.

What I am not sure I understand is the ongoing need to bash or denigrate that which one has left.  What does that accomplish.  It reminds me of a divorced couple where each continues to speak badly about the other years and years after the relationship ended.  The smart ass comments and negative references to those who may have differing opinions that I constantly read on this list are a good example of that.  Bishop Katharine gets slammed by folks I seriously doubt have even met her much less know her.  Is someone’s insecurity so great that such is all they can do?  If you have gotten to know someone and dislike them and what they do it’s one issue.  But when you know nothing about that person and dislike them based on what you have heard or even think you have heard, that’s a different issue entirely.

By the way, the young people have (and the infants will have) a very clear and healthy understanding of the holiness required of us by God.  I’m sorry someone felt the need to make such a judgement about a group of folks I doubt they have even met.  But that of course still remains their prerogative.

Tomorrow is the Day of Pentecost.  May the fire of the Holy Spirit burn brightly in your hearts and lives.  I feel that power daily and feel blessed to know such profound experience.  (The parish where I was baptized at age 16 and confirmed the next day is the Church of the Holy Comforter.  Guess I come by my relationship with the Holy Spirit honestly and am glad for its presence.)

Bruce Garner
Atlanta

RE: “The real source of our disagreement still revolves around power and authority and who has it and who does not and who wants it.”

That’s a good Marxist point of view of course, and as a non-Marxist I entirely disagree. 

RE: “There are some who cannot fathom that straight white males are not running everything any longer.”

LOL.

RE: “What I am not sure I understand is the ongoing need to bash or denigrate that which one has left.”

Out of the five bloggers at SF, only one has left.  Consider us as folks “speaking truth to power” in the contexts in which we find ourselves.  You know . . . like the prophetic witness of Integrity back 25 years ago.  ; > )

RE: “What does that accomplish.”

Pointing out the flaws of the church of which we are members is a good way to begin the reform necessary, Bruce—I’d think you’d understand that.  ; > )

RE: “Bishop Katharine gets slammed by folks I seriously doubt have even met her much less know her.”

Right—the Presiding Bishop’s theology gets slammed, for sure—and to do that it doesn’t have to be personal.  One does not have to have known Karl Marx to ardently disagree with his foundational worldview.

RE: “But when you know nothing about that person and dislike them based on what you have heard or even think you have heard, that’s a different issue entirely.”

I don’t dislike the Presiding Bishop one bit.  I dislike her theology, of course, but not who she is.  You couldn’t have seen a happier person than I when she was elected.  I’m one of those people who “remembers where I was” when I heard the glad news.

And . . . she has far far exceeded my expectations.

Mr. Garner, I work for a black man.  He’s one of the two or three best bosses I’ve ever had—in fact, I’m almost in mourning over his impending retirement.  The very theologically conservative priest of the church I just left is a woman, and one of the best pastors I’ve ever had.  I AM in mourning over that. 
So, at least as far as I’m concerned, a big piece of your argument is not accurate.  You seem not to grasp that people are leaving, alone like me, or in whole churches, because the church they knew and loved is being destroyed.

Mr. Garner,
You seem woefully uninformed about what has led to this impasse’ in our denomination.  Possibly more reading on your part would help you overcome this deficit?  Until that time, you might want to refrain from accusing those who have awakened from their slumber to see the heretical actions of ECUSA for what they are of such terrible things as racism and hatred.

I am not a Marxist, nor have I ever been one.  And what I said has nothing to do with Marxism.  It is simply an observation of what I have seen in both the church and the professional world.  The best supervisor I have ever had in my 35 year career was a Black woman.  Yet she was belittled and slandered and eventually moved to a different job because so many of the men who worked for her (both Black and white) just couldn’t deal with working for a woman, much less a Black woman.  Sadly, the situation where I work is back to itself as a “good old boys’ club” it just has some color to it now.

I suspect what makes some folks uncomfortable about Bishop Katharine is her refusal to claim that she has all the answers.  The grenades tossed at her over the Biblical passage “I am the way, the truth and the life...” is a good example.  I will not be so arrogant as to say that I know all the answers.  I will not say that the Jewish people, for example, have somehow been excluded from God’s grace by the presence of Jesus.  I don’t see where the covenant between God and the people of Israel has been made null and void. 

Life is not absolutes.  Very few things are totally “black and white.” Yet many seek a faith system that does indeed provide them with all of the answers to all of the questions and situations.  Maybe that is part of why Bishop Katharine catches such flak:  She is expecting and urging folks to think about their faith, upon what it is based and how it is meeting the needs of their journey in life.  I ran from another denomination that claimed they had all the right answers and all the truths.  There is nothing wrong with us all struggling together to find the answers.  But none of us already has all of those answers.  Besides, I don’t plan to make such judgements on God’s behalf.  I haven’t been put in that role.  I have long viewed the role of the church as that of the “gatherer.” It’s God’s role to do the “sorting.”

I’m not sure how the church “they knew and loved” is being destroyed.  Some very explicit examples would be helpful to me.  I was baptized and confirmed under the 1928 BCP.  It was all I knew and I loved it.  But I also entered into serious study of the materials leading up to the 1979 BCP and I now know it well and love it.  The Rite I service is essentiall the same as 1928 except for the restoration of the historical order of certain portions.  Rite II offers a variety of prayers for the Great Thanksgiving.  It provides more options for the Prayers of the People.  I see it as helping to address some of the needs of those who would seek us out, but would not be drawn by language that no one really speaks anymore and that I daresay, many life long Episcopalians actually fully understood. 

So again, what has been destroyed?  Has it never occurred to some that just as our world changes, so must the church?  We once adhered to the concept that the earth was flat.  Excommunications took place over that position.  We now know the earth isn’t flat.  Yet it was only recently that the most famous excommunication was reversed. 

God has blessed us with reason and skill.  It seems entirely reasonable that God expects us to use both our reason and skill in the course of worship and theology.  The Gospel truly speaks to each generation with a slightly different voice.

In October I will have been an Episcopalian for 43 years.  It has been a wonderful journey of faith and in faith.  I don’t expect that to change.  I do expect to be challenged.  I recall when my mother was to become the first woman chalice bearer in our parish.  There were threats of boycotting the rail.  Yet because it WAS mother, that did not take place.  She had long been a pillar of the parish and was much beloved, even until her death last August.  (And two weeks before her death she stood at the altar, oxygen tanks and tubes and all, administering communion!)

Things do and have and will continue to change.  But one thing remains static and unchanged:  God’s grace bestowed freely on us all.  We didn’t earn it.  We can’t earn it. It was and is a free gift to us by a Creator who loves us.  Someone recently indicated that we had to somehow earn God’s grace.  Earning a gift is an oxymoron.  Maybe if we just learned to express our gratitude and went about doing God’s work we might eventually get it.  Guess that would be too simple.

Bruce Garner

RE: “ And what I said has nothing to do with Marxism.”

Of course it does. 

“Marxism is a theoretical-practical framework based on the analysis of “the conflicts between the powerful and the subjugated".”

You articulated a classic Marxist worldview applied to the Episcopal church.

RE: “I suspect what makes some folks uncomfortable about Bishop Katharine is her refusal to claim that she has all the answers. “

Nonsense.  The reason why people are uncomfortable with the Presiding Bishop’s theology [as opposed to the Presiding Bishop] is precisely because the answers she claims are heretical and non-Christian.  That’s easy.

RE: “But none of us already has all of those answers.”

Well . . . except “those answers” that involve the gospel that progressives believe so strongly that they are willing for the church to divide over.  Those answers are the sine qua non of the Progressive Gospel.

Mr Garner, if it truly be unclear to you how longtime (some of them life-long) Episcopalians can speak of the Church that they have known and loved as being wrecked or destroyed or distorted beyond recognition, then I respectfully suggest that you seek out materials on any number of websites what make this clear - for example, various essays written by members of the Anglican Communion Institute, by the Revd Canon Dr Kendall Harmon (convener of the Titusonenine weblog), by the Revd Dr Leander Harding (author of his own weblog).  While I do not agree with some of his conclusions and can reasonably contentedly worship using the 1979 American Episcopalian liturgy, the Revd Dr Peter Toon has detailed (along with others) the changes in theology that accompanied the textual and structural changes that occurred with liturgical revision in the 1960s and 1970s, leading to the 1979 Prayer Book.  And the theology of the great majority of the supplemental liturgical resources produced since the 1980s revise our theology even more.  Even though their use is not prescribed, and is allowed (with diocesan episcopal permission), and their theological revisionism may at least be said to be descriptive of theologies within The Episcopal Church that are far afield of anything that the vast majority of American Episcopalians believed through the years prior to the late 20th century.

I believe that you are correct when you point to authority as the fundamental point of disagreement, but your sociological/cultural red herrings of race and gender are not the place where that disagreement lies.  Rather, the disagreement is over the place of scriptural authority and of the interpretive authority of catholic tradition in the ongoing life of the Church.  It simply will not do to breezily assert that there has always been “interpretation” of Scripture in the life of the Church.  Of course that is true - no conservative Anglican asserts otherwise.  But what you do not go on to state - what you ignore in the interests of a simplistic caricature of hermeneutical history - is that Christian interpretation has occurred within certain boundaries, reflected not only in the early conciliar decrees and the formation of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, but also in the recognition of the scriptural canon (a “rule” by which to measure what is and is not authentic prophetic and apostolic witness to Jesus Christ) through the first few centuries of the Church’s life.  Certain interpretations fall within the ambit of orthodoxy.  Others (such as understanding Colossians to teach that Jesus is a creature, and not the Creator) do not.  Interpreting Jesus’ saying in the Gospel according to John ("I am the way, the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father but by me") to mean merely that our experiences of God are through other people falls outside the ambit of the evangelical witness of historic catholic teaching and interpretation.  Disagreement within the ambit of orthodoxy on this saying would focus, not on the veracity of the saying itself, but perhaps on how those who do not have the Gospel preached to them, or who - for various and complex reasons - reject some forms of Gospel preaching, may be saved through Jesus.  (I would point out that it is nonsensical to recite the Nicene Creed and then to suggest that Jesus - just confessed as Lord and God, and there is only One, you know - is “a way” to God for only that part of humanity known as Christians.  It is also nonsensical to hold this “a way” soteriology and insist that humanity is one people, unless one be a Unitarian or some species of Arian.)

As for the flat earth, I suggest you do a little more reading in the history of science and theology and their interaction with one another.  The Church has never taught as an official position that the world is flat, most churchmen in the Middle Ages believed the earth to be a globe, and Galileo was condemned and forced to recant for teaching that a heliocentric cosmology, because the Church was attached to the Ptolemaic - note, not bibical - cosmology that fixed the earth at the center of the universe.

I thank you for sharing some personal reflections.  They help us to know you a little better.  But I would respectfully suggest that you don’t know very much about many of the conservative Episcopalians and Anglicans whom you’ve rather too neatly categorized with labels that are comfortable, and not at all challenging, to your own positions.

I am not sure why I am bothering with this conversation, but I will continue at least for a short while.

The wording of the Nicene Creed does not state anything about Jesus being “the way the truth and the life.” It speaks of Jesus relationship to God, Jesus conception, birth, death, resurrection and ascention.  It is an outline of what we profess to believe.  I have no problem with saying the Creed and I don’t have to cross my fingers either. I do indeed believe in what the Creed says.  I am a biologist by education (not by usage however) yet I have no problem believing in either the virgin birth or the resurrection.  Maybe that’s because I don’t really care how any of that took place....I only care THAT it did take place.  The same is true for all issues identified in the Creed.  How is not material.  That is what matters.

It’s not surprising that interpretation of Scripture has been at a faster pace that in previous centuries.  The resources at hand are different.  Texts in ancient languages that had not yet been found provide new insight into what we thought particular passages said.  There is nothing heretical about that.  It’s simply looking at the same material with additional information than was at hand before.  As far as making radical changes, I have to note that an issue that continues to haunt us as a nation and a church was dependent on there not being changes in interpretation.  That is the issue of enslaving other human beings.  Scripture was used time and again to justify slavery....not just in the US but elsewhere.  For the church to reach the conclusion that enslavement of other human beings was wrong was a radical departure from the previous position.  (I could also note the role/position of women, but that also seems to still be up to further interpretation in some circles.  However, there has indeed been a major shift in the appropriate role of women in many churches including the Episcopal, parts of the WWAC, the Methodist Church, Presbyterian, etc.  The hold outs on this are Roman Catholocism, the various Orthodox branches and of course our colleagues the Southern Baptists. 

I have read Kendall’s work and that of others.  I didn’t really need to read it because I already knew what their positions were....my first exposure to organized religion was of the Southern Baptist flavor.  I have also known and read conservative Anglican theologians.  I note for example, that N.T. Wright is much closer to where I am than he is to where Kendall is....except for issues of human sexuality.  N.T. and I discussed his position and he maintains it even though it contradicts most of his other broad positions on some of “the issues.”

Are we really discussing theology here or are we more on the level of “that’s the way it has always been done?” I confess that Jesus is Lord the same as I presume all of you do.  I repent of my sins daily and pray for absolution and forgiveness knowing full well that the forgiveness I seek has already been granted.  I marvel at the presence of the Holy Spirit in my life...even being able to identify times when I got what I would call a stealth visit that zipped through, touched me and zipped back out.  I have a very personal relationship with my Lord and Saviour. Are we really that different folks?  I don’t see that in what really matters the most. 

Let me respond further about the issue of Marxism.  Your dictionary definition further supports my position.  This isn’t about the power struggle between those with it and the subjugated.  It is a struggle among/between those who already have the power and have been reluctant to share that with their peers/colleagues.  So I respectfully continue to disagree over that issue.  I will remind us that there are some passages of Scripture that would clearly support some form of Marxism when they discuss the fact that all contributed all they had and everyone shared in the common resources (my language).  Then there is the one about those who will