Total visitors right now: 93

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Bishop Of Washington (Chane) Sues To Stop Sharing Of Gospel

Monday, September 22, 2008 • 5:10 am

Just when you think he can’t sink any lower, the man pulls out his shovel. 

(Unconstitutional Establishment of Religion)
This lawsuit seeks judgment declaring that the imminent gift of more than $12 million in property (the Gales School) and cash from the government of the District of Columbia to a gospel mission to assist it in carrying out its religious ministry violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and D.C. Code § 44-715, and seeks an injunction prohibiting the District of Columbia from making that gift.

BabyBlue has all the details

You know, I’m starting to have a much better insight to why Jonah was so upset.

86 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook


[1] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 09-21-2008 at 05:25 PM • top

Sue happy bishops. The Lord weeps at their injustices!

[2] Posted by TLDillon on 09-21-2008 at 05:34 PM • top

Shouldn’t this kind of thing be left to bitter, secularized individuals who are hostile to the Word of God in every way?

Oh, wait…

[3] Posted by Jeffersonian on 09-21-2008 at 05:34 PM • top

Under which of the 8 MDG’s does screwing the poor to protect Diocesan prerogatives fall?

[4] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 09-21-2008 at 05:40 PM • top

Ummmmm…..if he is SO convinced of the evils of mixing Church and State, shouldn’t he remove the word “National” from “National Cathedral”?  And no more taking money for state funerals and such.  And don’t let the President in the door of the place, just think of the taxpayer dollars that will be spent.  Not to mention forcing all those Secret Service agents to attend Episcopal services as a condition of their employment.  Wait a minute… Didn’t George Bush attend the services for Gerald Ford at the National Cathedral?  How many Secret Service agents were with him at the time?  How many of them wanted to go to church at that moment?  Were any Federal funds transferred to the cathedral to help pay for those services?  Inquiring minds want to know.

[5] Posted by tjmcmahon on 09-21-2008 at 05:41 PM • top

109. Unless the Transaction is enjoined, many homeless men will likely be faced
with a choice between sleeping on the street and staying at the Mission.
110. If the Transaction is implemented, some homeless men who are not Christian
or otherwise do not wish to attend or participate in religious activities will, as a practical
matter, be coerced to use the Mission as a shelter and to participate in chapel services or
Bible study there.

Let me see if I have this straight:  Chane and his goon squad would rather that a non-Christian homeless person would have to sleep in the streets warmed in the knowledge that Church and State are blissfully separate, than to let him have the option of sleeping at the Mission? 

Oh right, the Mission infringes on the homeless guys choices.  Wouldn’t want that to happen.

[6] Posted by J Eppinga on 09-21-2008 at 05:53 PM • top

Jackie, if I were one of the ring leaders of a secret organization with a volcano lair and millions in funding from the IRD, I would put my army of lawyers to work finding out whether the US government leases any office space from the diocese of Washington (which I bet has some real estate holdings) or Trinity Wall Street (which I know does), or if any state or federal government has ever given land or other support to TEC (check Virginia and NY in terms of land for seminaries, although that may all date from before the US constitution).  Not to mention how much Federal Student financial aid goes to schools and colleges tied to TEC…. I mean, wouldn’t it be kin of amusing to see this Mission file a counter suit that would result in freezing all Federal transactions with TEC and its various subsidiaries?

[7] Posted by tjmcmahon on 09-21-2008 at 05:54 PM • top

#7 Tj,
One could only pray and hope that they would! But I wouldn’t hold my breath!

[8] Posted by TLDillon on 09-21-2008 at 05:57 PM • top

#6, doubtless Bishop Chane will open his house to the poor homeless who do not wish to be exposed to religion. They should be safe from it there after all.

Pessimistic reappraisers see the tomb as half-empty. Optimistic ones see it as half-full.

[9] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 09-21-2008 at 06:09 PM • top

Interesting that it is not the RC Archbishop of Washington who is a co-plaintiff with Chane but rather Rev. Dr. Joseph M. Palacios, a Roman Catholic priest who teaches and performs pastoral work at Georgetown University.
My guess is that Chane needed another co-conspiritor so he can claim that other enlightened Christians share his concern about church and state mixing.
If the mission were not supported by a CANA church, Chane would be very quiet. Note in the complaint that the teachings at the mission are “fundamentalist”.  To Chane, that is anyone who asserts the crucifixion and resurrection are actual physical events.

[10] Posted by RalphM on 09-21-2008 at 06:14 PM • top

#9 mousestalker - very clever tag line - had to think about it a bit….

[11] Posted by RalphM on 09-21-2008 at 06:17 PM • top

I just walked the dog, and I was talking to God along the way—
Jill:  God, it gets cold in Washington in the winter.  Is not the bishop supposed to do unto others as he would have them do unto him?  How can I pray for this man?
God:  Jill, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

So . . . Lord, I thank You for Your perfect love, and I ask You to bless Bp Chane.  You understand his needs far better than we.
Guard and protect these homeless men and the Central Union Mission.  Amen.

[12] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 09-21-2008 at 06:25 PM • top

I thought I was immune to being shocked by the actions of TECs leaders.

I was wrong. This is astonishing, even for TEC.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State has waged jihad on orthodox Christianity for a number of years, fighting faith based programs in prisons and elsewhere.  It is important to understand their underlying position—that evangelical Christians cannot be permitted to provide services on government property, or with any type of direct or indirect government subsidy because they belief that sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a sacred commandment.  In other words, you can trust them to provide secular services because they are bound to proselytize.  The organizations leaders tend to draw a distinction between these evangelicals and other so-called Christians who believe religion is a private thing best not discussed.  According to Americans United, you can trust a liberal Episcopalian to provide services because you know they won’t pollute a secular function with religious zeal.

The ACLU and Americans United have proven they have no objection to an Episcopal Priest or Bishop working with a government program to a liberal agenda. 

By pairing with left wing, revisionist Barry Lynn, Bishop Chane has found his soul mate.

Everyone should send this story to their friends who are still in denial about the state of the church. The story here is not about the financial aspects of the land swap, but that the Episcopal Church sought fit to spend its time, resources and prestige to sue to stop a homeless program, on the grounds that it is Christian in nature.


[13] Posted by Going Home on 09-21-2008 at 06:26 PM • top

Correction to underlying position of Americans United:

In other words, you   can’t    trust them to provide secular services because they are bound to proselytize

[14] Posted by Going Home on 09-21-2008 at 06:28 PM • top

I’m wondering what Rome’s opinion will be concerning this lawsuit and the RC priest’s actions?

[15] Posted by JackieB on 09-21-2008 at 06:29 PM • top

My question is What the hell is he thinking?  This ought to dramatically increse the contributions to the Union Mission for the homeless Thanksgiving Dinner- in fact I think I will go down there and volunteer!

[16] Posted by bradhutt on 09-21-2008 at 06:30 PM • top

Read the lawsuit.  This is a land swap after the District’s gay councilman, Jim Graham, had legislation passed that retroactively changed the zoning on the original land that the Mission wanted to build on.

Not only is Chane opposing the preaching of the Gospel and sticking it to a CANA operation, but he’s also aligned with Jim Graham in sticking it to the homeless. 

A Trifecta!

[17] Posted by Paul B on 09-21-2008 at 06:39 PM • top

I wish someone would take out full page ads in area newspapers and publicize this lawsuit.

[18] Posted by Going Home on 09-21-2008 at 06:50 PM • top

Inquiring minds want to know if any funds from the Diocese of Washington are being used to fund this lawsuit.  Do you live there?  Are you a member?  As a member of the Diocese you are entitled to know how the funds are being spent.  Should you find out, be sure to let us know.

[19] Posted by JackieB on 09-21-2008 at 07:08 PM • top

Anyone want to form a crusade to liberate the National Cathedral from the infidel?

[20] Posted by RalphM on 09-21-2008 at 07:26 PM • top

A psychological theory: If the Diocese of Washington doesn’t have anything to attack it has lost its relevance. The Diocese now appears to be totally revisionist. Victory is total. Therefore, it would seem, it must now feed on other denominations.

[21] Posted by Adam 12 on 09-21-2008 at 07:27 PM • top

Jackie, the lawyers seem to be all ACLU, which is no suprise.

[22] Posted by AndrewA on 09-21-2008 at 07:32 PM • top

All Saints Episcopal Church, Chevy Chase, MD is in Bp. Chane’s diocese.  Paul Zahl is the rector.

[23] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 09-21-2008 at 07:35 PM • top

Actually, Adam, for a revisionist the victory is never total.  Because revision is not a goal, it is a process. (Biggest problem in the Communion is that the revisionists turn everything into a process, so there is never a decision.)  You determine what you want to achieve, and once you achieve it, you have to then go farther, or you have to start revising something else.  So, once you legitimize gay priests, you have to move on to SSBs.  When temporarily stymied there, you revise Baptism, so that everyone forgets the entire formula, except the last few lines about mutual respect for all.  Then you anoint a gay bishop, which reopens the door on SSBs.  Canonical revision isn’t going fast enough, so you depose a handful of bishops before the canons are revised, as sort of a field test to make sure the revisions you plan are sufficient.  Then you move on to open communion and multi-religion priests…..

[24] Posted by tjmcmahon on 09-21-2008 at 07:43 PM • top

If the Diocese of Washington has nothing to attack, they will go out and FIND something!

[25] Posted by Cennydd on 09-21-2008 at 07:44 PM • top

Ah, maybe this Chane’s reasoning:
“23. The Mission’s website describes the Overnight Guest Ministry as follows: “A
hot supper, warm showers, fresh clean clothing, safe shelter at night, and a sizzling
breakfast in the morning all wrapped with the gospel message of hope.”
24. The following announcement is made every evening to homeless men seeking
shelter at the Mission: “Because we are a Christian ministry, and not just a homeless
shelter, we conduct an evening chapel service and all overnight guests must attend in order
to stay with us overnight.”
25. Chapel services conducted at the Mission are explicitly Christian. On
information and belief, chapel services are generally fundamentalist and evangelical in
The Episcopal Church doesn’t do fundamental and evangelical. Bad Mission, sue them.

[26] Posted by bradhutt on 09-21-2008 at 07:57 PM • top

But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God - having a form of godliness, but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them
2 Tim: 3:1-5 (NIV translation)

Does this describe what we have been seeing in recent activities both in and outside the Church? If so what does it tell us?

[27] Posted by garyec on 09-21-2008 at 08:10 PM • top

#21 Adam 12,
There are three Network Parishes in the Dio. of Wash.
All Saints Chevy Chase, oversight by Bishop Salmon;
Christ Church Accokeek, oversight by Bishop Salmon;
St Lukes Bladensburg,oversight by Bishop Ackerman, and they are also a FIFNA Parish. All are doing very well, growing, and spreading the Good News.

[28] Posted by bradhutt on 09-21-2008 at 08:11 PM • top

Is it just me, or does the pace of the Episcopal enormities seem to be picking up lately?

[29] Posted by Anglican Beach Party on 09-21-2008 at 08:16 PM • top

Perhaps -Chane has another gospel he would prefer to spread instead of the one planned for the mission.  Perhaps God will not take St. Paul’s advice, but instead show mercy and grace and convict -Chane with the Gospel:
Galatians 1:6-9

But I suppose -Chane would even sue Jesus, since he sould give the disciples of John the Baptist a different answer than the one Jesus gave them:
Matthew 11:2-6

Christe eleison!

[30] Posted by Milton on 09-21-2008 at 08:38 PM • top

#29, Often times when people stop listening to them, the insecure get louder. Or to put it another way, lacking belief in any degree of Truth, the unsaved must pursue their salvation by following the chimera that is the Spirit of the Age.

Dans cette Eglise, il est bon de plaider de temps en temps un eglise pour encourager les autres.

[31] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 09-21-2008 at 08:38 PM • top

Good one (again), mousestalker!  The TEc lemmings again fulfill NT prophecy and have a cheerleader urging the others on over the cliff.

[32] Posted by Milton on 09-21-2008 at 08:42 PM • top

No, Beach Party, I had the same thought!

[33] Posted by Nikolaus on 09-21-2008 at 08:52 PM • top

#23, Jill,
See this:

I think All Saint’s supplemental oversight with Bishop Salmon is still in effect.  If I’m not mistaken, this arrangement was set up before PB Schori’s crack down in Virginia with Bishop Lee.

[34] Posted by more martha than mary on 09-21-2008 at 08:56 PM • top

What god does this “bishop” serve?

[35] Posted by oscewicee on 09-21-2008 at 09:01 PM • top

#35 - Ah, the $64,000 question.

[36] Posted by JackieB on 09-21-2008 at 09:04 PM • top

C’mon Jackie,
$64,000 won’t even cover a week of legal bills from DBB’s law firm.

[37] Posted by tjmcmahon on 09-21-2008 at 09:07 PM • top

I couldn’t read the entire thing; it is too late in the evening and my eyes would glaze over.  However, Paul B in #17 speaks to something crucial.

If DC were simply to give the Gale School out of the clear blue sky, that would be a violation of the First Amendment.  Getting that property would doubtless do much for the Mission’s mission - but to have publicly owned land given to a religious body is against the law—imagine what we would be saying if they gave the property in question to a Muslim group, or to the Moonies. 

But if DC invalidated the zoning of a parcel that the Mission had bought or was buying, then the District would have harmed the Mission and would need to do something to redress the wrong.  Paul B says that part of dealing with the loss of use of the land was to offer the Gale School in its place.

If that is so, then Bp Chane et al will have their hands full proving that the land swap is wrong.  The Mission is not getting tax payer owned land for nothing; it is being compensated by another piece for one it owns but cannot use.  And Bp Chane is being a royal pill for coming after the Mission; he could have and should have let well enough alone.

[38] Posted by AnglicanXn on 09-21-2008 at 09:09 PM • top

tj (#7) -  The central tower of the Nat’l Cathedral is the highest point in DC, and is host to all sorts of antennae.  You can bet some of them are .gov antennae, and that .gov pays rent, or at least makes an offering to the 501(c)3 organization that hosts their antennae.

[39] Posted by maineiac on 09-21-2008 at 09:30 PM • top

Well it’s about time somebody stepped up and put his foot down.  Who knows how far this “gospel” thing would go unless some enlightened, contemporary, inclusive rational person put a stop to it.  Why, if this thing were to go unchecked, before you knew it, the whole world would be ... I can barely say it ... saved.  Ewww.  But thanks to heads-up guys like Bishop Chane, that’s not going to happen.  Who knows where it would end—people praying to God as if He were really there and actually heard peoples’ prayers, people repenting of their sins and believing the Bible.  The Episcopal Church simply cannot stand for things like that. 

We can all breathe a sigh of relief—the world is safe.

[40] Posted by DaveW on 09-21-2008 at 09:38 PM • top

Un-freaking-believable.  SHAME on you Bishop Chane!!  Are you SERIOUS!!  What in God’s name is wrong with you??  Words cannot possibly describe my feelings right now…ARRGHHH!!!

[41] Posted by B. Hunter on 09-21-2008 at 09:57 PM • top

AnglicanXN - you are quite right.  The retroactive zoning prohibits the Mission from obtaining a permit.  I’m not a lawyer but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure our the Mission has an actionable case against the City.  One would think someone who wore the collar would congratulate them on avoiding a lawsuit, but we are talking about The Episcopal Church here.  The Gales School is a historic site and while the property is alleged to be worth $12M, the pool of interested investors would be greatly diminished as the site cannot be demolished.  Additionally, the city desires to develope the site that the Mission currently owns.  The City is trying to close its own shelters and if the Mission is not allowed to continue, it will create a huge deficit in feeding and clothing the hungry and homeless.  Oh one more thing the city has placed a restriction on the Mission.  The building must be operated as a shelter for the next 40 years.  I hope the judge that hears this case awards punitive damages to the defendants for the frivilous use of the courts to pursue the petty vendatta of John Chane.

[42] Posted by JackieB on 09-21-2008 at 10:22 PM • top

Bradhutt and any others in the DC area.  Counting on all of you to get together to take on Chane (yet another time) with an ad in the local papers on this one, making sure to get the facts on the National Cathedral and its “church/state connections.” 

Right on the money #40 DaveW!  And this guy is wearing the robes of the Church (sigh).
Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy.

[43] Posted by BettyLee Payne on 09-21-2008 at 10:47 PM • top

#39 Maineiac, I’m sure that if you were to ask the Federal Communications Commission about this, they’d either tell you nothing, or they’d say that the antennas are the property of some commercial network which is paying the Cathedral rental for the space on which the antennas are mounted, or they’d say they’re cell phone antennas.

[44] Posted by Cennydd on 09-21-2008 at 11:22 PM • top

41, B. Hunter,

You are forgetting—these people ARE NOT CHRISTIANS.  They have another gospel and another agenda and they serve the lord of this world.  They are known by their fruits- and nuts.  Shake off the dust and move on.

[45] Posted by Elizabeth on 09-21-2008 at 11:29 PM • top

I took the trouble of looking up the RC priest’s CV on the Georgetown University site.  All I need to know about him is summed up in this line member “Board of Directors, DC Center For GLBT”

It appears he was ordained priest in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.  Anyone holding their breath while they await action by Archbishop Mahoney is urged to invest in some SCBA.

[46] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 09-22-2008 at 12:30 AM • top

Purportedly, Bishop Chane has about 30 same-sex-partnered clergy in his diocese.

[47] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 09-22-2008 at 01:34 AM • top

Chane was taking the “under” line.  Thirty “partnered” maybe, but many more free agent perverts than he would ever willing to admit to.

[48] Posted by gppp on 09-22-2008 at 03:03 AM • top

You could also check with Chane’s chancellor at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).  She’s an extremely squirrelly one, though.

[49] Posted by gppp on 09-22-2008 at 03:09 AM • top

This to me is another case like Virginia churches.  A plain reading of case law says the bishop has no standing.  But by filing you can delay and otherwise disrupt to work of God. 

Nor have respondents sufficiently alleged any other basis for standing to bring suit. Although they claim that the Constitution has been violated, they claim nothing else. They fail to identify any personal injury suffered as a consequence of the alleged constitutional error, other than the psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees


Does anyone see any reason that the bishop’s claims should not be dismissed with this logic.

The college in question in the below case requires all instructors to be members of the Assemblies of God.  It also requires daily chapel.  So the claims by the homeless who are listed as plaintiffs would appear to be weak to non-existence. 


U.S. Supreme Court
454 U.S. 464

No. 80-327.

Argued November 4, 1981
Decided January 12, 1982

Pursuant to its authority under the Property Clause, Congress enacted the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to provide an economical and efficient system for the disposal of surplus Federal Government property. Under the statute, property that has outlived its usefulness to the Government is declared “surplus” and may be transferred to private or other public entities. The Act authorizes the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) (now the Secretary of Education) to assume responsibility for disposing of surplus real property for educational use, and he may sell such property to nonprofit, tax-exempt educational institutions for consideration that takes into account any benefit which has accrued or may accrue to the United States from the transferee’s use of the property. Property formerly used as a military hospital was declared to be “surplus property” under the Act and was conveyed by the Department of HEW to petitioner church-related college. The appraised value of the property, $577,500, was discounted by the Secretary of HEW’s computation of a 100% public benefit allowance, thus permitting petitioner to acquire the property without making any financial payment. Respondents, an organization dedicated to the separation of church and State and several of its employees, brought suit in Federal District Court, challenging the conveyance on the ground that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and alleging that each member of respondent organization “would be deprived of the fair and constitutional use of his (her) tax dollars.” The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that respondents lacked standing to sue as taxpayers under Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 , and failed to allege any actual injury beyond a generalized grievance common to all taxpayers. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that although respondents lacked standing as taxpayers to challenge the conveyance, they had standing merely as “citizens,” claiming “`injury in fact’ to their shared individuated right to a government that `shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion,’” which standing was sufficient to satisfy the “case or controversy” requirement of Art. III. [454 U.S. 464, 465] 


Respondents do not have standing, either in their capacity as taxpayers or as citizens, to challenge the conveyance in question. Pp. 471-490.

    (a) The exercise of judicial power under Art. III is restricted to litigants who can show “injury in fact” resulting from the action that they seek to have the court adjudicate. Pp. 471-476.

    (b) Respondents are without standing to sue as taxpayers, because the source of their complaint is not a congressional action but a decision by HEW to transfer a parcel of federal property and because the conveyance in question was not an exercise of Congress’ authority conferred by the Taxing and Spending Clause but by the Property Clause. Cf. Flast v. Cohen, supra. Pp. 476-482.

    (c) Nor have respondents sufficiently alleged any other basis for standing to bring suit. Although they claim that the Constitution has been violated, they claim nothing else. They fail to identify any personal injury suffered as a consequence of the alleged constitutional error, other than the psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees. That is not injury sufficient to confer standing under Art. III. While respondents are firmly committed to the constitutional principle of separation of church and State, standing is not measured by the intensity of the litigant’s interest or the fervor of his advocacy. Pp. 482-487.


[50] Posted by Scott+ on 09-22-2008 at 04:17 AM • top

#43 BettyLee,
We will do something-exactly what not determined as yet-full page ads are very costly in the washington newpapers.
#47 Jill, there are 30 glbt couples and counting.

[51] Posted by bradhutt on 09-22-2008 at 04:31 AM • top

#51, have you thought about posting the news on craigslist? You could actually advertise for meetings that way and draw grassroots attention to the problem.

Part of the problem with the Episcopal leadership is that they get their information from the newspapers and the tv news. The number of people who do one or the other is a decided minority among informed Americans and is shrinking daily.

If you go netroots you can be potentially very effective for very little money and blindside the hierarchy simultaneously. Not a bad multitasker.

I serve the God of Truth. Who do you serve?

[52] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 09-22-2008 at 04:50 AM • top

Thanks, folks.  “By their fruits you shall know them.”  I think it appropriate to observe the fruit of a gay-activist diocese and compare it with, say, a Network diocese.
I used to think the GLBT activists were politically savvy.  No more.
Unless you can provide documentation on a plaintiff or someone who is financially supporting a plaintiff, I request that commenters refrain from references to cruising among the homeless.

[53] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 09-22-2008 at 04:57 AM • top

BradHutt - re: pushing back/counteracting this in some way:  perhaps there are allies at  The National Coalition for the Homeless, located in D.C.? 
Or The Coalition for the Homeless (in D.C., maybe this was Mitch Snyder’s org?)  Or even Catholic Charities?  All of these probably are places the press go for quotes on homeless issues.

[54] Posted by Cathy_Lou on 09-22-2008 at 06:28 AM • top

AAC-Washington Chapter WILL BE DOING A PRESS RELEASE LATER TODAY. Thanks for all your suggestions.

[55] Posted by bradhutt on 09-22-2008 at 06:58 AM • top

Instead of piling up more criticisms or laments of the personal failings of Bishop Chane, I suggest that we take a step back and try to look at this incident from an objective, systemic, or cultural standpoint.  That is, Bp. John Chane the Clueless is merely mouthing the standard party line of the liberal or relativist culture he represents.  The problem isn’t really with people like +Chane as individuals.  The real problem is essentially cultural: we are dealing with the inevitable clash of two incompatible and mutually exclusive cultures in America, and throughout the so-called western or European world.

This latest example of how utterly intolerant are the supposed advocates of inclusiveness is simply one more blatant sign that our famous “separation of church and state” in the US is actually morphing into a “divorce of Christianity and public life” or (orthodox) Christianity and the dominant culture.  And this has IMMENSE and very FAR-REACHING implications.

The longer I think about it (and I’ve been pondering it for several years now), the more extensive and far-reaching I realize that those implications are.  It’s time to wake up and recognize the nature of the true fight that’s on our hands.

We are being called to a TOTAL OVERHAUL of the so-called “mainline” churches in America, since the plain fact is that the cultural mainstream is now running AGAINST the Christian Church and we are being forced, willy-nilly, whether we like it or not, into the very difficult position of swimming or paddling upstream against a very powerful current.  And for about 40 years, TEC and the other “ex-mainline” denominations have been futilely trying to appease that increasingly hostile culture by playing the game of “Well, if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.”  Of course, that policy has been a total failure.  The cultural elites (represented more clearly by our most prestigious universitites, the secular mass media, and the entertainment industry) have turned on the Christian faith and now treat it with benign indifference at best, or openly oppose it at worst.

And given our state church heritage as Anglicans, this poses an ENORMOUS challenge for us.  We basically are being FORCED into redesigning Anglicanism for the 3rd millenium, specifically the 21st century, as something that resembles the first century Church.  That is, we are being compelled to rethink our whole way of doing Church in order to come to terms with our new, scary status as a despised minority group in a formerly Christian culture.

The Christendom era is over.  That is the fundamental, stark, threatening reality that we now face.  And it literally changes everything about Anglicanism.  It really does.

And that, my friends, is why nothing less than a New Reformation will do.  And why the inside strategy is simply not radical enough.

David Handy+
Passionate advocate of high commitment, post-Christendom style Anglicanism of a decidedly sectarian, Christ-against-culture sort.

[56] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 09-22-2008 at 07:02 AM • top

The Washington Post has covered this, but someone might want to see if they can get the Washington Times or The Examiner to look into this.

[57] Posted by AndrewA on 09-22-2008 at 07:08 AM • top

A significant per centage of TEC’s 2007-2009 income (as approved by GC2006) consists of governmental revenues, $17,327,000. A case can be made this subsidy violates the Church-State separation.  Should suit be brought to cease this outrageous subsidy of TEC? If so, bring it before GC2009 to protect faithful parishes and missions from the wrath of TEC paid lawyers.  Let TEC defend its governmental subsidy in court.

[58] Posted by Sparky on 09-22-2008 at 07:24 AM • top

Sparky, what type of governmental revenues are you talking about?

[59] Posted by AndrewA on 09-22-2008 at 07:40 AM • top

Suing purple people laughing
Meet me in the crowd
People people
Throw your love around
Love me love me
Take it into town
Happy happy
The only game in town
Where the flowers grow
Rainbow o’ it shines

Suing purple people holding hands
Suing purple people laughing

Everyone around love us, love us
Big open communion
Take it take it
Put it in your hands
Happy happy
Put it in your mouth
God loves us, like we are
Spirit new thing

Suing purple people holding hands
Suing purple people laughing

And my apologies to all your REM fans - I am sure I have ruined this song forever for you. If you don’t know the tune, hop on over to YouTube

[60] Posted by Festivus on 09-22-2008 at 08:13 AM • top


Those who prey upon the weak, hungry or those who are mentally and spiritually empty are the lowest form of life on this planet.  And wearing a purple shirt with a cross on top isn’t going to save these vultures.  I leave it to God to deal with them- they are not my mission field—if they are yours may your blessings increase.

[61] Posted by Elizabeth on 09-22-2008 at 08:28 AM • top

Could some of the attorneys out there opine on whether the mission might have a case for filing an anti-SLAPP action against Chane, et. al., or perhaps a RICO action?  It certainly would spice things up a bit.  I was somewhat surprised at the seemingly defamatory language used in the injunction motion to describe the religious activities of the mission.

[62] Posted by Daniel on 09-22-2008 at 09:13 AM • top

Another morning, and I am still astonished by this.

The Episcopal Bishop of Washington, D.C. becomes the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit to block the establishment of a homeless mission on the grounds that it is Christian.

That is the long and short of this lawsuit.

I pray that the Lord provides the resources to publicize this throughout the nation. Is there an address we can send donations?

[63] Posted by Going Home on 09-22-2008 at 09:33 AM • top

I spent a good amount of time online last night looking for the diocese of Washington’s homeless mission or even their food pantry.  Sadly, I had no success.

It says volumes that Chane is ready to shut down a safe place where food is being delivered and beds are being made available for the sake of scoring points and settling a vendetta.

[64] Posted by JackieB on 09-22-2008 at 10:16 AM • top

Is this mission one of the MDG’s? That might be the fundamental key…

[65] Posted by southernvirginia1 on 09-22-2008 at 10:20 AM • top

Going Home, the online donation page is here.

[66] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 09-22-2008 at 10:31 AM • top

I’m not showing a “secure” icon on my web browser at that page - is it just me?

[67] Posted by oscewicee on 09-22-2008 at 10:45 AM • top

Jackie, helping the homeless is so 90s, almost as out of fashion as bringing Christ to Native Americans. I’m sure Chane just wants the Union Mission to find a 21st century job to do.

[68] Posted by oscewicee on 09-22-2008 at 10:49 AM • top

RE: # 59 Sparky, what type of governmental revenues are you talking about?
From the Journal of the 75th General Convention, 2006, pp. 822-823

Government Grants
Episcopal Migration Ministries (the refugee program) is primarily supported by federal
government contracts, principally from the Reception and Placement Program funded by the State Department and the Department of Health and Human Services Matching Grant Program. DFMS and affiliated organizations resettles an estimated 2,500 refugees per year through the Reception and Placement Program, and 950 refugees per year will qualify for participation in the Matching Grant Program. After withholding amounts necessary to cover administrative costs, these funds are passed to dioceses to fund local programs.

Government Grants (EMM)
2007 - $5,699,000
2008- $5,779,000
2009 - $5,849,000
Triennium - $17,327,000

[69] Posted by Maria Lytle on 09-22-2008 at 10:50 AM • top

Next steps for TEC:  Go pull Pierre L’Enfant AND George Washington’s bodies out of their graves to appear in court for DARING to plan Washington DC to include a site for the National Cathedral.  I mean…how could they?  Oh the humanity!!!!

[70] Posted by midwestnorwegian on 09-22-2008 at 11:24 AM • top

I am shocked, shocked to find the Episcopal Church is illegally receiving substantial amounts of federal money in violation of the restrictions against church and state.

I suggest the Complaint above be copied, Chane and Schori’s name substituted for the defendants, and then filed in the D.C. federal courts.

Of course, their defense may be that the Episcopal Church is not a church or religion, and I’m not sure how you get around that argument.

[71] Posted by Jim the Puritan on 09-22-2008 at 12:53 PM • top

While I am late in this conversation, an observation I have is that if this land swap had occurred under the same conditions to some other religous but non-Christian group for a religious purpose, neither Christians for the Separation of Church and State nor any similar group would be worried at all.  There is a great hate of Christianity in this day and age which gives further affirmation to the validity of the Gospel.

[72] Posted by BillB on 09-22-2008 at 01:25 PM • top

Well, I shall refrain from my usual 60’s song reference and fool.  To be contemporary I should sing/hum “Chane, Chane, Chane, ...Chane of suits”, I suppose.  But certainlt the NatCat ought to have its funding subjected to the same suit.  Do you think attaching it as amicus curi will work?  Or should one just impell the bishop to testify about it at trial…for the defense?

[73] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 09-22-2008 at 01:46 PM • top

When shared with one who has done missions in EDoW boundries for a decade this is the reply:

Chane is consistent in speech and actions, unlike many of his colleagues. I profoundly disagree with all of it, but am quite thankful for his consistency as wolf, false prophet, and antichrist. It makes our mission all the clearer.

Thinking about it, while I still can’t stand his going to court, I do agree it is better than trying to deal with shifting sand people. At least I can say he’s a heretic and we don’t agree on much verses, “well, somethings yes and somethings no,” which is hard for the hearer to discern the difference, especially if they are not real grounded.

[74] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 09-22-2008 at 02:16 PM • top

But certainly the NatCat ought to have its funding subjected to the same suit.

That would be lovely.

[75] Posted by oscewicee on 09-22-2008 at 04:18 PM • top

It looks like at each House of Bishops meetings they bring out the Limbo stick to see who can go lower.  The Limbo stick is now below grade, with no one suggesting it would be appropriate to raise the bar.  Are there any takers to go below Chane?  Bishops, bring your shovels.

[76] Posted by Sparky on 09-22-2008 at 05:57 PM • top

Chane’s oft stated personal passion is total inclusion and acceptance for homosexuals into the church and society. I have a feeling he is involved in this lawsuit primarily for that reason alone. The Central Union Mission does not hire homosexuals due to thei christian beliefs, but the minute they are in a deal receiving federal money it’s a different story, remember the Boy Scouts fiasco in the city of brotherly love, Philadelphia? Second, the bishops of dio. of wash. are infamous for their secular lawsuits Dixon v. Edwards costs exceeded $1 million dollars, it is still unpaid.

[77] Posted by bradhutt on 09-22-2008 at 08:04 PM • top

Ah Chaney Old Boy, you must have heard what a tough weekend I’ve had, and thought up this amazingly ill-considered, weak-willed, and evil legal action just to bolster my spirits!  I still have my doubts about walking away from TEC you know, it was a VERY hard thing for me, but every time the lunacy get’s a little closer to us I feel better about my decision.

And of course, utter despair for my brothers and sisters who have been fooled into believing that you and your leadership could take their souls anywhere NEAR the neighborhood of heaven.

You think Jacob Marley’s chane was long and heavy…..(pun intended)....Just wait.

Still KTF!!....mrb

[78] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 09-22-2008 at 08:26 PM • top

Look at this from the standpoint of the politicos who are interested in keeping the ruffians from freezing to death economically:

15 million (give or take) divided by (365 x 40 years x 150 guys) if you use their numbers, it works out to 7 bucks and change per inhabitant per day. 
Now, when faced with a the fact that the building is a white elephant, this is a heck of a win-win.  Who cares if a few guys get religion, feel bad about the fact that they’re crack whores, and tread the straight-and-narrow.

Even Mayor Barry would have a hard time arguing against this one.

[79] Posted by jamesk on 09-22-2008 at 08:59 PM • top

Just in to the newsroom ...


With gratitude to Red Stick Rant for his inspiration.

[80] Posted by BabyBlue on 09-22-2008 at 10:38 PM • top

Mark Levin and Landmark Legal Foundation
might want to make a run at this.

[81] Posted by bigjimintx on 09-23-2008 at 06:04 AM • top

If true, I don’t have much truck with requiring homeless guys to attend church in exchange for a roof over their heads on a cold night.  I don’t see, however, how such a transaction any different than land-swaps + money in the kitty transactions that the District of Columbia (I think) has done with developers.  There’s no constitutional violation here.

Does the Diocese of Washington operate a homeless shelter?  Just wondering…

[82] Posted by Violent Papist on 09-23-2008 at 01:39 PM • top

By the way, a birdy told me a couple of days ago that another 1st Amendment lawsuit in the District of Columbia against the DC government, a church, and/or a private institution that rents from a church by the ACLU and/or Americans United lawyers may be on the way very shortly.  It will be interesting to see if Bishop Chane will be a plaintiff on that one as the shit will hit the ecumenical fan.

[83] Posted by Violent Papist on 09-23-2008 at 01:45 PM • top

“Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”[f]

“14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” Romans 10
It is standard practice to share the Word with people whom the church is feeding or housing.  Missions do it, parishes in poor neighborhoods do it, sometimes while denominations (like the Salvation Army do it)  I would consider it disgustinly poor ministry to just give “stuff”... dinner, a bed, a cup or water… without doing it the way Jesus said… “a cup of water IN MY NAME”.  A new life in Christ is the best gift to anyone who is needy.  The help and inspiration for change are in the Lord!  So there’s an Episcopal bishop who not only doesn’t believe in sharing Jesus and His Word, but is looking to destroy those who do!  What does he think WILL save those homeless and sometimes hopeless people?  What does he think the mission of the church is?

[84] Posted by Goughdonna on 09-24-2008 at 12:10 PM • top

#84—When you are a sworn antiChrist as Chane is you live to see that people, even the neediest, go unsaved.

Brad Hutt (#77) knows Chane very well, and laid it out quite succinctly.

[85] Posted by gppp on 09-25-2008 at 01:29 AM • top

Baby Blue gave a clue for the real EDOW interest in the Central Union Mission in Downtown D.C., and it isn’t homosexual related. CANA has a Mission meeting at the Central Union Mission-they meet on Sundays at 5PM. AMIA has established a mission that meets on Capitol Hill Sunday same time. Oh yes, crossing territorial boundaries-the unforgiveable sin.

[86] Posted by bradhutt on 09-25-2008 at 10:01 AM • top

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

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