Bishop Bill Murdoch’s Sermon Delivered at Good Shepherd, Binghamton

Matt,

Since you weren’t on a mic when Bp. Murdoch asked you to speak about Good Shepherd’s “piece of news”, could you elaborate on what that news is please?  I couldn’t, with my 50+ year old ears make out what you said.

Wonderful clarity. God bless you Good Shepherd.
Intercessor

Wow - a splendid sermon. Jesus truly is the Center of His Church.
I was also impressed with the Bishop’s care for the flock, concerned about a bitter root after the betrayal by TEC.  How ironic that the Catholic Church had also helped Bishop Murdoch’s Massachusetts congregation in 2007.
I keep looking for an announcement of Good Shepherd’s ‘good news’ also.  I suppose it’s not time to publish it online.
The Lord is with you, Good Shepherd.

Wish I could say more but cannot at the moment…suffice it to say that many prayers have been answered, God has poured out his grace, and the wider Body of Christ in Binghamton has been, truly, the Body of Christ to us.

Don’t just love Bishop Murdoch!!! And the Kennedys.

Good - and also what a wonderful Christian response to need from the Roman Catholic Church - cause for much gratitude and thanks for their witness.  Puts some people to shame.

Where Bishop Bill goes, good things seem to spring up…  For anyone on or near Cape Cod, the Bishop will be at Good Shepherd, Forestdale (Sandwich), MA this Sunday @ 9 AM and Church of the Resurrection in Brewster, MA @ 11 AM.  I am looking forward to it, all are welcome!
MassPK

What a great example of what a Bishop is (and should be).
Matt, You don’t know me, (mate of David Ould from Australia) but I have been praying for you and your family.
Lam 3:22-23.

A propos of “turning my Father’s house into a market” (John 2:16, referenced in the good Bishop’s sermon), the recent decision by Judge Ferris Lebous in the case of the Diocese of Central NY against Fr. Matt’s Church of the Good Shepherd (http://www.standfirminfaith.com/media/decision_and_order_03_20_09_good_shepherd.pdf) provides a textbook example of how to misconstrue motives. As I read the Judge’s rather cursory opinion, the parishioners of Good Shepherd are to be punished by further legal proceedings for having the temerity to decrease—-nay, even withhold—-their voluntary contributions to the Church while the Diocese sought to confiscate all of its property and assets in a lawsuit. The Judge says that he is “troubled” to find that parishioners stopped putting money into the collection plate beginning about April 2008, and that this decrease meant that the parish “was doing everything it could to spend down the assets, divert new income, and perhaps even actively interfere with the Diocese’s right of ownership.” (Bold emphasis added.)

Could any words more appropriately convey the sense of what Jesus was doing when he overturned the tables of the moneychangers and ordered the dovesellers to get out? Notwithstanding the Dennis Canon, which expressly states that all parish property is to be used for the benefit of the parish while it remains in ECUSA, Judge Lebous (and apparently the DCNY, which asked him so to find) thinks that a parish has no right to spend down its assets if parishioners stop contributing because the Diocese is suing them to get all their property. Instead, the poor parishioners must continue “business as usual”—-making their Sunday contributions as though nothing was wrong—-all the while that the Diocese plots how quickly it can take over everything they have.

Under this view, a parish is nothing more than a local business which finds itself on the “market” once the Diocese sues it, and must continue with its “business” as though nothing was wrong (pending its confiscation by the Diocese). But this “market” is completely rigged from the get-go by the Dennis Canon: “heads ECUSA/the Diocese wins, and tails you (the parish) lose.”  So by all means, suckers, keep putting your money in the plate, otherwise the Court will see to it that you have to spend even more money to explain why you weren’t overjoyed to do so while you were being sued.

Not only that, but we will find you blameworthy of even daring to think that you might have a right to take certain property which you donated to the Church when the Court orders you out on just a few days’ notice. For that property was not donated to the parish, don’t you see? No, it was donated to the people who were suing you—-because you are a Christian, are you not? You are </i>supposed</i> to give the people who are suing you the shirt off your back, and then to be ashamed that you didn’t think to leave them your coat, too.

The problem with Judge Lebous’ thinking is that it requires Fr. Matt’s parishioners to live fully up to the Christian ideal while it rewards the DCNY for insisting on the terms of a very un-Christian, unilateral contract (once you join our church, all your property is ours when you leave) that the parishioners never knew about or assented to. (Cf. Bishop O’Neill in the recent Colorado case: “Oh, we don’t expect the average parishioner to know anything about the canons.”)  Well, Matt is fully up to the standard laid on him by Judge Lebous.  If you want a perfect example of Christian charity while under siege for all that you have (and then some), you have only to read the letter Matt+ wrote to his parishioners (http://binghamtongoodshepherd.blogspot.com/2009/04/letter-to-church-of-good-shepherd.html) explaining why they had to hand over all the things they thought were theirs to control, and to let the Diocese have all that it wanted. Blessings upon you and your parishioners, Matt+—- you have set an example for all Christians to emulate, and have demonstrated the simple truth of our fathers’ adage: “A good example is the best sermon.”

“Bwah-hah-hah”, says Skip Adams. “We even got the family jewels.”

The seemingly biased judge ruled against Good Shepherd again, this time involving the trust fund bequeathed in the 1980’s by a parishioner. The judge stated that the man was dedicated to the Episcopal church when he died in the 80’s. Well, so were millions of others (like myself) that have since had our eyes opened by the transformation of the denomination. The judge is also surprised that giving declined when it became apparent that the parish might fall into the hands of the dark side. So there will be an investigation or something. See http://tinyurl.com/cjw73u for details.

This has Skip Adams and the revisionists giddy. They just don’t get it. The more they act like Tarkin (“The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.”) of the dark side, and the more our side acts with Christian grace and faith - see Matt+‘s letter here, http://tinyurl.com/c27dn2 - the more we win.

It is very sad for the parish, especially those parishioners who have been there so long and loved the parish so much.

But I’m sort of with Matt.  At least they got to have their case tried in a country where the rule of law is still important, and in an objective court, unlike with TEC, which adheres to no rule of law, as our leaders violate the canons whenever it is convenient and in full view of everyone. 

Far better to be in the hands of a secular judge than in the hands of Bishop Skip Adams and his Standing Committee.

Anyone who knows Matt Kennedy knows that he is scrupulously moral. In regard to charges about diversion of money and parish goods, Matt was way out in front, leading the congregation in submitting to the rulings of the court. Just read the links above and do your own timeline.

Matt was exemplary in his letter to the parish about accepting the ruling of the judge. I could not have come close to his Christian grace.

Shame, shame, shame on Bishop Adams and the diocese for stomping on this flock. I’m ashamed to be linked to them through the same denomination.

Shame, shame, shame on Bishop Adams and the diocese for stomping on this flock. I’m ashamed to be linked to them through the same denomination.

EXACTLY…...  That’s what we all should be!

Grannie Gloria

WOW, my first “blockquote”.......  yeah

It is very difficult for the court to make a right decision when it does not hear all the facts such as how The Episcopal Church has prostituted itself over the years.  Or how it has failed to repent but instead celebrated its impurity.  It is not surprising the Diocese would seek to hide the facts on the ground when they may open the eyes of those making the decisions.

I have watched with absolute respect the calm, Christian way with which Fr. Matt Kennedy has conducted himself, and shepherded his parish, through a time of which the word “difficult” does not begin to scratch the surface.  He has been, from the outset, scrupulously honest and transparent with everyone - his parish, the Diocese, and Bishop Adams.  The same, unfortunately, cannot be said of Bishop Adams and the Diocese, which have not in any respect treated Fr. Kennedy or his parishioners with honesty or grace.

To claim to a court that anyone from Good Shepherd has deliberately acted in an illegal or immoral fashion is patently dishonest and wrong on many levels.  I do not profess to know anything about ethics rules in New York courts, but here in Kentucky, “honesty toward the tribunal” is a requirement.  It seems tht somehow this was missed in New York.  It is clear from Fr. Kennedy’s communications to his parish that all property of the church was in place for an accounting before the parish departed.  And there is no requirement, legal, moral or otherwise, for individuals to make contributions to an entity that is under threat of imminent destruction.

Let’s name this for what it really is - shameless retribution.  Revisionists, and those on the left generally, can never be satisfied with winning, whether it’s an interpersonal argument, or a lawsuit.  It is never enough to state a convincing, objective argument - they have to make it personal and grind their opposition under their hob-nailed boot heel. 

There is little question that Fr. Matt has been a thorn in the collective side of DioCNY and TEO generally for a long time now.  He blogs from TEO meetings and keeps all of us aware of the minute-by-minute nefarious dealings of TEO leadership.  His writing on Christian subjects, and on TEO politics, is well-reasoned and informative.  And on his local level he has gone toe-to-toe with a Bishop and never blinked, even at great personal cost, and come out in the end as the victor by his grace and class, despite the courtroom reversals.

So, of course, TEO and Bishop Adams want nothing more than to hurt Fr. Kennedy and his departing flock in any way they can.  Grace, honesty, and class are not the coin of the realm in DioCNY or at 815 - vindictiveness and retribution are.  As I am writing this I cannot help but think of the old tune “They will know we are Christians by our love, by our love, yes, they’ll know we are Christians by our love.”  That knowledge applies with a clear certainty to the respective parties in DioCNY these days, doesn’t it?

I have read the decision against Good Shepard and Fr Kennedy.  I am greatly disturbed by the part in which the judge will start an investigation into the lowered giving of money to the parish.  With the “sound” reasoning in the decision, I believe the judge will find further against Good Shepard. How will the court (i.e, Judge Lebous) determine what should have been given?  Will he demand the full amount put in the St Matthias fund during the period?  Will he demand that all parishioners ante up a tithe (10%) of their income, the ideal Christian giving goal, for the period in question?  While it does sound far fetched, I can see TEC taking this route against the members of parishes and dioceses that have left for the time that they were in “their” buildings if they win possession.

1) The business about investigation of reduced giving is really bizarre.  I remember that ACLU members “diverted” their giving when the organization decided to represent neo-Nazis in a free speech case (Skokie, IL).  I remember how NOW members in L.A. were divided and some “diverted” their giving over the O.J. Simpson murder trial (some felt that NOW should speak for the female victim, others thought it might be a political risk to appear “racist.”)

The idea that money not given to voluntary organizations can be declared “property” of any entity other than the potential donor is one of the weirdest things I’ve ever heard.  Can I get a pledge-cutting parishioner investigated if I have a signed pledge card?  Sick.
2) The Episcopal “progressive/new thing” insiders’ clique is always suggesting that everybody else’s beliefs and behaviors are mere symptoms of some neurosis, usually linked to repression of homosexuality.  How interesting to hear these paragons of “peace, justice, reconciliation, sensitivity, inclusion etc. disolve in sarcasm, screeds and salivation. 

Perhaps the “Chicago Consultation” should be renamed “The DSM V”.