Sarah Hey

Response to the Comments on the Camp Allen Article: Six Themes to Observe

Monday, October 16, 2006 • 7:20 am

It has been two weeks since my optimistic little effort to explain why I am not remotely distressed over the Camp Allen statement. The joy amongst my friends and allies that I was finally becoming An Optimist has long since died down, as most have realized that it was a "blip on the radar" of Sarah's psyche, and based mostly on my usual Deep Undercurrent of Stark Pessimism about Human Nature that caused my brief sally into "That Wasn't So Bad!" optimism. I should note, though, that I have not changed my opinion about the Camp Allen statement.

I want to thank the many of you who emailed me and also posted comments of kind words and thanks and analysis and challenge. It is very meaningful to receive encouraging words and thoughtful comments from fellow Roistering Episcopal Adventurers, and I appreciate them.

It was a little overwhelming to read all the comments and analysis. I had thought that I would enter in to the comment thread and respond to several of them, but they stacked up so quickly that unraveling them all in a thread of responses seemed chaotic.

As I pondered and scoured through all the comments, I noticed that they could be clumped into various clusters. There was a cluster of choruses to "Leave ECUSA Now". There were fewer choruses to "Stay Forever in ECUSA". There were a few "We'll Stay but We're Dying To Know When We Should Leave". There was the one solo of "ECUSA Will Be Reformed". And then there was the usual MATT KENNEDY cluster, made up of a persuasive . . . "Matt Kennedy". ; > )

The cluster of comments also revealed a number of "themes" that I think it would be a good idea to address. I won't try to convince people to be "unconcerned" or "more worried" or "pessimistic" in this article about Camp Allen and the Communion. Most of our opinions are pretty much fixed and, as I have argued before, based on firm hierarchies of values that I don't expect will change too much in the future.

From those clusters, I recognized some of those hiearchies of values and predominant themes that guide the opinions and analyses of all of us. And I thought I would state a few of those themes -- and offer my thoughts on them. I will highlight those themes by offering my own opinion in somewhat stark and bald rhetoric. I think that my bald rhetoric will not necessarily change people's minds or analyses. But I do think it will be revealing of the many themes that are underlying all of our conversations on this and other blogs.

Keep in mind, as you read, that every Roistering Episcopal Adventurer who reads this blog comes to an article or analysis or news item with varying opinions about these themes -- some of their opinions are *contradictory* to what I will state as my opinion. But every traditional ECUSAn, I think, has an opinion one way or the other about these six themes. As I myself state my opinions about these themes, and as you ponder your own opinions about these themes, hopefully along the way the comments in response to my last article will be responded to. I don't articulate these themes in order to persuade you of my opinion, but in order to stake out where I stand on these issues, and to encourage all of us to notice these themes in the news and analysis which will occur over the coming months.

So without further ado, I'll jump in.


1) Some Anglican entities greatly desire that the Anglican Communion not discipline ECUSA at all.

This seems, at first, like a no-brainer. Obviously, Bishop Griswold, Bishop Schori, some 60% to 80% of the House of Bishops, and many many many clergy, along with the approximately 20% of the laity who are Worthy Opponents [remember that the Beloved Moderates just hope everyone will go back to sleep], desire that ECUSA not be disciplined at all.

Furthermore, the hierarchies of power in Wales, Scotland, Canada, South Africa, and Brazil, along with many bishops and clergy in the Church of England . . . greatly desire that ECUSA not be disciplined at all.

That's sort of an "obvious" statement. Naturally, those fearless church leaders who support the revisal of society's definitions of sexual morality wish that ECUSA's current hierarchy would remain an influential and leading figure within the Communion and within the US. Even those bishops who aren't so keen on redefining sexual morality recognize that it would be "awfully inconvenient" for the Anglican Communion to discipline ECUSA, as it would force them, sadly, to make choices rather than simple peacefully and restfully "be". ; > )

But also we need to understand that many conservative Anglican entities and individuals hope that ECUSA will not be disciplined by the Anglican Communion.

They hope this for many reasons.

Some believe that the Anglican Communion is also hopelessly revisionist, and believe that any attempts to discipline and boundary the Anglican Communion further is but "placing a ring in the nose of a pig".

Some believe that, if only traditional Episcopalians would give up on the Anglican Communion, all of them/us [traditional Episcopalians] would leave, join with the rest of the conservative Anglicans, and build a better "alternate communion".

And some hope for the fracture of the Anglican Communion, and recognize that the only hope for a significant fracture of the Anglican Communion will be if certain parties -- the Global South, for instance -- realize that ECUSA will not be disciplined. Once a fracture of the Anglican Communion occurs, some believe that they will achieve a more central, prominent, and powerful place in the new, reconstituted, traditional fragment of the former communion than they have otherwise achieved.


2) Should the Anglican Communion fail to discipline ECUSA and the Anglican Communion fracture, there will be no Grand and Large Exodus of the traditional members of ECUSA into alternate Anglican entities or a reconstituted communion.

Now, let me be clear. Should the AC fail to discipline ECUSA and achieve instead a massive fracture -- there will be a massive exodus of Roistering Episcopal Adventurers. But that exodus will not, by and large, depart to alternate Anglican entities or a reconstituted communion.

I believe that many believe wrongly that that will happen -- and it is a fatal error in belief. Understand that they are not counting on "Beloved Moderates" to exodus [nor would they desire Beloved Moderates to be a part of their new alternate communion anyway] -- and they are right in not counting on that. Beloved Moderates will, in general, depart under no circumstances at all.

But they are counting on Roistering Episcopal Adventurers to depart for alternate Anglican entities -- and they are very much mistaken in that assumption. I have said it before and I will say it again. The majority of departures from ECUSA -- and I have many representations of such in my email box -- have been for other denominations entirely. Certainly some of the mass parish departures have been for alternate Anglican entities. And there have been individuals, for instance, who have gone to Continuing or REC or AMiA parishes that already exist. But the vast majority have gone to other non-Anglican entities -- and that trend will continue, I believe.

My email box is stuffed with these people. There's the man in Alabama who went to the local Methodist church. There's the woman in Columbia who went to the Missouri Synod. There's the man in York who went to the PCA denomination -- along with many from my parish who have largely gone either to the large downtown Presbyterian church or the large seeker-sensitive non-denominational church. There are my friends -- among many, many -- who converted to Rome. There's the couple in California who went to the Presbyterian church. And the list continues and grows. These people go unheralded and unpublicized. But their numbers are very large -- much larger than the much-trumpeted departures to parishes in alternate Anglican entities.

My non-scientific, but rather copiously illustrated estimate is that so far, of the numbers of people in ECUSA who have departed in the past three years, about 70% went to non-Anglican entities.

Beyond the example of so many around me, there is my own decision. Should the Anglican Communion fail to discipline ECUSA, I will leave ECUSA, because I will no longer wish to be a part of the Anglican Communion at all. A lack of discipline of such a rampantly and grossly heretical denomination will spell the death knell of the Communion. And, for me, it will spell the death knell of the notion of a global, unified, universal, catholic Anglican entity.

I will leave ECUSA -- and it will not be for a fragment of the former communion. Having suffered the loss of hope for Anglicanism and recognizing that its ecclesiology was simply unable to hold at its center, I will focus solely on my local community at that point. I will have no interest in re-entering the denominational culture wars that are raging all around us -- I am amazed that people can depart ECUSA for another mainline denomination, thus buying a temporary lull in an inevitable battle within the newly chosen denomination and it is my belief that one must truly love a denomination to enter into the battle [in my case, Anglicanism is what I love] -- and I am unable, theologically, to affirm the truth of some central tenets of Roman Catholic or Eastern theology. So I will choose the most discipling, evangelizing, thoughtful, culture engaging congregational church, and submit my services and heart to it. Yet my theology will continue on as an Anglican. That is what I believe and is what I am.

I do not think that my heart will ever recover from such a catastrophic loss of something that is so dear to me.

But then, people lose loved ones every day, and hearts do go on beating.

Although I do not believe that most traditional Episcopalians would make *my* choice of a future church home, should the Anglican Communion fracture, I also do not believe that most will choose an alternate Anglican entity. I believe that in the event of an Anglican Communion fracture, the departures will mirror the trend already seen.

The only positive thing I can see out of this is that I am a person -- along with many many others in the Episcopal church -- whose "back is against the wall". And that yields either passivity or action. I have chosen the latter, and many others have too.


3) Rowan Williams does not need an "excuse" or reason not to act. He is already inclined not to act, and could any day, week, or month -- based on nothing more than "the Spirit telling him so" -- issue a press release saying how thankful he is that the Windsor Process has been a wonderful success and that things are moving along smoothly and that he is pleased that so much reconciliation and re-focusing on mission and ministry is occurring all over the communion. [On a side note, the Camp Allen statement did not "step back" from anything, any more than the Global South Kigali statement "stepped back" from the Global South Egypt statement when it did not repeat certain thoughts and statements. But regardless of its not stepping back, no matter what the Camp Allen statement said or did not say, Rowan may or may not use whatever it did say to do what he plans to do anyway, so it is a moot point.] Furthermore, as I have said before, the existence of two provinces within the US, both in communion with Canterbury, will in my opinion create further inertia, not less, for Rowan Williams.

If Rowan were to issue such a communication, of course, some of the Global South primates might perhaps announce that they are not coming to Lambeth, and Rowan Williams could kindly say that he still considers them "brothers in the glorious gospel of Christ", and that would be it. [Note: please understand that I do not believe that Rowan Williams would issue such a communication. Why? Because it is decisive and therefore an action, which would precipitate action by others, rather than the sought-for delay of action.]

Here it is clear that my essential pessimism about Rowan Williams runs very counter to Matt Kennedy's optimism. Matt believes that Rowan is inclined to act to discipline ECUSA. I believe that Rowan is desperate for further delay and that delay was the focus, endpoint, and modus operandi from beginning to end, for the past three years. At the initial emergency Primates meeting, Rowan wanted to delay taking an action. At the ensuing ACC meetings, Rowan wanted to delay taking an action. At ensuing Primates meetings, Rowan wanted to delay taking an action, and brokered the Windsor Report. That bought more than a year of time while waiting on the report to be released. Then the Primates meeting to consider the Windsor Report bought another year of waiting for the General Convention and Canada's Synod to accept or decline. With the ECUSA's resounding decline of the Windsor Report's requests, Rowan now turns his eyes to the covenant, which buys another two years.

You get the drift -- delay is the point.

Of course, others within the communion continue to close off escape routes and narrow the options for both the communion as a whole and for the Archbishop of Canterbury in particular. But that's the political game, isn't it? One side narrowing options and revealing consequences for delay -- that's the shorthand for "pain" -- and the other side brokering delay.

None of this is particularly profound or new -- it's a process that runs itself out in all organizations, whether "secular" or "sacred". Eventually, the consequences for one or both sides will reach the level of what I like to call "Shrieking Pain". And it is at the level of "Shrieking Pain" that one or both sides will finally act within the Communion.

We may decry all of this. But let's face it -- individuals also almost always only respond to the "Shrieking Pain" level when the moment arrives for change. It's just the way life is, and those of us caught within all of this need to take the gift of time that God has offered us and use it well and faithfully.


4) There is a general denial of consequences on all sides within and without ECUSA.

I have noticed this for three years, and the trend continues unrelentingly. Orthodox ECUSA rectors announce that their parishes are "growing in mission and ministry" and urge their parishioners to "focus on the gospel" and "not be concerned about national issues"; in effect -- become more of a congregationalist. They do this in order to deny the clear consequences of what is happening within ECUSA. Certain other clergy and laity decry anything that sounds "pessimistic" since that might cause more parishes and laypeople to leave.

Revisionist ECUSA rectors tell their parishioners that "the reason why the treasurer resigned is because he did not like the change in Sunday morning service times", despite the rector receiving a letter clearly detailing why the treasurer [or senior warden or junior warden or head of the Altar Guild] is leaving. They do this in order to deny the clear consequences of what is happening within ECUSA. Revisionist bishops write letters to their parishes telling them that since diocesan giving has dried up due to the poor economy or "decreased giving to non-profits", a new "double tithe" will now be instituted to "improve the mission and ministry of the diocese". They do this in order to deny the clear consequences of what is happening within ECUSA.

Orthodox bishops announce that parishioners should "stop reading blogs". They do this in order to deny the clear consequences of what is happening within ECUSA.

Raving revisionist leaders decry the bigots and homophobes and fundamentalists that have suddenly popped up within ECUSA, no doubt funded by the IRD. They do this in order to deny the clear consequences of what is happening within ECUSA.

In the meantime, other bishops cheerily announce that they are still totally engaged and connected with Global South provinces -- there has been no chilling of relations. Or if there has been that is only because of the hateful Archbishop Akinola, and the laity still love us all. Or if the laity do not -- then the women do. In fact, there is this new "Anglican Women" group fostered by Phoebe Griswold that proves it. They do this in order to deny the clear consequences of what is happening within the Anglican Communion.

In the meantime, clergy and parishes and laypeople who have left ECUSA announce that they are "still in the Anglican Communion". Or they announce that even if they are out of the Anglican Communion "it doesn't matter, since we have an Anglican Communion primate". Or "it doesn't matter, since any day now a new province will be formed that allows us to be in the Anglican Communion no matter what". Or . . . "really all of this stuff that looks like fragmentation of the Anglican witness is actually the orthodox uniting, and we are all really unified even though it looks as if we are becoming more balkanized". Or "our leaving will force the Archbishop of Canterbury to act to discipline ECUSA and acknowledge our group, after the fact, even if Canterbury did not do so a mere seven years ago for the AMiA." They do this in order to deny the clear consequences of what is happening within the Anglican Communion.

In the meantime, laypeople who have not left ECUSA wish to continue under the happy illusion that "really only a few bad apples in ECUSA are making it look so bad" and that, given enough time, "ECUSA will be reformed". Or . . . "by virtue of our being in communion with the ABC, we are still in communion with provinces of the Global South". Or "we are in a Network diocese, so all is well."

One of the classic trends that I continue to notice, as we all struggle to deny the *consequences* of whatever painful actions that we are taking, is the cheery translocation into the present time the hopes of the future.

If someday we *hope* for ECUSA to be reformed -- then it has already happened. If someday we *hope* for a new province in the US that is in communion with Canterbury, then it has already happened. If someday we *hope* that Canterbury will discipline ECUSA, then it has already happened. If someday we *hope* for Anglican splinter groups to be united, then it has already happened. If someday we hope -- as a "Windsor wannabe" bishop -- that we will be invited to Lambeth, then it has already happened.

The reality is that things are bad. They are really really bad and any action that a layperson, clergyperson, or bishop makes in whatever part of Anglicaninsm that he or she resides is sad.

If an Episcopalian chooses to stay within ECUSA to work for reform of whatever entity he is working for . . . he is in a terribly heretical, corrupt, and depraved national church body that is a dreadful witness to pagans and seekers. Furthermore, many many individuals and parishes will leave, no matter how cheery the reforming Episcopalian may try to sound -- it is the natural consequence of a) individuals and parishes not enjoying constant battle and b) the terrible state of ECUSA which departing parishes and individuals do not wish to be a part of. If an Episcopalian chooses to leave ECUSA, even for very good and responsible and conscientious reasons, he has left a united, global body called the Anglican Communion and he has contributed to the decline of an international catholic witness and a further likelihood that that international witness will fracture. One commenter to the Camp Allen article, after announcing that he had left for the Methodist church, told us all to "produce a product" and he would "consider coming back". I think I hear the pain and frustration and anger that he rightly feels about losing something precious to him. But of course, are those who leave the Episcopal church and Anglicanism also people who would like whatever "product" is eventually developed -- and would they make good contributors to that "product" if they returned, since it was not really a worthy enough battle for them to engage in?

Both parties may say "oh you have to break a few eggs in order to make an omelet", in order to "do a new thing", but the choices are stark and terrifying and sad and consequential.

I desperately wish that all of us -- both revisionists and orthodox Episcopalians or Anglicans [whether within or without the communion] -- could cease living in a fantasyland of our own making and acknowledge the clear and striking and terrible consequences of our actions. It does no good to pretend that those consequences really don't exist, or that any moment now, all will be made well, or if you "hold your face right and look at the picture in a certain light and at a certain angle, it really is a pretty picture".

I don't know if he meant to or not, but Matt Kennedy's articles about the speeding husband in the new German car, with the pregnant wife and two children held hostage, are one of the most illustrative stories I have read about the consequences for actions that are facing all of us in the Anglican Communion. The speeding husband will wreck his new German car, and lose his wife and/or children, or lose his license and his wife, even if he does not wreck the car. The wife will be severely injured or die, along with her unborn child, if she stays, or she will leave her husband and abandon her two young children otherwise, perhaps never to be re-united again. And the two young children will lose either their health and lives, or their mother and unborn sibling.

None of the choices are happy choices. And the consequences for each choice are dreadfully, searingly painful. The denial of such consequences for such wrenching choices is a sign of mental illness and dysfunction and sin, and I wish we would all repent of that denial.



5) We all of us have competing hierarchies of values that influence our analysis of events. Those values include a) catholicity, b) unity, c) a global Anglican witness, d) theological reformation, e) evangelism of pagans and seekers, f) evangelism of certain segments of pagans in the US who are attracted to liturgical churches, g) evangelism of Episcopalians h) discipling of Christian believers, I) influence and reform of the culture j) protection of our own families, children in particular, k) protection of our individual parishes and weak or new Christians, l) not allowing the national church to capture property and use it as false advertising for their own non-Christian gospel, m) reform of existing church entities rather than starting anew, n) a horror of division, o) a horror of theological falsity, p) peace [remember that one commenter stated that he had found "peace" when he left ECUSA -- of course, leaving a battle and therefore "finding peace" is a bit different from "winning the peace"], and so on, and so on.

Each of us, interestingly, ranks all of these values, and many, many others on different rungs of the ladder. And any one of them can compete with any other of them. Some who leave ECUSA -- even if they were able to predict with certainty that they would never re-enter a reformed Anglican Communion again -- would still leave. Why? Because they value not being a part of a corrupt denomination more than they value the promised reformed Anglican Communion. Some who stay in ECUSA -- even if they were able to predict with certainty that the Anglican Communion would never discipline ECUSA -- would still stay. Why? Because they value the Communion more than they value being in a reformed denomination. [Note: this example does not include all reasons -- I am merely demonstrating simplistically how the hierarchy of values works sometimes.]

That is why, for instance, I do not believe that Matt Kennedy's analysis of the Camp Allen statement -- flawed though I believe it to be -- is somehow disloyal to the Network. Critique and analysis of perceived flaws in certain strategies and tactics is not disloyalty; it is simply analysis.

That analysis is based, it seems to me, on Matt's "ladder of values" which he has clearly and consistently articulated over the past two years. His analysis of the Camp Allen statement should not be a suprise to anyone, as it is *consistent* [if anyone at all has been listening] with his stated values and purposes and goals.

My bet is that there is not one Roistering Episcopal Adventurers on this blog who would arrange their ladder of values -- or rather "spiderweb" of values, to visualize it more authentically -- in the same way as another.



6) The national church entity known as ECUSA will not be saved. It will not be reformed, under any circumstances [other than evacuation and insertion of a new ECUSA which is not, strictly speaking "reform of ECUSA"].

Of course, whenever someone pronounces a death sentence there are always Christians who will say "Lazarus was resurrected, Ninevah repented, Nebuchadnezzar was converted."

And indeed, miracles do happen. God can breathe life into a body that is deader than stone. God can do the same to an institution. God can do anything that He desires to do.

But once someone begins speaking of miracles -- of fire raining down from heaven and consuming Elijah's sacrifice on the altar in front of the startled servants of Baal, for instance -- one has already admitted that a dramatic, miraculous event needs to occur and that the mere work of humans in time and space will not suffice.

In other words, when the physician enters the waiting room, pulls his mask down, and says to the waiting family "I'm sorry. We did everything that we could do. And he is gone" it is, of course, possible that God will enter the surgical suite and miraculously revive the dead person on the operating table.

But, I am sorry to say that it is unlikely.

And it would be a sign of mental illness for the family to insist that the body remain on the operating table, day after day, week after week, and month after month, waiting on the miracle.

This is where I disagree strongly with one commenter -- with whom I have agreed on other analyses -- when he stated, shockingly, to my mind: "Long-term, this I think gives a real chance for the renewal of the Episcopal Church. We all know what the demographics look like-- where the Gospel is preached, the church thrives; where theo-jargon is preached, the church withers away. We simply need a safe space to continue preaching the Gospel. God will take care of the rest. In time, ECUSA will likely look very different, if we committ ourselves seriously to theological study, mission, raising up young clergy and leadership, and evangelism."

This theory of "outgrowing the heretics" in ECUSA by focusing on our own parishes and dioceses, helping them to grow in the gospel, and then gradually taking over the Episcopal church from within is *precisely* the theory that was touted in writing and orally continuously over the past 30 years. Rectors and bishops would state "I'll just focus on growing my own vineyard in the gospel -- all we need is a safe space to grow".

That has been finally, stunningly, and overwhelmingly proven false. Over the past 30 years of "focusing on our vineyards", the available larger vineyard has gotten smaller and smaller and smaller. Rectors were weeded from their parishes and replaced by apostates. Dioceses were done the same way. And the space for "preaching the gospel" in the Episcopal church continues to shrink.

No -- there is no way that focusing on "preaching the gospel" will reform or renew ECUSA.

Furthermore, here I must turn a bitter and foreboding look at Matt Kennedy who, despite my repeated assertions over the past three years in writing and orally that I did not believe that ECUSA as a national entity would be saved or reformed, had the audacity to postulate that the reason why I did not think that the Camp Allen statement posed any real problems was because I thought that ECUSA could be saved.

I am simply amazed that Matt could state that with a straight face, after all the times that I have stated that I did not believe that ECUSA as a national entity could be saved. [I really am off Matt Kennedy for life -- I withdraw all of the kind things that I have said about him in the past -- I have declared him a mortal enemy for that statement. ; > )]

No -- what I have said and believe fervently is that it is possible to work within ECUSA [not save ECUSA, but *work within*] to salvage, restore, strengthen, and renew parishes and dioceses in preparation for the coming very difficult and challenging decisions that will confront us all, should ECUSA be disciplined. Even in the most revisionist of dioceses, it is possible to stand as a witness within that diocese [the best place for witness is inside an organization, which is why the prophets of Israel were so miserable sometimes], gather allies, grow as a person, and prepare for the future. Indeed, the time that it has taken in the international arena for processes to unfold has been truly God's gift to individuals, parishes, and dioceses which were not, in any way, prepared or strong enough three years ago to do much of anything. That has changed, in large part, and will continue to change, God willing, as the international processes work themselves out.

I need to distinguish again, very clearly, the difference between "working within ECUSA for the renewal of distinct territories that are to be found only with ECUSA" and "saving/reforming the national church". The former is very doable -- I see it happening every day, and receive those encouraging email reports constantly. The other is not doable.

I can see -- with Matt's aspersions about my mind and my consistency of argument -- that I will need to drive this point further into the ground than I have in the past.

So below I am listing just three reasons why ECUSA -- as a national church -- will not be saved, reformed, or "fixed". There are many more -- but here are just three. Please understand -- again -- that recognizing that ECUSA as a national church will not be saved or reformed does NOT mean that whole dioceses and parishes and groups of parishes will not be saved or reformed. It appears that many will be, thanks to the determined and calculated and hard-working efforts of many people, many of whom will never be known or acknowledged. The optimism that one commenter to my Camp Allen article states will be "dimmed" the more involved people get in church politics and the more they recognize the "trajectory of the denomination" has, in my case, been increased as I see how laypeople and clergy in parishes and dioceses, working together, can achieve enormous successes within small portions of the denomination. I say this even as I am well aware that the trajectory of the Episcopal church as a national whole is in steep and hurtling decline.

a) The president of the House of Deputies and the Presiding Bishop appoint most if not all of the positions of power and influence at the national level. These appointments are, in general, raving revisionists of stunningly heretical theology and practice. To put this into perspective, there are eighteen Standing Committees and Commissions in ECUSA, and 121 people appointed to those committees and commissions by the President of the House of Deputies alone this year.

Let us take, just as an example, the Executive Council of the Episcopal church -- the entity charged with essentially running the Episcopal church in between General Conventions.

There are 47 people listed on the roster of the Executive Council. Thinking very very generously, there are *perhaps* seven or eight people with traditional views on sexuality, the authority of scripture, and the saving uniqueness of Jesus.

This ratio is pretty much the way the remainder of the commissions and committees are on the national level -- unless worse, of course.

In part, this is our own fault -- most orthodox/traditional laypeople have declined participation on vestries, diocesan Standing Committees and councils, provincial committees, and on up the ladder for the past several decades. It is hardly surprising that, with the lack of representation on parish, diocesan, regional, and provincial entities by traditional Episcopalians, the revisionists are represented at the top level and the traditional Episcopalians nearly not at all. But more importantly, the revisionists at the topmost level of the church simply don't hang out with traditional Episcopalians. Nor do they wish to. And they certainly do not want them on national church boards, commissions, and committees.

This will not change.

b) Some might trill, optimistically, at this point, that all one needs to do is focus solely on the traditional dioceses growing their own numbers in gospel ministry and mission, send good delegates to the General Convention, and make certain to elect traditionally minded Presiding Bishops and Presidents of the House of Deputies in the coming decades.

;> )

Here is why that will NEVER happen.

Certainly, orthodox dioceses can grow in mission and ministry. And certainly it is true that orthodox dioceses and parishes are now paying attention to whom they elect to go to conventions, both diocesan and general.

But it matters not how large a traditional diocese will grow for this simple stark reason: the votes of the Diocese of Nevada will always be able to cancel out the votes of the Diocese of Texas.

Each diocese, no matter how teensy or humongous, gets eight deputies to General Convention. It is not a *representational* General Convention, like the House of Representatives, for instance, but more like the Senate, where each state gets the same number of senators, no matter the population.

No matter how large and flourishing and vital a diocese is -- the votes of their deputies will be neutralized by the deputies of the Diocese of Newark.

And since, in ECUSA, there are far far more dioceses now like the Diocese of Newark, we will not ever elect a traditional president of the House of Deputies or Presiding Bishop.

Not ever.

Hence, all the national entities -- the instruments of reform of a denomination -- will be owned by the revisionists, now and in the future.


c) As the years roll by -- and this has been true for the past nearly four decades -- individual reformers and representatives of the traditionally minded will leave ECUSA.

It has been true in the past. It will continue into the future. Many of those whom you are seeing and hearing from in ECUSA, standing up and pleading for reform, will not be here one year from now, five years from now, nor 10 years from now.

Some urge that if we steadily work for reform within ECUSA -- grow our parishes and orthodox dioceses -- that in a generation we will reform the national church.

But that prediction presupposes that the traditional leaders who are working and calling out now will be here forty years from now.

They will not be.

In fact, that is one of the signs of a declining organization or entity. When an organization cannot hold on to their great minds and leaders, it is in systemic decline. The slide down the mountain is irreversible -- barring, again, God performing a miracle along the lines of sending our revisionist leaders out into the fields as wild animals, to eat grass, and finally look up at the heavens and acknowledge the one true God, a la Nebuchadnezzar.

This is why, for instance, God asks Abraham to find leaders in the city of Sodom, in order to reveal his intentions toward Sodom. And certainly, within ECUSA, it has been one of the many signs of decline that the traditional leaders leave ECUSA. They will continue to do so, and the minority will continue to get smaller and smaller.

Certainly, many "moderates" and "passive Roistering Episcopal Adventurers" will be awakened. That has happened over the past three years, and also will continue to happen. But as they awaken, others will leave. It is the nature of the decline, and death spiral that ECUSA is experiencing.

Here I must insert a special word to those "moderates" and passive traditionalists who have accidentally stumbled onto this blog and are listening in on our conversations.

I am committed -- as I have stated over and over also -- to remaining within ECUSA as the Anglican Communion slowly determines what to do with us. I do not know what it will decide, though I think one way will lead to renewal for the Communion, and another way will lead to death. But I am inside ECUSA, and I will be inside ECUSA for the forseeable future, until such time as a way is made for the orthodox within the United States to remain within the Anglican Communion or until such time as the Anglican Communion fractures irretrievably. Some commenters have asked how long they should remain within ECUSA and I cannot answer for your conscience. But if your conscience and responsibilities allow for it, then I hope that you will continue working for reform and strengthening within your own parishes and dioceses as long as the international processes for discipline of ECUSA are playing themselves out. Of course, should the orthodox leaders within ECUSA determine that discipline of ECUSA is not going to occur and that the Anglican Communion will fracture, then new decisions will need to be made. But I do not think that they have determined that at all -- I get the sense that our leaders within ECUSA are encouraged about the Anglican Communion establishing order and boundaries within it.

But . . . if you are reading this blog and wondering when the right time is for you to "take an action" or "raise a hand" or connect with others of like mind, or whatever it is you are speculating on doing -- RIGHT NOW would be that right time.

You may be sitting back and watching and thinking "boy, I think like these StandFirm folks do [or ACI, or AAC, or ACN] -- thank God they are out here doing all the work that needs to be done, whatever that is -- when everything gets fixed it sure will be great -- thank goodness they're doing it because I sure wouldn't want to be in the thick of this mess".

If you are thinking that, you need to understand something crucial. It will not always be like this. Reformers come and reformers go. The pleasure that you are experiencing as others work will not last forever, as someday, you will look up and many will be disappearing into the mists ahead of you.

At that point -- that point when everything gets lined up just perfectly for you to maybe think about getting involved in reform efforts within your own parish or diocese -- you will wonder where all of those allies you have been counting on have gone.

There will never be a better time for you to act for reform and renewal within your parish or diocese then right now. Not ever.