Thursday, September 2, 2010

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Want to advertise on Stand Firm? Click here for rates and info

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

Monday, October 16, 2006 • 7:20 am

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.

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.



82 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

Sarah,

A wonderful if depressing description of the state(s) of the Communion.  The mostly painful, because it is the most personal, is the one touching on someone who leaves, but may return later of there is a satisfactory product.  One needs to take a realistic look at one’s own skills and aptitudes, the situation in which you find yourself, and the chances of doing nothing but spin your wheels.  For instance, I find myself in a non-ACN diocese with a retiring Windsor bishop.  Due to vigorous political machinations, he will either not be replaced soon due to another hung election, resulting in rule by a firmly Beloved Moderate Standing Committee, or his replacement will be a Beloved Moderate.  My own parish is a very traditional one which I can and have recommended, but it has a militantly Beloved Moderate vestry which would need to have all the primary members replaced to begin something as honest as a simple education program or a parish meeting to discuss the situation.  Because they have been successful in building the church, both people and building, this will not be a high priority with the Beloved Moderate members.  The stated policy of the traditional Beloved Moderates, in private, is to keep on being traditional, and wait for the dust to settle resulting in an Enduring ECUSA, to use +Duncan’s phrase, to be handed to them.  Property intact, of course.

The real question is, can I make a bigger impact staying where I am, or elsewhere?  Over the time scale we are looking at, there is little I can do which would be effective as is.  We can’t all be Sarahs or Matts or Brads.  Working up the influence ladder, especially with people who don’t wish to be influenced that way, is slow and uncertain.  Moving to an ACN parish would make a statement, albeit negligible, but would at least put me in contact with people who are involved and with whom I could work with rather than around.  But ultimately, would it really matter?  Maybe.  Right now, it is looking more likely that a new structure will form from a nucleus completely outside TEC, with ACN and others joining it. 

It is an imperfect analogy, but I am reminded of the old military aviation truism.  You stay with a sick airplane as long as there is a chance of recovering it safely.  However, when that becomes unlikely, it is better to eject and give it back to the taxpayers, rather than ride it into the ground.  That way, at least you survive to fly and fight another day.  By early November, some things will be falling into place.  The future of diocese will be clear, or at least less murky.  Whatever questions there have been about ++Griswold, we will unambiguously have a new PB who is explicitly a neo-pagan, or a liturgical Unitarian, if you wish.  By then, it will be clearer, and more urgent, to decide whether to hit the road, or hit the silk.

[1] Posted by APB on 10-16-2006 at 08:55 AM • top

Wow.  That’s a lot and deep.  Thanks for offering it and your transparency in doing so.  None of us should have been a passive observer to begin with.  There will come a time when even the freedom of this type of communication will be removed from us.

We (the L2) are working on our piece of action.  We currently belong to a “network” diocese under a Windsor bishop.  But have been under Swing and in Little Rock.  We’ve seen the current future and it’s never been of our choosing.  When we were in one not-to-be-named dicoese, the priest told us we didn’t have to worry about THAT here.  And never did they, nor do most even know what’s going on.  I know more that my priest even now. 

My problem is that our circumstances (B is a quadriplegic and J-me is the sole caregiver) limit what we can do.  So, Sarah, Matt, Greg and whoever - what can us little people do?  How do we help turn the tide, even when we face inertia in dioceses that know better?

[2] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 10-16-2006 at 09:10 AM • top

L2,

Many years ago, I was confirmed at All Saints’ in Lakeland.  It was a wonderful place at the time, but then the whole Church was.  As someone who has also been a caregiver, my heart and prayers go out to you both.

Alan

[3] Posted by APB on 10-16-2006 at 09:28 AM • top

I remain an Episcopalian at large, wandering among various church experiences, deriving inspiration from each.  In a blog posting, I have pointed out that the seven or eight dissenting U.S. bishops emphasize that they consider themselves still members of both the Anglican Communion and The (Protestant) Episcopal Church of the U.S.A.  “I mean to fight it out on this line, if it takes all summer,” said U.S. Grant.  It took a year, but he never gave up.  Neither should we.

[4] Posted by profpk on 10-16-2006 at 09:47 AM • top

<b>Good, the Bad and the Ugly <b>
<b>Good <b>–Overall, an excellent analysis.  Specific points:

“—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”. 

Amen! I am particularly amazed at those joining PCUSA. The Methodists are heading in the same direction, albeit slower, and at some point in the next few years its Confessing Movement will have to make some serious decisions.  Same with the Lutherans. Why would anyone voluntarily put themselves in this same position twice?

“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.”

Agreed!. But that doesn’t mean that it didn’t make sense to push him toward a decision (see “Bad” below).

““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.

Right on. Go to the web sites of the larger so called moderate or orthodox parishes in your Diocese and you will see these statements. It’s the “feel good” statement for those in a state of denial.

“I [do] not believe that ECUSA as a national entity will be saved or reformed…”

Agreed. I wonder if anyone really believes it can be reformed anymore.
<b>Bad<b>

“I should note, though, that I have not changed my opinion about the Camp Allen statement.”

Earlier, you said that the AOC’s main goal is to delay. A powerful CA statement would have made it more difficult for him to do so. As Matt pointed out, it was a lost opportunity.

“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.”

Don’t speak too soon! Over time, your church may impact your theology, precisely because you are the type of person that commits your heart to whatever church you are in. All the more reason to consider one of the pseudo Anglican parishes you decry:>
<b>Ugly<b>

“In the meantime, clergy and parishes and laypeople who have left ECUSA announce that they are “still in the Anglican Communion. They do this in order to deny the clear consequences of what is happening within the Anglican Communion.”

Why do you say that? These congregations, which have given up millions in assets (or paid millions in ransom), endured broken personal relationships and, in many cases, endured the indignity (for an Episcopalian:>) of worshiping in uncomfortable folding chairs well know “what is happening in the Anglican Communion.” While you disagree that they can legally call themselves members of the Anglican Communion they are doing so with some giants in the Communion, such as Akinola++, Orombi++ and Venable++. I don’t want to restart a legal argument about national provinces, etc., but to suggest they are making the claim out of a sense of denial is wrong and demeans their sacrifice.

“But the vast majority [of departures from ECUSA] have gone to other non-Anglican entities—and that trend will continue, I believe.”

Perhaps Gallup or Barna organizations should give up the scientific polling method and simply count the emails in your inbox! :> Of those leaving due to the lack of orthodoxy, have you added up the congregations that have left as a whole, including Plano, Overland Park, Tallahassee, Birmingham, Montgomery, Atlanta, Raleigh (fill in the blank further in a few weeks?  Plano itself is larger than the Diocese of Nevada, and it certainly went to another Anglican entity. Should we get each of its members to send you an email to change the outcome of your poll?:> I suspect that the congregations that have left have strong internal leadership and are much less likely to be peppering these sites, or your email address, with anguish or pleas for help.
Your repeated assertions that the new Anglican churches arent winning the battle for the hearts and minds of departing Episcopalians reminds me of a Colt fan claiming before Super Bowl III that the AFL jets didn’t deserve to be on the same field with an NFL Colts. 
But overall, great column.

[5] Posted by Going Home on 10-16-2006 at 12:57 PM • top

Timothy,

RE: “Earlier, you said that the AOC’s main goal is to delay. A powerful CA statement would have made it more difficult for him to do so. As Matt pointed out, it was a lost opportunity.”

Sure—and a statement by 19 Global South Primates that they will be leaving the Anglican Communion at the end of November if the ABC has not disciplined ECUSA would have pushed the ABC as well . . . but for some strange reason, no one is bleating about it being a “lost opportunity”.  ; > )

Re: “Don’t speak too soon!”

It has taken me three years to examine closely and to decide where I will go in the event of an Anglican Communion fracture.  I am unlikely to change my mind about that.

Re: “. . . to suggest they are making the claim [that parishes are members of the Anglican Communion when they leave ECUSA] out of a sense of denial is wrong and demeans their sacrifice.”

It in no way “demeans their sacrifice” to tell the truth.  What I said was baldly factual, and acknowledges their sacrifice, as for many, it was extremely painful to decide to leave the Anglican Communion.  To tell the truth is not demeaning, it is merely truthful. 

Re: “Of those leaving due to the lack of orthodoxy, have you added up the congregations that have left as a whole, including Plano, Overland Park, Tallahassee, Birmingham, Montgomery, Atlanta, Raleigh (fill in the blank further in a few weeks?”

Yes, Timothy. I did.  And those who have left for other non-Anglican denominations overwhelm those numbers. 

RE: “Your repeated assertions that the new Anglican churches arent winning the battle for the hearts and minds of departing Episcopalians . . . “

Obviously, they are winning the battle for some hearts and minds, but I do not believe most.  You are, of course, welcome to believe otherwise.

But if you were to come to believe that most people leaving ECUSA are in fact leaving for other non-Anglican entities, Timothy, what would that mean for you?  I made a statement about what I believe to be true, and in the absence of polling data from Barna can only state what I have observed anecdotally and what I *know* about me and my choices for the future.  So why so defensive?  I merely state what I personally have observed and experience.

[6] Posted by Sarah on 10-16-2006 at 01:40 PM • top

Good stuff.  I’m certainly with you in the ‘in, but not of’ argument regarding ECUSA/ACC membership.  What informs me in all this has always been this:

http://theagetocome.wordpress.com/2006/09/13/ichabod/

How that works out is going to be a little different for each person…..

[7] Posted by Peter on 10-16-2006 at 01:41 PM • top

Sarah -
Thank you. This spoke to me directly as I have been struggling the past few months on what I should do inside my othodox church (in a reappraising diocese). As one who *hates* confrontation, I have reached the point (and this article confirms it—praying for discernment leads one to some interesting places!) where I realize that saying little or nothing is no longer an option. Thinking through what I should do and who I should talk to is nerve-wracking for me, but your thoughts have helped me work through what my actions should be.


And, because I have children to consider, depending on the answer over the next few months, we may have to leave for a new Anglican plant in our area.

[8] Posted by Branford on 10-16-2006 at 01:49 PM • top

Thank you, Sarah.  Another fine essay.  I appreciate your statements about hierarchy of values.  I think this is an important piece in the differences among the orthodox, and I would guess any group.  As far as the discipline of ecusa goes, it will soon be who cares time when ecusa has been formally recognized by those who matter to have walked apart.  I am not optimistic that Rowan wants to admit this, but there will come a point when he will either have to acknowledge that ecusa has separated herself from the body or his leadership will be sidelined.

[9] Posted by Tony on 10-16-2006 at 02:30 PM • top

Sarah,
1. Where are the people going (other than your inbox)?
By my quick count if you add up the membership of just the larger of the new Anglican churches (admittedly, not centrally reported, audited numbers) your get in excess of 10,000 former TEC members. If you add the smaller parishes that have been formed since GC2003 I guess AMIA you can probally double that number.  You have information of more than 20,000 people that have left for matters of orthodoxy over the last two years and have gone to other denominations? In any event, perhaps the best comparison is to look at where people went in those communities where there was a viable Anglican alternative. 
2. Anglican Communion Good Housekeeping Seal- “What I said was baldly factual…to tell the truth is not demeaning, it is merely truthful.   But Sarah, you didn’t simply make a factual statement, you ascribed a motive to the departing Anglican parishes claim of AC membership “They do this in order to deny…”  I contend the parishes are doing this because, along with their GS Bishops and Archbishops they believe it to be true. I also join those Archbishops that proclaim these parishes to be part of their Provinces and, through such Provinces, a member of the AC.  And I am certain that the Bishops in charge of these US parishes (with the possible exception of Minns and the AMIA parishes++) will be invited to Lambeth. Whether they choose to attend is, of course, is a whole other ball of wax, which may depend on what happens in Feb.

[10] Posted by Going Home on 10-16-2006 at 03:23 PM • top

Sarah, forgot to answer what it would mean to me if I were to come to believe that most people leaving ECUSA are in fact leaving for other non-Anglican entities.  If they were going to growing, solidly orthodox denominations or congregational churches I would not be worried, in fact I am happy for them.  If they are going to a so-called mainline denomination,  I would be worried.  I would also be worried if they are going to small splinter parishes that are unlikely to address the needs of modern family.
The reason I am concern over the possible loss of an orthodox Anglican presence in the US is because I believe the Anglican church can attract and disciple a segment of our society that might not otherwise develop a deep relationship with our Lord.  I am not at all concerned about other faithful churches filling the void.

[11] Posted by Going Home on 10-16-2006 at 03:38 PM • top

Re: “But Sarah, you didn’t simply make a factual statement, you ascribed a motive . . “

Yes, I did.  Sort of like the motives I ascribed to all the other statements and actions that I listed in that same section.  ; > )

Re: Where are they all going?

Good question.  The common trend that I have noticed all over the US is . . . *large churches with already established programs for youth*.  The denominations that most predominate seem to be 1) non-denominational, contemporary churches [shockingly], 2) PCA, 3) Rome.

In other words, as others have predicted, people deal with the staggering loss of ecclesial discipline in Anglicanism by either 1) adding more hierarchical authority [ROME] or 2) going more congregational.

It’s been a surprise to me—fascinating stuff.

[12] Posted by Sarah on 10-16-2006 at 04:01 PM • top

Thanks Tony, for the kind words.  I am certainly eager to be made optimistic about the Archbishop of Canterbury!  ; > )

But even Matt has not been able to convince me yet . . .

[13] Posted by Sarah on 10-16-2006 at 04:06 PM • top

APB,

I am curious about something that you say: “My own parish is a very traditional one which I can and have recommended, but it has a militantly Beloved Moderate vestry which would need to have all the primary members replaced . . . “

So . . . why not replace them via elections.  ; > )


Curiously,

Sarah

[14] Posted by Sarah on 10-16-2006 at 04:08 PM • top

Dear The Lakeland Two,

First, my hat is off to you that you are interested in being involved, particularly given your challenging situations.  All of us are troubled by our own difficult circumstances—thank you for being so open about what must be challenging.  Blessings to you!

As to what you can do . . . it sounds to me as if you both may spend a lot of time at home [but maybe not].

Why not establish an email newsletter for fellow Episcopalians, first in your parish, then spreading out in your diocese?  You would be shocked at how much people who don’t spend time surfing the web come to rely on the bits of news that people forward them.  And the “forwarding” rate of such emails is quite high—often 3 to 1.  Sometimes much more . . .

I cover in this article here on Strategery 101 how to connect with and meet with those of like mind in your diocese:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/1125/

A number of these ideas may suit your schedule and circumstances . . .

Here are links to the whole series—though I’m working on another addition:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/1185/

[15] Posted by Sarah on 10-16-2006 at 04:15 PM • top

Sarah,  I watched my parents, with 10 other people, leave their ECUSA church 20 years ago and found a new “Anglican” church….not officially recognized I guess, but the Truth was preached there.  That church, which I dubbed, “St. Mary’s of the Folding Chairs,” quickly grew and in a few years they had a much larger congregation and a beautiful new sanctuary (with lovely pews).  It is a great church, and has since come under the Anglican Province of America, which about a year ago joined in covenant with the REC and the Church of Nigeria.

I remain in my (new) AAC/ACN church, which is on its own in a big city in a big (non-orthodox) ECUSA diocses.  I used to be very upset about all this, but after much prayer, the Lord has removed my fear and I am waiting with great anticipation to see what will come next and where He wants me (and my family) to be.  The fact is, that at age 47, this mess has taken up the great majority of my life, and it will only be in the middle of my life and maybe the end, that I will be able to be a part of the birth of a stronger communion…..It’s coming…...Look at what the Lord is doing in Africa and other parts of the Global South.  It is hard for us as Americans to see others taking the lead, I guess….but perhaps a good experience for us as Christians to be in submission to the Lord and perhaps under the leadership of those we have always seen as followers and not necessarily leaders.

My mother now lives in your city, her hometown, and because she cannot drive, went with a friend to your church for the first year or so she was back…This is her former church from many years ago.  She said the focus of her friends, as “conservative” as they may be, is more on bricks and mortar than theology…..just as my old church was.  That is discouraging…especially when it is a beautiful, big church, full of lovely people.  Keep the faith, Sister Sarah!  (PS.  My mom said everyone she knows at that church LOVES you…..“She is SO SMART!!!”  I agree!!)

[16] Posted by Liz Forman on 10-16-2006 at 04:55 PM • top

Thank you for the great report, Liz.  I’m not sure that everyone at my church loves me, though . . . ; > )

But I guess that’s okay.

Although the APA is not recognized as a part of the Anglican Communion, I need to say that that does not make them any less Anglican.  Plus, neither the APA nor the REC makes those claims, and probably wouldn’t want to be anyway!!!  Still, the APA and REC are making great strides—it seems to this outsider—in dealing with their own internal challenges.  And certainly no member of ECUSA can feel smug about anyone else, considering our own mess!!!

[17] Posted by Sarah on 10-16-2006 at 05:08 PM • top

Liz, Thanks for your testimony of your journey. I think there is an huge portion of the Anglican Communion that could be a comfortable home for APA and REC if the Holy Spirit wills it. Certainly ECUSA is not presently part of that comfort zone (duh). I pray this turmoil will produce a new definition of the catholic and faithful branch known as Anglican. I even have hopes that that Anglican branch could eventually reunite with the Roman and Orthodox branches - probably not in my time but maybe for my great-grandchilden (that I eagerly hope for soon).

[18] Posted by Gulfstream on 10-16-2006 at 05:20 PM • top

It’s funny…..but Anglican really means little more to be than based out of England at this point.  You could almost call it the English Communion I suppose.  I think we are going to see the Christian Communion be born out of all this, and I am taking my vitamins and exercising so I can stay in good health and be a part of that.  I want my children, grandchildren and so on to have Common Prayer, a Liturgical Worship format…and most of all, personal (scriptural) relationship with their Savior.

Having said that, the Lord has given you, Greg, Matt, Kendall, et al, a much bigger job than I have at this point…and it is discouraging sometimes, I know….but the Joy of the Lord is our strength, and what I joy getting to “know” all of you through the internet !!

[19] Posted by Liz Forman on 10-16-2006 at 05:21 PM • top

Oops!  Typo!  “little more to me than…..”  Should be “me” and not “be.”  wink

[20] Posted by Liz Forman on 10-16-2006 at 05:22 PM • top

Sarah: Nice analysis of ECUSA/TEC and explanation of your perspective.

One rabbit trail - certainly not essential to your main point - concerns whether the AMiA, in particular, is among those who expect certain individuals/parishes from TEC to join them. 

I attended the last AMiA winter conference last year and was a bit surprised that the focus was on the disconnected/unchurched without reference to ECUSA.  This focus was so strong that I noticed one distressed priest from TEC who was quite concerned that he would not be welcomed / received into the AMiA.

This is not to say that there are not groups out there that do expect what you have described.

Good job!

[21] Posted by tired on 10-16-2006 at 05:32 PM • top

Sarah,

“Why not replace them with elections?”  Good question.  First, there is a nominating committee which consists of, well, you can guess who!  However, getting to run really isn’t the problem.  The real reason is that while the parish is traditional, the traditionalists are mostly Beloved Moderates.  To quote a wise theologian, “Beloved Moderates will, in general, depart under no circumstances at all.”  Given that they are ok, for now, and have already perhaps moved from a revisionist parish, they are not interrested in change.  Hence the head in the sand approach which pervades everything. 

APB

[22] Posted by APB on 10-16-2006 at 05:41 PM • top

Sarah,

Thanks for the info.  My next stop is the links.  Yes, we are at home almost always.  Currently B’s immune system is very challenged so we don’t get to church very often.  You’ve given us some ideas. 

I’ve felt for years that discussing this should have been done at church…if not in announcements, then an after-service info meeting.  But it has seemed in recent years - let’s not talk about it and it will go away.  One of the reasons I’ve been hitting various sites is that I WANT to know and not be ignorant.  I realize I’m a babe (even at 49!!) and am sitting at the feet of some giants - even if y’all don’t think you are. 

But what I want is what God wants.  And one of our contributions is praying for all of you who are visible, and those not so.  Praying for the Windsor Bishops, and even the other ones.  That God’s voice will be the loudest and not one of His sheep is lost.  Matt’s story about the German car really does point it out.  I’ve felt for so long as the wife.  This whole mess has torn my heart.

I’ve been in great churches that glorify God, have great teaching and worship.  Two of them in this diocese have left.  I’ve seen and KNOW how great our worship of God can be.  Watching it being ripped up and apart is so awful.  But not being able to do anything feels even worse.

To APB:  Not a member of All Saint’s, though I plan on a drop-in some day in the future.  Fr. Jenkins sounds Windsor

To all, thanks for your prayers.  Being in our situation is hard.  But God uses us to reach many people because of our situation - especially in the medical field.  I’ve been told multiple times that we are a powerful witness for God and marriages because of our walk.  I’ve been told several times to divorce B and “get on with my life”.  When we got married, we meant our vows and decided divorce would not be an option.  We chose and never looked back. 

Then I’m asked where we go to church.  That’s not too hard until I get to the “Episcopal” part.  So you can see where I’m coming from!!!!!!

Keep the faith and know that each of you is bringing light into darkness.  We may not all agree on every point, but I think it’s healthy that we are examining ourselves and our church.

[23] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 10-16-2006 at 07:06 PM • top

Well, let me tell you about an election that had nothing to do with any of this.. Just a power grab by the senior Warden (for his own reasons I guess).. I was nominated for membership on the vestry, and no one seemed to object.  I also found a candidate that would make a great candidate.  I sought the advice of the Priest, he was delighted,and approved, I asked the person if he would accept, he agreed (and was indeed honored), and turned the name in to the committee.

At the congregational meeting, the names of candidates was read, but this person was not named.  Since there could be nominations from the floor, I asked about my candidate.. Oh, said the Sr. Warden, yes there’s XXXXX. I knew he had not forgotten, just tried to pull a fast one. So finally my candidate was included, and he and I got the majority of the votes. 
A month later, the Sr. Warden resigned (probably a good thing, now that I think about it), but he had been pushing a candidate , and had tried to rig the election so that there were only TWO nominations for two seats. I don’t guess he ever forgave me.

This long story has nothing to to with reappraiser/reasserter issues, but indeed is indicative of how difficult it is to get good people elected when someone in “power’ wants it otherwise.

Blessings,
Grannie Gloria

[24] Posted by Grandmother on 10-16-2006 at 07:08 PM • top

Answer to tired:
I am part of an AMIA church begun by former Episcopalians who left their former churches because of the increasing apostasy of ECUSA. We now have members from 12 of the 13 Episcopal churches in the city. We also have members who are ex-Roman Catholics, ex-Presbyterians, and ex-Adventists. I myself am an ex-Baptist. We came to Anglicanism, rather than fleeing it. I did not get to attend Winter Conference but I can tell you that the focus you noted was consciously intended to avoid having the AMIA get bogged down in the continuing disintegration of ECUSA. We are a mission, not just a fragment of ECUSA. We want to move on and not be mesmerized by its death throes. Sarah is right-it is dying and there is absolutely no chance of saving it. Therefore, we say “Let it go” and are moving on. Having said that, I can assure you that we welcome all the Episcopal refugees we can get! We need strong, experienced believers. Most of the AMIA churches were either started by or have many former Episcopal members. Your priest need not be distressed, he would be welcome. We are growing so fast that we need good priests badly. Actually, I remember hearing that the AMIA’s credentialing department is backed up with applications from former Episcopal priests. We are working as fast as we can! It takes time, as, with so many apostate Episcopal clergy wandering around, we have to insure that the clergy we accept are in fact orthodox. We do not want to repeat the mistakes that have destroyed ECUSA.

A general comment.
The AMIA is a mission of and under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Rwanda. Unles the Rwandan Church has suddenly been thrown out of the communion, I do not see how you can say that we are not part of the Anglican Communion? We do not deny that the Communion is in grave danger, we hope to be at least a part of the remedy.
The communion may well split. It certainly cannot continue as a house divided. In that event, everyone, Worthy Opponents, Beloved Moderates and Roistering Episcopal Adventurers, will have to decide where they will stand. Yes, many will go elsewhere, I think more out of sheer disgust than anything-and will find the same battle they left raging in their new place. The continual delay, delay, delay is a prime cause of this falling away. It would appear, however, that the delay may be drawing to a close. The conservative Global South primates are finally pushing the Archbishop of Canterbury into a position where he will have to act, like it or not. It should not be too hard to figure out what he will eventually do-he will go the way that keeps as much of the communion together as possible, rather than be pushed aside as an irrelevancy, even though it will probably split the Church of England, even though it may stick in his throat to do it. He will, of course, drag his heels as long as possible, but I do not think he will be able to do so much longer. The communion will eventually purge itself of apostasy, even though it may leave behind a fragment that calls itself Anglican, though it is not. ECUSA will be expelled, and eventually (maybe sooner than anyone thinks) a new Anglican province in the US will be born to replace it. I believe most of the orthodox fragments will eventually unite in it, once it is officially recognised as part of the communion. Certainly, the fragments that have come under the authority of other Anglican primates will do so. A leaner but stronger Anglican Communion will emerge from all this, but it will wear a different look than its previous one. It will be no longer dominated by the English church, but become a truly world-wide communion.
God will, once again, bring good out of evil.

cannyscot

[25] Posted by cannyscot on 10-16-2006 at 07:41 PM • top

Hi Cannyscot,

When the AMiA was formed, the then Archbishop of Canterbury did not recognize the new bishops as bishops of the Anglican Communion.  Recognition by Canterbury is integral to the current definition of the Anglican Communion, though certainly some would like for that to change.  I believe that the ABC did not recognize those bishops because he was still functioning under the Lambeth resolutions [1988, 1998] that state that there will—typically—only be one representative entity within a geographic region that is recognized as a member entity of the Anglican Communion.  That entity within the US is ECUSA.

Here are the two communications from the ABC—2000, 2001—that refer to all of this:
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/carey/releases/000217.htm
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/carey/releases/010619.htm

I suppose if those bishops are invited to Lambeth as participant bishops, then we will know that the current ABC has changed the policy.

It should be noted that most people in AMiA care not a whit about any of this!  ; > )

[26] Posted by Sarah on 10-16-2006 at 08:47 PM • top

Your point #2 is the best argument for a split now rather than later and the rational behind our “Worthy Opponent’s” desire for more dialogue (read delay).  If we “dialogue” much longer there will be too few left to depart in the critical mass required to survive as a church entity.  I think that is why ++Duncan and ++Iker are done with meetings and ready for action.

[27] Posted by Edwin on 10-16-2006 at 09:32 PM • top

Sarah,

Doesn’t your understanding of being “in” communion with Canterbury conflict with the implicit assumption of dromantine: that cross jurisdictional relationships are permitted so long as they are initiated by a parish? The ABC himself was party to this decision which, at the very least, challenges the idea that there can ONLY be one episcopal authority per area. Our current circumstances may, in fact, not be ideal, but the parishes involved in the sort of cross border relationships between parishes and provinces permitted by Dromantine do have communion standing. Unless, you too would like to ignore the DC?

[28] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 10-17-2006 at 02:43 AM • top

I realize this is mildly off topic, however my husband has repeatedly asked about the English bishops refusing to educate/consecrate the priests after the revolution in America.  He and I are interested in understanding the parallel and divergent paths in regard to modern interpretations of consecrations (legal episcopate) and the Anglican communion.  Is there a parallel here?

Thanks,
Elizabeth

[29] Posted by returned on 10-17-2006 at 05:06 AM • top

Re: “Sarah,

Doesn’t your understanding of being “in” communion with Canterbury conflict with the implicit assumption of dromantine: that cross jurisdictional relationships are permitted so long as they are initiated by a parish?”


No.

Dromantine states that bishops *will* move into other regions, if asked.  It says precisely zero about whether such non-geographic relationships mean that parishes or regions are in communion with Canterbury.  Creating such relationships will not force the ABC’s hand in creating another province, Matt, as much as people would like for it to do.  Which is why, of course, people would like the Kigali statement to be implemented—so that such a province may be created.

Unless you, too, would like to be in denial about consequences of actions.  ; > )

[30] Posted by Sarah on 10-17-2006 at 06:15 AM • top

Dromantine states that bishops *will* move into other regions, if asked.  It says precisely zero about whether such non-geographic relationships mean that parishes or regions are in communion with Canterbury.”

So, the ABC’s signed recognition of such relationships and at the very least, his refusal to delegitimize them, means nothing with regard to their communion status?

Do you at least recognise that he has decidedly NOT done what ++Carey did with regard to the AMiA consecrations. ++Carey went out of his way to delegitimize them.

The ABC has at least tacitly approved the relationships currently enjoyed by those parishes in the 7th.

Do you see any difference between the two cases with regard to communion status? and if so, would you be willing to articultate that difference?

I would argue the opposite.

[31] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 10-17-2006 at 07:20 AM • top

Matt,

I believe just what I have stated in my article above and what I have stated for the past years.  I know that you would argue—and have argued—the opposite; remember, neither of our analyses or articles should be at all surprising, they are rather predictable based on the six themes above.

I continue to believe that no amount of creating the entity that you would like and then after the fact manipulating/demanding/pretending/guilttripping/forcing-the-hand-of/various-other-contortions will actually get what you want—a new province in the US, recognized by Canterbury.

There may end up being a new province in the US, recognized by Canterbury.  But it hasn’t happened yet, though certainly people are free to pretend otherwise.

I find it interesting that, so far, my article describes exactly what has happened on a few instances in the comment thread.

It is sad.

I will not change my mind about this.

[32] Posted by Sarah on 10-17-2006 at 07:40 AM • top

Not trying to change your mind. Would never think to do such a thing…I am trying to find out whether you see any degree of difference between the two situations I described above. If you do not (which seems to be the implication of your reply) I think perhaps you may have slipped the pretending shoes onto the wrong set of feet.

[33] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 10-17-2006 at 07:57 AM • top

Matt,

So far, I have not noticed the 7th Convocation of the Network attempt to consecrate any bishops.  So the two situations are not comparable.

The only consecration has been the CANA bishop consecration.  I suppose we’ll have to wait and see if Bishop Minns is seated at Lambeth as a participant.

[34] Posted by Sarah on 10-17-2006 at 08:05 AM • top

Well, no, the 7th is not the AMiA. But the question was, given the ABC’s tacit permission for relationships like those charactarizing 7th convocation parishes, do you see a distinction in communion standing between the two?

I suppose you will say (because you have said it before) that the test will be when/if the Network makes a similar move: ie consecrates a bishop.

True, but irrelevant. That has not happened. What has happened is that the ABC has allowed for standing cross jurisdictional relationships between parishes and provinces.

That seems a pretty good case (with no pretending) for the current communion legitimacy of 7th convocation parishes.

[35] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 10-17-2006 at 08:15 AM • top

Re: “That seems a pretty good case (with no pretending) for the current communion legitimacy of 7th convocation parishes.”

That’s cool, Matt—that means, then, that it is terribly strange that the Kigali statement asked for something that you believe is already arrived.  ; > )  What a TOTAL waste of time that statement was since there is no need of a new Province or action by Canterbury/Primates.

If you are content with the 7th convocation status, then why so distressed over the Camp Allen statement?  No worries, Matt.  All is well!!!

Your responses continue to highlight Theme #4.  Some people [but certainly not all] will continue to leave ECUSA, the recognized province of the Communion, and deny the consequences of those departures, and further declare that what they hope for—indeed what they are vociferously fighting for—has already happened.  While of course, continue to vociferously fight for something . . .  while of course declaring it has already happened . . .  while continuing to vociferously fight for it . . . while declaring it has already happened . . .

Matt—you will continue to assert what you wish, and I also.  I suspect that the commenters and readers of this blog also have their own opinions and I am confident that I have defended my position.

So confident, that you are welcome to the last word on your position here on this thread.  ; > )

[36] Posted by Sarah on 10-17-2006 at 08:56 AM • top

There are a couple of good points in the original article here, but it’s beyond verbose and goes on forever….a good caveat for all of us is, “never say in 100 words what you could say in 10”...

Plus, when you get over 100 words, you should start wondering if you’re spending entirely too much time on one subject. 

In a nutshell, this looks like a horrible tempest in a teapot. 

In my view, the Camp Allen statement was largely insignificant and will have almost no effect on the events unfolding on the world stage. 

The Anglican environment as we know it will largely change, and for the better. 

“Delay” could be Williams’s middle name, but he’s running out of time for that.  2/07 and 8/08 are fast approaching and these issues will be dealt with, significantly, either at or before that time. 

Underestimating the “law of gross tonnage” is overly negative and rather foolhardy….friends, the Global South is driving this bus and Rowan knows it.  Were they to get tired of current events and walk out with their 40 million to create another See, Dr. Wales would end up looking like the biggest putz on Earth, and he knows that, too. 

He came to Dromantine with an agenda, probably of delay, and the Global South whisked that right off the table.  I heard that from a reliable, honest source who was there, and has worked tirelessly, deliberately, and consistently for traditional Anglicans in America.  Said person should be canonized. 

Archbishop Malango said it entirely correctly at “Hope and a Future” last year—it is the Primates’ Meeting, and then Lambeth, who will decide the fate and structure of the Communion. 

I have no illusions regarding the perfection of the Global South, but they always start with God and True Faith and that is the only way to succeed at anything. 

2/07 will probably start out as a bloodbath, but ECUSA will have to answer for its actions and I believe Traditional Anglicanism will wind up in a good place. 

A question for all, especially the author of this endless piece—how good for your mental health is it to spend more time with “Church” than you do with God? 

In Christ,

Jen

[37] Posted by Orthoducky on 10-17-2006 at 09:00 AM • top

Hi Lakeland Two,

Glad that you have some ideas now . . .

I really appreciate your witness in regards to your marriage.

May God pour out on you both His generous gifts of love, joy, and peace.

[38] Posted by Sarah on 10-17-2006 at 09:01 AM • top

“you are welcome to the last word on your position here on this thread”

Why thank you.


The answer is that indeed the ABC has recognized the communion legitimacy of those 7th convocation parishes or he could not stand by Dromantine. But that does not meet that their present status isn’t in flux.

What the ABC ultimately decides with regard to ECUSA will determine whether the 7th is the beginning of a new provincial framework as articulated by the Moderator in July or whether they simply remain as they are: validly and legitimately tied to Canterbury but highly irregular.

[39] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 10-17-2006 at 09:03 AM • top

PS—I said to a friend two years ago that a lot of these problems could largely be solved by eliminating geographical boundaries.  I’ve since heard that point reiterated by Bishop Duncan, and, eventually, I would not be surprised if that’s a crucial issue addressed by both the Primates’ meeting and Lambeth. 

PRAY PRAY PRAY

In Christ,

Jen

[40] Posted by Orthoducky on 10-17-2006 at 09:06 AM • top

Jen,

Though I disagree alot with this piece, I found it an absolute joy to read (as I do with all of Sarah’s writings). And since you don’t know Sarah, there is no need or reason to question her faith or her time with the Lord. It may come as a shock but some people can write long substantive articles and still work hard and pray daily. It’s called discipline.

[41] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 10-17-2006 at 09:07 AM • top

Re: “There are a couple of good points in the original article here, but it’s beyond verbose and goes on forever….a good caveat for all of us is, “never say in 100 words what you could say in 10”...

Yes, it is lengthy.  My articles will continue to be lengthy.  Thankfully, the articles by each writer are clearly marked by name, so people who prefer to read 100 word articles will know in advance not to click on the link with my name by it.  ; > )  In fact, anyone who decides to click on an article with my name by it should immediately go 1) brew a large cup of tea or coffee, 2) put the dinner on, and 3) get comfortable.  It should be an automatic reaction . . . like a Pavlovian thing!! ; > )  Those who like short articles will not have to go through any of those steps, they can just avoid clicking.

Re: “A question for all, especially the author of this endless piece—how good for your mental health is it to spend more time with “Church” than you do with God?”

Why do you believe that spending time with church, Jen, is not spending time with God? 

And—if I were to accept your theology of balkanization of life into “spending time with God, good”, “spending time with [other matters], not good”, which I don’t—how do you know how much time that I “spend with God”?  Maybe I’m one of those people who spend hours every day on her knees in spiritual prayer and scripture study.  Or maybe I write exceptionally fast!!! ; > )

And a final question . . . why ask so peevish and personal a question of someone who merely wrote an article?

Regarding all of your predictions—I hope that you are 100% correct!
; > )

[42] Posted by Sarah on 10-17-2006 at 09:16 AM • top

Matt,

Let us “reach out the right paw of friendship” to one another and agree together on Theme #6.

; > )

[43] Posted by Sarah on 10-17-2006 at 09:24 AM • top

Not to be nitpicky but Jen’s article has 370 words (1,727 characters not counting spaces or closing).

[44] Posted by JackieB on 10-17-2006 at 09:43 AM • top

Since most of you know that I pull very few punches I have a couple of comments for observers of this blog.  First Jen if you have not yet done so, get to know Sarah, you will be touched by her.

Because Sarah’s church has come up I do have a comment.  It could have and still can make an international difference much like Plano and St. Andrews, etc.  I have been waiting for leadership from Sarah’s church (not just Sarah) and sadly it has sat on the sidelines.  My challenge to Christ Church in Greenville (clergy and laypeople) is to take the leadership role you have been given by God and do something with it!

[45] Posted by Lee Parker on 10-17-2006 at 09:45 AM • top

oh yes, on number 6 we agree completely!

[46] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 10-17-2006 at 09:59 AM • top

Well Done Sarah! I will pray that Lee Parker’s encouragement to Christ Church, Greenville South Carolina to get off of the sidelines will immediately take effect. Christ Church is fortunate to have you as an active Christian Soldier ( even Pro Tempore).

May the Lord Bless You!

STAN

[47] Posted by stancase on 10-17-2006 at 10:37 AM • top

Rowan now turns his eyes to the covenant, which buys another two years.

This seems overly optimistic.  I think the covenant buys at least 12 years.  I think a proposed covenant will be presented to Lambeth 2008, and probably accepted.  Then there will be a 10 year “reception” period during which various provinces will have a chance to sign onto it.  At the end of this 10 years, the first group of constituent members will be defined, and the covenant-based Anglican Communion will continue forward.  For the Episcopal Church, it may be even longer.  I think the Episcopal Church is going to fight tooth and nail to delay, derail and defeat any meaningful covenant.

The only way I think this process would be shortened would be if Rowan retires during this time.  It’s the “conservatives’” turn at the ABC next, and it seems likely a conservative will try to make things more decisive sooner.

...the consequences for one or both sides will reach the level of what I like to call “Shrieking Pain”.

This description is so colorful, vivid and… realistic I don’t know whether to laugh or shriek!

For me personally, I would not reach a level of Shrieking Pain until either my church got a reappraising rector, or our Bishop started actively persecuting us, or a reasserting rector began bending to the will of a reappraising bishop or reappraisers in the congregation.

[48] Posted by Randy Muller on 10-17-2006 at 12:58 PM • top

Randy,

I’ve always tried to tell people that I’m actually an optimist—and no one ever believes me . . . I hope that your words will be a lesson to others that I am actually a “moderate” in my pessimism concerning Rowan Williams.  ; > )

I disagree about Rowan’s retiring being good.  He is probably hoping to put off decisions until that time . . . but any archbishop after Rowan will be more liberal, because the Crown appoints ABCs based on recommendations of the Prime Minister, who bases his recommendation on a very stacked committee that is appointed.

Think about our Executive Council—and that is how stacked any ABC committee will be and in fact was when it recommended Rowan Williams.  The only choices that will come out of such a committee will be “Very Liberal” and “Shrieking Liberal” [since you liked that word so much].  ; > )

I had actually meant “Shrieking Pain” to be applied to the two sides within the international arena—the “delay” side and the “decision” side.

I believe that the level that will reach Shrieking Pain for the ABC is probably a level that the Global South will not be willing to inflict—their departure from the Anglican Communion.  I do believe that if Rowan Williams believed that departure by a good chunk of Global South Primates was imminent, he would take an action, reluctantly. 

But I do not believe that Rowan Williams believes that.

[49] Posted by Sarah on 10-17-2006 at 01:13 PM • top

Sarah,

Brilliant!  Well done!  Well reasoned analysis.  Kudos.

[50] Posted by richardc on 10-17-2006 at 08:02 PM • top

Sarah,

I had not read +++Carey’s statements before. Being new to Anglicanism, I have not been through all the fireworks you have. Actually, one reason, among many, that I came to Anglicanism is that I wanted to be on the front line with those who are fighting those who would destroy the faith. Yes, I’m that stubborn. It’s my Scottish ancestry. I have sat on the sidelines long enough.
My reaction to +++Carey’s statements is that now, after all that has happened since they were made, that they are now outdated and no longer reflect current reality, even though they have not been officially reversed. The Anglican Communion is going to eventually have to get over this territoriality thing, at least when dealing with a crisis. As you say, I guess we will see at Lambeth-if it happens.
I do not think that any effort to persuade the GS primates to not play hardball will succeed. I see the Kigali statement as a shot across the bows-to both ECUSA and the ABC. I think they would love to hand the ABC a fait accompli and tell him to get on board or else. I do not think the Camp Allen meeting will make much difference. Yes, the Camp Allen statement could have been better written and an opportunity was lost. The ABC does not need any excuses to delay as long as possible. The GS primates are about as fed up with him as with ECUSA-and some of them think he is nearly as apostate as Schori. They would like to know why he has not enforced orthodox belief in the Church of England, despite the pressures, as they have in their own provinces. They also want him to tell them he is of orthodox belief-and they are tired of his squirming out of their questions on that one. I think they are waiting on, if anything, for the Network bishops to start the ball rolling, as some have said here. What came out of New York was good, but not quite what they needed. Camp Allen could have produced it, especially with the ABC’s representatives there, but then most of the Windsor lot would have chickened out. Who knows how many of them will actually have the guts to make a move when pushed to a choice. What the GS primates need to know is that the Network bishops will stick to their guns before they begin a potentially communion breaking move. If ++Iker and ++Duncan issue a “to Hell with ECUSA, we want a new province” statement in the immediate future, things could start moving faster than we could follow them and it might all be settled except the fireworks and the messy details by the primates meeting. Actually, if something like this does not happen, the primates meeting will get very messy. The GS primates will have nothing to do with Schori, partly because she is female, mostly because she is an apostate. At this point, I do not think there is any way the ABC could broker a compromise-and he is going to look like an idiot if he goes running back and forth between groups trying. One thing I am quite sure of-+++Williams is a pragmatist at heart and he will do whatever he has to, however distasteful he may find it personally, to remain head of the communion, even if it means telling the revisionists goodbye. If he does so, the real question will be what the British government, which seems to have gone almost entirely anti-Christian, will do. +++Williams may indeed be out of a job at that point. God only knows who his successor may be. I heard a rumor that ++Wright of Durham might be next. Interesting?

Answer to Elizabeth:
There is no real parallel. The only reason the British bishops would not consecrate the first American bishops is that they were bound by law not to consecrate anyone who would not swear loyalty to the British crown-which the Americans could not do. The law was soon changed and later post-Revolution bishops were consecrated by their British counterparts, until we had enogh bishops to consecrate our own. The resort to the non-juring Scottish bishops was to get around the law. The Scottish bishops were not bound, having themselves refused to swear. The Scottish Episcopal Church, unlike the English one, was not an established church. The Kirk, or Church of Scotland (Presbyterian), was the established church in Scotland. They spent nearly a century in intermittent civil war before that got settled.

cannyscot

[51] Posted by cannyscot on 10-17-2006 at 09:14 PM • top

Sarah,
One thing I forgot in my post. Don’t worry about the long posts. Write what God has laid on your heart.

cannyscot

[52] Posted by cannyscot on 10-17-2006 at 09:18 PM • top

Sarah is right; COE politics have long been trending “left” and Williams successor will likely be more liberal than he is. Further, unless the COE abolishes its historic state ties, the ceremonial head will eventually be King Charles, not exactly a force for orthodoxy.  The conservatives in the COE are in a pickle, even more constrained by asset issues than those in the US and by nature much more cautious.  Talk to them, they are way behind the curve in terms of having a game plan. (Unlike us US cowboys)
A prediction- in the not too distant future we will hear about a new group of so called (but not really) Windsor Bishops, a group that will label itself as both orthodox and committed to avoiding schism. They will propose some half measures in an effort to stave off a mass exodus and keep the checks rolling in. They will oppose efforts by the GS to force decisive action, and will try to provide the AOC with cover for a further delay.  They may even get a web page.  Stay tuned.

[53] Posted by Going Home on 10-17-2006 at 10:17 PM • top

Sarah, you said…

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.

... and I have to heartily agree. I became a Christian in 1981 (my wife followed in 1982) through the ministry of a strongly Evangelical/Charasmatic parish (that is part of the Network now). I’m a Jew and she was raised UU. We moved away in 1984 and over the subsequent 22 years we have lived in three different dioceses -  one orthodox, one apostate, one indifferent. Over the years I have seen fewer and fewer ECUSA congregations that are growing explosively. (Possibly since I newer had the chance to live in the South grin).

I have roistered for years, but the institution has ratcheted down from faith to apostasy. It seems that everytime a rector or bishop retires (or a vestry member or standing committee member finishes his/her term) the replacement is less committed to the Faith. We’ve been supporters of Trinity School for Ministry since 1981 and have seen both God’s blessing on the graduates and ECUSA’s refusal in most dioceses to receive the blessing. Many of the “traditional” parishes don’t have a real heart for evangelism and are often lukewarm (cf. Laodicea). They talk a good game, but when it comes to sharing the Gospel they dodge, delay, or simply do good works. Once “traditional” Episcopalians became ashamed of Jesus’ words (”...we don’t proselytize like the (shudder) Baptists”) it’s not too surprising that we left ourselves open to being infiltrated by those that ceased to believe or never believed the skandelon of the Gospel.

In the Pacific Northwest where we now live (near Portland, OR) there isn’t a vibrant Anglican presence. The explosive growth is with the theologically orthodox non-denoms.

Not surprisingly, after GC2006 we decided to leave TEC. The Great Commission isn’t to build stone buildings, upgrade the pipe organ, or refurbish the vestments. It’s to share the Good News, make disciples, and Baptize those who come to faith in Jesus. I always considered the Apostolic Succession a gift from God to ensure individual congregations don’t go off the rails. It always saddened us whenever we saw a Bishop who was actively diverting and derailing. We just have to remember that (just like He did with Paul) it’s God who picks Apostles in the end. I’m not a Donatist, but significant numbers of the ordained and consecrated are due for pruning and burning.

So, where are we going? We considered swimming the Tiber or Bosporus, but with our upbringing (Jew and UU, remember) the Extreme Liturgical Churches are a little too alien. Not surprisingly, we’ve opted for a vibrant non-denom which focuses on studying the Word, breaking bread together, and sharing the Good News. Additionally, I’m spending the couple of hours per week I used to spend in Choir practice doing street evangelism with Jews for Jesus. Much more satisfying!

So, Sarah, I have to agree - when a split comes, a lot of the folks who leave ECUSA are not going to hang around the AC. The Network doesn’t have the geographical reach to cover the US in time - and you can only plant churches where the “sponsoring parent” is close enough to provide guidance and oversight. Some regions where there is a sufficient concentration of faithful Anglicans can coelesce into a new Anglican presence; in regions where there isn’t a critical mass, the faithful will move to other parts of Christ’s Body. In those areas, ECUSA will continue to burn through the dead people’s money and gutter out.

I pray that you continue to receive guidance and succor day-by-day and that you will know when to stand at your post and when to melt into the fields to fight on another field of battle. God bless you!

[54] Posted by Doug Stein on 10-19-2006 at 01:47 AM • top

Doug,

I really appreciate the story of your faith journey.  Believe me—though I am not close to leaving my Episcopal church—I often scout around and the two places where I see the emphasis on the culture-engaging gospel of Jesus are the PCA denomination and certain seeker churches.  Interestingly enough, I’m not reformed enough for a PCA church and I dislike contemporary worship.  But I will probably be in the latter sort of church should the Anglican Communion fracture and the ABC choose not to discipline ECUSA.

One of the things you said I would like to highlight: “Some regions where there is a sufficient concentration of faithful Anglicans can coelesce into a new Anglican presence; in regions where there isn’t a critical mass, the faithful will move to other parts of Christ’s Body.”

That’s what I’ve seen with church plants.  In areas where there is already a strong traditional Episcopal parish—there seems to be a sufficient concentration of “Anglicanism” to successfully plant another, say, Network or AMiA parish.  And once a new parish “gains roots” it becomes easier to reach out and evangelize the lost and the seeking.

But when there aren’t those strong parishes—and thus a concentration of people embued with the “Anglican way”—planting new parishes is quite difficult. 

I think this is the “rural/urban” principle said in a different way.

The areas where there are smaller Episcopal parishes in rural settings find it far more difficult to plant new non-ECUSA Anglican parishes.  But in urban areas like Raleigh—let the games begin!!!  Episcopalians who would like to leave ECUSA have their choice of 5-6 different Anglican parishes that are non-ECUSA.

Of further interest to me . . . the members of ECUSA in rural areas seem much more willing and interested in “fighting for their parish [or diocese].  Why?  Because “they got no place to go” . . .

[55] Posted by Sarah on 10-19-2006 at 08:41 AM • top

Doug Said,

“Many of the “traditional” parishes don’t have a real heart for evangelism and are often lukewarm (cf. Laodicea). They talk a good game, but when it comes to sharing the Gospel they dodge, delay, or simply do good works. Once “traditional” Episcopalians became ashamed of Jesus’ words (”...we don’t proselytize like the (shudder) Baptists”) it’s not too surprising that we left ourselves open to being infiltrated by those that ceased to believe or never believed the skandelon of the Gospel.”

I agree. This is the major concern that I have about whether Anglicanism can really survive in modern America. There is, literally and thankfully, too much competition for those who are lukewarm. In my town, the continuing churches seem too interested in tradition and staying small, rather than taking the risk of evangelizing and offering their blessings to the community as a gift for all to see.

Organizations which are not growing are dying. I realize that some will make the excuse of demographics, but if a church is offering good teaching and warm fellowship, it should grow, however slowly, in any soil. As Sarah has said in the past, the problem is not really with the liberals, it is with the orthodox who allowed such rot to set in. Blaming the liberals for taking advantage of the situation is like blaming the fungus that rots your ceiling when you wouldn’t fix the leaky roof.

[56] Posted by Capn Jack Sparrow on 10-19-2006 at 10:53 AM • top

Let me add to Sarah’s comments as I am one of those who is on the journey.  I do not attend an Episcopal church and it is very doubtful I will ever again.  I remain a member of the church primarily to “help” if I can in the future.  I have narrowed church attendance to two church buildings.  Interestingly it is the same church decision as Sarah’s but I have primarily selected the PCA church due to its location and to its scholarly and excellent ministers.

Like Sarah it is a bit too reformed for me and at times I struggle with the grace component as the congregation is not as eclectic as the non denominational (Eastlake) church which I also recommend. 

This is where the network is tragically losing folks like my family.  I am beginning to understand less and less the “inside” strategy but because so many bright people are behind it I still support it and it doesn’t matter whether I do or not.

It is the outside strategy where the network and related entities are missing the boat.  If Seacoast and Eastlake can do what they have done surely there is an Anglican expression which can be successful.  There are two maybe three keys here:

1) Develop an outside strategy that will transcend boundaries

2) encourage exits by large parishes who can make a difference

3) put your egos in the closet

[57] Posted by Lee Parker on 10-19-2006 at 10:53 AM • top

And no, I am not saying that liberals are “fungus”. They are just as valuable and important as anyone else, even if their tactics somtimes mimic these simple organisms.

[58] Posted by Capn Jack Sparrow on 10-19-2006 at 10:54 AM • top

I agree with Sarah too in that the liberal “march-on” is not solely to blame for our current situation; the “inertia of the mob”, thus far, has been very hard to sway. 

I was hoping that organizations like LEAC, not to mention devout, astute rectors with a gift for education, would be able to debunk a lot of the revisionist myths and angling but I’m not sure how much “headway” has been made in that department—a lot of the clergy are just as bad with the head-in-the-sand routine as the laity.  I don’t expect everyone to do it but it’s amazing in 2006 how many people neglect to use or read the internet news.  We had a recent “news update” by the rector in our church and I was thoroughly surprised by the number of oooo’s, aaaah’s, can’t believe it’s”, and “didn’t know that’s”.  This stuff is no different than world news and politics, folks, with probably even more at stake—-to quote a friend of mine, it’s a horribly bad idea to degenerate into the temporarily safe but ultimately dangerous realm of the “functionally illiterate”....

Jack, I try real hard to lay off the name-calling but if I were you, I wouldn’t feel too bad about the “fungus” comment.  I’m only one person but I understood you.  Plus, I no longer have the exact quote and I don’t remember the medium I saw it in, but somewhere, somebody had made some crack to Schori regarding her oceanographic background and the retort was along the lines of the benefits of already having had experience working with “bottom-dwellers” or something along that line(which I took as a snide reference to the traditionals).  I was about as enthralled with it, and found it just as flattering to its deliverer as “this isn’t your grandmother’s church anymore”...but, it pays to keep a thick skin and let that kind of stuff roll off your back. 

I’d counsel everyone to remember what Bishop Duncan said—we are not building “microwave church” here—the solutions are not quick, and evangelism and construction do not happen overnight.  To wit, the old cliche that Rome was not built in a day, either.  In my view, things are going to get better, but it will take time, and will always be ongoing.  In essence, an improved, Scripturally-based version of “God’s truth revealed”....  grin 

ATB,

Jen

[59] Posted by Orthoducky on 10-19-2006 at 03:22 PM • top

There exists one overriding theme about which little has been said in all this thread. The source of this blog’s name contains that theme:

Eph 6:12 ... our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavens. 6:13 For this reason, take up the full armor of God so that you may be able to stand your ground on the evil day, and having done everything, to stand. 6:14 Stand firm therefore ...

The theme to which I am referring is not that we should stand firm, although that is of course true. The theme is that “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavens.” There are battles going on that we cannot see. Some of the Lord’s victories in these battles will percolate into events in our Anglican struggle that we do see. Some of the victories will be completely unknown to us. Most importantly with this particular theme, more of the battles’ coordination than we sometimes like to admit is occurring “in the heavens”. We do need to keep battling for the heart of the church at whatever locus we find ourselves, but we need to remember, and be encouraged, that there is a much larger battle going on of which we are only a small component. I recently reread Sarah’s 6/22 posting, “Little Stone Bridges & Why We Fight for Them”

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/little_stone_bridges/

It provides one perspective on the battle being larger than we realize, but if Eph 6:12 is to be believed, then the battle in this post-modern era and in the midst of the TEC mess is only the visible part of a much bigger, much more fearsome struggle. Some may be called to realign toward the faithful Anglican Global South. Others may find it necessary to continue the struggle in non-Anglican congregations. But we all need to continue to fight the good fight (1 Tim 1:18).

[60] Posted by Bill Cool on 10-19-2006 at 11:07 PM • top

Often in high profile secular fights, the adverse parties begin to develop a symbiotic relationship.  They are defined and consumed by the fight itself, rather than achievable objective. I hope that is not happening here.

[61] Posted by Going Home on 10-19-2006 at 11:34 PM • top

Re: “I hope that is not happening here.”

Timothy—how would you know?  A number of times over the past year or so that you have been posting comments here, you have expressed strong opinions about what can happen or has or has not happened with reform of parishes and dioceses.  Those opinions seem to indicate that you simply are unaware of most if not all of the reforming actions that have and are taking place and about which I receive floods of emails and phone calls.

I understand your not being aware now—why track stuff when you are safely and happily elsewhere?

But were you at all involved in resistance/renewal efforts—on a political strategic basis—in the Episcopal church before you left?  I’m genuinely curious about what all you were involved with in ECUSA, in regards to the actual political work that it takes to renew small parts of this big entity, ECUSA.

[62] Posted by Sarah on 10-20-2006 at 07:43 AM • top

Re: “This is the major concern that I have about whether Anglicanism can really survive in modern America. There is, literally and thankfully, too much competition for those who are lukewarm. In my town, the continuing churches seem too interested in tradition and staying small, rather than taking the risk of evangelizing and offering their blessings to the community as a gift for all to see.:”

Capn’ Jack Sparrow—I’m curious about something [nice handle by the way!].

Did you investigate the continuing churches in your area?  Can you chart, a bit, your church journey these days?

I’m interested in the “staying small” part of your comment . . .

[63] Posted by Sarah on 10-20-2006 at 07:46 AM • top

Sarah- Your analysis of the current situation is, as the British say, “spot on.”  As you noted, many more orthodox Anglicans are leaving for non-Anglican churches than is commonly acknowledged.  As one who is in the process of swimming the Tiber, I found your discussion of where you stood interesting.  Yout stated that

  “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.”

The conclusion that I’ve come to is that it is precisely our view as Protestants that each of us reserves the right to judge whether we can, as you put it, “affirm” a particular theology as a condition as to whether we can belong to a church that has lead to the mess we find ourselves in.  Both orthodox and progressive Anglicans take this view. However, for Catholics (and, I believe the Orthodox), the real world, bricks and motar, institutional church is the entity that decides what “theology” is true and therefore our choice is limited to whether we trust that church, acting in accordance with Christ, will get it right or not.  It has not been easy to lay down my Protestant view and accept this, but increasing both my mind and my heart tell me that it is true.  Nonetheless, I have found that in investigating the claims of the Catholic church, that we Protestants have, to put it charitably, “misunderstood” what the Catholic church actually teaches (especially, as opposed to what is practiced by some Catholics).  One book I found especially useful was “Catholic and Christian” by Alan Schreck, a convert from the Presbyterian church I believe.  He does a great job in laying out the Scriptural basis for many of the Catholic doctrines that cause us Protestants so much heartburn.  (BTW, so does the new Catholic Catechism).  Although it was not determinative, it has provided a source of “comfort” with my decision.
Thanks for the opportunity to respond.  I wish you well wherever you go.

[64] Posted by Already Gone on 10-20-2006 at 09:01 AM • top

Re: “The conclusion that I’ve come to is that it is precisely our view as Protestants that each of us reserves the right to judge whether we can, as you put it, “affirm” a particular theology as a condition as to whether we can belong to a church that has lead to the mess we find ourselves in.  Both orthodox and progressive Anglicans take this view. However, for Catholics (and, I believe the Orthodox), the real world, bricks and motar, institutional church is the entity that decides what “theology” is true and therefore our choice is limited to whether we trust that church, acting in accordance with Christ, will get it right or not.”

Bernie—believe me, everwhere I turn, people are crossing the Tiber from Anglicanism, so I know what you mean—those are the three churches that I see people going to: RC, PCA, and non-denominational. 

You say something interesting here: you say that in the RC and Orthodox churches the “institutional church is the entity that decides what “theology” is true”.

But . . . that is actually a “truth statement” that individuals must affirm before they can be a part of the Roman Catholic church.

In other words, in order for you to become Roman Catholic [or me, too] you individually must decide that that theology is in fact correct, before you submit yourself to it.

I’m not knocking on the Roman Catholic church, believe me.  And if there had been a way for me to actually believe the claims of the Roman Catholic church—in the face of a spectacular meltdown in authority in Anglicanism—I would have done so.  But after further investigation, I simply did not believe that what the Roman Catholic church claims to be true about itself [and many other theological beliefs] were Truth.

On the other hand, I can say thank you to the Roman Catholic church for “holding down the fort” in the culture during this particular time in church history, because frankly I don’t see any other denomination currently doing that.  Kudos to your new church . . .

And don’t rest too long on the banks of the Tiber!!!  ; > )

[65] Posted by Sarah on 10-20-2006 at 10:12 AM • top

Sarah,

Since you asked about my “journey”, Cap’n Jack has sailed the high seas for several years now, as a man without a country, religiously speaking. Come to think of it, that IS a bit like a pirate? His answer is in two parts, to preserve the feelings of those who have expressed concern with YOUR extended posts. First, you will hear about how we left our ECUSA parish. Then you will hear about WHY we stay where we are now.

Actually, I have no sympathy for pirates whatsoever, whether they in a religious sense or of the seafaring variety. What both hold in common is disdain for order, law, loyalty etc. They refuse to hoist the colors, so to speak, of any nation or party except their own immediate interest.

I am a confirmed Episcopalian, with two young children, one of whom was baptized by my rector. While not a “cradle” Episcopalian, I have always had deep respect for the liturgy of the prayer book. Later in life, I have come to respect the balanced theology of Cranmer and Hooker, who were willing to take the best of Rome, while avoiding the extreme separatist developments within Puritanism. Anglicanism at its best proposes a unity and authority which is more than the sum of the individual members. The AOC provides that focus, but the reality is of a mutual submission and councilor authority. This is in contrast to the polity of the other Protestants, who essentially believe that the only authority of the church is that granted by the votes of the laity. In other words, the power derives from the people, who vote to elect their leader and then vote to align with whatever denomination or structure best suits their interests. In contrast, the AC has provided the only Protestant manifestation of this concept of shared and dispersed authority, beyond that of the mere “priesthood of all believers” which has essentially become a law unto itself. The liberals have taken advantage of this liberty within unity. Unfortunately, the AC immune system appears to be too slow to fight this new infection in its midst.

Essentially, when GC 03 happened, our rector (reappraiser) was conveniently on vacation. While he was gone for several weeks the laity were very upset and asking difficult questions. I took that opportunity, as a layperson and not holding any office such as vestryman, to distribute materials by the AAC, to those who were interested in taking them.

When the rector got back in town, he called an impromptu parish meeting. At that meeting, he carefully pointed out that the NH election was all done in good order and that it was perfectly legal. The GC actually HAD to consent to Robinson, because after all, he was baptized and had been duly elected by the people of NH. I asked if GC had ever NOT confirmed a duly elected candidate, and he said something about the 1930’s when they rejected someone who was thought to be too Anglo-Catholic. I pointed out that this means that Convention DOES have the authority to reject a candidate over theological issues.

I was surprised that the laity, normally very vocal and forceful, would not speak up in the meeting. Only me and one other person spoke up against the “new thing”. One other person on the vestry expressed worry that we might loose the building if we said anything. Mind you, this was a very small country parish, ASA about 35. All the laity were orthodox, but some were moderate in political approach. This was, originally, a ‘28 prayer book parish.

After the meeting, in private, the rector took me aside and told me that he felt undermined by me and that I should have talked to him first before handing out the pamphlets. I reassured him that I was not leading a rebellion and that I was quite supportive of his leadership. Actually, I was more supportive of his leadership than many of those who silently sat through the meeting. We had a good talk, for about an hour.

I realized that we had to leave the church, because the rector had cast the struggle as a personal one between he and I, when actually the whole parish was against the “new thing”. However, my family decided to leave the parish, not primarily because of the rector, but because of the laity. They were prepared to let me swing in the wind, wanting me to “lead” them, but became wet dishrags in the rector’s presence.

Oddly enough, our leaving the parish did more to strengthen the resolve of those who stayed. They cut off their pledge to the diocese. The rector left in disgust. About 10 of the parishioners went to the Baptist church, about 5 more became RC, ALL the families with young children left. They have been unable to call a priest because the Bishop won’t allow anyone orthodox into the diocese. The Warden has asked me several times since to bring back my family, saying that I would be promptly elected to the vestry, but my answer is always the same.

[66] Posted by Capn Jack Sparrow on 10-20-2006 at 12:00 PM • top

Sarah,

Now for part two of the voyage of Cap’n Jack Sparrow—“Any port in a storm”

We joined a middle size moderately conservative Presbyterian church which has an orderly and reverential worship, formerly PCUSA but now in a “safe” denomination. The community there is functional and welcoming and the teaching is balanced and of uniformly good quality. Occasionally, they borrow from the BCP and hope springs up—I almost expect to see the cross being processed and the one cup offered, but alas I’m brought back with a start, to the Regulative Principle . I recently found out that the music minister chafes under a restriction that all the words must be in English, even if a translation is provided. The only exception is “Gloria in Excelsis” at Christmas, for reasons which gall me in their inconsistency. Still, the leadership pattern is stable.  I don’t bring my children to church to fight, but to worship in a community of faith and accountability and where I don’t have to worry about what they are hearing in Sunday school.

The ideal of real authority and of one world communion where a worshipper in Kenya is truly attending the same church that I attend in the US is wonderful and laudable, but not at the expense of threatening my children’s spiritual health.

At this time, there is only one continuing church in our area, an RE variety with ASA about 25. We attended there for about one year, but realized that the church was populated with such quirky and extremely introverted people, that they did not know how to welcome new folks. When we tried to be friendly, they would merely look at us blankly and mumble something. Their theology was sound, but they seemed to have their heads in books for the most part. Frankly, they did not do the liturgy very well either. They were really worried about becoming too high church or spending any money on proper furniture, vestments, etc. I actually think they were really Presbyterians with 28 BCP’s in hand. I don’t remember ever being invited to anyone’s home. The minister was so fearful of being accused of “sheep stealing” that even an add in the newspaper was a source of consternation, much more so any outreach efforts.

I hold out hope that Anglicanism can be reestablished in North America, but am in some ways resigned to the end of an era. My hope is that Protestants will someday discover anew the treasures of the early reformers and realize the error of following too much in the path of the separatists, who have left us with the chaos we now have.

I grieve for the loss of a viable Anglican culture. Perhaps that is how the South felt after loosing the Civil War. Perhaps that is how the American Indians felt about Manifest Destiny. Perhaps that is how the Romans felt at the invasion of the barbarians.

The silver lining in the breakup of the Episcopal church is that like the alabaster box which was broken to anoint the feet of Jesus, the aroma of God-centered reverent worship is filling the room of Christendom. The brokenness of our tradition is actually allowing others to see its glories, and hopefully reestablish its best attributes. I think that there is an increasing longing for liturgy and reverent worship, especially among the young. It is the baby boomers who are still rebelling against the cold formality of their parents, which explains why on every street corner another church is trying the worn out “casual worship” hook, competing for an ever smaller share of that dwindling market. The proof that liturgy and reverence can still be successful is shown in the Roman church. The Anglican version of Reformed theology is needed to balance and round out the Presbyterian version of that, as well as the Armenian tendencies of the Baptist/Congregationalist and extreme low church folks. I think that real authority probably cannot be reestablished, beyond the local church or perhaps regionally.

So, in a sense, Cap’n Jack is less like a pirate now and more like a privateer with a Letter of Marque. He is prepared to serve where he finds himself, but solely because of the functioning local church to which he is now attached.  He is, in a sense, beginning his own Reasserting movement among the Presbyterians. The first thing that needs to go is that pesky, unbiblical Regulative Principle!

[67] Posted by Capn Jack Sparrow on 10-20-2006 at 12:01 PM • top

Re: “I was surprised that the laity, normally very vocal and forceful, would not speak up in the meeting. . . . However, my family decided to leave the parish, not primarily because of the rector, but because of the laity. They were prepared to let me swing in the wind, wanting me to “lead” them, but became wet dishrags in the rector’s presence.”

Ah yes . . . there is nothing like realizing that your allies have hung you out to dry.

I’ve said it a lot of times before, but it really is “our fault” more than some vast heretical conspiracy that the Episcopal church is where it is.  We simply did not show up on the playing field, and the other side did—therefore they won.

And so much of time in the Episcopal church, for a reasserter, is spent in steadily becoming very discouraged with one’s own allies.

My heart goes out to you, Cap’n Jack, and I appreciate your being willing to share your story here.

. . . What a mess we are in.

[68] Posted by Sarah on 10-20-2006 at 12:09 PM • top

You know Cap’n Jack the longer this goes on the more I believe there is a legitimate outside strategy which will get organized.  My story is similar to yours and I will not bore you with it.  Every day I identify more with people like you, Akinola, AMIA etc. and less with Canterbury.  The biggest loss in all of this is the loss of you and your family and I truly believe that an outside strategy supported by the network could do something about it.

[69] Posted by Lee Parker on 10-20-2006 at 12:40 PM • top

To my friend Sarah:
“I’ve said it a lot of times before, but it really is “our fault” more than some vast heretical conspiracy that the Episcopal church is where it is.  We simply did not show up on the playing field, and the other side did—therefore they won.”

1) I think it is a conspiracy sponsored in part by political lobbies and clergy and it is pretty vast

2) Courage is not in significant supply within ECUSA especially with the “men” in the denomination

[70] Posted by Lee Parker on 10-20-2006 at 12:46 PM • top

So, in a sense, Cap’n Jack is less like a pirate now and more like a privateer with a Letter of Marque. He is prepared to serve where he finds himself, but solely because of the functioning local church to which he is now attached.  He is, in a sense, beginning his own Reasserting movement among the Presbyterians. The first thing that needs to go is that pesky, unbiblical Regulative Principle!

Nah, that’s reappraising…but it’s good to start some peer pressure the other way…;-)

Good luck, Capt J.  I got hung out to dry the other day too, but since my family are just about all grown, I’m sticking with the fight until they throw me out. 

Cheers,

Phil H

[71] Posted by CryptoCatholic on 10-20-2006 at 12:55 PM • top

Sarah- You are exactly correct.  Becoming RC turns on whether you can believe the Church’s claims about itself.  If, after examination, you simply can’t, then swimming the Tiber is not for you.  In fact the priest we talked to told us that he’s rejected Protestants who want to convert solely because they are running away from the mess in their church and find the RC’s orthodoxy attractive.  (Of course, he also told us that if we had come to accept the authority of the Church, then as a matter of integrity we had to convert.)  The RC’s teaching authority is not a easy theology to accept, especially for us independently-minded Protestant Americans, but it does simplify things.  BTW, if you ever change your mind, I’m not sure where in Upper SC you live, but St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Greenville, SC, is highly thought of and is pastored by a former Episcopalian, Fr. Jay Scott Newman.

[72] Posted by Already Gone on 10-20-2006 at 02:56 PM • top

CryptoCatholic,

You are so right!!!!  It is clear that Cap’n Jack Sparrow is a reappraiser of the worst sort. 

I hope that the Presbyterians cast him into outer darkness quickly, before the tides of creeping revisionism swamp his church.

[73] Posted by Sarah on 10-20-2006 at 04:33 PM • top

Re: “You know Cap’n Jack the longer this goes on the more I believe there is a legitimate outside strategy which will get organized.”

But Lee Parker—it appears to me that Cap’n Jack had an opportunity to attend the local alternate-Anglican entity—the REC parish—and opted out of that possibility. 

The “outside strategy” was not sufficient for Cap’n Jack.

And now he is in a Presbyterian church, as so many others I know are.

[74] Posted by Sarah on 10-20-2006 at 04:37 PM • top

I’m back from my mini vacation.  Sarah, The REC is not the answer.  It may be part of the new experiment but in my opinion the Network needs to support a consortium of churches from Texas, SC, NC, NY, Fl. etc which are willing to cross boundaries and evangelize.  Moreover we are looking at Europe the wrong way.  We need to evangelize there as well.  Let the ultimate goal be to join the network again whether inside or outside but lets not lose these wonderful folks to other reformed denominations and non denominational churches.

The inside strategy is commendable but even with discipline by Canterbury the political structure of ECUSA is a mess.  This structure must be overhauled as well because it is a big part of the problem.  Needless to say, the inside strategy is a long term process even if it is successful.  Too much will be lost without an organized outside strategy as well.  So my answer is to give Cap’n Jack’s family an Anglican style church on fire with its love for the lord Jesus which has the long term opportunity of joining again with the Network and with the majority of Anglicans.  Thant would be an ... kicking church.

[75] Posted by Lee Parker on 10-23-2006 at 12:15 PM • top

Re: “So my answer is to give Cap’n Jack’s family an Anglican style church on fire with its love for the lord Jesus which has the long term opportunity of joining again with the Network and with the majority of Anglicans.  Thant would be an ... kicking church.”

But Lee, the REC church *is* an Anglican church. 

And it is a Common Cause partner with the Network.

So it fits your criteria, yet Cap’n Jack did not choose it.

[76] Posted by Sarah on 10-23-2006 at 04:39 PM • top

Sarah, I believe this discussion is important and it might be more appropriate on another thread.  Anyway, here it goes.  The REC is not what I’m suggesting.  If Plano, St. Andrews in Charleston etc are growing like they are they must have a formula for this growth.  Moreover, look at Seacoast and Eastlake.  Even more significantly, look at the PCA church which is exploding in my home town.  What do they have in common?
1)  They are on fire for the lord
2)  They are orthodox
3)  They believe in the inerrant/authority of scripture
4)  They are seeker oriented
5)  They have dynamic clergy who preach about scripture and every day life
6)    They have little interests in pointy hats

What if we had an outside strategy combined with an inside strategy (new school and old school) which led rather than followed?

Now here’s a somewhat bold statement thrown out there for discussion.  We need to protect our network bishops but beyond that I have had nothing but bad experiences with non network bishop(s).  Lets think through what this new structure might look like because the status quo is not working.

[77] Posted by Lee Parker on 10-24-2006 at 10:12 AM • top

Nice comment Sara.
=========================
Karen Walter
<a >camper trailer</a>

[78] Posted by camper trailer on 06-12-2009 at 07:30 AM • top

well done Sarah, I have emailed it to many who never read blogs…for a better understanding of life in the Episcopal church today

[79] Posted by ewart-touzot on 06-12-2009 at 09:21 AM • top

Thanks for post. It’s really informative stuff.
I really like to read.Hope to learn a lot and have a nice experience here! my best regards guys
camper trailers—camper trailers

[80] Posted by roxyrohit on 11-10-2009 at 03:19 PM • top

Have you ever considered adding more videos to your blog posts to keep the readers more entertained? I mean I just read through the entire article of yoursand it was quite good but since I’m more of a visual learner,I found that to be more helpful well let me know how it turns out! I love what you guys are always up too. Such clever work and reporting! Keep up the great works guys I’ve added you guys to my blogroll. This is a great article thanks for sharing this informative information.. I will visit your blog regularly for some latest post.anti keylogger|antikeylogger

[81] Posted by Rockstarbabu on 12-28-2009 at 03:30 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.