...I will not ordain or license any clergy member who is unable to promise faithfulness in marriage or to abstain from sexual relationships outside of marriage.

While Episcopalians in North Dakota are not of one mind on these matters, at our annual convention in 2005 a resolution was overwhelmingly passed which “commended the Windsor Report as a way forward together in spite of the differences which threaten to divide us” and expressed our desire for the Diocese of North Dakota “to remain both a member of the Episcopal Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion.”

I am waiting for the Susan Russell “Fly-By”
I sense that the good bishop is flirting with Inhibition for violation of Canon Whatever.
Intercessor

Question - from my reading of the first article, the lady is already ordained and Bishop Smith is just refusing her a license to perform priestly duties in N.D.  Am I right?

In reality he doesn’t have to give the public a reason for the refusal.  Note that his statement is not giving a “reason”, but just stating policy.....good for Bishop Smith

As a moderate, who would probably be seen by folks here as a screaming liberal godless commie, I’m perfectly okay with a bishop making this decree.  But I would add this caveat:  It must still be okay for a bishop to refuse a priest who will not vow to keep his/her parish in TEC.  The sword cuts both ways.

The sword cuts both ways.

Exactly my point; but as to your remark about keeping churches in TEC - that’s not at issue. Nobody on this side of the debate is asking for liberal bishops to ordain or license priests who are openly declaring their intention to lead a parish out of TEC.

This woman is living in a same sex relationship for goodness sake. I am quite sure this godly bishop is refusing her a license due to the fact that she is living a lifestyle contrary to Lambeth 1.10 and to the understanding of Scripture agreed upon by the Communion, not too mention that which challenges the church’s official teaching about marriage! He is not about to do something that New Hampshire did!

Finally someone who can follow-through on Windsor.

This is funnier if you read Dr. Baldwin’s whole letter (which itself is a revealing window into the “mindset” of Episcopal clergy—and teachers!—these days) which you can get w/o needing to register anywhere here.

=====================

TO: Dr. K. J. Schori, Gene Robinson, Bonnie Anderson, a religiously-clueless but knee-jerked-ly anti-establishment anti-Church anti-Christian press who will therefore publish this letter, and anyone else who likes to listen to this sort of inane narcicistic prattle.
FROM: Emma Whiner, youth member, parish of St. Ipsos.

Dear brothers and sisters,

I am writing all of you as a response to my parents’ recent refusal to let me have icecream.

The reason they have refused me dessert has nothing to do with my character, nor my skills and gifts of digestion. Their so-called reason was that I failed to clean up my room as I had earlier agreed and I did not eat any of my dinner.

In refusing to let me have ice-cream, my parents are REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE MY BAPTISM, because we are all supposed to be equally children of God and are marked as “Christ’s own forever"… and so therefore they obviously have no right to keep me from getting my icecream which is promised to me in that baptism and in Scripture.

Refusal to recognize baptism is a serious matter. This is why I am writing this open letter, so that we might begin a dialogical conversation over this matter… in the hopes that my incessent whining will create such unpleasantness and fuss over this bogus silliness that my parents give up in irritated disgust, or at least so that I can keep eating my icecream while everyone is distracted by it.

I had been warned by some of my classmates that certain parents can be very oppressive over matters of nutrition and diet. By not letting me eat my icecream, my parents have refused to recognize my individual personhood, my human dignity, my full autonomy, and my civil rights. This is even more egregious when we consider that one thing Jesus condemned more than anything else was the witholding of dessert.

As Martin Luther King would have said, my parents have, by refusing to let me eat my icecream, cast me into an “I-It” relationship with them rather than an “I-Thou” relationship… and they have definitely refused my right to have the proper “ME ME ME ME ME ME!!!!” relationship that Gene Robinson has shown us all in the Episcopal church is what God really wants for us to have.

Inspired by these lessons we learned in Episcopal Sunday School, several of us formed the “Pottinghead” group, an “youth underground”, freedom-fighting child-liberating movement where we have been able to partake of icecream, drugs, alcohol, indiscriminate sex, and all the other behaviors our parents—who are thereby REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE OUR BAPTISM!!!—have denied us.

But I have grown more and more uncomfortable with the fact that I have to sneak out of the house to go to these meetings, rather then being allowed to indulge them in the middle of the livingroom in front of dinner guests or out on the playground in public parks.

“Obedience”, as I was taught to understand it in the context of authority in the Episcopal Church, means “obedience” to whatever I decide is my “true, inner self,” as expressed by my moment-to-moment urges—it has nothing to do with accountability objective truth, historical or scientific fact, common sense, good nutrition, or Christian teaching. Only in such sanctified self-indulgence can we find the true “ME ME ME ME ME ME ME” relationships which the Episcopal Church has taught us to prize above all things. Only such self-love is true love… and without such love, our relationship with God is turned into “Master/Slave” or “King/Subject” or “Parent/Child”—or even (incredible, almost incompehensible, as it might seem)—“Creator/Creature” relationships. And this rejects the Gospel and DENIES MY BAPTISM!!!

I have now discerned that this true “love” and “obedience” to this love—as well as my responsibility to minister to and celebrate the similar gastronomic urges of my peers—requires me to obey my desires for icecream as a holy, God-given right, regardless of what my parents, Scripture, or anyone else says. So I wish to announce that, tomorrow night, I will be leading an icecream and dessert party with the Pottinghead Underground.

In order to respect my parents—despite the fact that they are EVIL MEANIES who have DENIED MY BAPTISM!!! by refusing to give me icecream—I will be taking the following actions so that I will not be functioning as their child in any official capacity:
* I will leave any i.d. with my name on it out in the car, and people will not use my last name.
* The party will not be held on my parents’ property.
* The icecream will be bought and brought by other youth from the parish, and so it will be “youth” icecream and not “adult” icecream, and so won’t count as dessert.
* The icecream will be served on plates rather than in bowls, and so it won’t really be icecream.
* We will be holding hands with each other while eating the icecream, so it won’t really be me eating the icecream anyway.

May the peace of the Lord (and Ben & Jerry’s Chocolate Almond Nougat) be always with you.

Hugs and kissies (at least for those of you who aren’t evil meanies like my parents and thus DENYING MY BAPTISM!!!),

Emma Whiner

Another priest who has abandoned the communion of this church.  Sigh, She announces in the letter referenced above that she plans to violate her promise of conformity by celebrating comunion for a congregation not in communion with the diocese.

#7, Very funny and very apt and therefore very sad.

Respect

Although I have decided not to obey Bp. Michael, I also want to respect him and the circumstances in which he might find himself. Therefore, I have made the following adjustments in the service for Thursday so that technically, I will not be functioning as an Episcopal priest in “an official position.”

Space

Although I was invited by Christus Rex to use the sanctuary in the campus center, I decided to have the service in the living room. Thus, there will be no altar involved, only a simple table.

Attire

Although I will be wearing a collar, I will not use an official Episcopal stole, but rather one that was lovingly made for me by the women of St. Andrew’s Meeteetse, Wyoming, the parish members who recognized and confirmed my priesthood in 1980.

Liturgy

We will use a liturgy that was written by the Potting Shed community. Although the Book of Common Prayer will be laid on the table along with the bread and wine, it will remain closed throughout the service.

The reading of the Word will be done by all and although I will begin the response to the Gospel, all will be invited to participate in the sermon.

Bread

The bread will be baked by two of my brothers who run the Dakota Harvest Bakery and who are members of Potting Shed. Their union was blessed by an officiate of the Lutheran church and they continue to be an inspiration to me. Since this is “gay bread” and not official Eucharistic bread and “gay hands” will be laid on it, no doubt the bread is immune to becoming the Body of Christ except by those who perceive it as such.

Wine

The wine has been provided by the Lutherans and is not Episcopal wine.

The Blessing

The blessing will be pronounced by me. However, at that moment, all will lay hands on their neighbor’s shoulder, and thus the community will exercise the priesthood of all believers.

I hope these compromises will satisfy all those involved.

May God bless us all, especially on Maundy Thursday when Jesus gave us the one commandment, to love one another as he has loved us.

May the peace of the Lord be always with you.

The Rev. Dr. Gayle R. Baldwin

Reading the letter raised my blood pressure considerable, something which the Episcopal Left has to work very hard to do these days.

Chris Johnson has them pegged. This isn’t the writing of a mature woman, it’s the emo laden words of a whiny narcissistic teenager.

She has no grasp of Eucharistic theology. She has no moral centre. She has no concept of obedience. She has no knowledge of teh Gospal, of what it means to be a priest, of her ordination vows, of her baptismal vows or of anything other than her own sense of entitlement.

Unbelievable. And what is even worse is that the political leaders of the church are rallying to her cause on the HoBD list. My church is rapidly moving from being self-parodying to grotesque.

Celebrate Easter the Episcopalian way: Grill some burgers!

#3, agreed. I suppose you would consider me to be a troglodyte conservative (although the Southern Baptists find me liberal, go figure...). Bishops are well within their rights to maintain order and discipline, however unlovely the results may be. Just as Standing Committees and Diocesan conventions are within their rights to trim their bishops down to size.

The double-speak of the Rev. Baldwin is absolutely repellent. This is a priest that ought to be read the riot act. It’s a pity that her bishop will probably not be allowed so to do.

Celebrate Easter the Episcopalian way: Grill some burgers!

She has no grasp of Eucharistic theology. She has no moral centre. She has no concept of obedience. She has no knowledge of the Gospal, of what it means to be a priest, of her ordination vows, of her baptismal vows or of anything other than her own sense of entitlement.

Yes… and this is exactly what makes her emminently qualified to teach “introduction to Christianity” and theology in today’s modern American universities.

I’m amazed she hasn’t been offered a seminary teaching position yet!

pax,
LP

Good for Bishop Smith, I have personally heard the man speak and have met him, he really is a good guy.

And as to the antagionst, what a whiner, it is striking about how much everything is all about me,me and my disordered sexuality. The women is clearly a narcisitic, nutjob and a theological idiot like most liberal Christians I have met. I think though that she just might be TEC Bishop or PeeeBeee material. Slap a oven mIt and some hideously ugly curtains from Goodwill on her , viola a TEC bishop.

[9] mousestalker,

Perhaps we need to find a more verbally economical phrase to describe what you have written, i.e.,

She has no grasp of Eucharistic theology. She has no moral centre. She has no concept of obedience. She has no knowledge of teh Gospal, of what it means to be a priest, of her ordination vows, of her baptismal vows or of anything other than her own sense of entitlement.

Let us face facts. We are seeing more and more of this with every passing week from among the clergy of TEC. I would suggest that some such shorter form would save us all a great deal of time at the keyboard. Why, we could even adopt an abbreviation, to wit, ALOSF.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

I sense that the good bishop is flirting with Inhibition for violation of Canon Whatever.

Like Frank Zappa’s “Central Scrutinizer,” Dave Beers has been put in charge of enforcing all the canons that haven’t been passed yet.

Martial Artist,
While “Absolute lack of spiritual formation” may be strong, I think it is true that many of my TEC clergy colleagues may consider their “not having yet arrived spirituallly” as a badge of honour.  Many, if not most, would be categorized by evangelicals as Seekers.  The problem of course is that there is a kind of perpetual seeking among TEC elites, of never surrendering to the truth of the Gospel.  And, what is even more tragic, is that this perpetual seeker-dom passes for “Deep Spirituality”, and gets one on the fast-track to ordination.  In my experience in the ordination process, settling on the exclusive claims of Christ can call one’s character and psychological make-up into question.

#13, that sounds like a workable phrase and abbreviation. May we have to use it sparingly.

Our Episco-burgers are made only from freshly ground beef exclusively from Newark oxen and Los Angeles sacred cows, slaughtered canonically with our proprietary razor.

[15] dl,

In my understanding, spiritual formation is not about arriving, it is about recognizing that you are on the path and having some functional, or at least operational, personal tools that you can use in conjunction with the grace of God to assist you in remaining on that path. Stated another way, that you possess, and have learned to use, some recognized means to discern whether the latest set of orders is actually from the Holy Spirit rather than from the father of lies. But, not being clergy, perhaps I am wrong in that understanding. If I am at least approximately correct, then you have clearly defined the problem when you state that the nub of the problem is that

there is a kind of perpetual seeking among TEC elites, of never surrendering to the truth of the Gospel.

(a) the candidate’s discernment was never properly assessed (by whomever was responsible to do so at the time they were in the process), or,

(b) the spiritual formation that should be a part of seminary was not properly provided.

I see no other way to make sense of the relative abundance of persons not presently fit to be serving in the priesthood in TEC.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

#13 MA wrote:

Perhaps we need to find a more verbally economical phrase to describe what you have written, i.e.,

She has no grasp of Eucharistic theology. She has no moral centre. She has no concept of obedience. She has no knowledge of the Gospel, of what it means to be a priest, of her ordination vows, of her baptismal vows or of anything other than her own sense of entitlement.

How about…
“ I Am”
Oh wait that one is taken… maybe “I Am Because I Say I Am...”
Intercessor

I don’t know about this “perpetual seeker” thing - of course our journey is about knowing God through Jesus, but there has to be a starting point to be considered a believer, don’cha think?
Starting with the much vaunted Baptismal Covenant, and moving through Confirmation and Ordination, there is a common theme:

Baptism:
Question: Do you turn to Jesus Christ and accept him as your Savior?
Answer I do.
Question: Do you put your whole trust in his grace and love?
Answer I do.
Question: Do you promise to follow and obey him as your Lord?
Answer:  I do.

Confirmation:
Bishop:  Do you renew your commitment to Jesus Christ?
Candidate:  I do, and with God’s grace I will follow him as my Savior and Lord.

Ordination:
As a priest, it will be your task to proclaim by word and deed the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to fashion your life in accordance with its precepts.

Doesn’t that just make you think that Jesus is the beginning as well as the end of the journey?

GillianC,

Yes, Jesus is the beginning and the end, the alpha and the omega. The issue is not simply whether or not that is so. The issue here is, I think, whether one is in a personal relationship with Him, i.e., whether one is listening to Jesus and listening to the Holy Spirit, as opposed to listening to one’s own inner voice. Clearly, a fair number of us commenting on this thread have concluded that the person who is the precipitator of the good bishop’s need to reiterate his policy w.r.t. ordinations and licensure is listening to the latter, not the former. I include myself in that group and would point out that I base my working hypothesis not particularly on the fact of her conduct with respect to chosen lifestyle, but rather on her published open letter, both its explicit words and its tone. To cite but one example from that letter, she states

I find it necessary to explain how faithfully I have tried to obey the rules and regulations of the Church, and at the same time remain faithful to my discipleship in Christ Jesus.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

LP above HAS to be the very funny and clever Paula Loughlin, n’est-ce pas?
Thanks for the laughs....

After 14 years of being ordained I find I am missing something. I need one of those official Episcopal stoles and some of that Episcopal wine, where can I find them?
She says when she came out as a lesbian in Wyoming the Bishop made her stop officiating as a priest, why is’nt she upset with him. Also when a bishop in the diocese you are canonically resident forbids you to officiate another bishop in a different diocese isn’t going to just overrule his decision and allow that person to officiate in his diocese. Apparently the bishop in Wyoming knew more than we do now.