But I do not think leaving is the answer. That is where the Communion Partners rest. Daniel had to stay in Babylon, but did not abandon his faith. Jeremiah was not given another Israel. Ezekiel had to preach to the dry bones. When Jesus and his message were completely rejected, he did not leave. He wept. He stayed. He did not move on to Egypt. He stayed and faithfully preached when they believed and when they did not believe.
There appears, for now, to be tremendous hope in the other forms of Anglicanism that have been springing up around the country. But they are very much in their embryonic stages. In my previous diocese, there were six different expressions of Anglican identity in one small area of the state. None of them were growing significantly. There are already some divisions within these breakaway movements over liturgy, women’s ordination, and prayer book language. I wish them well, but I would have rather seen them stay.
I have asked every person I personally know that has [left] or was pondering to leave the Episcopal Church if they were prevented in some way by their parish or bishop from preaching the gospel. Each one has said, “No….”
The press has not done an adequate job of reporting on the success stories in the Episcopal Church, and it has also ”” too often ”” presumed that the vast majority of Episcopalians agree with the revisionist agenda. I would argue that the vast majority in the pews do not. Many bishops do not, and many clergy do not.
What do you call the decade of evangelism?? What do you call it when folks are denied the ability to attend a good seminary?? What do you call it when folks are preferred over others?? I call it being unable to preach the gospel and being forced to go along with the crowd. This is the way it’s been for 30 years. What planet is this guy on??
However, the Epistles to the Churches say to separate out the sick sheep and to discipline heretics…not to commune with them, nor to allow them to teach and lead the flock. Jesus said not to ‘tolerate Jezebel’ in Revelation. He said to shake the dust off…he confronted opportunism, heresy and unbelief rather harshly…cleansing the temple with a whip of cords.
I wish that all the departing reasserters and continuing church folk had stayed and been a robust, out-loud and in your face presence as the Loyal Opposition. Why do none of these Bishops call KJS on her claim (which I beleive to be true) of welcoming the Loyal Ops folk and demand deeds to go with the words. If challenged in a public media heavy way for full inclusion I think she would make concessions to prove how tolerant TEC is. Then let the Loyal Ops use their place at the table to speak truth to power and to be a traditional presence in places where uber-Episcopalians have never been exposed to the theology behibd the thinking they label reactionary and conservative. The liberals have done a very fine job (in tandem with postmodernity in general) of changing the minds of a generation/s of orthodox Episcopalians. What TEC needs is a neo-conservative reformation.
Again and again I have read had the most conservative Bishops stay away from and isolate themselves from their mean liberal brother/sister Bishops. Why is this? Do hard things! Minds can be changed…the current shift in belief is proof of this. Who will be the change? I challenge my reasserter brothers and sisters to be orthodox activists in TEC but replace obnoxious “activist” behavior with radical holiness.
As one who converted from the Roman Church to the Anglo-Catholic stream of Anglicanism I can tell you that I only ever discovered Anglo-Catholicism from a deep and intense study and search. Anglicanism in general and Anglo-Catholicism in particular are too often lights under baskets. Why is this?
Even secular people know about folk like Billy Graham and the Pope. Even our lumaniries (Stott, Packer, Lewis, N.T. Wright) are obscure and unknown (excepting perhaps Lewis) from the average Christian. Even Akinola means nothing to those not engaged in current Anglican controversies.
Would that God would raise up a Bishop Fulton Sheen or Mother Angelica in Anglicanism! I think both reasserters and reappraisers like their evangelism weak as water.
“But I do not think leaving is the answer. ”
So all these Episcopalian/ Anglican guys counseling that the Christian thing to do is to stay within a heretical – really, non-Christian in many places – sect instead of move on to where orthodox faith is to be found, how do you all explain the separation of the Anglican church from the Catholic Church? Why was leaving the answer then but not now?
Fr. Levenson says twice in this article that he hopes General Convention 2009 doesn’t move TEC more to the left. In one place he says such a move would be disastrous; in another place, he says he hopes PB Schori squashes any revisionist resolutions proposed. My question is, what happens if the revisionists get what they want at GC2009? What if PB Schori does not squash revisionist resolutions and we see an end to the moratoria on homosexual bishops and the approval of same-sex blessings? What will the Communion Partners do then? If the Communion Partners group is committed to staying even if the canons then get changed to allow behavior clearly against the historic, orthodox teachings of the Bible, then how is that disastrous? Isn’t the net effect that the left gets what it wants and the orthodox still have to be like Daniel, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Jesus, and stay to provide a witness? What is Fr. Levenson’s definition of “disastrous”? If the Communion Partners are committed to staying in TEC, then a disastrous GC2009 should be just a new opportunity to provide a faithful witness, shouldn’t it?
(1) I have a relative who, upon deciding to attend TESM, was denied return to his home state.
(2) As a vestry member, I was told that certain evangelical teachers were divisive, and would no longer be permitted to teach at our leftward drifting church.
(3) In my former diocese, I have seen diocesan interference with the calling process for multiple parishes.
🙄
I would love to see this article and comments re-posted after General Convention.
[i] Please comment on the article rather than toss out a one-liner. [/i]
Elves, sorry. I just think it would really be interesting to revisit this article after the results of General Convention. My comment was not intended to be a one liner but rather a suggestion.
[i]‘I have asked every person I personally know that has [left] or was pondering to leave the Episcopal Church if they were prevented in some way by their parish or bishop from preaching the gospel. Each one has said, “No….”’[/i]
Just a question for Russell Levenson:
Has he sought out those who were forced out in Connecticut? Their story may just change his mind a bit.
PS, I hit submit too soon:
“[i]every person I personally know that has [left][/i] is a very small sample from which to form a conclusion.”
should have been my concluding sentence.
Maybe a new $45 million sanctuary that belongs to the diocese in trust for any heretical movement that can be voted in, has something to do with not leaving as well.
It’s easy to be measured, gracious, and analytical when you don’t have to endure much personal suffering. This story has that sense to it as does most of the ACI writings. Let’s see what happens when a Job-like situation occurs to these folks. Actually, clergy like Fr. Levenson and the rest of the Communion Partners are very useful to the TEC cleritocracy. They can point and say “look, here are these learned and reasonable people who don’t feel like they need to leave. Everything is fine.” The word “codependency” comes to mind.
From the interview
I don’t understand this and it feels unfortunately evasive. The orthodoxy or otherwise of the presiding bishop surely isn’t a matter of her own “personal theology”. She is a bishop sometimes, at least, she teaches on behalf of the church. It seems slightly odd, when Father Levenson confesses that he has spoken and corresponded with her (one imagines, in part, about matters theological) then to step back from expressing any view on the matters they have discussed. Indeed to shift the presiding bishop’s theology into the realm of the “private” (I can believe what I want in the privacy of my own pulpit) is to accept the very distinction (public/private) that so often lies at the heart of progressive intuitions about sexuality.
how sad. his churches participation in leaving would have sent a loud and clear message that TEC and indeed the country could not ignore. i guess he is ok with their church contributing tithes to support lawsuits against other churches. i will pray for them, that they might have a change of heart.
tired #6 I am not at all surprised. I have clearly seen the same in my diocese and parish. I was personally told that TESM was “Completely out of the question.”
[blockquote]”As to whether or not she is a leader faithful to historic orthodoxy, I cannot speak to her personal theology; that really is her story to tell.”[/blockquote]
I should think that anyone who has spent very much or even a moderate amount of time with KJS gets a handle on her personal theology. I’ve read, and heard, enough of her own words to understand her theology is far different than my own. I’ve also seen how her theology is clearly becoming the accepted norm within TEC. I have watched how the diocese I live within has fallen into parroting the TEC party line.
“As to whether or not she is a leader faithful to historic orthodoxy, I cannot speak to her personal theology; that really is her story to tell.â€
It has been my experience with reasserting and moderate clergy who have remained in TEC and have tried to remain out of church politics, that they do not pay attention to the “theology” of the PB or even what she says. What they have said to me is, “why do you listen to that stuff. Why do you go to blogs like virtue and titusonenine. Just look at your own situation (conservative, reasserting church) and don’t worry about what is happening elsewhere.” They either have a secret plan to take back the theology of the church by continuing to preach the gospel until they can no more, or they are being ostriches, which is what they want to be. I suspect that Mr. Levinson+ is an ostrich. He is in a conservative diocese in the largest church in TEC, so he can isolate himself from the rest of the goings on in TEC and “preach the gospel” in his own time and place. Others are not so fortunate … though it has also been my experience in my liberal reappraising diocese that reasserting clergy have not been hindered from preaching the gospel. It does appear in most dioceses that those who simply preach the reasserting gospel and stay under the bishop’s radar (don’t make waves, preach against him, or try to take the congregation out of the church) are left alone, though search committees may have some interference after the reasserting priests retire- though, once again, not in my liberal diocese, where conservative parishes have been able to call conservative priests quite freely with no interference from the diocese.
I think that Br. Michael ‘s question is spot-on. What indeed will be
/should be the response of the “faithful remnant” when, in all probability, GC 2009 codifies the very stuff that the Fr. Levensons of our church acknowledge to be contra Holy Scripture, and they get punitive disciplinary canons thrown in for good measure? My wife and I have taken the “stay and witness” route to this point, but just when does staying in a heretical church become too spiritually toxic for us and our child? How do parents ensure proper faith formation for their children when Scripture and Tradition are suborned to “the spirit of the age?” Please, Fr. Levenson, answer me that.
TridentineVirginian #4 is exactly right. If unity is so important, these guys should convert to Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy. I guess, though, that they have serious doctrinal issues that prevent them from signing up, in good conscience, with those Churches. But guess what? Others feel the same about Episcopalianism. So why does Levenson et al. seek to deny others the luxury in which he’s happy to indulge?
People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Rev. Levenson, my question to you is, why do you get to play by different rules than you would impose on others? See my #18; perhaps more to the point, I note that you spend your comment pleading for the support of all orthodox Anglicans (presumably including those who have left ECUSA) even as you characterize criticisms of your path as “ill will,” “vitriolic” and “angry” – yet, the subject of the blog post is your interview in which you felt free to criticize those who would leave. In very strong terms, no less; you call them out as schismatic and offer up that path as being one of the “two great enemies of the body of Christ.” Leaving aside the nonsense of calling those adhering to the Faith schismatics, while exonerating all manner of weird revisionism (i.e., ECUSA, in its various and sundry forms) as a shining example of unity, I think that part of your interview alone leaves you little place to moan about those who question your decision to stay in ECUSA.
If nothing short of being prevented from preaching the gospel presents a church dividing issue, then the authors of the Windsor Report were wrong in their emphasizing that not all differences are adiaphora and to be tolerated within the Church, and at least overzealous in their recommendations regarding TEC and the ACoC and the concluding caution about walking apart.
I recognize the difference between a separation through the consequences of a Communion adjudication and more fragmented departures. But drawing that distinction does not seem to be the point being made here.
#19 Thanks for taking the time to engage. As I understand your points about the PBs theology they are:
1. The PBs theology is unimportant per se
2. One does not have to comment on her theology
Both points seems weak to me. The PBs theology matters at as much and in just the same way as any Bishop’s theology matters. She is a bishop in God’s church and teaches God’s people.
No one is obliged to comment on anything (including those folks who have chosen to engage here with your ideas, your own initial interview in CT and your comment above). When one gives an interview and is asked explicitly about the theology being taught by a leading bishop in one’s church and one elects not to comment then it seems fair to say that one has evaded giving a view.
I’m happy for you to “let my views speak for themselves” if you wish. Otherwise feel free to engage with them.
#19 Rev Russell Levenson
Thank you for your response here and the issue highlighted is noted.
Following on from that we ask commenters here to bear in mind the need to maintain Christian discourse and remain on topic – otherwise please carry on.
#21 I think that’s right. On this standard everything is adiaphora. “You take the high road and I’ll take the low…” view church life.
Let me just add one thing. I am committed to remaining within TEC. I find myself in more or less total agreement with ACIs latest statements.
I just think it does no any credit to evade what is clearly a straight forward and significant matter. The PBs theology is not a “private” matter. Nor is it utterly unimportant – though there are many more important things. Some kind of gentle and truthful comment would have been possible. There may be other reasons why you chose not to answer. Perhaps it would undermine dialogues in which you are involved or lead to a breach of trust in some other places. I understand that and those would have been good reasons not to answer – but the stated reasons for avoiding the question are rather weak IMO.
The criticism I gave was limited and specific. I think you owed some better answer to that qestion. Interviews are difficult. We’re thinking on our feet, often. Sometimes we say things that aren’t our considered view. Maybe it was like that. That’s not the end of the world but nor is being criticised for it a relentless campaign of undermining.
Fr. Levenson, thank you for your magnanimous, patient and loving comment and interview. As you have probably noted, many of those who have held the same teaching are truly angry, and have found it hard to find the spirit of love – and the spiritual perspective – that you have.
As a reappraiser, I’m fully aware that in the next two decades that most of our churches will close. If conservatives had been more patient, tenacious but yet magnanimous, perhaps the church would be a different place now than it was. And they would inherit the structures and the remaining buildings.
We are in an era where most people leave if they don’t like something. Its the era of franchise Christianity: denominations have become less like families (you love your brother, even if he’s decided to become a different faith), and more like fast-food chains. In the Episcopal church this has worked out to the progressive’s benefit in the short run.
Please understand that in our diocese, as well as many others, that is not the case. We are not allowed to give money that doesn’t have some allocation to TEC. And what do we do in this case?
Russell, in your remark about “being [b] prevented [/b] from preaching the gospel” have you thought about priests prevented by the bishop from receiving a call or aspirants prevented by the COM from qualifying for ordination? You will find the exclusion is much higher than you realize if you do.
Prevented from entering the Diocese of Massachusettes,
Episcoanglican
My apologies Russell, after reading your blog entry I see you have already dismissed this form of “being prevented from preaching the gospel” as not counting in your assessment.
For the record, I have no problem with those he feel called to preach the gospel from within. May the Lord bless and annoint your preaching. But that door is closing and will continue to close. As the suffragen bishop of Massachussettes explained to me when he prevented me from receiving a call from a parish in his diocese, “the tent has narrowed.” For you to assert that is not happening or dismiss it with semantics is to ignore the facts on the ground. The gospel is being systematically exlcluded from the Episcopal Church.
No ill will or anger from this quarter, just gentle bemusement arising from those perceiving such. But then, I’m easily entertained.
😉
19: With appreciation for the many agricultural allusions, we must respectfully agree to disagree. This family member was prohibited by the authority of the bishop from preaching in his diocese, even prior to attendance of TESM – the reason given? the ‘fundamentalist’ (Gospel) message associated with TESM.
In another example, a bishop shouted criticism at a rector from the rector’s own pulpit. The criticism? His biblical message was too uninclusive and divisive.
I have other examples. Not all are clear cut, but sadly, many are.
It is true that these priests could physically and legally go to public locations in the United States and preach the Gospel. In the first case, it would likely have landed the family member in canonical hot water! In the second, well, the church ruptured from the ill effects, and the priest was unemployed for some time – so I suppose he did have time on his hands.
IMHO, these just seem to be “some ways,” ways that do reflect on TEC.
thank you Reverend for responding to me but i must respectfully ask for clarification…your church sends NO money at all to the national church? i thought that was required. at least in my old church, i tithed only to the discretionary fund because i knew they sent a portion to the national church…they are extremely small but still it seems to trickle up some to the national church. i find it hard to believe that the national church relies on voluntary payments of its member churches…thanks for any response.
I Second, magnolia. To avoid the one liner, I too would like to hear the answer.
Whether I agree or not, is not the issue. I appreciate your piece and will be praying for us all no matter what direction we believe the Lord is leading us. I trust that God will work on many strategic fronts to accomplish His good purposes.
Scripture admonishes us to separate ourselves from the non-scriptural. If our church leaders, particularly the presiding leader, preach non-scriptural heresies, then what must be concluded? The answer is a matter of simple faith and common sense – climb out of the pit.
There are, of course, positive ways in which bishops can prevent the preaching of the gospel. I have told time and again the story of the events surrounding St. John’s, Bristol, CT, the deposition of the Rev. Dr. Mark Hansen, the imposition of a priest-in-charge without consultation of the vestry contrary to the explicit canons of the Episcopal Church, the changing of locks to prevent the vestry from entering the building and fulfilling their duties, and the removal of the same vestry by the priest-in-charge on the unspecified grounds of their “many [unspecified] offenses.” And, of course, the ignoring by Bishop Smith of registered letters sent to him by the legal vestry of St. John’s protesting his actions. I still carry my old vestry key on my key ring as a constant and intentional reminder.
However, there are other ways of preventing the preaching of the gospel without such direct measures. In the early and mid-90s, I attended a “moderate” parish in Arlington, MA. (Leander Harding had been the former rector there.) When the priest left, the bishop and search committee conspired (I can think of no other word) to bring in a lesbian rector as the replacement (who moved into the rectory with her partner), deliberating keeping this information secret from the parish. The parish split, with about a third or more of the congregation leaving. Many of my moderate friends could not understand why I was so opposed to the new rector. Within a year or so of her coming, she had invited John Dominic Crossan to do a series on the “resurrection” at the parish. (Crossan says notoriously that Jesus’ body was eaten by dogs.) On the same weekend, Leander Harding and I were doing a weekend teaching event on the bodily resurrection of Jesus in CT–where I had moved in the meantime.
Beginning some time after 1998, a group of clergy and some laity began meeting once a month in either CT or New York state for theological discussion. We were a local branch of the group then called SEAD (Scholarly Engagement with Anglican Doctrine), which has since morphed into the Anglican Communion Institute. (We called ourselves SEAD Northeast.) Clergy and laity from at least dioceses would attend these meetings regularly–CT, NY, Central New York, Albany, Newark. After a couple of years one of the hosting priests moved to another state, and the bishop made clear to the vestry of that parish that he could be replaced only with a priest of “acceptable” theological convictions. So that was one less place we could meet at. A few years later my colleague Leander Harding left CT to become faculty at Trinity School for Ministry. He was replaced with a “moderate,” so, again, there was one less place where we could meet. A third priest retired, and the bishop replaced him with a practicing gay priest. That left only one parish at which SEAD NE could meet. The original hosting priest finished his doctorate and left to teach. Fortunately, he was replaced by an Anglo-Catholic interim. The interim was replaced by a married Evangelical couple. After a couple of years, the couple returned to the West, and there was no longer any place to meet. And SEAD NE no longer exists.
Bishops do not have to prevent the preaching of the gospel by force. They can just wait patiently until orthodox clergy retire or leave, and then make it clear to the vestry that no candidate who stands on the wrong side of the presenting issue will be allowed to be considered by the diocese. And the same is true for dioceses. It is my firm opinion that Mark Lawrence will be the last orthodox priest to ever be allowed to be elected bishop in TEC. Dioceses like Dallas, Rio Grande, Albany, Central Florida, and the other Windsor dioceses are only a bishop away from having their bishops replaced by “moderates” like Lee of Virginia or Howard of Florida.
There are currently dioceses in the Episcopal Church where it is practically impossible to worship at an orthodox parish. Three years ago now, my father (who had retired to rural Arizona) had a stroke. For six months I moved there to help my mother care for him. While there, I assessed the TEC situation. There was only one TEC parish within twenty miles of where my parents lived, and I found out quickly that it was revisionist. Kendall Harmon graciously helped me make contact with an orthodox priest in Phoenix who assured me that, to the best of his knowledge, they were the last remaining orthodox parish in the diocese. (Phoenix was a six hour drive. That parish has sent left TEC.) So I worshiped with the Lutherans.
I think that many clergy who work in orthodox dioceses like Dallas or Central Florida or Albany, or some who live here in my current diocese of Pittsburgh, have been sheltered by their orthodox bishops for so long, that they simply have no idea what it is like to try to be an orthodox priest or layperson in a “reappraising” diocese. In many dioceses, for laity, especially, the choices are grim.
Whenever a bishop teaches sexual immorality, by precept or example, he muddies the Gospel waters in his diocese, and makes it impossible to preach the Gospel with a straight face and a certain sound. I am still inside a diocese where homosex is sinful in some parishes, praised and ‘blessed’ in others. If I were other than a (merely) lay leader I think that I should long since have had to take my people out, from every point of view.
William Witt, you have summarized the current situation very, very well. I have witnessed the same story in three different dioceses in three very different and distant from each other parts of the US.
Fr. Levenson and his large flock should thank their stars they: a) are in a culturally-conservative, church-attending part of the country; b) their numbers give them wads of money and clout, and so they can ignore their diocese as they please with the tiniest bit of ‘splash-back’. This luxury is granted only to cardinal parishes and cardinal rectors WITH MONEY, everyone else is squashed; c) they are large enough to immerse themselves in their own programs and ministries, and pretty much ignore TEC.
They are indeed fortunate; I only hope that they realize how unique is their situation, and not toss bricks at those of us who were forced to flee to orthodox Christian bodies.
Rev Levenson,
I would submit that if your parish does not send any money to support TEC, you have already withdrawn from that body in all but name. Our parish also does not send any money to TEC; we do not consider ourselves under the authority of KJS. We are in the Diocese of SC and I hope that we will soon be in the Anglican Province of North America, not TEC (or whatever they want to call themselves).
The only thing TEC cares about is money and property. I will continue to pray for reconciliation, but I believe in my heart of hearts that it is time to shake the dust off of our feet and leave the heretics to themselves. I pray that you and other conservatives will join us when that time comes.
One other point, many talk of schism as if the Episcopal church is THE church. They are not, they have strayed from Christianity over the years and now resemble a weird sect more than a Christian church. We should be doing as much as we can to ensure a faithful remnant.
William Witt:
I am at St. David’s Church in Roswell, Georgia in the Diocese of Atlanta. Our church is anglo-catholic with gospel-centered preaching. Our church is involved in mission with the Dioces of Atlanta to Central America and Africa. In fact, when we left the warfare in Virginia we moved the home base of Solar Light for Africa down here to Atlanta and have been embraced as a mission organization.
When we were in Virginia, I found a great deal of hostility directed from both sides. Now we have found a peaceful nuturing place to grow our mission. Perhaps you are right about other diocese. You did not mention Atlanta, but I welcome the atmosphere in Atlanta over the rough and tumble attitudes we ran into in northern Virginia.
aldenjr: Give it time, my friend. Just wait until a new bishop arrives!
I need to correct my former post. Our former parish in Virginia was shelter in a storm. The pushback we received in Virginia was a requirement from both sides of the debate to declare our position and sign eachother’s Statement of Faith. The hurdles became steeper and the funding ebbed when the church divided. We are a private organiation seeking to do the will of God in building relationship with the church of Africa to support its need to provide electricity and water and promote intercultural youth opportunities. I am glad our family has been able to find a great place to worship in a peaceful Diocese. I think there are many more dimensions to this story and Rev. Levenson has an important point.
aldenjr, I live in your area and attend another parish nearby. Our diocese has always been very supportive of foreign missions. I hope you continue to be happy at St. David’s, but you probably haven’t been here long enough to experience the full depth of our bishop’s duplicity and revisionist leanings. Only time will tell when it will impact your parish.
A remarkably soothing and refreshing bit of common sense and Christian clarity from Fr. Levenson. Think of the damage to God’s Church that could have been avoided had there been more of such wisdom, charity, humility and civility in recent discourse. Much of this dispute has taken on an air of secular political hyperbole. This reasonable man is a welcome oasis in the arid wilderness of invective and innuendo that has characterized the debate. I am a member of one of the large Episcopal parishes where roughly half the congregation voted to depart (although they are clinging to the physical property of the church structures). I have little or no disagreement with their reading of scripture, but I would have preferred they stay and advocate the correctness of their position. I feel somewhat abandoned at this point. But, as Fr. Levenson points out, there was absolutely no issue on which the departing clergy and members were prohibited from preaching Truth or in any way were forced to conceal or dissemble about their views. If they had stayed, their position would not have been in any way stifled among our parishioners. To this day, I am having real difficulty finding irreconcilable doctrinal differences between the formally adopted positions of the national church and those tenets that we adhere to. Indeed, most of the clatter I hear is anecdotal and attributable to remarks by individual priests, bishops or lay persons. If the upcoming GC affirmatively endorses homosexual marriages wtihin the church or some similar goofiness, I’ll have to re-examine my assessment of the situation, but I very much doubt any such thing will happen.
William, I don’t deny your story, but I think this reflects more on the sorts of people who become priests in mainline churches, either orthodox or liberal. By and large, most clergy don’t handle conflict well. If they disagree, they become distant and can’t participate in the structure. The rule is stay connected, but stay differentiated.
In NYC there are several evangelical priests. One is at All Angels in Manhattan, the other is in Scarsdale. Then there is St. Thomas. All have good relationships with the diocesan bishop. All oppose the ordination of gay bishops or clergy. They are more interested, however, in bringing their followers to Christ. The priest in Scarsdale, for example, has tried to run for several positions. He doesn’t win, but he tries. The bishop asks for one thing: don’t take the church out of the diocese. He doesn’t have a theological agenda (but he does have views and beliefs). Aside from that, run your church as you see fit.
A good orthodox leader would continue training the faithful in the parish, make strong leadership a higher priority than political correctness, and continue paying the assessment. But they would go to conferences. They would be part of the clericus. they would be in the deaneries. They would still be in relationship with others.
They would have to be the sort of leader who believes that there is no such thing as a permanent enemy, and that even a revisionist Bishop could be brought to Christ. I suspect that most orthodox priests suffer from the same pussilanimous behavior that is evinced in liberal clergy: an inability to stay connected while staying strong, clear, open and magnanimous in the midst of difference.
Levenson does something rare: he state what he believes and stays connected. The bishop, thus, doesn’t become anxious that Levenson is going to leave.
Staying connected does not mean one approves. But it does take strength and maturity. Do I think reappraisers have more? Not necessarily. But they have the luxury of power. My own view is that a healthy conservative movement in the church would have made progressives better Christians.
Unfortunately, NoVA, as William Witt and others have testified, your situation is not the norm in most TEc dioceses.
[blockquote]In NYC there are several evangelical priests. . . . The bishop asks for one thing: don’t take the church out of the diocese. He doesn’t have a theological agenda (but he does have views and beliefs). Aside from that, run your church as you see fit. [/blockquote]
John Wilkins,
In case you missed from my original post, with the exception of Leander Harding’s parish in Stamford, CT, all of the parishes our SEAD NE group met at were in the Diocese of NY. None of the priests in this group had any intention to take their parish out of ECUSA (not yet TEC), and none of them took steps to do so. Bishop Grein, and later Bishop Sisk, left us alone. Bishop Sisk was a personal friend and sailing partner of one of the priests, who also had an important administrative position in the diocese. This close friendship did not prevent this priest from being replaced with a gay rector when he retired–who promptly began undoing the man’s entire lifelong ministry in that parish. As I pointed out, the three parishes where SEAD NE used to meet in the Diocese of New York are no longer available–as the rectors in each one has been replaced with someone who would not have welcomed us.
I am certain that, from your perspective, the diocese of NY is a wonderful place for conservatives. After all, you were able to point to three entire parishes whose rectors the diocese has not yet replaced. Noblesse oblige.
Let me add a final illustration about how wonderful the Diocese of NY is for conservative Episcopalians. One of the faithful attendees of our SEAD NE group was a young man in his twenties who had recently graduated from one of New York City’s more prestigious universities. As an undergraduate, he had already become recognized among Episcopalians. (If I had mentioned his name five years ago, many here would have heard of him.) When he began attending our group, he had already published a number of articles in scholarly journals, and, despite his young age, was able to keep up with any of the Ph.D.’s in SEAD NE. (He was, for awhile, the editor of a theological journal.) We were impressed, to say the least.
He was a devout Anglo-Catholic who intended to pursue orders, and who intended to stay in TEC. He was humble, intelligent, charming, and mature for his years. A generation or two ago, such an applicant for ordination would have been snapped up quickly in the Episcopal Church, with the implicit understanding that this was either a future seminary professor or bishop. This young man attended a “moderate” parish, went through the ordination channels in the Diocese of New York, and through the mandated discernment process in his parish–which took a year or two. At the end of that process, the diocese told him that he would never be ordained in the Episcopal Diocese of New York, and that, should he go to another diocese to pursue ordination, he would never be allowed to function as a priest in New York. His too orthodox theological views were the grounds for his denial. He still lives in New York City, attends a TEC parish, and has not pursued ordination elsewhere.
We left the Diocese of Atlanta some time ago, right after the Cathedral’s Canon for Children’s Ministry told my wife she could not make one small change to the summer “Week of Wonder” program. The WoW program was essentially a one week, secular summer school program, and the year my wife was involved it focused on the biological and cultural diveristy of the Galapagos Islands. My wife grew up attending Vacation Bible School, and she was shocked to discover that there was no mention of Jesus Christ or the Gospel at all. When asked to chair the event for the following year, she said she would do so, provided that she could make one small change — she wanted to give the kids a slip of paper each day with a memory verse, and there would be a small prize the next day for those who successfully memorized the verse. The Canon replied no, that would be “Bible thumping.” We left a short while later, having concluded from this and other events that some of the Cathedral clergy were actively opposing our efforts to teach our children about the basics of the faith.
Scout
[blockquote]But [reappraisers] have the luxury of power.[/blockquote]
Which, John Wilkins, is precisely why they can pursue the agenda that they do (whether with vigor or [i]nonchalance[/i]), and why even reasserters/conservatives with strong convictions and the will to persevere and remain engaged become fatigued and isolated – and then withdraw. Pusillanimity isn’t the only reason for withdrawal. Opposing the prevailing theological and practical norms over and over again at diocesan and convocation meetings leads to resentment on the part of those whose agenda are being opposed and the isolation of the opposition. I’ve seen it over and over again in this diocese (North Carolina). That isolation wears on the psyche and leads to withdrawal for the sake of psychological health, particularly if the parish isn’t strongly behind the clergy and lay leaders involved in the opposition. And there aren’t seven thousand who haven’t bent the knee to Baal to cheer every despondent Elijah.
Yeh — why would a lone conservative clergyperson wish to attend clericus meetings and hear all the revisionists spout their heresies regarding the Sunday readings and snipe at the loathed conservatives in their dioceses?
All around TEC I hear clergy describing their clericus meetings — hotbeds of revisionist bitterness, even though they’ve won. They should feel great!
If I were the lone one of ten clergy who actually believed Christian doctrine, it’d get old too, going to clericus’s. For John Wilkins, of course, it’s not a problem. I understand that.
Of course, this is the old illusory fantasy of “none of this is communion-dividing.”
But it is. And it’s being proven in spades in every diocese.
In other words, Sarah, if I agree with what’s being taught and the way things are being done, it’s not communion dividing. If, however, I’m the one being discriminated against, and put down for my beliefs, then that is a different story.
Sad
Jim Elliott <>< Florida (Where Bp Howard told us, "It's my way or the highway!")
Bishop Haward did not stop Eric Dudley or my father from preaching the gospel in Tallahassee. The splitting of St. John’s Tallahassee and the departure of Eric Dudley from TEC with 2/3 of the congregaation is what precipitated the change in situation there. That is what Father Levensen is talking about.
Ah. But Aldenjr, Howard DID order the many vicars in Dio Fla to disaffiliate from any organization other than those officially sanctioned by the Diocese or the National Church (i.e., the American Anglican Council — mentioned by name). Which precipitated many disaffiliating with TEc instead. He did take a very heavy hand there.
And just for the record, when I was at FSU, the chaplain at Chapel of the Resurrection never hesitated to denigrate Fr. Dudley or the ministry team at St. John’s for their ‘idiotic stand’ on theological and social issues. And he had a growing group around him (many who had left St. John’s) who were also very vocal in their hatred (yes, hatred) of St. John’s team at that time, and questioning how they could get rid of Eric so they could get “their” church back from the fanatics.
This was verbalized many times in my presence while studying in Ruge Hall. (This was maybe four years before the split, the Chaplain was from Canada, that’s not important to his theology, but to his identity as I cannot remember his name.) Fortunately, Steven Jecko was still Bishop at the time, and would not hear of any mutiny of this sort. Howard, however, would have in time, I’m sure.
Peace
Jim Elliott <>< Florida PS, in my post #50, the wording is not right, but I don't really know how to fix it to state that I see the first sentence as being the sad state, not the second?
LibraryJim – You are talking about politics (what group you can be associated with, etc) Jim Levenson is talking about being prohibited from preaching the Gospel. He did not say it was easy, he simply said that all the ones he knew that left did so of their own volition. I simply pointed out that Howard nor anyone else prohibited Father Dudley and the staff at St. John’s to preach the Gospel. The final act that made the change was caused by Dudley not Howard.
But Alden, we don’t know what went on behind the scenes to precipitate Fr. Dudley taking the action he did. We mere civilians did not see what discussions went on between him and the bishop or the bishop’s representative, canon Dunkle. Anything we say is mere speculation, including the statements that ‘he was not prevented from preaching the gospel’. Unless, due to your father being there, you have inside information?
One correction to my above: the conversations I mentioned earlier took place more like seven years ago. As I get older, it seems my recollections of how much time is passing gets skewed.
one more PS,
I do know (from inside information at an American Anglican Council Florida meeting at Camp Weed) that one mission vicar was told by the Bishop NOT to focus on evangelism in a certain area, but rather to only focus on existing Episcopalians for his church plant. He was told that ‘evangelism is not our concern’.
To say more would be to compromise the confidence. If that’s not forbidding to follow the Gospel, what is?
Personally, it seems that this has to do with personality rather than theology. I’ve seen liberals unable to examine a rational conservative argument, and I’ve seen conservatives get uncomfortable when faced with peer pressure. I’ve been frustrated at political correctness, myself, and had to challenge people who wanted to apologize for the Old Testament. Sarah’s right that there are plenty of bitter liberals. And those churches… well… they are going to die. And the tenacious conservatives who’ve weathered the storm will remain. Possible?
Witt offers an anecdote, but I know of one orthodox woman who was ordained in the diocese last year. He offers several others. But the details are vague. Did SEAD ask permission to meet? Or did they just assume they wouldn’t be friendly? I think it would be great to have SEAD host a conference at my church. But nobody has asked me. The presumption is that I would be unfriendly. I understand the presumptiveness, but it also represents a fear – perhaps justified- but the future of the conservative church will rely on people being unafraid.
What to do when faced with political correctness? The best thing is a loving, teasing response that shows one’s own feelings aren’t hurt. One can stay connected and not be invested in the response.
Do I think its easy? Nope. I do think its possible.
[blockquote]Did SEAD ask permission to meet? Or did they just assume they wouldn’t be friendly?[/blockquote]
John, I honestly do not know what the response was of the remaining SEAD NE members when the last remaining meeting parish lost its rector. I was in Arizona at the time.
However, you simply ignored the key point I was making. Over a period of several years, as various orthodox clergy either retired or moved elsewhere, everyone one of them was consistently replaced with a priest whose theological positions were in line with the diocese and out of line with the previous rectors and catholic orthodoxy. Every one. Without exception.
Now of course, the remaining orthodox might well have asked the new reappraising rectors (hat in hand) if they could have permission for their little group to continue to meet to discuss orthodox theology, even if the rector might not agree with our views. There would certainly be something ironic about that, since the whole reason for SEAD was to do something to preserve orthodoxy in the Episcopal Church. Clearly we lost that one.
But that rather misses the point, doesn’t it? Why is it that retiring and moving orthodox rectors in the Dioceses of NY and CT are consistently replaced with reappraisers? A coincidence? Statistically unlikely.
William, you ask why were people replaced? Well it doesn’t quite work like that. The diocese of NY is fairly congregational.
I think the challenge is to find traditionalist priests who are also committed to church growth, and have a fairly healthy sense of leadership. I do think that clergy – especially mainline clergy over the last 40 years – have simply not been very good at handling conflict. Consequently, things have been balkanized.
Furthermore, NY is attractive for reappraising clergy and they apply. Traditionalist clergy don’t. I wouldn’t be surprised if it were more intentional in other dioceses, but not in NY. The most important aspect they are looking for is leadership.
Could there be a fuller explanation of this statement?
“As a reappraiser, I’m fully aware that in the next two decades that most of our churches will close.”
[blockquote] William, you ask why were people replaced? Well it doesn’t quite work like that. The diocese of NY is fairly congregational.[/blockquote]
John Wilkins, if you seriously believe that the reason why orthodox clergy in all these parishes were replaced with reappraisers was because there were simply no orthodox clergy available anywhere in the country who would be willing to live in rural New York state, I would question your grasp of reality.
On second thought, John Wilkins, let’s pretend, just for argument’s sake, that the Diocese of New York is really quite friendly to theologically conservative clergy, and that, for some inexplicable reason, none of them want to work in in New York. And so, sadly, when a conservative rector retires or moves, although Bishop Sisk would be more tha thrilled to have an orthodox replacement, there just are not any available–anywhere. And a reappraising priest fills the position because, well, you use what you’ve got.
Remember that the subject of this discussion is why orthodox clergy and laity should not leave the Episcopal Church. What is it about the diocese of New York that makes traditionalist clergy so reluctant to work there that the diocese has no choice but to replace them with reappraisers? If I were a lay person living in the diocese of New York, and attending an orthodox parish, how attractive would I find it to continue attending that parish, devoting time, talent and money to its upkeep, with the knowledge, all along, that should my rector retire or move elsewhere, he or she would almost certainly be replaced with someone whose theological views were at odds with the congregation because, for some unfathomable reason, orthodox clergy just could not be found?
And let’s ask, why, if the diocese of New York is so welcoming to orthodox clergy, that there are no seminarians from the Diocese of New York at Trinity School for Ministry? Although there are lots from Albany? And lots from South Carolina? And even a few from Virginia? (And I’m guessing that they’re not at Nashotah House or Wycliffe, either.)
And why is it that young men like the one I mentioned, who have definite signs of vocation, who have all the intellectual and spiritual gifts that any bishop would be thrilled to see in his priests, and who jump through all the diocesan hurdles, simply cannot make it through the discernment process?
It is a possible but increasingly risky strategy to trust the calling process for a conservative rector. Almost 15 years ago, the Rev. Greg Brewer left the faculty of Trinity School for Ministry to become rector of Good Samaritan Paoli, PA. I remember warning him at the time of the difficulties of being in a strongly revisionist diocese. To his and the parish’s credit, they have stood firm over these years and even flourished. Now Greg has accepted a call to [url=://http://stgeorgesnyc.dioceseny.org/Gregory_Brewer.php] Calvary-St. George’s in NYC[/url]. Greg’s theological position is well-known. He was music leader at GAFCON.
One lesson is: a strong rector and vestry and a church with a strong conservative history [i]can[/i] withstand the revisionist pressures of TEC. But a second lesson (a la William Witt) may be: keeping faithful is high-risk behavior in TEC, especially in strongly revisionist dioceses.
Pray for Greg as he moves to New York and for Good Sam as it calls a new rector.
Chris Seitz (#59), good to see you on this thread, and I would like to see the fuller explanation you ask for too. Separately, and not as a challenge to you or my friend Russell but should anyone wish to comment, may I note the following seeming difference in view. In comment #19, RJL states, “One of the things the Communion Partners continues to discuss is that often conservatives (whether in or out) have been our own worst enemies—we find specks upon which to disagree . . . rather than sharing a common vision of what needs to be done—massive reform . . . .†But in “Patient Endurance – On Living Faithfully in a Time of Troubles,†you and the other ACI authors state, “It is now the case that the people we know do not see any near possibility of reform and they no longer pursue such purposes. They have recognized the futility for near term of politically realistic change.†I realize that from the wording some technical distinctions can be made, e.g., you are emphasizing the near term. But if CP is discussing what “needs to be done†that sounds like it has a near-term perspective as well.
‘John Wilkins’ (58),
I was going to weigh in on your first point and concede the second. But I hesitated when I reconsidered your use of the term traditionalist clergy.
Would you define traditionalist as you are using the term here?
WW
Tell that guy in NY (I seem to remember that situation) to move out here to San Joaquin, transfer into my parish, and in six months after engaging in ministry I will put his name forward for ordination, pending our parish discernment prayer review.
ACI was referring to the idea, e.g., that one can turn around a General Convention by special efforts. The Bible is clear about how long periods of judgment can last (Judges; long reign of Manasseh). In these periods, God gives agents of purpose and obedient witness. By ‘what needs to be done’ I assume Fr Levenson refers to the convictions and commitments we discuss in the ACI essay. But I am more curious about the comment referred to.
[blockquote]Tell that guy in NY (I seem to remember that situation) to move out here to San Joaquin, transfer into my parish, and in six months after engaging in ministry I will put his name forward for ordination, pending our parish discernment prayer review.[/blockquote]
Rob Eaton,
Leander Harding and I continue to give occasional nudges to that “guy from New York.” We would love to have him at Trinity, although he would be a welcome addition to Nashotah House, as well, or Wyclffe. For personal reasons, he chooses to live in New York City, at least for now. He continues to be in our prayers that, in God’s good time, his vocation will be fulfilled.
WW-
Ok, ok, he’s yours. And I will pray for his positive response to your (pl.) urging.
sigh. I would have loved to have gone to Trinity OR Nashota House. My wife, however, found Nashota too conservative for HER, but would tolerate Trinity. (Of course, we have since met Nashota grads, including Fr. John Wallace at St. Peter’s, who testify to the superb training and education they received there.)
It didn’t matter in the long run, as I was seen by the diocese as being too conservative to be sent at all to any seminary (Suwanee was the seminary of choice by the bishop at the time, and my wife wanted us to go there, too, just for the location!).
So, like William’s friend, my calling was put on indeterminate hold. Now at 49, it is unlikely that I will ever see a chance to fulfill it.
Peace
Jim Elliott <>< Florida