Clergy and lay representatives from seven dioceses in The Episcopal Church, as well as six bishops with Episcopal jurisdiction, met in Charleston, S.C. on November 3-4, 2009 to consider ways they might assist each other in more effectively reaching their communities and the world for Christ. More specifically, in keeping with General Convention resolution B030, which encouraged domestic Dioceses within The Episcopal Church to enter into missional relationship, this meeting encouraged the dioceses to consider what resources they can share with each other and work more closely to further the Gospel mission. Evangelizing and reaching the unchurched; catechizing and discipling the converted; assisting members in generational faithfulness; renewing, strengthening and growing existing parishes; and planting new congregations to reach their communities with the Gospel were the areas of greatest interest.
To this end, through the work of some of the Communion Partner bishops and rectors, along with others, these Dioceses in Missional Relationships will begin by hosting two initiatives for the purpose of encouraging and equipping missionally focused dioceses, congregations and individuals through:
1. Establishing a website for sharing resources and networking for ministry and mission. It is their intention to have this ministry-networking initiative functioning in an initial stage during Epiphany 2010; and,
2. Sponsoring a large venue three day event in Dallas, September 23””25, 2010. This event will be for the purpose of encouraging, empowering, emboldening and equipping missionally focused individuals, congregations and dioceses, as well as providing resources to assist each other to be more effective in reaching their communities for Christ and his Church.
Dioceses presently involved in this Gospel initiative are Albany, Central Florida, Dallas, North Dakota, South Carolina, Springfield, and Western Louisiana.
In Albany, the group travelled, and the “representatives” were chosen in nearly [b][i]complete secrecy[/i][/b]. No one is consulted or included in such plans; very few were even aware that this was happening. This has long been the “Albany way.” Perhaps we will receive an email this week informing us that there was an event and everyone who participated had a nice time.
How, then are people supposed to trust in or invest themselves in such a scheme??
When we were members of the Network, we were never allowed to participate actively in anything it did. So now what? This has been done in a condition of irrelevance to the lives and needs of people, clergy and parishes, and it will most likely continue in that same condition.
TEC is still TEC, and Albany — for the most part — is still a loyal part of it. Although, given the opportunity more folks than one might imagine would happily leave. Seminars, field trips and gathering around the campfire to sing Kumbaya will not change any of the apostasy of TEC or our complicity with it.
Small parable: In his [i]Commedia[/i] Dante puts the pre-Christian pagan philosophers of good will in what he refers to as “the easiest room in hell.”
The easiest room in hell is still in hell.
PS: Am I being too negative and uncooperative? Shouldn’t we give this nice plan a fair chance?
This scheme simply recreates what the Anglican Communion Network was created to do [b][i]Six years Ago[/i][/b]. The people who actually actively participated in it came to realize that the “church within a church” model was NOT sufficient to allow genuinely faithful Christians to be and remain such within a corrupt organization that once was a church, but can no longer be understood to be a real Christian Church now.
So six years later these 7 dioceses are starting all over again to do again what was done before by the ACN in the hopes of what — — a different outcome? This time we will live in peace and freedom within TEC and flourish while staying in the apostate organization? Sure, why not?
It is my own considered opinion that we need to face the music and do what is genuinely necessary — what the truly courageous and uncompromising folks of the ACNA have done: shake the dust off your sandals, and move on.
In a negative situation, being negative is simply telling the Truth.
Nice try, but
Been there
Done that
Dont have to T-shirt (too old for that)
But, still have the pin………….
Grandmother in SC
How disappointing… we didn’t pass the resolutions so we could only work with six TEC diocese…
Oh yes we did GMS.. I even wrote the Standing Committee about the ‘Very Small Box” they were putting us into, but it did no good.
They took it to the Bishop, BUT, he pooh poohed it apparently.
Oh well, I did what I could.
Grandmother in SC
ps: That “Box” was Resolution Three !
GM in SC
#2 makes pretty good sense.
Isn’t it just like the Episcopal Church? Find a subject and learn, and learn, and travel to learn, and learn. Why not spend all of this money “doing”?
I disagree with the above comments. At last, the Network strategy is actually being tried — that of simply moving on and being a group of committed faithful dioceses that essentially ignore 815, and outgrow it, and organize themselves as a church.
The reason why we are “back where we started” folks . . . is because the Network was composed of two different groups of people. People who wished to leave TEC — or had already done so — and people who didn’t. And those who wished to leave TEC or had already done so won the day within the Network and the Network morphed into the “outside strategy group.”
Now, if the commenters above wish to leave TEC — and believe me, I certainly understand that sentiment — there is a wonderful place to go — ACNA.
But for folks like me who won’t be going to ACNA, it’s nice to see the group that is remaining within TEC actually committed to working together.
What I find interesting still is that for some strange reason those who wish to leave TEC are full of resentment at those who are actually within TEC, not going to leave it, and wanting to work together.
Why is this skin off anybody’s nose? Why the resentment? Why not simply let those who are staying work together in their own way? Sure — those who wish to leave TEC ardently disagree with that strategy. But what else is new? Those who wish to stay in TEC ardently disagree with the ACNA strategy too.
I’ve supported folks who needed to leave TEC, and have been very happy for them, and wished the best for ACNA [albeit also been clear about my reservations]. Why can’t we hear that from people about those of us who are staying?
Ok. I don’t want to start a discussion on this; I just don’t have the energy. But I will answer this much:
This is not about resentment or anger toward those who genuinely want to stay in (although I can’t imagine why).
The problem here is that there are untold numbers — fairly large as far as I can see — of clergy and people [b]in[/b] these apparently faithful dioceses who very badly want [b]out[/b] of TEC. We are being put in a horribly stressful, contradictory position by these bishops. Either we leave on our own, risking being labelled as traitors to our faithful bishops and brethren; or, we stay within an apostate organization which we abhor. Some of us feel quite clearly that God wants us to leave. Yet, if we do, our bishops put all sorts of pressure on us to violate our consciences in name of personal loyalty or keeping the diocese together or being prophetic — — and on and on.
It is far easier to be in an apostate diocese where the lines are clear and leaving is a clear-cut necessity. By cobbling together this most unsatisfactory compromise these bishops have only made the whole process harder and more painful.
No price is to large to pay to be obedient to God — and God gets obedience before bishops (“[i]Judge for yourselves whether it is right to obey God or man[/i]”) OK.
But we are being asked to be patient even longer and to accept this compromise when the final outcome of doing so is simply to continue to be compliant with TEC.
I can’t help but think that Katy J-S read this news and smiled.
Sarah — just do what you are led to do. I am not criticizing you. But please don’t jump on me for being stressed to the breaking point by the pressure and contradiction that this is causing a lot of us.
I am in the Diocese of Albany and I trust Bishop Love’s spiritual and episcopal judgement and leadership.
He has drawn a very clear line in the sand that establishes the fact that our diocese will remain an orthodox diocese as long as he leads us.
By drawing that line he has made himself a target and has placed himself in the cross-hairs of ECUSA’s radical leadership.
He needs the support of all of us who believe in “..the Faith once given…” and who are members of our diocese.
I will not “bug out” on Bishop Bill.
“At last, the Network strategy is actually being tried—that of simply moving on and being a group of committed faithful dioceses that essentially ignore 815, and outgrow it, and organize themselves as a church.”
Is this a statement on behalf of the group that just met in Charleston? Thanks.
I have read so much about staying or leaving on this and other blogs
and venues. This leads me to conclude that no matter where you go,
you and I and all others are in the wilderness. Regardless of whether
we remain or leave, we are exiles in the Judean Wilderness. I have
been there and have pictures of it.
Lumen Christie, my heart aches for you. Your analysis is spot on and as evidenced by Anglican First’s comment, it must be very hard to say what’s on your mind in the face of this blind loyalty given to “Bishop Bill.” The plan to “essentially ignore 815” and go about your business fails to account for the revisionists’ passion to see that justice is secured for their gay brothers and sisters. While there may be a short window where Albany can follow its conscience, that window will be slammed shut. In our lifetime, things will take place at the Spiritual Life Center, dictated by 815, that can’t be ignored, but by then, it’ll be too late.
RE: “Is this a statement on behalf of the group that just met in Charleston?”
An interesting question.
RE: “The problem here is that there are untold numbers —fairly large as far as I can see—of clergy and people in these apparently faithful dioceses who very badly want out of TEC.”
Lumen Christie — then why not join ACNA, which is there waiting for you?
RE: “We are being put in a horribly stressful, contradictory position by these bishops.”
Oh — we’re *all* in “horribly stressful” positions, LC — but I don’t think that’s a particular bishop’s fault.
RE: “Either we leave on our own, risking being labelled as traitors to our faithful bishops and brethren; or, we stay within an apostate organization which we abhor.”
Well — those of us who stay risk “being labelled” as having “blind loyalty” [see comment #14] and “cowards” [see other comments]. Who cares? I smile when I read those accusations and couldn’t care less about being “labelled” either by angry Leavers or angry revisionists [and not all of the former are angry, thankfully].
RE: “Some of us feel quite clearly that God wants us to leave.”
Then, you should do so, without regard to “pressure” from others.
RE: “By cobbling together this most unsatisfactory compromise these bishops have only made the whole process harder and more painful.”
Well — unsatisfactory for those who wish to leave, yes. And painful for those who wish to leave, yes.
RE: “No price is to large to pay to be obedient to God—and God gets obedience before bishops (â€Judge for yourselves whether it is right to obey God or manâ€) OK.”
I completely agree. But there is ACNA waiting on people just with those beliefs that God is wanting them to leave TEC.
RE: “Sarah—just do what you are led to do.”
Thanks — you too.
RE: “But please don’t jump on me for being stressed to the breaking point by the pressure and contradiction that this is causing a lot of us.”
I’m sorry that you saw my disagreement with the above assertions as “jumping on” you.
You made the statement. Does it express the views of those who met in Charleston? That appears to be the implication. Or is it your opinion? As it stands it is unclear (and not that interesting).
RE: “Does it express the views of those who met in Charleston? . . . Or is it your opinion?”
Interesting questions.
But you’ll need to skip the pretense of “questions” and make your point.
RE: “and not that interesting). . . . ”
Of course . . . of course. ; > )
How very odd. You make a statement about what has transpired and indicate what the importance of the meeting is for Lumen’s benefit, but then won’t say whether this is a factual account of what those who met believe they are doing, or your interpretation of that. I genuinely don’t know. I was not at the meeting. You made the statement; how is asking what you mean a pretense?
I would also not say that, because a majority of Network Bishops did not join ACNA, that Network morphed into ACNA. I’d say that the majority of the Bishops joined with others and Communion Partners is what they became and are. You seem to imply–but won’t clarify–that this is another movement of some kind, a first-time effort to make Network work.
No pretense in the least. Just wanted to know whether you were stating your opinion or were speaking for those at Charleston. Thanks.
RE: “how is asking what you mean a pretense? . . . ”
Oh merely because I’m familiar with the “questions” pretense from other places, Seitz. Sadly I’ve learned that — from you — they merely mask anger at whatever idea you don’t like being stated.
Feel free to ask your “question” of the group that met in Charleston.
Or . . . . you could always make the point about what it is with which you disagree and we could dispense with the “questions.”
The question was clear and masked nothing. It was posed to get more information about a meeting from someone defending it, who seemed to indicate that this was a first-time restart of Network. For the purpose of clarification, it would be helpful to know if that is in fact the way the group thinks of itself. Some earlier comments seemed to be aimed at the idea of ‘yet another group’; one implied that, if so, why only six dioceses, etc. I thought you might be able to shed some light, given your comments to Lumen. Thanks.
[Comments are now closed. Please carry on personal discussions on the Private Messaging system available through the ‘Your Account’ facility top right – Elf]