To the Members of St Stephens Church, Sewickley
A Letter about Denominational Realignment
From your Rector and Vestry
October 12, 2007
Dear Friends in Christ,
I write to you as your pastor and brother in Christ in a season of great importance concerning our future, and I write with the unanimous support of our Vestry. For decades under multiple generations of leaders this parish has been filled with glad followers of Jesus Christ, working for the mission of his Gospel, and laboring for the reform and renewal of the Episcopal Church -under Holy Scripture and through the Holy Spirit. At St Stephens we have been deeply thankful for this call upon our lives; we love the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and we love this Church.
As we enter the latter part of this decade, it is now evident that differences of faith and practice have torn the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, probably beyond mending. The challenges we face are rooted in longstanding developments inside western culture that are spreading worldwide. These challenges cannot be avoided, for we face them everywhere. I thank God for your endurance, your courage, and your clarity in this important struggle.
We have come to a moment of decision. After years of effort and much personal anguish, I now believe that the Episcopal Church has clarified and hardened its opposition to the historic and biblical Christian faith to such an extent that we cannot pursue our gospel mission fruitfully while remaining under its authority. Your Vestry concurs. For the sake of our health and future mission, we believe that we must now partner with our diocese to realign our congregation and affiliate with a different Province of the Anglican Communion.
Somewhat off topic, but what is the status of the Great Question of where the Communion is going? Things have been exceptionally quiet since the HoB vote and the canned response from the standing committee.
Is everyone just too tired of this to do anything?
This is Stephen Noll’s church, IIRC. Not even being in Pittsburgh diocese seems to count.
That is a very excellent letter: clear, concise, accurate. Its authors should be commended.
Gordian, Stephen Noll is in Africa. Secondly, if you read the letter carefully you will see that St. Stephen’s does not say it is leaving the Diocese of Pittsburgh; they are leaving pecusa.
This letter lets the congregation know what the Diocese’s plans are (read the letter; they are astounding), and that the parish plans to hook its wagons to the Diocese as it leaves ECUSA.
Re ##2 & 4: It doesn’t even require careful reading:
[blockquote]Working with friends overseas and around the country, our Diocese has developed a plan to realign with an overseas Province of the Anglican Communion which shares our faith and our values. In doing this, we would also partner with the growing Anglican network taking shape in North America outside the Episcopal Church. Parishes that wished to remain in the Episcopal Church would be given that option.
This realignment will take three actions of our diocesan Convention to complete. The first step comes at Diocesan Convention this November 2nd and 3rd. Steps two and three would likely come next October or November. Steps one and two would change our Constitution, giving us the right to choose our affiliation within the Anglican Communion.
Step three would actually select the new Province of affiliation. We are one of four, perhaps five dioceses that are preparing to take these steps together over the next months. Other dioceses and parishes look on with hope to see if a realignment path can be opened. We believe we have the right and responsibility to do this.[/blockquote]
Is this the Geoffry Chapman who is author of the famous (or infamous depending on one’s point of view) Chapman Memo of 2003 that laid out for ACN/ACC members/parishes/etc. a process for leaving the Church and taking property with them, in acts, as the author put it, of “holy disobedience”? Well, then, he seems to be right on schedule.
actually Bob, the hue and cry from the left at that time was that realignment was imminent. instead we have 4 years (!) of Windsor Report, GC, Tanazania, HoB meetings etc. etc., and still there has been no formal split yet (though I realize there will be).
Query: Was the process at St. Stephens begun by Rev. Chapman or by the congregation? A rector can have a powerful influence on a congregation. A parish of which I was once a member called a rector who is attempting to do the same thing, and the results have been disastrous for that parish.
“A rector can have a powerful influence on a congregation.”
Isn’t that sort of the point of a rector?
#10. You raise a great point. Frankly, I think part of what counts as dsyfunction these days is rectors who have turned their parishes into mini-dioceses.
This letter is a gem, and I’m not being critical. But I’m an “episcopalian” (small “e”) and a lot of this rector-type “powerful influence” makes me nervous. You can count on one thing — it will be hard to rope in after the fact.
Albany*, The one thing you really should be nervous about is what will happen to your diocese when these orthodox parishes and dioceses leave TEC and you are left behind.
#9, 10, 11 – As a priest in the Diocese of Pittsburgh let me assure you Geoff Chapman, the vestry, other lay leadership and the overwhelming majority of his parish are on the same trajectory concerning re-alignment. They are moving in concert with the majority in the Diocese of Pittsburgh under Bishop Duncan’s leadership.
DDW, thank you.
I think it’s interesting how (for lack of a better term) the “political” persuasion of various dioceses has evolved over time. To a large degree, they clearly represent the overall population; Dallas and Fort Worth, for example, are both historically conservative places, for the most part (although that’s becoming less true in Dallas). I’m not very familiar with eastern Pennsylvania or Pittsburgh, but it’s always surprised me (at least) that the diocese in Pittsburgh is so much more conservative than its neighbors in Central PA or in northern Ohio.
I have been wondering whether TEC can claim any lien on parish property except through the diocese despite the assertion in the Dennis canon. Does TEC have ordinary jurisdiction over a parish? Apparently they can not stop SSBs at the parish level. I guess they could sue the diocese for leaving TEC but the Dennis canon makes no such provision.
This is Geof Chapman’s parish. It was a lovely Gothic building and once very proper old style Episcopal Parish with a more high church style of worship. Chapman and a few of the other big parishes in the diocese are pushing Duncan to move or at least giving him no room to back out. This may also be a cover so that Duncan can claim that the people of Pittsburgh are pushing the agenda and skirt a possible presentment.
I’m not taking sides just presenting what I’ve heard (most of the conjecture).
#14 and #16
As David Wilson has pointed out, St. Stephen’s, Sewickley, is one Pittsburgh congregation in which the rector’s outspokenness in no way runs counter to the temper of the congregation. And the reason that the Diocese of Pittsburgh is the way it is today has everything to with St. Stephen’s. This was the parish of John Guest and John Howe; it is the birthplace of the 1970s renewal movement in Pennsylvania; and (through Guest) of Trinity School for Ministry. The Beaver Valley churches have all been touched by the spirit of Sewickley. Whether one approves of this or not, Robert Duncan became bishop because of this parish, and national and global realignment is taking place in consequence of what it has done. Chapman, incidentally, was one of TESM’s first graduating class in 1979 (there were five graduates in total).
I’m not – as a historian – generally keen on the “great man” school of history, but it’s hard to write Guest out of the story (I sensed that even before I interviewed him). I would add that, like most of us, it doesn’t mean he doesn’t have his failings
Dallasite – historically Pittsburgh has been always been a traditional diocese. The first four bishops were somewhat high church traditionalists. Bishop Cortland Whitehead who served as bishop from 1882 to 1922 planted over fifty churches. Bishop Austin Pardue was a nationally known preacher of his day 1944-1967. Bishop Robert Appleyard was the only progressive bishop the diocese has ever had 1968-1981. Bishop Hathaway 1981-1997 was a progressive who was converted to evangelicalism and Bishop Duncan 1997 – ???? is an evangelical-catholic. During Pardue’s episcopate Sam Shoemaker was the evangelical rector of Calvary Church and during Appleyard’s episcopate John Guest came to St Stephen’s Sewickley and Trinity School for Ministry began. Trinity more than any other factor has changed the face of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. Almost 50 of the parish clergy are Trinity grads.
Bob Penn – Geoff Chapman and Bob Duncan are on the same page by choice. Neither is pushing the other in any direction. They are both committed to re-alignment willingly. Bob Duncan is not looking for a way to back out of anything. It will be the parishes through the diocesan convention that will decide or not to accede to the Constitution & Canons of TEC not Bob Duncan alone. He gets one clergy vote just like me!
In the last paragraph of the “What is the Issue” section, Chapman
writes, “The tragic result of abandoning the guidance of Scripture is that modern people who are caught in sexual brokenness are denied the blessings of the gospel…The Gospel of new life is being denied to a whole subsection of our culture.”
So please help me to understand…If those of us who are committed to living and sharing the Good News are leaving the TEC, who will share the saving and forgiving message of Jesus Christ to this subsection of culture who are being denied the blessings of the Gospel?
#19, Could it be they would not listen to the sharing?
Jesus said [i] “And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town”[/i] Matt 10:14
And it is written in another place [i]”And wherever they do not receive you, when you leave that town shake off the dust from your feet as a testimony against them.”[/i] Luke 9:5
19:
As many people as there are inside of TEC who need to hear the true Good News, there are many times that many outside of TEC. We who have left will continue to show the world the same grace we have received from God.
#20: I’m wondering who, specifically, you believe would not be
listening.
writingmom,
It’s simple. Those inside TEC cannot listen to the Gospel because they are perverting it from within, and our ability to preach it to them is impeaded by our communion with them. We may say that their form of the Gospel is false and life-denying, but by staying in communion with them we implicitly contradict that claim. Only by breaking from heresy and heretics can the true Gospel be made clear and visble. Then if some are inlcined to listen we will have a voice to present to them.
Re #23: With all due respect, I think that labeling everyone within TEC as heretics who are perverting the Gospel impugns the integrity of the many thousands of unquestionably orthodox believers still within that body. You felt called to leave, but there are others who have not reached that point.
The likelihood that they will find TEC untenable has been increased, not lessened, by the departure of many who might have helped them pull it back from the brink and preserved it as a recognizably Anglican body in some traditional sense. The problem is that neither the existing alternatives (Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, REC, the Continuum, etc.) nor any likely one to develop will be recognizably Anglican in the traditional sense, either. That leaves most of us in the middle just flat out of luck if we wish to pursue the Gospel as our forebears did.
#24, Dale, could not agree more that remaining orthodox reasserters will find TEC more untenable because of the departure of our brethren orthodox reasserters. When VGR was approved at GC2003 the vote was 60/40. A movement of 10 bishops to the reasserter side would have changed the church direction. Instead, we have had the opposite take place, I believe, and some of that defection can be put at the feet of those reasserters who decided to leave instead of staying and fighting for our church at diocesan conventions and at GC2006 and in the election of new orthodox reasserting bishops. Those in the middle along the continuum are now viewed as being on the extreme by the reappraising side. Sometimes it is very hard to listen to castigations from those who have left our ranks, especially when we generally have given them their space to leave, as they felt they were being called.
Billy, which 10 bishops did you think would move to the orthodox side? Was there a real possibility of this happening? Have the heretics in power not managed to rig all the facets of our insitution so that movemnent, like “dialogue”, only works thier way?
Dale, when you commune with heretics it makes you one of them. It doesn’t make them one of you. That’s how it works. That’s the problem. We’re only beginning to deal with it. Pretending you can stay connected to these apostate perverts and anitChrists and work for the churches reformation ignores the level to which our church has sunk. We are not in the situation of bailing out a leaking ship in which more hands mean more bailers. The transom has slipped below the water. The time for bailing is over. The ship is going down. All hands to the life boats.
Not everyone in Germany was a Nazi, but the Nazis were in control, and hoping for a new election was pointless.
But tell me, when Kate comes to town, will you join her in eucharist? If so, what is the meaning of your faith? If not, what is the meaning of your institutional connection to her?
#27, I think we can say with pretty good confidence, for instance, that Henry Parsley would have been elected PB, except for those bishops who are trying to set up a new alignment throwing their support to the current PB, along with the far left reappraising fringe, honchoed by Bp Bruno. Now some folks may not like Bp Parsley because he is loyal to the institution of TEC, but he is not a reappraiser and he was chairman of the HOB committee that pleaded with the HOB not to do anything that would resolve the ssb issue, such as approve VGR (whom he voted not to approve). As far as the 10, who knows. There were some bishops who said after the fact that they did not know all the furor would erupt from their vote (I know that seems hard to believe to me, too.) But my point was not that the bishops at GC2003 would change (though some close to the middle may have), but that participation by reappraisers (instead of leaving) in diocesan conventions and more getting elected (or trying to get elected) to GC2006, could have had a sizable impact on the policies of TEC and could have held it in the middle and given it a chance to drift back to reasserter side, with more participation and action by reasserters between GC2003 and 2009. And reasserting bishops would have had a better chance of being nominated and elected in more moderate dioceses. If you’re not there, you have no voice and no ability to change things. The CCG bishops leaving NO without helping to write the HOB response to DES left the few bishops who are reasserting to fend for themselves in lesser numbers. With more numbers, at least a minority report may have been issued. As it was, the few reasserting bishops were steamrolled to the point that they didn’t even vote against it because there was little use at that point.
#26, as far as taking communion with her, yes I shall, if she is kneeling at the rail with me. Will I take communion from her, I do not know. That will depend on my frame of mind at the time of communion, not on her or what she is doing. I believe the Eucharist does not depend on the person celebrating it or the person handing out the bread and wine, otherwise, how could any of us every take communion. I cannot worry about what is between our PB and God, if she takes communion kneeling beside me. I can only worry about what is going on inside of me. (And if you ask, no, I do not think the GS primates were right to not take communion because she was there, if it was only because she was at the rail, and had nothing to do with inside them. I can understand if, like me, they might not be able to take communion because their mind was too full of thoughts that were not reconciled with her being at the rail. But to just boycott because she was there, I disagree with that. That, to me, is the same as boycotting because a homosexual is at the rail with you. I’m not qualified to judge whether he/she should be at the rail, only God is.)
Christopher…Are we talking about two different groups of people here? When you say that the TEC is perverting the Gospel…Who do you mean? Those in leadership? Yes, I know those in the TEC who preach a “Do What Feels Good…God Didn’t REALLY Mean That” kind of Gospel (but I also know others in the TEC who preach the same true clear Gospel that churches who feel led to leave are preaching.)
But that still doesn’t help me to understand who will will share the healing and forgiving message of Jesus Christ with “modern people who are caught in sexual brokenness and are being denied the blessings of the Gospel.” Isn’t this group of people totally different than those in the leadership of TEC? How can our ability to preach the Gospel be impeded by being in communion with “them” if they are being denied the blessings of the Gospel in the first place? If they have never heard the redeeming message of Jesus? If the TEC is denying the Gospel of new life to a whole subsection of our culture, what is our responsibility to share new life with this subsection? What are we doing in our churches, today, to share Jesus Christ with “this subsection” of people who are sexually broken in the same way we are sharing the Gospel with “other subsections” who are sexually broken in our congregations? Are those of us in congregations who are considering leaving the TEC along with those who have already left concerned with who will share the truth about Jesus with this group who is being denied the Good New? If not, I’m still back to my original question…Who will share the Good News of Christ with those are being denied the blessings of the Gospel?
#29, and the answer is … if the broken are still within TEC and are being fed the “cheap grace gospel … come as you are, stay as you are,” it is us reasserters, who remain, who must share the good news of repentance and life in Christ. IMO, TEC has now become a mission field for Christian missionaries, and us reasserters who remain have that as our calling. I know persons right now who are going to England, Scotland, and Wales as missionaries to teach the gospel (not the cheap grace gospel). They go twice a year and train others there to do the same thing. This movement is growing fast, under the theory that UK and Europe are now no better off than Africa was in the 19th century. So missionaries are ready and going. And I believe the same thing is due to happen in the US and Can. And it is up to us remaining reasserters to do it within TEC wherever we are able. That’s why I am still here and I believe that is why folks like Sarah Hey are still here, though obviously I can’t speak for her.
And reasserting bishops would have had a better chance of being nominated and elected in more moderate dioceses.
Horsecrap! Does the name, Mark Lawrence, ring a bell? No conservative can get past the heretic majority now. TEC is all fascist Germany and Vichy France. There is no Switzerland.
I believe the Eucharist does not depend on the person celebrating it or the person handing out the bread and wine, otherwise, how could any of us every take communion.
Then you are totally clueless about the ecclesiastical function of Communion. It is not just the heresy that is the problem. It is those who don’t see the problem with heresy that are the problem. Wasn’t it Burke who said that the only thing necessary for evil to succeed was for good men to do nothing. Well, the ecclesiastical version is that the only thing necessary for heresy to triumph is for those who claim to be orthodox to not give a damn about heresy.
writingmom,
This isn’t, or shouldn’t be hard to understand. If you care about the lost within TEC get out of TEC so that you can be seen and heard by them. You can only effectively witness the Gospel that TEC denies when you are no longer associated with TEC.
It’s not like you are leaving the planet, or the country or even the city where you are right now. Are you thinking that these lost that you are trying to reach are only accessible to you from within the walls of the heretic churches to which the belong? Don’t they have homes? Don’t they go shopping and do many other things like you or I? Don’t you still know these people, even if you may no longer worship with them?
Are we not called to witness to the world that does not know Christ? How canwe do that if we think that by not worshipping with them we are removed from reaching them? This is nonsense!
We are called to be holy, and to witness to the holiness that Chrsit imparts to us. Holy means “set apart”. We are to be set apart not just for our own sake, to remain pure, but for the lost’s sake, so that we may be seen.
However, if you are still not convinced you might look at St. Paul’s advice to cast out the sexually immoral: 1 Corintians 5.
[blockquote] It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife. And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord. [/blockquote]
Apparently Paul thought it would be advantageous spiritually to the immoral to be outside the fellowship of believers.
TEC has now become a mission field for Christian missionaries, and us reasserters who remain have that as our calling.
That’s not the way missions work, Billy. Ever been a missionary. I have. You might as well advocate missionary dating and marriages. Go marry a muslim girl. Maybe you’ll bring her to faith. I’m sure the Bible doesn’t have anything to say about that. [cough, cough]
But even that would be better than advocating being part of a heretic church so that you could evangelize it. By that token you ought to become a muslim yourself in order to evangelize.
Wait, isn’t there a “priest” in California who’s doing something like that?
Seriously, your proposal is more like trying to stay in the Mafia in order to be a moderating influence. The Mafia has certain “initiation” rites that make it impossible to be inside it and remain pure. If you aren’t willing to whack someone they’re going to think you aren’t one of them.
Christopher, I have 3 Anglican churches plus a continuing church I can attend within 15 miles of my home. I have attended 3 of them and felt very comfortable … too comfortable. I am not called to leave and go to a comfortable place. I am called to stay where I am and ensure that my priests teach and preach the gospel, and to be a thorn in the side of my bishop. Mission works this way for me right now. May not in the future, but right now it does. Being in a conservative church in a liberal diocese helps, but it, also, gives our church responsibility to ensure that the flame of orthodoxy does not go out in our diocese. And we are spreading that flame in many different ways. Jesus started out with 12 guys, after He was thoroughly discredited and crucified. We’ve got more than that. We can make a stand and stand firm. The pendulum will swing. I have faith in the Lord to uphold us where we are. And I ask God to uphold you in your place as well.
Billy, your true mission field is outside, to those in the world starving for truth. While you waste your time diluting your truth by associating with heretics and calling them brethren you dim your light to the world.
Tell me this: Why did Jesus tell us not to cast pearls before swine? Why did He tell us to shake the dust off our feet when our words are met with rejection? Why dd Paul advocate separation from the immoral? Do these passages have ANY meaning for you?I have yet to meet an advocate for staying within an apostate church who even bothered to give an explanation for these passages. Maybe you could be the first. Or parhaps these aren’t meaningful passages to you.
I am not telling you that you must leave TEC or how you should do it. I am only saying that as long as you are connected through communion with heretics above you the world sees your witness and sees in it implicit approval of what you claim to believe is evil. How can anyone, in or outside the church, take that kind of witness seriously?
Your salt is losing its flavor.
Billy [#33], I’ve had a mirror-image experience attending nearby “liberal” parishes here in Houston. I’ve felt much more “comfortable” theologically in such parishes. I’ve several times thought about switching. But I can’t shake the feeling that I’m supposed to stay in my very-orthodox and -evangelical parish, which is part of my extended family, and where maybe those of us holding different views can learn from each other (and can work together in helping to bring people to God).
A few years ago, another theological liberal and I were talking with our bishop (Don Wimberly, who was there for confirmations) in the parish hall, in between services. We joked that we were among the few remaining liberals in the parish. He said he was glad we hadn’t left — it wasn’t a good thing for liberals and conservatives to sort themselves out into different parishes, he said, because that would result in even more polarization than we already had.
#26 Christopher said,
[blockquote] when Kate comes to town, will you join her in eucharist? If so, what is the meaning of your faith? [/blockquote]
There are a variety of possible answers; I can share my simple example:
Jon (+Bruno) did not come to town, but he sent his minion Sergio (+Carrenza) to preach and “give us a spanking,” to quote the assistant rector. What we did was sit politely, grit our teeth, and wait for him to be finished. The eucharist was our communal meal (the rector presided), and we were not going to be deprived of it. Filing out after service, some of us (me included) asked the bishop some mildly challenging questions.
The atmosphere was tense. It was clear that we were approaching an untenable situation: we were sitting on a firecracker, and the fuse had already been lit. The Diocesan was ready to take steps to neutralize and silence this conservative bastion in his liberal diocese, and the vestry was beginning to investigate steps that would protect the parish. The congregation placed itself under foreign protection within the year.
I guess the lesson to be drawn is that there will be a wide variety of situations to be faced and response to them for the orthodox within TEC. If a person feels that God has called him or her to stay behind and be a witness, I cannot be the judge of that call. That witness may be difficult, it may be long term, and it may even be largely silent for years.
I am reminded, as an example, of the Al Qaeda member I know of who came to Christ yet remains in his revolutionary cell group, and has already introduced another Al Qaeda operative to Christ. If someone can stay behind in such a dangerous and deadly environment to be an effective witness, how much more can someone stay behind in TEC and be a credible witness?
Christopher…You’re right, it shouldn’t be hard to understand.. I was at a parish meeting recently where we were discussing what decision our church would make in terms of remaining with the TEC or finally deciding to leave. One of the most significant remarks our priest made was his need to repent for not reaching out to the very same sexually broken community that he spoke of during our meeting. Several years ago, as our church stepped into a visible leadership role in the split in the Episcopal church, we set an intentional objective to actively share the Gospel with this “subsection”. Nothing has been done to work toward this goal. Our church has been very vocal (and rightly so) about the leadership who is preaching a distorted Gospel to this “subsection” but has, but its own admission, done nothing to bring the truth and redeeming message of Jesus to this same group.
You, see…Since my church isn’t your typical TEC church, I’m not worshipping with them. The conversations I’ve had with those that our churches consider to be sexually broken feel that they are not welcome at my church. Whether or not we think we are saying that or not, that is what they are hearing.
So, I’ve been doing what you suggested for a long time. A few weeks ago, I was talking with a woman at her home while our daughters played. The woman and her partner would fall into the sexually broken category mentioned by my church and others. This woman is not a Christian. She knows that I am. We shared tea. Our children played And she’ll go back to their house to play. And I’ll get back together with them to talk and have tea. And right now we just talk about things that regular moms talk about. And I don’t feel a need to “preach” or tell her that she needs to change her lifestyle. And I’m not worried that my daughter is going to become confused or morally corrupt because she is visiting in a home that belongs to this “subsection”.
Because when we are there, we are just living out the Gospel. To me, this part isn’t hard to understand.
So, bottom line, is this what you mean, Christopher? That rather than working on making this “subsection” welcome in our churches, we should be reaching out to them where they are?
And, if we truly are to reach out on an individual basis, how many of us interact, talk with, have coffee with, go shopping with people in that “subsection” on a daily basis? Weekly? Monthly? When was the last time each one of us who is reading this blog sat down just to chat with one of those who is being denied the glorious blessings of the Good News that makes each of us the Gospel messengers that we are today?
writingmom,
Be in the world but not of the world was what I was talking about, and it sounds a bit like what you are doing.
I would be a little (actually a LOT) more cautious about my children playing in their house than I (perhaps) mistakenly got from you. Children are very impressionable, like wet clay, and bad experiences cannot be undone completely.
DO NOT sacrifice your children’s spiritual and emotional well being on the altar of evangelism. While they are growing your children are your primary mission field and calling. Make sure your nonChristian friends don’t, in their ignorance, have spirituyal “poisons” lying about for your child to stumble onto and take in to her mind and soul. Remember, the world is out to corrupt your children as hard as it can so that they do not grow up to challenge it.
Billy, I often agree with your comments, and I certainly disagree with many comments here by others [including of course, those progressives posting on this thread].
And I also believe that there is much to be gained by remaining within ECUSA until God calls us out.
But I’d like to challenge a few statements that you have made.
RE: “”#27, I think we can say with pretty good confidence, for instance, that Henry Parsley would have been elected PB, except for those bishops who are trying to set up a new alignment throwing their support to the current PB, along with the far left reappraising fringe, honchoed by Bp Bruno.”
Bishop Parsley is a revisionist. The only difference he would have made as PB would have been that he would have been much much much more sneaky, dishonest, and manipulative in his progressive agenda, carefully working not to move the boat too far ahead in case the passengers were frightened. Bishop Parsley is an institutional revisionist, and by that I mean that he is well aware of how important it is to have at least the facade of a recognized institution — the host — to carry the progressive idea, the parasite. Poor Bishop Jefferts Schori is an *ideological revisionist* by nature, and now trying hard to be an institutional revisionist, and failing.
In other words, she is willing to sacrifice the institution — the host — prematurely before achieving the progressive agenda’s goals. She is pulled in two different directions — the Integrity agenda [full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes] and the institutionalist progressive agenda [let’s pretend to drop anchor and inch forward by night when they’re all asleep].
It is a blessing from God that Bishop Jefferts Schori was elected. And furthermore, numerous *non-realignment* bishops could not vote for Parsley, as evidenced by the final ballot, where some neither voted for Schori or for Parsley, though knowing that one or the other would be elected despite their vote for an alternate candidate.
They did the right thing.
RE: ” . . . but that participation by reappraisers (instead of leaving) in diocesan conventions and more getting elected (or trying to get elected) to GC2006, could have had a sizable impact on the policies of TEC and could have held it in the middle and given it a chance to drift back to reasserter side, with more participation and action by reasserters between GC2003 and 2009.”
Billy — numerous reasserters have pled with people like you and me for decades now to please get involved and help the Episcopal church “drift back to reasserter side” but sadly, those people were unresponsive, passive, and silent.
It’s not that people did not stick around and try to sound the alarm, attending GC after GC after GC and begging for help. It’s that simply people did not respond to the call. I’m sure that you have experienced this on a personal level.
There’s always the larger group of conservatives who just think that it’s best for them to remain silent and inactive.
The result is that eventually, those on the end who are working and calling out reach a “bridge too far” . . . and for many many many people GC 2003 was that bridge too far.
For many many more, GC 2006 was too far.
And Billy . . . this will continue every three years now.
The “moderate conservatives” and the “institutional conservatives” missed the boat, Billy. They failed to step up, time after time after time after time, despite many of them seeing their comrades and allies in the battle day after day.
No, the Episcopal church reached a tipping point and no amount of work will bring that national level back again. It is gone — and when the time was there to work for it, the people did not come.
Your final example is in fact a case in point. Only 4-5 bishops left the HOB meeting early. The rest of the so-called and former grouping called “the Windsor bishops” were still there, some 15 of them.
There were *plenty* of them to meet, form a response, and issue a minority statement.
They did not choose to do so.
I would put it to you that the lack of stalwart and strategic leadership amongst the remainder — even the lack of simply gathering a group to publicly vote “no” and move to affix their names to the document with a “no” vote so as to leave a record — something that they were well able to do under the House rules — is quite telling for the lack of character and leadership amongst that body formerly known as the “Windsor bishops.”
Just think. If the only “leaders” available amongst that group capable of forming and strategizing a coherent response were the 5 that were gone to the CCP meeting . . . then that may well explain further why the rift in that body.
No, the remainder of that body formerly known as the “Windsor bishops” not even mustering enough leadership to vote no goes far in explaining why five of that body simply have no further use for that grouping.
As you probably know, it gets old to be always expected to carry the water for the so-called allies in your group who are huddled behind you, especially when you one day realize that they are not willing to step up and take the slings and arrows because they simply don’t have the willingness to.
And eventually, one often simply stops doing it.
Christopher…You are exactly right that we are to protect our children and I don’t think I was clear that I was with her when we were visiting. This may not have been the best example to use because my point was not about my child being there, but rather responding to your notion that if Gospel-preaching churches leave the TEC, this “subsection” should still be able to hear the message of Jesus Christ from those of us who visit them in their homes and shop with them and do the many other things with them that you and I do. If we leave the TEC, will those who are sexually broken and have been denied the Gospel message truly have the chance to
hear that message through those of us who have relationships with them? Do the churches that are leaving feel called to share the Gospel with this group of people? Or when we leave the TEC, do we leave them all there…Those who distort the Gospel and those who have never had the chance to hear it? This is getting ridiculous,
isn’t it? Bottom line: Do the churches who have left/are leaving the
TEC care about sharing the Gospel with the gay community? And if so, how? And if not, why not?
Bottom line: Do the churches who have left/are leaving the
TEC care about sharing the Gospel with the gay community? And if so, how?
writingmom, I believe many of them do. I cannot, of course, speak for all. But I can say of many what they have said themselves; that they DO wish to preach the saving message of the Gospel to the sexually broken, but that they cannot do so while their message is a mixed one because they are one with a church that denies that message.
But of course, there is also the factor of many gays not being willing and ready to hear such a message. I know a few who make acceptance of their sin a condition for fellowship or any social intercourse. Until the Spirit can soften their hearts I fear we only waste our words on them and perhaps even immunize them further from truly hearing it. It is an unfortunate fact that the gospel has been preached to many who have rejected it. The church cannot remain hostage to those who WILL NOT believe.
Christopher…Thank you for your honest and clear answer. I’m not a theologian. I’m just a conservative mom (VERY conservative according to my kids) who attends a conservative Episcopal church
who has been watching and praying for our leadership as all of this unfolds. But even more than that, I’ve been watching and praying for people who I know are broken and wounded and lost because they haven’t seen or heard the forgiving and redeeming message of Jesus. And as difficult as it is for our leaders who are standing strong for the Gospel in the very public split in the Episcopal Church, God has placed a burden on my heart to speak up about the lost that I see around me…Because without really knowing Jesus, the lost will always be lost…It doesn’t matter if they’re lost in the TEC or the ACC or in the Diocese of wherever…They’re still lost if they don’t hear and see the Good News lived out before them…And so far in what I’ve heard and seen and read, I couldn’t find a simple honest answer to help me to understand what the church that I am a part of today is saying and doing for those who desperately need God’s saving love. Thank you.