[Robert] Hirschfeld also described starting a “wedding fast” at his church five years ago. In it, he asked for support in a “moratorium on presiding at any wedding until we came to some resolution about the jarring practice of performing weddings for heterosexual persons . . . while maintaining that homosexuals are disqualified from such blessings.”
More than a decade before Hirschfeld refused to perform marriages for heterosexual couples, Rich, 59, was “raked over the coals” for presiding at a “holy union” of two lesbians at Memorial Episcopal Church in Baltimore in 1992.
Rich said he was “careful to obtain all the necessary permissions to do this, including tacit permission to ‘do what you think is best pastorally’ from the bishop.” But several months later “The Baltimore Sun got wind of what had happened” and ran a page one story about it.
What a disaster. If these three are the finalists then either it was a really creepy field or this whole diocese has gone off the deep end.
Re # 1
[blockquote] either it was a really creepy field or this whole diocese has gone off the deep end. [/blockquote]
I vote for all of the above.
Personally, I don’t think the delegates going to convention are going to be much satisfied with these 3 candidates. Based on their experience with Gene, they will probably try to find the one candidate who seems the most like a home-body, has a history of not riling things up, and has a little more street-cred than the others, and decide to make that one nominee their first choice.
And they might look to a petition candidate if that is allowed (I must have missed seeing that allowance) who has evidenced tenures of congregational growth, and has the ability to share or mentor that information into other congregations. What they certainly don’t need is someone coming in for the status quo. None of them, of course, faced with such a question would say “yes, I think status quo is the best policy for this diocese.” But getting particulars out of them besides “we need this…..we need that….” will be what tells the tale.
My favorite quote in the article: “”When our church tries to avoid conflict by shying away from the work of social justice, we lose the possibility of offering a compelling narrative, and membership declines,” . . . ”
I mean — you have to just laugh at the clueless bumpkinness of that.
The diocese — in 2002 — had around 5000 in ASA. They’re now at around 4000.
They lost 20% of their ASA under Gene Robinson.
And then there’s my second-favorite quote: “”It seems to me that something in our Church has been split wide open for all God’s children to step in,” Hirschfeld wrote. “And it happened in Hew Hampshire, and the good people of your diocese bravely, miraculously set forth.”
Yeh . . . our Church “has been split wide open” all right!
And then there’s just a brass-faced lie: “Compared to a lot of dioceses in the Episcopal Church, where they’ve seen noticeable declines, in New Hampshire it’s gone up,” Robbins-Cole said.”
I mean — do they not think people can trundle right over to the church stats page and find this stuff? Seriously?
I personally think they should choose Hirschfield. He’s not only a loony activist very proud of his 21st century 1960s radicalism, but he’s got the perfect combo of wounded, narcissistic martyrdom going on, so that the people of New Hampshire can feel right at home. Love how he’s made the failure of his marriage an actual plus — more suffering and misery!
They claim to have increased ASA by 1%. Well within the range of variation in what we all know are not so reliable statistics. 4100 in the pews might be enough to sustain a stay at home mom type bishop who doesn’t trot the globe as much as Bishop Robinson.
‘Tacit permission’ — nice.