The Episcopal Women’s Caucus recently announced plans to target at least 11 dioceses of The Episcopal Church for visits not at the invitation of the local bishop under its expanded Angel Project.
“New times create new opportunities,” wrote the Rev. Elizabeth Kaeton, EWC president and rector of St. Paul’s Church in Chatham, N.J., in an article on “listening” in the latest issue of the Ruach, the EWC newsletter. “The caucus board has conceived of a new incarnation of this project. Based on communication we have received, we have identified 11 dioceses that are decidedly hostile to the ministry of women, lay and ordained. There are, no doubt, many more.”
The dioceses to be targeted are: Albany, Central Florida, Dallas, Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, Quincy (Illinois), the Rio Grande (New Mexico and the Texas Panhandle), San Joaquin (California), South Carolina, Southwest Florida and Springfield (Illinois). Diocesan officials and female clergy from at least three of the dioceses named were amazed to learn that their diocese was included on the list.
“That’s ridiculous,” said Peter Frank, director of communication for the Diocese of Pittsburgh. “We have women clergy at all levels of leadership, including our senior staff officer in charge of clergy placement. If this is what hostility looks like, they really don’t have much to worry about.”
The only reason they would need to visit WO dioceses is that they know that their agenda is tied explicitly to the gay agenda.
You change one sacrament, you can change them all.
I would suggest the Rev. Elizabeth Kaeton doesn’t have any idea what she is talking about, at least when it comes to the Diocese of Pittsburgh. Perhaps she wants to review Resolution 2 from the 2005 diocesan convention which designated 2006 as a year of “celebration of women’s ministry”. Perhaps she wants to review the diocesan magazine Trinity which featured “Women in Ministry” articles in each issue throughout 2006, samples [url=http://www.pghanglican.org/news/local/canonbrall061206/view?searchterm=completing]here[/url] and [url=http://www.pgh.anglican.org/news/local/reimerministry092506]here[/url]. This feature is now simply “In Ministry” but still frequently highlights lay and ordained women. The Rev. Elizabeth Kaeton bears false witness against the Diocese of Pittsburgh when she claims that it is “decidedly hostile to the ministry of women, lay and ordained.”
My goodness, when oh when are agenda groups in the TEC going to realize that our charge is to bring individual souls to Christ, not advance some political agenda, no matter which “side†a person, parish or diocese is on. I dare say that every diocese needs workers to save souls, but no diocese needs a political action group to instruct them about a political program.
# 2 has spoken up for the Diocese of Pittsburgh. I’ll do the same for Southwest Florida. I have seen absolutely no evidence that SWFla under either the new bishop or his predecessor exhibits any hostility to the ordination of women. If these folks have any rational basis for their claim, I would love to hear it.
Border crossings are illegal, but some border crossings are more illegal than others.
This seems as if it would be counterproductive, much as the dissastrous uncanonical depositions were. But maybe the thinking is that they can keep pushing and pushing and by the time when, or if ever, some one can successfully call them on it they will have achieved enough to justify what little negative consequence there might be.
Once you abandon the unity of faith then the illusury union through canons is but a mask hiding a moderate rule by power. But moderation can be withdrawn, and then there is only power.
Unless our side fights back, and fights back hard, we can expect to lose everything, for this world cannot be trusted to garauntee us justice. We had best either resolve ourselves to be content with what Paul suffered in prison or fight for our rights as even he did in Philippi.
The canons will not save us. And I rather doubt Lambeth or Canterbury will do much to rectify that.
Are we to assume that EWC plans to visit the “reconstituted Diocese of San Joaquin,” or are they talking about the REAL San Joaquin?
Doesn’t SC ordain women?
Of course SC ordains women, I personally know of at least two in the last couple of years. What we don’t do, is ordain partnered lesbians, or gays (at least openly partnered).
Nor do we declare the “Year of the Woman Priest”.
This from someone who does NOT approve of WO…
Gloria in Sc
This is obviously not tied to the ordination of women, [i]per se[/i]. Given the number of dioceses that ordain women and have women rectors and vicars (not to mention that a woman was nominated for Bishop Suffragan in Dallas) I suspect that this has to do with “women’s issues” rather that the ministry of women. These issues may include
Abortion on Demand
Blessing of same sex unions
Ordination (or licensing) of women involved in same sex unions
This seems much more political than “dialogical” (to borrrow a word from another “famous” female priest).
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
The good news is that this bunch will get lost.
The Diocese of the Rio Grande encompasses the Texas Panhandle? Good grief.
Let the Road Show go on as planned. Look for thin numbers wherever they go, symbolic commitments, and cries of victory. Perhaps the Road Show should lastly circle New Jersey to symbolically cast out whatever pox has taken hold of that once-upon-a-time diocese.
Truly an insult to the vast majority of both women and men in the Episcopal church. The only reason this gets attention is the inordinate crassness of the program.
Intercessor
My understanding is that this “Angel Project” (what a misnomer!) contacted women directly within each diocese and interviewed them about how they were treated. Can you imagine the questions?
I shudder to think.
And exactly what is this “spotlight of the media” approach supposed to solve? Is this bridge-building with a bulldozer? Is this effort going to improve the lot of one single woman in one single diocese? Answer: Yes, if she is being persecuted by people trying to “force” Scripture on her and talk her out of that abortion, or that same sex relationship, or that divorce, or abandoning her children.
We wouldn’t want any of those to proceed now would we?
I swear they don’t get it. Being a woman has become it’s own end-game, their blessed sexuality is no longer a gift from God, it is an enabling right to do what they wish? Is that the Christian message?
Maybe I should say I don’t get it!
KTF!…mrb
Peter Frank, you are missing the point. This isn’t about women ministering in the Church, it is about lesbian activism.
Border crossings are illegal, but some border crossings are more illegal than others.
They don’t need to be invited by the bishop, Chris. They are not performing any episcopal acts.
Brian is right…they can visit wherever and wherever they wish. Out of diocese presbyters can even celebrate at the invitation of a rector. I suppose the bishop can put the kibosh to these activities, but only if he knows where and when in advance. And it will undoubtedly result in a great deal of…bloviating, if that’s the word I’m seeking
Oldman…I completely agree with your first statement. I believe that churches, in their truest NT sense, have one purpose, to transform lives through/in Christ. The other things ought to just follow naturally. But I wonder what they’ll do when all the people who know how it works are gone. As for your second sentence…I see your point, but I think it’s important that we not lump all liberals into a political agenda; some of these folks are heartfelt and sincere Christians. Are all conservatives fundamentalist dissidents? Sometimes, we need to know more about justice and mercy…sometimes it’s easy to lose sight of severe need, even when it’s just across town. But, I agree with you…we can never lose sight of the priority of the great commission.