The purpose of the paper is to reflect on the current plan for realignment from the perspective of those who wish to remain in the Episcopal Church. This is authored by one person but has been reviewed by many who will not realign who have offered helpful suggestions.
While there are many varied reasons for staying we are all in agreement about one thing: We love Jesus and do not want to leave The Episcopal Church without a faithful witness to the Savior of the world. We believe that, like the prophets sent to Israel and Judea, we have an obligation to exhort The Episcopal Church, where necessary, to return to its first love. That is what a prophetic witness always does: calls God’s people back. Prophets are not always successful in this, but they are not called to be successful, they are called to be faithful.
This paper will explore some of the practical implications of the realignment vote passing….
Whatever. Wife batterer to wife: “Awwww….come on….be faithful to me” *Smack* *Slap* *Kick*
Similar warnings could have been made at the time the the Declaration of Independence was being drafted.
If we had heeded warnings about all of the unpleasant things that might happen as a result of the signing and promulgation of the Delaration of Independence, there would not be a United States of America today.
So today’s 21st Century nay-sayers are no different than yesterday’s 18th Century nay-sayers.
When Israel was apostate, Isaiah did not form the JMiJ – Jewish Mission in Judah. When the Church became apostate by accepting Arianinsm in the 360s, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Naznianzus did not form another Church.
There is great historical evidence that God allows His church to fall into error and apostacy only to renew it again. Please to not denigrate the prophets among us who call TECUSA back to faithfulness by equating them to battered wives. In the Biblical Narrative, the husband is God and the unfaithful wife is Israel or the Church. We are here to call the unfaithful wife back into faithful relationship with her Husband.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
When the Church became apostate by accepting Arianinsm in the 360s, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Naznianzus did not form another Church.
Phil, yes they did. That is, they refused to recognize the Arian bishops. They didn’t exactly form “another church”. They acted as if the Arians were the “other” church.
In Isaiah’s time, the enemies threatening Israel’s people threatened them both spiritually and physically.
The physical threats came from the nation-states to Israel’s north and south.
Israel’s spiritual threat came from within and without. Israel had fallen prey to the pagan religious practices of the peoples who were her neighbors. These pagan practices were adopted by many Israelis in in direct defiance of the admonitions of the first five of the Ten Commandments. The practice of sacrificing infant children to Molech added the violation of the commandment not to “commit murder.”
Because of Israel’s spiritual disarray, that resulted in a loss of cultural identity and cohesiveness, Isarael became easy prey for its “physical” enemies.
But Israel’s real enemy was herself. She had turned away from God turning away from Scripture and doing as God had forbidden her to do.
It is true that Israel eventually began to return to a faithful relationship with God, but that doen’t minimize the fact that she had, over centuries, defied God and had suffered as a consequence.
To co-exist with the revisionist leadership of ECUSA is to co-exist with religious leaders who somehow think that their puny mental processes have made them co-equals with God. Co-equals who can sit with the Almighty and hammer out the basic points of religious belief. That attitude, on their part, is heresy bordering on apostasy.
So the question is, do we orthodox Anglicans continue to remain, in communion, alongside those who are tragically leading Christians astray or do we begin preaching the Gospel clearly and unambiguously to all who will listen? Preaching in such a manner that those within ECUSA are forced to consciously make a decision regarding whether they wish to remain alongside aggressively unrepentant revisionists or whether they prefer to join orthodox Anglicanism and unabiguously and clearly preach “the Faith once given.
I started to read this but did not go past the 3rd paragraph of item 1:
“Second, the doctrine of the church is contained in the Book of Common Prayer, a document which has not changed since 1979. We have lived with this for nearly thirty years and there is no reason that we can’t continue to.”
The 1979 book, in for example its baptismal rite, is part of the problem! Alice Linsley posted elsewhere a helpful comment comparing the earlier baptismal rites, which emphasized spiritual regeneration, to the 1979 in which baptism is degenerately presented as merely an initiation rite. This is one reason TEC is rapidly becoming a sub-Christian culture in which personal affirmation rather than transformation suffices. Altering the liturgy thirty years ago helped roll in the Trojan horse of revisionism.
The real and very simple question to this situation is: From which bishops in TEC will Jim Simon take communion from and with? If there are any restrictions then it must be asked how he is not de facto creating his own ecclesiological alignment. If he is in a de facto realignment then the only objection to making it an honest de jure realignment seems to be the practical difficulties, which make his argument seem rather cowardly. If there are no restrictions, that is, if he will take communion from and with Schori, Robinson, Chane, Bruno, et al, then it must be asked how his idea of Communion is at all Christian.
Test. (to see if all my posts are censored or if I had inadvertently used an auto-censor-triggering word).
I think Jim Simons and others confuse sh**p with f*lse t**chers. All the pr*phets, and Jesus–the ultimate pr*phet, willed the w*lves to be sep*rate from the sh**p, even when they were present. For brevity’s sake, and this is more strident than my censored post, there is no biblical precedent for one to keep w*lves/f*lse t**chers/f*lse pr*phets within the fold. It is dang*rous. It is dish*norable. It is d**dly. t is wr*ng.
[blockquote] Second, the doctrine of the church is contained in the Book of Common Prayer, a document which has not changed since 1979. We have lived with this for nearly thirty years and there is no reason that we can’t continue to.[/blockquote]
But for many revisionists, the 1979 BCP is so ‘boring’ and ‘offensive’ that EOW liturgies are used, if not other forms of worship adapted for the occasion. And even when the BCP is used, it is often bowdlerized to avoid objectionable ‘patriarchal’ language. It can be hard to recognize Christianity in the liturgy of TEC. Of course, an orthodox bishop can insist on the use of the BCP but in other dioceses….
There really are at least two different religions in the TEC at present.
Thank you, Phil Snyder – I agree totally. No matter how much the church errs, it is the Body of Christ onto which we have been grafted. It may seem impossible that TEC will ever reform, but like Hosea we can remain a faithful witness to her.
Chris Hathaway (#7): the validity of the sacraments is not compromised by the unworthiness of the celebrant. See [i]Donatism[/i].
Scott, Chris was not arguing the validity of the sacraments, just that we should not share them with heritics. Secondly the Church as Body of Christ has been split since the east west schism in 1054 and the reformation. TEC is only one small, and getting smaller, fragment.
People may stay in TEC for their own reasons, but they should not fool themselves or have any illusions.
Scott, it is a simple question: Was Athanasius recognized as the bishop of Alexandria by the other orthodox bishops even while he was in exhile and a heretic bishop put in his place? Were there, duringf his exhiles, two claiming to be bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius being recognized by the orthodox and another being recognized by the semi-Arians? See historical facts
Must we remind Father Simon that none of this…..GAFcon, realignment, etc, would never have happened if it hadn’t been for the fact that the Episcopal Church was hijacked by those intent on advancing a social agenda which demands society’s acceptance of their behavior as somehow normal?
Must we remind him and others like him of the efforts of theologians like the German Rudolf Bultmann and others of their effect on the curriculae at most Episcopal seminaries in the ’60s and ’70s, which have led in part to the situation in which we find ourselves today? Not only has this affected TEC; it has affected all of Christianity……including Rome.
In his original post Jim Simons said—
[blockquote] 3. Who is the Diocese of Pittsburgh? If the realignment vote passes the first question which will need to be addressed is “who is the Diocese of Pittsburgh”? The leadership of the realigned Diocese will claim that the Diocesan Convention voting to sever its ties from TEC has formally stated its desire to unite with an overseas province and constitutes the Diocese. The reason given for this is that the Diocese voluntarily decided to join TEC and can make the same decision to leave. In fact it is not clear that a diocese can choose to leave its church any more than a state can choose to leave the nation. Those who choose to stay will claim that they are the diocese.
Undoubtedly, this question will need to be answered by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in a lengthy and costly lawsuit. Contrary to the claims that, on the Monday after realignment, the realigners will be free to do Gospel ministry again, the suit will be an enormous distraction for the leadership and elected bodies of the realigned diocese as well as for many parishes.[/blockquote]
In response to which I left this comment:
[blockquote]A diocese, which is a creature both of church law and of State law, most certainly can amend its Constitution and Canons so as to leave the Church under State law. If Church law tried to prevent this, it would be a violation of the right to freedom of association under the First Amendment. (That is why your analogy to States leaving the Union is inapposite—the First Amendment does not apply in that situation.) But under church law, the members of the diocese choosing to remain still constitute the diocese as before, and when those people organize into a new legal entity (such as an unincorporated association) recognized by the State, they will then be in the same legal and canonical status as they were before the majority left, albeit with a reduced membership. (See the discussion of how all this happens [url=http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/05/can-diocese-ever-leave-church.html]here.[/url])
If you indeed succeed in working out a plan that will keep 815 from rushing in as it did in San Joaquin, then a lot of the chaos that happened there can be avoided. There is absolutely no reason for a lawsuit unless 815 directs it, and there is absolutely no reason why the parting of the ways cannot be accomplished by Christians with love and respect on both sides. [/blockquote]
It would be wonderful if those in the Diocese of Pittsburgh choosing to remain in TEC resist 815’s calls for a lawsuit, and work out their differences with those departing in accordance with Pauline principles.
In the diocese of Ft. Worth, our backs have been pressed to the wall, and, without exaggerating our position as one of victimhood (abused spouse?), we are agreeing that, in order to MINIMIZE the distraction of warring with TEC over foundational Truths, and to safe-guard the Faith for future generations, we must disengage from the denominational organization known as TEC. When we have left TEC, there will not be ushered in some kind of ecclesiastical utopia, free from all sin and evil. Every clergy and laity in the diocese of Ft. Worth will continue to wake up every morning as a forgiven sinner, capable of either following Christ obediently, or kicking against the goads. Re-alignment will not make spritual warfare a thing of the past!
However: my hope is that I will not spend any more time uselessly “differentiating” our parish from TEC, or arguing with those who believe in a “make your own religion” approach to the Christian Faith. And, I hope that I can tell my grandchildren that I put Christ ahead of denominational compliance. (As for “staying and being prophetic”, why not stay faithful, outside TEC and remain open to being prophetic? Who says that only by institutional loyalty are we able to be “prophetic”? Would not reunion with Rome be a more loyal act than “staying prophetic” in the little fragment of Liberal Protestanism known as “TEC”!?!)
The blindness of Jim’s argument seems to me epitomised in this brief passage:
[blockquote]the doctrine of the church is contained in the Book of Common Prayer, a document which has not changed since 1979. We have lived with this for nearly thirty years and there is no reason that we can’t continue to.
Some have raised the specter of the Book of Common Prayer being revised. This is of course possible and at some time in the future even inevitable. [/blockquote]
So, Jim is mysteriously trying to make a virtue out of having TEC’s doctrine based upon a book less than thirty years old. That is a far cry from historical stability. Then he goes on to admit that the 1979 book will be changed in the future inevitably. So, what is the point? What is the point of his entire argument when he acknowledges that the precarious stability and safety (generously accepting his premises) that might now exist can change?
“Hey, there’s no need to leave. We’re safe in our orthodox ghetto here. Of course things can change. But don’t worry about that. No one is yet talking about putting us on trains. They just want us to wear special stars.”
With liberty from prior post, with hopes that this clarifies the issue: “I agree totally. No matter how false the prophet, he is part of the Body of Christ into whom we all have been grafted. It may seem impossible that the false leaders of TEC will ever reform, but like Hosea we can remain in bed with wolves and worse. ”
Such a sentiment of faithfulness can be gracious if we are talking about (dumb) sheep. If we are talking about false prophets, such talk of faithfulness gets ugly, fast.
Jim Simons can call himself orthodox – and I won’t question that he is – but surely he knows he’s used as a prop by the Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh crowd. How they love to have the Jim Simons’s of the diocese running around and undercutting Bob Duncan’s leadership! And how will Jim Simons’ orthodoxy fare when Harold Lewis is running the ship?
I weep for the naivete of this man.
Alfonso, Paul, recognizes the need to separate from non-Christians and false teachers. In reguard to Christians he says:
[blockquote] Titus 3:10-11 10 If people are causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with them. 11 For people like that have turned away from the truth, and their own sins condemn them.[/blockquote]
Paul uses very harsh words against false teachers.
For all the debate that preceded GAFCON, even the Jerusalem Declaration seems to envisage more an [i]incremental[/i] confessing approach than a clean break. Why should not a similar argument play out in a national church context?
I am a little surprised, given his past record, that Jim Simons is not more forthright in his “Is the Episcopal Church Apostate?” section, but then he may not be writing with this audience primarily in mind. For better or worse, departure has been made a matter of congregational (not individual) decision, so concerns about the stability of the local community – in its varied degrees of theological awareness – do start to intrude. Easy enough to make the decision to realign in Sewickley or Moon Township (and I don’t question the spiritual conviction in those congregations) but perhaps not so easy in Ligonier. There will be laypeople in such parishes who make a commitment to stay with their flock even if their personal inclination is toward realignment.
Two other points. First, remember back in 2004 all the outrage when Simons – with Bob Duncan’s permission – invited an REC bishop to conduct Confirmations? Even the [i]Living Church[/i] got worked up about that, but you could argue that in this respect Simons was “living into” the practical aspects of CCP. Second, South Carolina – with its Pittsburgh-trained bishop (his old parish is also part of the Pittsburgh 12) – appears to be pursuing the [i]inside track[/i] approach without nearly as much criticism. If it is misplaced optimism for Jim Simons to make the arguments he does, then it is an equally flawed strategy for the Bishop of South Carolina to pursue.
In a month Lambeth 2008 will be over and the Confessing Network should know how to proceed. In less than four, roughly two-thirds of Pittsburgh will be under non-American oversight (unless a new provincial structure is brought forward in the interim). Most people’s minds are now made up; all we have left to do is pray [b]Not my Will, but Thine be Done.[/b]
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
Jim Simons:
We believe that, while there are notable exceptions, the vast majority of Episcopalians are what could be termed “Creedal Christians”.
I used to believe that too, and took comfort from it. Then I woke up, and realized I had been deluding myself.
[blockquote] Second, in San Joaquin those who were in theologically different places were not talking with one another. That is not true in Pittsburgh. Those who wish to stay, representing a variety of theological positions, have been meeting regularly to build trust and to create a way forward should the realignment pass. [/blockquote]
I wonder how these meetings have been going. What is being planned? Who has been participating? Inquiring minds want to know. For a look at the other side here is Lionel Deimel’s take on these meetings and post-realignment Pittsburgh.
If the church is the body of believers, how can non-believers still be considered part of the body within which we are supposed to remain? While few in numbers, dissenters within Nazi Germany did not remain “loyal” to the Fatherland, they plotted the assassination of Adolph Hitler, they hid Jews and other victims of genocide, they sabotaged the war machine. Protestant reformers (including those who became Anglicans) left the corrupt medievel Roman church and created new extensions of the Body into which they gathered believers. Lot did not stay and try to reform Sodom, he gathered his family, wiped the dust from his sandals and moved on. God called the Hebrew people out from Egypt and to avoid mixing with idol worshippers in the land into which God brought them. There are many such examples where the Godly thing is to separate from that which is pagan and/or corrupt. But all else pales, for me, when it comes to our children who are being raised in a church that embraces immorality and endorses the deliberate disregard of God’s call to live a holy life. My children don’t deserve that and no one else’s do either. Shall we sacrifice a whole generation to prove we have the fortitude to endure abuse? I say no. I respect those who say otherwise although I believe them to be wrong – DEAD wrong.
I agree with DaveG. This whole equation changes when you have children. I have yet to hear the ACI crowd explain how it’s spiritually constructive, or ultimately even much more than a fool’s errand, to have to constantly explain to your children, “Ignore your church and most of its bishops and priests. It’s dead wrong and has mortally distorted the Christian faith. Why do we still go? Oh, trust me, honey, it’s OK … what’s that? Did I know there are twenty pages of other churches in the phone book? Yes, I know that, but see here …”
Doesn’t work, does it?
Can we please stop judging people for following the callings that God may place on individuals’ lives? There are far too many condemnations and insults of fellow orthodox brothers and sisters who are taking a path with which some of us disagree. Such criticism has been given by people on both sides of the aisle of whether to stay in or leave TEC. However, these days it seems that the harshest criticisms mostly (though not entirely) come from those who either are departing/have departed TEC or who at least believe that it is wrong to stay within TEC, and are directed toward those who are staying. Charity seems far too often lacking.
I cannot in any way say that I know Jim Simons well, but I have met him at several General Conventions and know of, and deeply respect him for, his long history working for orthodox faith and practice. To assume that he is naïve about the current situation seems patently absurd. Many of us will differ with him regarding his conclusions, true. But can we not do so in charity, recognizing that God is calling some to leave and some to stay within TEC? Why must we attack our orthodox brothers and sisters or condemn them for not being as conservative as we are, which is what some of our criticisms seem to boil down to?
For those who continually bring up the issue of the practicality of staying within TEC due to the overwhelming revisionism: those who feel a call to stay within clearly are making their decisions on other bases. They are doing so out of a sense of being faithful to where God has planted them. Most of us are not rectors of a parish facing the decision of whether to leave or stay. We do not have to face the dynamics involved that they do. Maybe, just maybe, God is calling them to stay for the good of their flocks—that to leave at this time (and perhaps even at any time in the future) would be harmful to the flocks over which they are shepherds. Maybe, just maybe, the outposts of orthodox faith and practice that remain in TEC will still be used of the Lord to bring people in a given area to conversion and sanctification in a way that couldn’t be done if they left TEC.
I think Jim Hobby said it best a few years ago now: A wide latitude is needed during this season for differing consciences over whether to stay or leave TEC (rough paraphrase). We need that latitude now more than ever, it seems to me.
Amen Ralph. Are there not two ways to read Elijah’s complaint in 1 Kings 19? If the covenant has indeed been forsaken, the altars thrown down and the prophets slain with the sword, are the seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal to be found only outside TEC, especially in this uncertain season? There will be an imperative for many to go – and if one has children it will be strong – but there will also be an imperative for some to stay, even if they believe that their lives are sought only to be taken away.
Ralph and Jeremy
I admire your bravery and your resolve. But you never address the issue of how to raise Christian children in a church that has lost Christ. Not just mine. I have done what needed to be done to protect mine. How do we (you, me and everyone else here) protect all of the other children? You and I may be strong enough to endure and even exert a prophetic from witness within TEC. But until someone explains to me how “our children” (yours, mine and everyone else’s) are to be protected, I fear it may come at much too great a cost.
Historical events have overtaken this approach — long ago. It’s like the “Windsor Bishops.” Remember them? The ones who were waiting for the right moment to act. They never saw the moment when it came and they ended up on the trash heap of history. That’s where this well-meaning but very misguided effort will end up too.
DaveG, how do I protect the children in TEC (other than mine) if I leave? I have a much bigger influence on the children in my church when I interact with them ever Sunday, than if I left for somewhere else and they had no faithful role models*
*although there are plenty in my particular parish
I don’t disagree with you, Ralph and Jeremy, and I’m sorry if my comment was read to be a blanket condemnation of those that choose to stay in ECUSA. Clearly, at least if you have children to raise in the Faith, you can see that I regard it as a huge, and, possibly, unnecessary hurdle to overcome. But leave that aside.
My problem with Jim Simons is that he is being played for a fool by PEP and the Schori loyalists in Pittsburgh – and, if he ever picks up the Post-Gazette, which I’m sure he does, he knows it. Worse, as the link to Lionel Deimel’s site shows, Simons is negotiating with these people to divide up the spoils.
If Simons wants to stay in ECUSA, fine; be quiet and stay in ECUSA, and learn, as he will when he gets his way, what life is like in Newark – because, that’s what Pittsburgh is going to be like when PEP gets its way. Jim Simons can simply sign his parish up with Mrs. Schori once Pittsburgh makes its move, and that will be that. On the other hand, I have a real problem with him loudly and publicly ripping Bob Duncan’s plans, because it reads like giving aid and comfort to the enemy, it’s taken as aid and comfort by the enemy, and it’s used by the enemy to discredit mainstream Anglicans.
Dave (#29),
In partial answer to your question (because I admit I don’t have the whole answer), I do believe that there are non-negotiables. If one lacks a faithful priest then the congregation is probably doomed and one must detach. But if a congregation enjoys faithful preaching and teaching, then one has to weigh what one has (and how well one can proclaim it to the outside world) against what one would gain from a new sort of relationship.
As far as children are concerned (sadly, my wife and I have yet to be blessed with any) won’t what counts in the long run depend on how their parents think and act? If we teach them how to be faithful to the Truth against the World, the Flesh and the Devil, will they not also witness for the Truth against heresy within the churches? They will have to learn eventually that bishops – even orthodox ones – are not perfect, that clergy are fallible, that Christians struggle every day to avoid sin and frequently fail. I have lived the thirty-eight years of my life with that knowledge (it helps being the son of a church historian) and I learned fairly early from my parents that being a faithful Christian was not dependent on the perfection of ecclesiastical structures (and leaders). That there can be change for the better, I know from the fact that when I was a teenager, David Jenkins was Bishop of Durham, and now that I live in the US, Tom Wright is Bishop of Durham (I realize that not everybody here feels that was such a great improvement).
I understand that many feel differently and I have felt that same sense of despair myself from time to time, especially over the past five years. Part of me would prefer to go somewhere where I don’t have to constantly explain that I’m not a “regular” Episcopalian, but a part of me also feels called to perform a task that can only work through divine intervention and which will nevertheless be a rather lonely one. I don’t believe that most communion conservatives in Pittsburgh are “settling” for an easy life and it may well end up like Newark only perhaps even more bitter. But I can’t get away from the feeling that it may be putting my own needs first simply to do what is actually the easy thing in Pittsburgh and separate. So I’m in the interesting position of accepting with reservations the rationale for realignment (I voted for it last year, after all), even though I may well end up not being a part of it. Go figure!
An addendum, since I misssed part of the point of your question. “Our” children are not just our own but those of all the parish family and they are a collective parish responsibility. Every parish (realigned or not) needs to promote maximum adult participation in teaching Sunday School and otherwise sharing in youth formation.
As a cradle (and former) Episcopalian, I agree none of you are required to believe anything (you are, after all, Episcopalians). However, I disagree on the points about teaching and practice.
People who remain in the Episcopal Church are helping to fund the lawsuits attacking orthodox catholic biblical Anglican Christians. That practice is a sin.
People who remain in the Episcopal Church teach by example (by their presence) that it is OK for young parents to bring their children into the Episcopal Church. Those children are condemned to a future filled with the Episcopalians’ false gospel. Millstone … neck … sea.
Chazaq, if I might add on to your list on how Simons is wrong in asserting that “none of us has been required (or even asked by TEC) to teach, practice or believe that which is contrary to the faith once received”. By being in communion with heretics people in TEC are teaching that such heresy is no big deal. The very spiritual corrective and tonic that disfellowshipping entails, and which is mandated by the Apostles, is denied to the church that maintains unity with heretics and reprobates. the apostolic faith that is taken so seriously that heretics are cast out, that is forbidden being remaining in TEC. Schori et al are demanding all Episcopalians to accept their teaching as tolerably Christian, which it isn’t. Simons can’t say that it isn’t tolerable and still tolerate it.
Dave G,
Thanks for bringing up a very real, serious issue. Many people left my parish (Truro in Fairfax, VA) for that very reason. My wife and I have not been blessed with children (like the Bonners), and we’ve always felt that being in a parish like Truro was as safe as anywhere for children — even when it was still in TEC. It has always seemed to us that an orthodox parish standing for the biblical understanding of the family, even in a wayward denomination, is a good place to raise your children (and possibly even the best type of place, given cultural trends). However, I recognize that 1) it’s one thing to hold this belief when you aren’t raising children yourself (my wife and I might feel differently if we had kids — I don’t think so, but it could happen), and 2) that many orthodox Episcopalians may not have a solidly orthodox parish in which they feel safe.
In the end, I believe that this is another area for a wide latitude of convictions. Certainly, someone who feels that he or she simply cannot raise his or her children in TEC (and even within an orthodox parish) should follow the Lord if he leads them out. Conversely, those who feel they can do so and have no qualms with doing so, and/or who have views like those of Scott K., should not feel pressured to leave — and even more so if the Lord calls them to stay.
Phil,
I wasn’t thinking of your comment when I wrote my response. There has been some good, serious discussion here (and you contributed to it), but there’s also been some responses that are pretty slanderous. My wife and I are long-time members of a parish that has left TEC. My point is not to argue for the superiority of staying in TEC (nor is it, for that matter, to contend for the superiority of leaving TEC), but to plead with us not to tear down each other. Of course, that applies in both directions — those of us leaving TEC should not tear down those called to stay, and those of us staying within TEC should not tear down people called to leave. I fear that we are way too much in danger of losing former friends and allies and viewing them as opponents, or worse. And we are way too quick to dismiss or otherwise judge people based on far too limited knowledge, thanks to the availability now of so much information, so rapidly. I think we’ve seen some of that in responses to Jim’s piece, as well as too many other places.
Peace of Christ to all,
Chip