This past week I saw first-hand how some traditionalist activists in the Diocese of Texas, including many long-time friends in my own big parish, St. John the Divine Houston, are mobilizing under the radar to elect a bishop who will almost certainly lead the diocese out of the Episcopal Church. After yesterday’s events, I see this as pretty much a foregone conclusion.
Many of these activists are fine people who care deeply about the Gospel ”” but they also care way too much about the Current Disputes, and they’re organizing pretty effectively to capture the levers of control in the diocese. I hope I’m wrong, but I think it won’t be long before the Diocese of Texas goes the way of Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, and the like, and that it will eventually leave the Episcopal Church.
[UPDATE: So there’s no confusion about the previous sentence, neither Pittsburgh nor Fort Worth (dioceses) have left the Episcopal Church ”” at least not yet. From my perspective, though, that’s just a matter of time; neither diocese’s leadership seems to be willing to be associated with the so-called heretics and apostates who, they think, dominate TEC, and I think the next bishop and diocesan council of Texas will be of like mind.]
How is the diocese of Texas going to get consents for the new bishop? Or will they walk when they don’t get the consents? What an idea! Will South Carolina walk when Mark Lawrence gets rejected, again?
Wow, that IRD conspiracy rears its ugly head. That’s the only way that “traditionalist activist†can secretly organize under the radar to take over a diocese. How dare they! I guess they don’t understand traditionalists are supposed to stay quiet, pay their pledge, and leave the political stuff up to those that know better. Please excuse the sarcasm, but why is it OK for Integrity to plan, mobilize, field candidates for parish and diocesan offices, then national offices, but its not OK for traditionalists?
Gee he really thinks the traditional folk should lie down and shut up doesn’t he? My guess is that he has applauded the use of the same tactics when they were used to stack GC2003 GC2006 and the Executive council and the HOB. Or do you think he is naive enough to believe that these bodies actually do represent the mind of the church?
Y’all please make sure you read the last paragraph of my posting:
(Emphasis added.)
Also please note a follow-on posting I wrote: Property ought to go where it can be best used.
You may have written that at the end, but your tone throughout the article is “capture the levers of power†and “packed the meetingâ€, then you imply the visioning process was somehow kept under the radar. The visioning process is prominently displayed on the DoT webpage, and was mentioned in the Texas Episcopalian (I believe it was the April edition, and then the Bishop’s column discussed it in May). Folks from any of the more liberal parishes in the Houston area had access to the same publications and web pages, and had the same opportunity to plan and attend.
As shown with the SC bishop election, I don’t think any strongly orthodox bishop elect will receive the necessary consents anymore. Even though SC democratically elect the bishop they wanted, they were not allowed to have him. SC is going through the process again, but the same folks that spearheaded (can I say organize and e-mail and plan) that campaign have said again they will NOT consent to Lawrence. So I don’t think you have anything to worry about with who comes after +Wimberly.
This is the diocese of John Hines, Claude Payne, and Don Wimberly. It’s hard to believe they are going to elect an Iker, Duncan, Schofield, or Ackerman.
Kevin Adams [#5], I don’t understand your concern — I said in my posting that the liberals and moderates would not have any standing to complain if they didn’t start participating in the process more.
Is it your view that I’m not entitled to wish the outcome had been different? That it’s only the orthodox who get to complain when they don’t like the results of the processes we all agreed to?
————–
Words Matter [#36], don’t forget that it’s also the diocese of Ben Benitez.
Bp. Benitez was in my mind when I posted. Texas really is a diverse diocese. In the first place, it really should be 3 diocese: Houston, Austin, and Tyler/East Texas. Each one would still be larger than any number of other diocese. I don’t know much about the Tyler area, but the other two are hotbeds of all sorts of religion. You have the types at St. Stephen’s, Houston and St. James, Austin, then you also have St. John the Divine and St. David’s, Austin (I’m assuming it’s still fairly conservative; it’s been awhile). However, my impression of the diocese is that it is essentially institutionalist – I’m thinking Bp. Richardson here. So, it’s pretty much 4 men to 1, which is, I’m going to bet, the chances against getting enough votes to pull out of TEC.
But I’m long out of DOT, and my sources there have left TEC as well, so I might be way off base. On the other hand, as a partisan in the fray, you, D.C., may be alarmed due to your particular situation.
#5 Kevin – I agree – that last paragraph is added so that DC could say “look how balanced I am” after the rhetoric and conspiracy theories have dominated the piece. It is an amazingly self-serving piece all in all.
#10 – and conservatives in the DoT are? You prove my point, anytime conservatives organize, it’s criticized, and then you hear it blamed on the IRD or some other nefarious conspiracy. Just last night on HDNET World Report there was a fairly balanced news report on TEC and the canon from Cambridge (US) (who’s name escapes me right now) had to bring in the conspiracy, and power, and money angle.
Yes MargaretG, I agree, the whole tone of the article was to accuse, then say no, I don’t think that person would have really done that, etc.
TPaine(#10)
At least the conservatives aren’t funded by a handful of crazy left-wing millionaires who think conservatives hospitalized as mentally ill and that all public mention or practice of religion should be banished. (/sarcasm)
See, anyone can make up outrageous statements about the “other” and then hide behind a “I never intended to say….” Your implied accusation is hateful and wrong and I ask that you withdraw it.
Phil Snyder
Y’all really need to read the second essay that D.C. wrote and referenced. Remarkably level headed. Kendall needs to post this.
D.C., I worry about your safety. Peter Lee was using the same reasonable discourse and the heavies came down from 815, “I’s gunna breaks your knees” and he changed his tune.
Seriously, St. John the Divine is a huge church (as is TFC) and certainly could and, I imagine, would accommodate an alternative Episcopalian service if it came to a split. On the other hand, St Stephen’s on Alabama is 10 blocks away or so, and they could certainly use membership boost after having taken a nosedive after 2003 (see here), and is very “progressive” with their Integrity chapter and gay pride participation plastered on their website. I don’t mean to kick anybody out of their church. However, St. John’s is a very rich church. I think it would be gracious of them, if it did come to parting of ways, that they consider contributing to the physical plant of St. Stephen’s, and people might be happy all around!
D.C., I think that you and I got into a disagreement once before. I apologize and am self flagellating for all the bad thoughts I had. Pax.
Robroy [#14], many thanks for the kind words. (And apology accepted, of course, although it hadn’t occurred to me that any was warranted.)