It’s not clear in New York

After giving an address at Virginia Seminary recently, in response to a question of what is at the root of opposition to same-sex blessings and related issues, Canon Charles Robertson, who works directly for the Presiding Bishop,  said, “It often comes down to fear of change, but even that’s too easy.  It often comes down to fear of the other.”   He advocated building relationships with “the other” using agreed-upon rules of interaction.

This information and quote is found in a recent “The Living Church” article which can be found here.

Before I continue, let me say that it is quite possible the quote is wrong.  I have a pretty good measure of trust in the reporting ability of Steve Waring, though, so unless a retraction is made, I’m going to accept it.  However, whether Robertson was quoted accurately or not, I’m going to share my thoughts based on what I read; my response to the quote is still real and valid.

I had two moments of hope reading that quote.  The quote is at the end of the article, and reading through the first part of the article I could generally agree with what was being reported as part of his lecture (the anxiety levels around the Church, the need to drop litmus tests such as this, etc.).   So maybe I had a little trust going.

The first moment of hope came as Canon Robertson, after suggesting “fear of change”  was quoted to say, “….but even that’s too easy.”   My hope came as I looked for his pointing to members’ beliefs and trust in the reading of the Bible.  That is to say, it is too easy to simply jettison opposition of same-sex unions, and the blessing or marriage thereto, as a matter of emotional fear, and thus unwarranted discrimination and prejudice, when it is quite obvious that there is a biblical clarity on the matter and that belief can be held without any personal animosity toward those who seek normalization.   Anger that appears can actually be understood as not about fear of change, but as against the rejection of that which is understood as God’s standards for sexual acts.

A corollary hope was that – if this first hope was realized – somebody acting as a spokesperson for The Episcopal Church actually got it, they actually understood the scope of the dilemma that the questionner was really asking about.

My second moment of hope came after finishing reading that paragraph.  As I read through Canon Charles’ statement, and what he meant by “too easy”, my first hopes were dashed.   But in reconsidering, I thought perhaps the journalist Steve misunderstood “other” – that it was supposed to be “the Other” (capital “O”), referring to a healthy fear of God, and what God has to say about the matter (as in my first hope).    Surely, if we could take our concerns before the Lord, and make reference to his leading and teaching, we could come to a moment of unity.

But again, no.  The answer seems squarely applied to the question asked, which was centered on why there was opposition at all.  And if the bible is clear, as the teaching we understand as the written Word of God, and quite consistent moving from Old Testament to New Testament, then fear of “The Other” would actually be eminating from those who are proponents, as well as those opposed.

In fact in must be conceded that those who hold to the Bible, being people who do indeed confess to being God-fearers (”The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom”), would have no reasonable objection to same-sex matters if that was noted as permissable in our scriptures. 

So my second moment of hope was dashed.

Nope, Canon Robertson, and/or those he speaks for, simply does not get it, or he would have answered differently.

I must say, he does not speak for me, nor the parish I serve, nor at least a simple majority of Episcopalians.

Pray for General Convention ( see http://csgw.wordpress.com )

Northern Michigan: Pre-concluding Post-script

This post is in response to several comments made on a thread at Stand Firm in Faith having to do with the election by the Diocesan Convention of Northern Michigan of the Rev. Kevin Thew-Forrester and the lack of shock to the current votes regarding consent. The nature of the response made it too long, in my opinion, to post there for the sake of the thread of comments, and so I am posting it here. The banner refers to to fact that the consent process is not over until the second and third weeks of July, and yet, this would be the first failure to consent since the early 1930’s (not counting the technical submission errors and thus failure to consent the first time around or South Carolina in 2007) given a majority of “non consents” has already been acquired, and is not likley to be overturned by reconsiderations.

The complaints about the process of election have less to do with having “one candidate for election (and thus not an election, per se)” than the intention of the new bishop’s job description (shared with others in what might be optimistically described as leadership by committee). As I have pointed out in my post at apostolicepiscopalsuccession, the canons for episcopal election allow quite a bit of latitude in the development of the election process. If Convention wants the search committee to bring one candidate then there is nothing stopping them from doing so. If the Convention will only allow nominations from the floor, bypassing a search committee, then so be it (canonical vetting would happen after the election instead of before). Read +Rickel’s (Olympia) explanations for his withholding consent again and note his reaction to the Total Ministry or Mutual Ministry model that had been devised.
This is where the Presiding Bishop comes in, besides the fact she and Kevin had a PhD-prior-to-seminary bond, and they can look at each other eye to eye, height-wise. This has less to do with any common theology on her part than her enthusiastic affirmation of new models of ministry, both publicly and privately, especially considering her experience as bishop in Nevada, the spiritual center of Total Ministry.
All things being biblical and rubrical, she probably could have helped Northern Michigan pull this one out of the fire, despite liberal centrists like +Rickel, and simply and gently chastising these bishops for holding onto old models of episcopacy by not walking in the shoes of someone else’s structural necessity.

So what happened? She, and quite a few others, in my opinion, were caught completely off-guard by the direction the consents began to take. No, not by reading SFiF (she told me 18 months ago that she does not read weblogs because “they are so spiritually toxic”). It was rather the first salvo of consents withheld by +Gulick (Kentucky, Fort Worth), +Marshall (Bethlehem) and +Breidenthal (Southern Ohio), not based on Mutual Ministry models but on the basis of doctrinal and liturgical fault. These are bishops she trusted and held in fellowship, and presumably still does. She could write off the first of the traditional bishops who announced their withholding on the same basis because, as she said aloud in South Carolina last year following a presentation and Q&A with diocesan clergy and others, (and this is not the exact quote) “What we have here is a failure to communicate.” But not the others. And I believe at that point, so early on in the consent process, all she could do was let it ride. Just this last week two different sources have said the Presiding Bishop is not actively attempting to sway consents or convince bodies to reconsider.

I’m sure there was a whole lot of talking going on among west coast bishops, as well as others, as information began to circulate about what these respected theologically minded bishops were saying in their early withholding of consent, and evidence of concern (liturgies, sermons, etc.) was being passed around, some of it force fed by watch dog folks!
When +Mathes (San Diego) came out with his withholding of consent, and included in his explanation the sharing that he had called Forrester, talked to him, and that didn’t help, it put a new twist on understanding Kevin’s character and personality. But I believe the final blow came when +Beisner (Northern California) let everyone know that in a phone call with him Forrester portrayed himself as intransigent regarding liturgical changes, adaption, revision, and rewriting. This is the news that the Standing Committees didn’t want to hear. For that rubrical disregard and rejection alone, Forrester (by +Beisner’s testimony) makes himself liable for presentment. Standing Committees are allergic to episcopal presentments; just the thought of it makes them break out with hives.

I still hold that the essentials of the doctrine of the faith are held by a super majority of bishops, even if only 30 or 35 bishops will hold comprehensive biblical teaching as foundational, notably in this season of the Church regarding human behavior in sexuality. Among the bishops of the center of the theological spectrum, they needed to hear the charges of abandonment of the Trinity, and then they have withheld consent accordingly.
I was not willing to predict the Standing Committee votes (also at apostolicepiscopalsuccession); the election of Standing Committee members can be a quite fickle thing, and thus quite unpredictable. More so, rarely do Standing Committees make theological statements unilaterally. They just let their bishops be verbal, and wince or applaud as the occasion demands. And, if they are doing their job, they will alert the bishop, or counsel and advise the bishop, when the bishop is walking a dangerous line that could lead to charges of presentment for whatever reason (I have some experience in that area). That’s because any Standing Committee member worth their salt knows their purpose in a diocese, and it has to do with the nuts and bolts of ecclesiastical authority. The members must be canonically knowledgable and savvy. “Uphold and advise” is the work. So no Standing Committee, usually very supportive of their bishop, wants to be put in the position of having to even consider the serious matter of canonical presentment for an offense (Pennsylvania is a good example in their struggle with Bp Bennison).
And so with unauthorized liturgical changes and rites already in use, and the refusal to stop doing such, and then with mounting serious doctrinal questions, Standing Committees would see this election and consecration as an ecclesiastical explosion waiting to happen, a hot potato if you will, and thus vote to withhold consent. I believe that is what happened in that tally.
But let’s look at it from a positive point of view. Basically, the Standing Committees of The Episcopal Church in the USA can understand themselves – by withholding consent to the election and consecration of Kevin Forrester – to be gifting the Standing Committee of Northern Michigan with a presentment-free episcopacy.
The Standing Committees of TECUSA need now to see their next gift, and that is intense intercession, that God will pour out the Holy Spirit to assist the Northern Michigan Standing Committee, and all those in the search process including Fr. Kevin Thew Forrester, to receive this gift with thanksgiving, and start anew with grace and humility.

And I will add my two-cents into the next step (barring the unlikely turn-around of the consent process at this point)

to the Northern Michigan Standing Committee:

Invoke the election canon (Title III, Canon 16, Sect. 1 (b)) which allows you to request to place this election into the hands of the House of Bishops of Province V (5), 15 neighboring dioceses which would provide an impartial, balanced, and fair proceeding, informed by your desire for how the process should proceed. This would not be abdication; this is called relying upon the larger Body of Christ. Read the canon and see how this can be a viable option, assisting with nominations, cost, taking advantage of a wealth of experience and wisdom in episcopal elections, and a readable forecast for the consent process, not to mention allaying the fears that many would and already do have (as shared by several concerned voices within the diocese) of a repeat of the same process with the same conclusion.  Contact the current President of Province V, Bishop Wendell Gibbs (Michigan).

Reflection on Reading, 06-05-09: “The brother..”

2 Cor. 8:16-24 (NRSV)

16 But thanks be to God who put in the heart of Titus the same eagerness for you that I myself have. 17For he not only accepted our appeal, but since he is more eager than ever, he is going to you of his own accord. 18With him we are sending the brother who is famous among all the churches for his proclaiming the good news; 19and not only that, but he has also been appointed by the churches to travel with us while we are administering this generous undertaking for the glory of the Lord himself and to show our goodwill. 20We intend that no one should blame us about this generous gift that we are administering, 21for we intend to do what is right not only in the Lord’s sight but also in the sight of others. 22And with them we are sending our brother whom we have often tested and found eager in many matters, but who is now more eager than ever because of his great confidence in you. 23As for Titus, he is my partner and co-worker in your service; as for our brothers, they are messengers of the churches, the glory of Christ. 24Therefore openly before the churches, show them the proof of your love and of our reason for boasting about you.

The matter of who this famous brother could be, as well as the other unnamed “often tested” brother, has caused the scratching of heads for a long, long time. Although some have sounded absolutely sure, such as Pelagius when he wrote, “It is Luke”, or some more tentative such as John Chrysostom who thought it sounded like Barnabas (writing 1600 years ago, which is indeed a long time ago), there seems little concensus here in 2009 A.D. on the identity of the first brother, nor of the second.
In any case, here are three questions for us to consider and pray about:
1) Paul says Brother X was “famous …. for his proclaiming the good news.” Does that mean he was an “evangelist”? What does it mean to proclaim the good news? And what is the content?
2) What would have made him famous about it? Surely, one of the options to answer that question would be that his proclaiming of the good news could be measured in the number of people who came to faith in Jesus, that is, believed in the risen Lord Jesus as a result of his proclamation? And if that is the case, then this would underscore a classic definition of evangelism which says that it is proclaiming the good news in such a way and manner that people respond positively by believing in Jesus Christ. Does that not give pause?
3) That consideration of sharing, receiving and responding leads me to ask a third question: Who in The Episcopal Church could be said to be like Brother X, famous for their proclaiming the good news?

RGE+

To the Companions of St. George

Feast Day, April 23.

Born circa 275 to a Roman senior ranking soldier, and a Palestinian mother.   Died in 303 as a result of Diocletian’s order to kill Christian soldiers, even those of higher rank, which would have included George who had already attained the rank of tribunus.  Diocletian would not have known, except that George made clear his testimony and witness to Jesus Christ.  He was beheaded.

….the Redcrosse Knight of Holiness, protector of the Virgin.

But on his breast a bloody Cross he bore
The dear remembrance of his dying Lord,
For whose sweet sake that glorious badge we wore
And dead (as living) ever he adored.

 A Collect provided by James Kiefer:

Almighty God, who gave to your servant George boldness to confess the Name of our Savior Jesus Christ before the rulers of this world, and courage to die for this faith: Grant that we may always be ready to give a reason for the hope that is in us, and to suffer gladly for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

From the back of a prayer card:

St. George, heroic Catholic Soldier and defender of Your faith, you dared to criticize a tyrannical Emperor, and were subjected to horrible torture.  You could have occupied a high military position, but you preferred to die for your Lord.

Good St. George, obtain for us the great grace of heroic Christian courage that should mark all soldiers of Christ.

From a Novena:

PRAYER IN HONOR OF SAINT GEORGE

O GOD, who didst grant to Saint George strength and constancy in the various torments which he sustained for our holy faith; we beseech Thee to preserve, through his intercession, our faith from wavering and doubt, so that we may serve Thee with a sincere heart faithfully unto death. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

INVOCATION OF SAINT GEORGE

Faithful servant of God and invincible martyr, Saint George; favored by God with the gift of faith, and inflamed with an ardent love of Christ, thou didst fight valiantly against the dragon of pride, falsehood, and deceit. Neither pain nor torture, sword nor death could part thee from the love of Christ. I fervently implore thee for the sake of this love to help me by thy intercession to overcome the temptations that surround me, and to bear bravely the trials that oppress me, so that I may patiently carry the cross which is placed upon me; and let neither distress nor difficulties separate me from the love of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Valiant champion of the Faith, assist me in the combat against evil, that I may win the crown promised to them that persevere unto the end.

Troparian to St. George:      O Great Among the Saints and Glorious Martyr George, since you are a deliverer of captives and a defender of the poor, a doctor for the sick and a noble attendant to kings: intercede with Christ God, that He may save our souls.

George, a Captain in the Roman Army, tore up in defiance an edict of Emperor Diocletian ordering the persecution of Christians. He battled the devil, symbolized by the dragon, and saved the Holy Church. He rides a white horse that indicates God’s grace carrying him to the heroism of martyrdom and Jesus Christ’s hand appears from Heaven to bless him. Constantine the Great built a great church over his tomb in Lyda of Palestine. The name George means ‘Tiller of the Earth.’ This icon is based on the Novgorod icon of St. George.

A Court Decision with Consequences

The California Supreme Court announced their intent to render their decision on Monday, January 5, 2009 (you can see the whole hearing as a video download here) regarding the parish facilities and assets of those that voted to leave the Diocese of Los Angeles a few years ago, with direct implications for congregations in the Dicoese of San Diego, and another in the Diocese of Northern California. 

All of the California dioceses are watching intently.   The decision may also have an impact on what chancellors will approve re: new incorporations of parishes, such as ours.   We have approval to incorporate, but the chancellor has chosen not to consider our incorporation documents until after this California Supreme Court ruling.   As a result of that decision we chose not to waste the time of our own attorney in drawing up articles before this ruling came out.   However,  it does seem we will be getting to it sooner than we thought we would.

Further irony is noted following the announcement, so read on.

SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

 NOTICE OF FORTHCOMING FILING

The Supreme Court has indicated that the filing of a written opinion in the following case(s) is forthcoming. At the filing time designated below, the filed opinion(s) will be accessible at the judicial branch web site      (www.courtinfo.ca.gov ) and copies will be made available at the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office.

[Generally, the description set out with regard to each case is reproduced from the original news release issued when review in the matter was granted, and is provided for the convenience of the public and the press. The description does not necessarily reflect he view of the court, or define the specific issues that will be addressed by the court.]

PEOPLE v. DOOLIN (KEITH)

S054489 (Fresno County Superior Court – 554289-9)

Argued in Riverside County 10-07-08

This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.

EPISCOPAL CHURCH CASES

S155094 (G036096/G036408/G036868; Orange County Superior Court – JCCP

4392)

Argued in Riverside County 10-08-08

This case includes the following issues: (1) Should the “principle of government” approach, also known as the “highest church judicatory” approach, be used to resolve disputes between a local congregation and a national church or regional diocese over ownership of church property, or should these disputes be resolved using a “neutral principles analysis”? (2) Was the complaint properly subject to a motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16? (3) What role does Corporations Code section 9142 play in the analysis and resolution of church property disputes?

Opinion(s) in the above case(s) will be filed on:

Monday, January 5, 2009 at 10:00 a.m.

 

 

 

As promised, some irony.   The order of announcements here, as posted, with the court’s decision regarding the death verdict first, and then the Episcopal churches decision, is reflected in the same order of rituals as found in the Book of Common Prayer, beginning with the Burial Offices and then the Consecration of a Bishop.   I have shared with more than one bishop over the years my question if this was in fact intentional ordering (if you will).

Dear Sarah – a reflection on a weakness of the charismatic renewal (and the whole Church) in affecting Kingdom change

Sarah,
The basis of the charismatic renewal hope was that the more people who were empowered by the Holy Spirit (the baptism of or in the Holy Spirit as noted in Acts 2 and chapters following), the more the Church would be what it was meant to be.  By looking to Jesus for that baptism, we could be assured of the promise of reception of the empowerment, speaking in tongues a major (but not always evident) sign.
The power of the Spirit was for all, and intended for every Christian.  And of the spiritual gifts, prophesying could be for all.  And tongues as a prayer language seems a part of the package. 

However, an evangelistic gift was not always part of the gifting, nor the gift of administration (nor do I see a gift of politicking).  Here, the problem of getting the baptism of the Spirit to an ever-increasing fellowship of new and old Christians ran into the same problems as it always had.  First, with the problem of lack of evangelism becoming apparent, the charismatic renewal began to emphasize the Great Commission, in hopes that ALL would grasp the calling of becoming disciplers, one making one, Be a friend, make a friend, bring a friend to Christ, etc.  As it should be.  Alleluia.

And, yet, people weren’t picking up on that role by osmosis simply be receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit.  Training was necessary.  Who would do the training?  Now this is for real, and not simply a sarcastic comment:  since when did a diocesan Commission on Ministry, or a parish discernment group, regularly look only for those individuals who showed fruit of an evangelistic ministry?  No, we looked for somewhat intelligent, potentially theologically articulate, converted to the truth of the ministry of the Body of Christ, showing fruit of Pastoral gifting, people (and then in the late 70’s beginning to show evidence of a shift toward 2nd career, wise in the world, candidates for ordination, thus the increase of avg age upon graduation).  The evangelism training had to be procured from some other place, such as “Evangelism Explosion”, or “the Master’s plan”, or bring in someone to the parish staff from Campus Crusade or Young Life, etc.

Episcopal Clergy had not been and were simply not being recruited based on souls being saved, if you will.  In fact, that was increasingly a phrase you wanted to avoid at discernment retreats.  Along with, “Because the Lord spoke to me and told me to be a priest.” (part of my own story, for another time).

One year I asked potential deaconate ordinands as part of their oral exams, “Who was the last person you brought to Christ?”  It literally caused a ripple of anxiety and terror.   The third candidate that day of exams had already heard from the first one to expect the question.  The next year people in the same situation knew me as the one who had asked ‘that’ question.  I can only hope somebody was brought to the Lord if only to be able to answer the question somewhat affirmatively!

Now, from time to time, one of those evangelistic spiritual gifts would just simply show up in a priest, and it would be evident in the growth of a parish where growth was otherwise not warranted by demographics.  Then some of these unsuspecting clergy would get elected bishop.  Not knowing how to train anybody for what just came “naturally” to them, their evangelistic gifted ability didn’t bear much more fruit than annual visits to congregations – with followup left to the local clergy.  Ooops.

Some of those gifted clergy did not become bishops, yet everywhere they served people were brought to the Lord, churched and unchurched alike.  But rather than asking the question necessary about their evangelistic gifting and perhaps technique, they were simply categorized as “successful” parish priests.  Much to the dismay and guilt of those non-evangelistically gifted clergy.  Who were legion.
The charismatic renewal fared only slightly better in this regard.  How ironic, eh?  If you wanted evangelism training you had to go somewhere else than an Episcopal seminary, unless one of the faculty took on such training on their own.  Usually, a local ECF or ERM regional conference might offer a workshop on evangelism.  Too little time, hardly any follow-up.

Now, General Convention – or somebody with some clout – finally got an Evangelism officer into place.  But as you can see it was like swimming up stream (thousands and thousands of miles).  I will give Wayne Schwab credit for breaking a lot of ice in this area; Hugh Magers was the best.  But even Hugh knew there was a second wave of resistance coming for trying to get the evangelism message out there, with the resurgence of universalism.  The 20/20 plan took massive effort to get passed, and then it all just sort of went away in a haze of budgeting issues.

That was about the time I was waking up to the need for gifted evangelists myself.  When I was at the GC Denver, I took the time to follow up on a project that was started in between Philadelphia GC and Denver, and that was asking for the names of anyone who was a known, gifted evangelist in the Episcopal Church, other than Lee Buck.   I asked every knowledgable person I could find there: at AAC meetings and lunches, in the crowds walking back and forth to conference center, working through an intentional list of renewal leaders there, attending Evangelism committee meetings.  Nobody had a name that came to the top of their brain quickly (except Lee Buck).  I explained I wasn’t looking for people who knew the value of evangelism, or could preach evangelistically (John Guernsey’s name came up a few times, and others you would probably recognize), but someone in the parish, someone known to the diocese, who regularly reported on the names of individuals who as adults had just given their lives to the Lord, and were being baptized.  A dearth of names.  Really, only the names of folks someone else had heard about, or by implication of association. 

Finally, I think the next to the last day of Denver GC, I was walking back to the conference center in step with another priest who had come from the lunch.  I didn’t know him, and hadn’t met him until then.  In desperation I told him about my little research project.  He said, simply, “Well, I have that gift.”  And from what he told me briefly then, and later sitting down with him so I could interview him, I knew he was telling the truth.  I’m sorry to say that even before I could arrange to have him come out to my parish and the diocese to share his gift, he went AMiA.   I still envision him coming out to talk and share and maybe do a Parish Retreat for the community.

I was glad for that moment of discovery the Lord provided.  And it is sad – is it not – that there is still not – in general, because I know some dioceses have gotten the message – a demand for evangelists to be ordained.  Certainly, that’s what every parish search committee WANTS, is someone who will grow the parish or mission.  They just don’t know that there is a difference between how a gifted administrator grows a church, and a Spirit-gifted evangelist. 

The charismatic renewal was right on target – the frozen chosen needed to be reminded about the power of the Lord to accomplish the building up of His Kingdom.  God knew what He was doing in that fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit, needed constantly in the Church, over and over.  And the charismatic renewal leadership was right to look to the evangelical awakening for necessary refreshment in evangelical theology, but even more so for the evangelistic work which brought the evangelical movement alive.  Reasserters are made up quite a bit by these folks.  Even many revisionists are aware of and desperate for the power of the Holy Spirit and the ministry of evangelism.

And, in case you didn’t see this coming or get it by now, both CP’ers and CC’ers will go nowhere without these elements in their life.   Here is some confusion, too.  CP’ers are generally in agreement that these things – empowerment in the Holy Spirit, and the need for gifted evangelists and the fruit of evangelism to bring people inside and outside the church to Jesus – is exactly “the inside strategy.”   That is the Mission no matter where you are called, is it not?   And CC’ers are of the tendency to call “the outside strategy” something structural – but at the same time fully cognizant of the elements that many CP’ers have perhaps reluctantly termed the inside strategy.  Once we get that straightened out, we can get back to the fight about whether staying in TECUSA is really just being deceived.

In the meantime, I still want to know who the gifted evangelists are.  I have maybe one in my congregation, but she is gunshy, has never been encouraged in that direction, and needs drawing out and training to accentuate the gift.  Otherwise, I have been praying…

What about you?  Anybody reading this post, that is.  Who do you know in your parish, or in your diocese, perhaps yourself (don’t be shy), who shows the fruit of a Spirit-gifted evangelist?  Just let us know whether TECUSA or non, so the appropriate people can immediately contact them for potential ministry!

Dr. Turner on Subversion of the Church and the “inside” response

the entire and original version of this document is available for download in PDF format here

      “And finally there is the theological issue of how Christians are to confront false teaching and practice in their midst.  If argument, exhortation, and witness are to no avail and if the levers of power in the church are in the hands of those in error, what is the Godly response?  Is it to leave and start another Church or Province?  Or is it to remain, be faithful, and suffer the consequences?
     “These questions have received far too little attention, but they force one to ask if there is not “a more excellent way” than the ones now being followed?  It would be disingenuous not to say that those who choose to remain believe there is a more excellent way.  This way is often referred to as an “inside strategy.”  It is often assumed that the goal of the “inside strategy” is to reform TEC from within.
     “This assumption is false.  Those with whom I speak who are supposed to have an “inside strategy” do not pin their hopes on the reform of TEC.  Indeed, beyond seeking to find ways to band together with and give support to others who share their views, they have no strategy save to bear faithful witness and wait patiently for God to do what God will do with the church of which they are a part.  Their desire is to form more than “bonds of affection” with other Anglicans both within TEC and in other parts of the Anglican Communion.  Their intention is to model what they believe communion in Christ implies.
     “For these reasons they support the effort to frame an Anglican Covenant whose basic principle is mutual subjection within the body of Christ.  This is a way of looking at relations within the Communion and within TEC that is consistent with an earlier Anglican formulation of the same principle—“mutual responsibility and interdependence within the body of Christ.”  It is also a way of relating to other Provinces within the Communion that is in keeping with TEC’s self-definition as a constituent member of the Anglican Communion.
     “Mutual subjection appears to this group not as a strategy, be it inside or outside, but a more excellent way to show forth the Lord’s death until he comes.  It is also a way to address the entropic possibilities lodged deeply in TEC’s Constitution and in the autonomous forms of governance characteristic of the Communion’s various Provinces.  How will the creative energy the principle of subsidiarity seeks to promote be harnessed to common purpose and common life?  How will the hierarchies of TEC’s various Dioceses be linked to other hierarchies in the Anglican Communion and to purposes greater than their own?
     “The answer to these questions contained in the proposal before the Communion and before TEC is through a Covenant whereby each subjects itself to the others in a fellowship of both truth and love.  Is this not in fact a more excellent way than the sovereign assertion of authority and autonomy on the one hand or a reactive attempt to separate from erring brothers and sisters on the other? I believe it is.  I believe also that, though it will prove a way of suffering, it is a way that will lead to the development of mechanisms for the preservation of communal order in a way that the creation of new Provinces (on both the left and the right) does not.”

Dr. Philip Turner, former dean of The Episcopal Seminary of the Southwest, is a contributing member of the Anglican Communion Institute, and their website.

the entire and original version of this document is available for download in PDF format here

The Source of Confidence was in un-confirmed Grants and can be no longer

[UPDATE: As of 11/8/08, I still have yet to hear definitively regarding the discussion as noted in the second half of this post, below, on the matter of the $700,000.  I'm going to suggest as this point that there wasn't much that was going to be said definitively until the dioceses of Quincy (now having voted the same way San Joaquin and Pittsburgh did), and presumably Fort Worth following suit also this month.]

(slightly revised as of 10/28, in order of paragraphs)

As stated at the Episcopal San Joaquin Convention this past weekend, the vestry of St. John’s, Tulare, and I are here to assist in helping the diocese grow and develop in the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ, as we hope all would see themselves.  The convention itself offered many examples of people working together to “right the ship”, as Bp Lamb offered in his address.

St. John’s convention delegates, George Sutton and Robert Sutton (not related, BTW), and I have seen immediately that this would be a good place to start, and so we offer the following in that spirit of labor together:

  We call on the members and leaders of the diocese to recognize the need to make our way based on what God has provided us as we go on our way, with good Christian stewardship and hefty Spirit-informed prayer in the Name of Jesus, and without undue reliance on grants from a resource that is seeing measurable financial decline.

Every diocesan treasurer’s moment of pain is when a delegate gets up to amend a line item in the presented diocesan budget.  Or when a delegate comes to the microphone at Convention and says, “This budget is no good.  It’s not balanced.”

Diocesan budgets can be difficult and complex matters, not the least of which is that diocesan conventions are required to pass submitted budgets.  It can be seen, primarily, as an approval vote.  Budgets are not crafted at Convention itself.  The Canons require Diocesan Council to submit a budget to Convention; delegates generally are asked to trust the process Council develops using the Canons as guide.  No matter how “open” you make the process in regard to submission of requests, and hearings, etc., including providing some kind of Q & A at a pre-Convention deanery or convocation meeting as well as at Convention itself, the great bulk of delegates are not involved, nor avail themselves of the process of building a budget.   Rectors and Vicars are included in that voluntary and involuntary disenfranchisement; experienced congregational leaders have also usually found that only a very small percentage of people even have a glancing interest in the ongoing finances of the dioceses — except on hotspot issues like camps, staff wages, youth programs, newspapers, campus ministries, and assessments.   And whether the budget is balanced or not.  So the Treasurer has the responsibility of selling the budget to Convention as something everyone can trust is a valid symbol and tool of the life and ministry of the diocese.  “Trust me.”

When a budget is presented in such fashion it is not helpful to present any facet of which can be questioned and elicits a response of “it is anticipated”, or “we are hoping that”, or “we’ll know next month if”, or “we won’t know until next month”, or “it is unknown at this time”, etc., etc.  It is especially unhelpful in the development of trust to apply those uncertain phrases to the income side of the budget. 

Parish and Mission annual budgets are no different, but often less complicated in regard to underlying agendas, intentions, hidden costs, etc.  Our average, normal small congregation (all denominations) usually is pretty bare bones.  Even there, if the treasurer or rector or vicar gets up at the annual meeting and says in the face of some noticeable difference between income and expenses, “I’m sure it will all work out”, you can count on not a few arteries to get hardened.  Prior to that moment, responsible vestries and bishop committees will provide contingency plans for deficits, which might include Budget A, and Budget B, where Budget A is balanced for the sake of presentation, and Budget B reflects the hopes and anticipations, including the necessary element of Faith.  (There is a difference that can exist between diocesan and congregational budgets when bylaws allow for the vestry (usually) to submit a budget for presentation at the annual meeting that has already been approved and does not require ratification.)

On the diocesan level, especially because it can be more complex, a realistic, only-figure-expenses-from-what-the-canons-define-as-revenue kind of budget demands balancing.   And I’ll tell you now in case you aren’t familiar with the appropriate Canon (you should look it up yourself – see the Episcopal San Joaquin diocesan webpage for links, or ask your Rector or Vicar for their printed copy), grants to the diocese via requests to TECUSA Executive Council or General Convention itself are not listed there.   It doesn’t say you can’t ask.   But the fiscally responsible thing to do – even given the irregular situation we are in – is to provide a balanced budget based solely on what revenues can be expected as a regular course of assessments and proceeds from available trusts and investments.  We have no hope of understanding our realistic viability if we do not.  

Broken down to numbers based on the revenue Canon, our Episcopal San Joaquin diocesan budget for 2009 would be somewhere in the $175K to $240K range.  Factor in your episcopacy, and whatever left goes to barebones essentials.  We grow from there.

In any case, a budget was passed this past weekend at Convention for approximately $600,000 (without factoring in litigation costs), that depends on funds being granted through Executive Council (a minimum of approximately $375,000 to $425,000 needed to meet presented budget expenses), which I can only presume was a possibility raised through conversation engaged well before Council first began budget deliberations.  Some kind of narrative would be helpful in such situations.  But the fact that conversations from the summer could not remotely be factored into dollars and cents until after Executive Council heard from TEC Treasurer (last week) and a resolution for such grant requests could finally be moved.   There was no guarantee, except for the benefit of a very high priority on the part of the Presiding Bishop and most of Executive Council for making sure the San Joaquin situation does not fail.  Even then, what was passed by Executive Council was not immediately clear as to the meaning of “up to $700,000″ for four dioceses mentioned - as evidenced by comments made during the consideration of the budget in Hanford on Saturday wondering if that meant the $700,000 would be split “three ways” (people weren’t counting Quincy).   Now that I’ve seen the resolution and commentary (see below, hat tip to Fr. Jim Simons, from his weblog in Pittsburgh), especially the identification of $3M in appreciated income at the end of the Explanation, it is quite possible they meant that each of the 4 dioceses could be afforded the $700,000. 

“Up to” also provides a means for the Treasurer and the Presiding Bishop as the signatories to these funds to say ”yay” or “nay” to any line item in the budget expenses they might question.  I would submit that most of the request for budget grant will be rubber stamped; the possibility of withholding still exists, though, which makes the request not a 100% sure thing. 

But the contingency plan?  What if TECUSA Executive Council had said, “Sorry”, days before heading into our convention?   Even if Diocesan Council or Treasurer Tom (God bless him) had something ready to print up and pass out, we can’t possibly believe that Executive Council will continue to bail out a diocesan budget that continues to budget for more expenses than normal, Canonical revenue/income.   Without saying “We should have had….”, which is not particularly helpful at this point, what would be helpful is an immediate consideration of a 2009 (yes, 2009) budget based only on Canonical revenue definition, disbursed to all congregations for complete transparency, and with the invitation (perhaps the charge) for each congregation at least at board level to discuss the implications of such a barebones budget, brainstorm responses, and get those back to Council prior to when a normal budget discernment process would begin for 2010 budget, just past the Feast of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

   Further, we would say right away, besides the recommendation made above,  we pray and work toward a strong “Legacy Program”, a la Diocese of Olympia, as presented in one of the convention workshops by Olympian Carl Knirk.   We will attempt to implement this program in our own parish in January.  Any congregations that would like to do the same might work with us for encouragement and support, and sharing of ideas.

God move in our midst.

 

The following is the resolution of the Executive Council recognising and supporting those in the Diocese of Pittsburgh and San Joaquin, committed to staying in the Episcopal Church. The Executive Council is “General Convention at rest”.

Resolved, That up to $700,000 of undistributed accumulated income and appreciation be made available in calendar year 2009 from one or more of the following trust funds established to support the missionary work or mission work of the Church,

TF#756 Lloyd, Ethel. S., Bequest of (1996)
TF#200.2 The St. leger Fund (1909)
TF#492 Hopkins, Theresa B., Bequest of (1936)
TF#723 Zabriskie Memorial Fund (1961)
TF#814 Boyd, Lizzie E. Fund (1978)
TF#656 Monteagle, Lydia Paige, Bequest of (1953)
TF#678 Olden, Sarah E., Bequest of (1955)
TF#860 Gregg, Ellen F., and David McM. Memorial Fund (1982)
TF#540 Seager, Schuyler F., Gift of (1941)

And be it further

Resolved, That these funds be used to provide financial assistance during calendar year 2009 in the Diocese of San Joaquin, the Diocese of Pittsburgh, and other similarly situated dioceses for clergy salaries and other expenses; and be it further

Resolved, That in the light of the action of the Presiding Bishop in deposing the Rt. Rev. Robert W. Duncan as Bishop of Pittsburgh for abandoning the communion of this Church, the Executive Council joins with the Presiding Bishop in recognizing the Rev. James Simons, the Rev. Jeffrey Murph, and Ms. Mary Roehrich as the current Standing committee of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, and designates a portion of the funds referred to in the first Resolve be sued to provide financial assistance during calendar year 2009 to the current leadership of the Diocese of Pittsburgh for clergy salaries and other expenses; and be it further

Resolved, That the Executive Council joins with the Presiding Bishop in recognizing The Rev. Keith Axberg, The Rev. Glenn Kanestrom, Ms. Cindy Smith, Mr. John Ledbetter, The Rev. John Shumaker, Mr. Richard Jennings, Ms. Beryl Simkins, and The Rev. Tim Vivian as the current Standing committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin and designates a portion of the funds referred to in the first Resolve be used to provide continued financial assistance to the current leadership of the Diocese of San Joaquin, as well as to the leadership of other similarly-situated dioceses, for clergy salaries and other expenses during the calendar year 2009; and be it further

Resolved, That the Executive Council of The Episcopal Church commends the work of all those involved in supporting the efforts by Dioceses to exercise their pastoral and fiduciary responsibilities in regard to the ownership of properties and funds; and be it further

Resolved, That the disbursement of these funds from one or more of the above trusts be made by the Presiding Bishop and the Treasurer.

Explanation:
Some members of the Episcopal Church in the Dioceses of San Joaquin and Pittsburgh have opted to leave the Church. The remaining members of these dioceses-lay and ordained-find they have reduced resources from which to care for one another and to reach out to those who do not know the Gospel of Christ. Ordained ministers, who provide an ongoing pastoral presence to the continuing Episcopalians, not face insecurity with respect to their salaries.

The mission of the Church is to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ—through prayer and worship, proclaiming the Gospel, and promoting justice, peace and love. These dioceses have become fertile areas for mission work.

The Executive Council authorized a draw of up to $500,000 to fund similar work in 2008. Through October, nearly $421,000 had been expended to support mission in the dioceses of San Joaquin, Fort Worth and Pittsburgh. These disbursements were reviewed and approved by legal counsel, who confirmed that the disbursements complied with the terms and conditions of the trusts.

The undistributed appreciation in the above named trust funds totaled an estimated $3.0 million as of 9/30/08.

(This copy of the resolution is not a “certified” copy, but reproduced from the hard copy of the resolution in the same language passed by Council on October 23, 2008 in Helena, MT.)

Lection from Sunday: Convention in retrospect

From the Daily Office reading from the Old Testament for Sunday, October 26th, come more than one word of wisdom that were or should have been applied to the business portions of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin Convention this past Saturday.

15 My child, do not mix reproach with your good deeds,
or spoil your gift by harsh words.
16 Does not the dew give relief from the scorching heat?
So a word is better than a gift.
17 Indeed, does not a word surpass a good gift?
Both are to be found in a gracious person.
18 A fool is ungracious and abusive,
and the gift of a grudging giver makes the eyes dim.

19 Before you speak, learn;
and before you fall ill, take care of your health.
20 Before judgment comes, examine yourself;
and at the time of scrutiny you will find forgiveness.
21 Before falling ill, humble yourself;
and when you have sinned, repent.
22 Let nothing hinder you from paying a vow promptly,
and do not wait until death to be released from it.
23 Before making a vow, prepare yourself;
do not be like one who puts the Lord to the test.
24 Think of his wrath on the day of death,
and of the moment of vengeance when he turns away his face.
25 In the time of plenty think of the time of hunger;
in days of wealth think of poverty and need.
26 From morning to evening conditions change;
all things move swiftly before the Lord.

27 One who is wise is cautious in everything;
when sin is all around, one guards against wrongdoing.
28 Every intelligent person knows wisdom,
and praises the one who finds her.
29 Those who are skilled in words become wise themselves,
and pour forth apt proverbs.
30 Do not follow your base desires,
but restrain your appetites.
31 If you allow your soul to take pleasure in base desire,
it will make you the laughingstock of your enemies.
32 Do not revel in great luxury,
or you may become impoverished by its expense.
33 Do not become a beggar by feasting with borrowed money,
when you have nothing in your purse.

Prayers for DSJ(E) Workshop with ministry

The following is the description for the early Saturday morning workshop I and others from St. John’s, Tulare, will be presenting and ministering at the Episcopal San Joaquin annual convention this weekend (Oct 24-26). 

9.      Unction, Making Use of the Gifts of the Spirit, as a Team Ministry: Father Rob Eaton and Prayer Team Members from St. John’s, Tulare, CA

We will demonstrate, with workshop participants, how a 2 to 3 member team can provide a healing and prayer ministry, especially within a liturgical setting, such as a Holy Communion service.  Unction, normally understood (see the Catechism in the BCP), is the anointing with oil, and/or the laying on of hands with prayer for the ministration to the sick.  Providing a brief biblical and theological background on healing, laying on of hands, and which Gifts of the Spirit are most useful, and making use of authorized liturgies from the Book of Common Prayer and the Book of Occasional Services, the curious, beginners, and advanced intercessors alike will gain first-hand insight on starting such a ministry or developing one already in existence in their congregations.

Especially because there will be personal ministry offered to workshop attendees (there will be time for maybe 7-9 individuals), I invite your prayers during this workshop.  It begins at 8:15am Pacific time.  For you Eastern time zone people, it means you don’t have to start praying (11:15) until you’ve had a couple of cups of coffee.  For those of you praying in Hawaii, God bless you.  The workshop will last 90 minutes.

Each time of personal ministry will last only 3 to 5 minutes (that’s one of the keys of liturgical setting prayer ministries).  The first volunteer person to receive prayer will be right at the beginning.  The next set of two volunteer persons will be around 9:15am (Pacific), but will include critique of the prayer ministry as it is going on, so about 8 or 9 minutes each.  Then we will put into action two or three or our parish teams for anyone else who would like prayer (including inviting workshop attendees being stand-ins with the teams).  This will begin just after 9:30am (Pacific).  Each team should be able to pray for a couple of people.

The block of time in between the first person prayed over (which will immediately model the form) and the ministry time at the end is the teaching time.

Thank you for your prayers.  We expect to see people healed, and we hope for the establishment of these prayer ministries in the worship services from wherever the attendees come from.

RGE+