[UPDATE:  While you're reading, play this videosong, "Sing Alleluia to the Lord".  I was reminded of it by the post that Billy Ockham posted.

It is extrememly appropriate to praise the Lord and yet reflect the reality of our current Church struggles, symbolized in the song with a minor modality:  we are sad and troubled, and yet we praise the Lord.]

The Sermon Excerpt:

….Now that is exactly the action, the thanksgiving and worship to God,  that happened right before God spoke to Solomon in his dream, as we heard “Solomon showed his love for the Lord by walking according to the statutes of his father David” and then in vs 4 “The king went to Gibeon to offer sacrifices, for that was the most important high place, and Solomon offered a thousand burnt offerings on that altar”  (see note at end of sermon on why Gibeon).

In fact, as the scripture text clearly implies, these actions of worship predisposed Solomon’s heart and his mind and his spirit to allow him to hear from God, because “that night God spoke to him in a dream.”

And that would be my first point to you, that praise and thanksgiving and adoration as worship do indeed predispose the heart and the soul and the mind and the spirit to hear God’s word spoken to them.  If you will praise him …you will hear him.

No longer is it necessary in Christ, by the way, to offer a thousand burnt sacrifices and offerings on your part in order to hear from God.  Hallelujah!  (Hallelujahs from the congregation)

But start now on the daily worship that is necessary in order for us, for  you to hear from God.

Now, the Liturgy, whether Holy Communion or Morning Prayer, does have praise built into the first moments of our worship together before we ever hear from “the Word of God”, and exactly for that purpose:
Praise, and Word of God.
Sometimes, though, we enter into our worship on Sunday mornings and any other time, with less than predisposed hearts and minds and spirits, – I’m saying that as nicely as I can – and the Word of God goes – I’m saying this as nicely as I can –  right over our heads…., and before you know it, we are praying the Prayers of the People with less than grateful hearts and humble spirits!  And that demands the question of whether we are truly prepared to receive the life-giving Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Holy Communion on that day.

So just to be sure, and to make this point, we acted that  out this morning when even before our first hymn we held hands or laid a hand on each other together and I offered on your behalf  thanks and praise to God aloud  for God himself, and for each other, and for this parish, and for God’s presence.  This is a “shaking up”sometimes that is necessary in order for us to understand what it means to give thanks and “enter into his gates with thanksgiving.” That action that we did this morning predisposed our hearts and minds and souls and spirits for our act of praise and worship this morning, and is helping you even now to hear the Word of God more clearly.  Hallelujah..

This is an essential part of the message of today’s lessons, and of the essentials of a disciple of Jesus’ life with him.

Let me say it again in different words, If you as a disciple of Jesus, and we as a body of disciples of Jesus, do not make thanksgiving and praise and adoration intentional, priority parts in our worship of God, daily,  then I am afraid we will be less than disposed – perhaps less than capable – of hearing God speak to you , to me, to us, whether in our dreams or in any other manner.

And God help us all if that is the case…….

The entire sermon can be read at Eagles That Pray

On “The Church and Contemporary Society”

or “Christianity and Contemporary Society”, or now simply

“5. Studies in Contemporary Society, including Racial and Minority Groups“

A selection of excerpts from a larger essay by the Rt Rev Peter Smith, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cardiff (UK), entitled “Voice that must be heard“, posted in The Tablet , specifically here; found via “Anglican Curmudgeon“’s RSS feed of “Anglican Mainstream“’s August 1st, 2009, posting of the article, who give a hattip to “Thinking Anglicans“;

 The following essay (in its entirety), which was written specifically as a statement reflecting “The Church’s” response to the UK “Equality Bill” (see specifics in the complete essay, as linked to above), contains the classic description of how the Church is, can and should be engaged in the issues of our contemporary society. The entirety of the essay serves as an excellent example of the application of that engagement. Again, hyperlinks to the essay are offered above. I have excerpted in this fashion for the benefit of seminary students preparing for the seven areas of examination in the General Ordination Exams, the GOE readers, and diocesan or district examination readers/chaplains, and those teaching on the subject in a variety of settings to the wider Body of Christ.

NOTE WELL: The underlying assumptions of the engagement of The Church with Society/Culture are conversion to Jesus Christ, conversion to the Church as the Body of Christ, and conversion to serving the World as the Creation through Christ. Thus, the essential discipleship lessons of personal salvation, the Mission of the Church, evangelism, the gifts of the Spirit for ministry, the role and ministry of the Deacon specifically, and cross-cultural sensitivies must be included in the taught subject of Christianity (or The Church) and Contemporary Society, or be required “classes” prior to teaching re: Contemporary Society. That is, if these essentials are NOT being taught prior to, or, just as likely, are not included as subjects of examination along with The Church and Contemporary Society, then it is just as essential they be included in the study of this subject and subsequent examination. Or in the local congregation, at least in the study if no examination is being required for completion of discipleship/membership training.

Archbishop Smith includes these essentials in his essay, although couched in terms of the Church’s mission to humanity, and the demand of the Church to continue that mission unfettered. The following sentence is indicative, “The Church does not exist for its own sake, but for the sake of humanity. Our motivation must fundamentally be one of service to others and proclaiming the truth…” One may read into this all of the discipleship essentials I have listed above. And where in the essay Archbishop Smith uses the term “Catholic”, include the name of your own larger denomination, such as “Anglicans”, or insert, simply, “Christians.”RGEaton+

………………..

“We should not get this out of perspective: …….attacks on the Church are nothing new. Nor, however, should Catholics ignore their responsibilities: they have the freedom in a democracy to put their case and they should not be shy of doing so in a spirit of charity and openness. However, it is important to understand why Catholics have this responsibility and why they need to begin to educate secular culture about their faith even if it chooses not to agree with it.

“That education is vital. Ignorance is not a form of benign neutrality. It can represent a cultivated prejudice, a misunderstanding of the life of faith that undermines it in the public sphere and diminishes its contribution to the common good of our society.

“The Christian life is lived in responsibility to the community of faith, its tradition and its future hope. That community is not just a sociological phenomenon. For all its many obvious and painful failings, it understands itself as sustained by the grace of Christ. And if it is to be faithful to Christ then it must also be faithful to what is the lasting universal human good. That is why so much of the Church’s energy is given to the real practical works of charity which not only want to change the condition of the poor, marginalised, powerless and voiceless, but also seek to build a culture in which the human person can flourish.

“That is why the Church is passionately engaged in the issues that face society and the debates that surround them. It cannot stand by while public debate is conditioned by utilitarian, economic and technological questions only. For there are deeper moral and human questions about the meaning and purpose of our lives and actions. The answer we give to these determines the sort of society we want to be.

“And that is why we must resist a situation in which religion is regarded as a legally permissible private eccentricity; allowable behind closed doors once a week, but not in any way to be given expression in public or working life. That is not acceptable. But our response needs to be tailored to suit the differing circumstances: argument, where there are minds open to reason; challenge, where we are faced with unwarranted restrictions; and, where our values are denied, reclaiming in the public space our true identity as a contributor to the common good. [RGE: highlighting here and following is mine]

“Rational argument does get results…………

“The second approach is to challenge the unthinking assumptions of officialdom……….

“We need a richer appreciation of these values so that they produce legislation that serves the common good and does not produce injustice and denial of religious freedom. Finding this language is in not only in the interest of the Catholic Church and other major religious communities, it is a better service to all our people.

“Finally, for the positive reasons I mentioned at the start of this article, we have to put our voice back into the public space. The Church does not exist for its own sake, but for the sake of humanity. Our motivation must fundamentally be one of service to others and proclaiming the truth, and the distinctive Catholic voice in social affairs needs to be heard clearly.

“As bishops, as priests and Religious [RGE: the term Religious in Roman Catholic vocabulary refers to those who have taken vows usually in or with "religious orders", such as the Order of Friars Minor (Franciscans), Order of Preachers (Dominicans), etc., whether ordained or not], and as laity, we need to act with charity in the service of others, but at the same time to speak up for our freedoms, our rights, and our contribution to society. There are many in our society who want to hear more from a Church marked by integrity and a profound respect for humanity – which is as much a challenge for us in the Church as for others.

“To meet that challenge the contemporary world needs a better knowledge of who we really are, and to recognise not only our contribution to its good, but our right to live the faith that inspires it. The freedom to do that should not be too much to ask of a society that believes in equality and respects the faith of its citizens.” [end of essay]

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 )

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).

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+

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.

Not to be confused with Spenser’s….”the Redcrosse Knight of Holiness”

although the 16th century allegory is quite similar

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.

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

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).

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!

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

[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.)