STILL ON PATROL

Roman Catholic Message on Homosexuality and the Church Remains Clear

Two recent messages from the Roman Catholic Church should be received loud and clear at Lambeth Palace and 815, although past history would suggest that any comprehension on the part of Anglican and Episcopalian leadership will be sorely lacking.

Friday, Pope Benedict firmly re-stated the Church's position:  "The union of love, based on matrimony between a man and a woman, which makes up the family, represents a good for all society that can not be substituted by, confused with, or compared to other types of unions."    Per the Reuters News Service, The Pope referred to marriage as an inalienable right of the traditional family  "founded on matrimony between a man and a woman, to be the natural cradle of human life."  Although the Pope made no mention of the California Supreme court decision on same-sex marriages, the timing of his message was unmistakable.

Religious Intelligence also reported last week on an interview with Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council on Christian Unity.  Cardinal Kasper's message to the Anglican Communion was quite clear; RI reports:

"The dividing lines which have unfortunately become evident on ethical issues since the latter half of the last century are therefore not secondary or irrelevant for an understanding of the nature of the church," he said, as in “touching on holiness, they touch on the essential nature of the church itself.”

The decision by some Anglican Churches to ordain gay clergy and bless same–sex unions in the belief that they are prophetic actions that demonstrate God’s love and acceptance to all people, was not in conformity with the faith of the Gospel and the early church, he said. "We should not imagine that we possess more of the Holy Spirit today than the church of the early church fathers and the great theologians of the Middle Ages," he said.

By posing the question of what constitutes Anglicanism’s core, Cardinal Kasper asked the Communion whether it can be an ecumenical partner with the Roman Catholic Church. The goal of ecumenism, Cardinal Kasper told the Durham Conference was “a spiritually renewed church, in which the church in its concrete form becomes to the fullest degree that which in its undeveloped nature it always has been and always remains: the one, holy church we profess together in the Apostles' Creed."

If Anglicanism cannot add to the Catholic Church’s fullness by speaking with a common voice on hitherto universally agreed ethical standards, its value as an ecumenical partner was questionable, he said.

Cardinal Kasper urged Anglicanism to quickly put its house in order: "The Roman Catholic Church would “work and pray” for clarity from the Anglican Communion on the divisive issues of doctrine and discipline that were dividing the church, he said. He urged this summer’s Lambeth Conference, where he will address the gathered bishops, to settle its disputes over homosexuality as it was “not sustainable to keep pushing decision-making back because it only extends the crisis.”

The Anglican response, voiced by Canon Gregory Cameron, Deputy General Secretary of the ACC, was the typically, arrogantly Anglican "we can have it both ways":  “most Anglicans have come to believe that it is part of the spirit of Anglicanism to be faithful both to the ancient tradition of the undivided Church and to the insights of the Reformation.  In every age, there have been those who have challenged us to come down on one side or the other. We need to take those challenges seriously because they point to real tensions arising from the quest for such a balance.” In other words, Anglicans such as +Cameron and more particularly the liberal leadership of TEO, do believe they are more invested with the Holy Spirit than the historic churches of the middle ages and that they possess a preternatural ability to span the ages and be all things to all people.  Humility, thy name is NOT liberal Anglicanism.

There can be little mistake in reading the messages Roman Catholicism is trying to send to the Anglican Communion and TEO.  Pope Benedict's "Shot Across the Bow" sermon in New York City coupled with these and many other statements and gestures should be perceived that the Catholic Church is losing patience with Anglicanism's and TEO's liberal bent, and that it will soon cut off any talk of ecumenism between the two churches.  Roman Catholicism, as embodied in Pope Benedict, is well aware of its need to maintain a strong and consistent message to overcome its troubles of recent decades.  This consistency has served it well and will continue to do so as other denominations fall away from their historic faith and theology in the throes of unbridled arrogance to believe that we in the 21st Century are smarter and more attuned to the Holy Spirit than any of our predecessors.

A tip o' my kepi to Fr. Matt Kennedy and Commenter Paula at Stand Firm for linking these stories.

News From the Front: Grace Church & St. Stevens (Colorado) Going to Trial

Looking to the western front in the TEO Litigation Wars, we find good news coming from the Colorado litigation between Grace Church & St. Stevens and the Diocese of Colorado.  In a May 13, 2008, Order, Judge Larry Schwartz found that there are so many factual disputes in the case that there can be no decisions as a "matter of law" and that the case will go to trial.  The case may also be bifurcated between issues of status of the parties and property ownership, which will be tried to the Court, and damages claims, which will be tried by a jury.  Judge Schwartz also affirmed that the case will be decided under "neutral principles of law," which also must be considered a favorable ruling for the church.

Judge Schwartz gives little indication of how he may ultimately rule on the many issues.  It is, however, encouraging that he did not summarily rule, as a matter of law, in behalf of DioColo.  Between this case and rulings in the Virginia Eleven case, is the litigation worm turning?  I don't know - it is too early to tell, not to mention that I have seen and experienced many cases where one side appears to be winning all the preliminary issues only to lose in the end, and one wonders if the Judge wasn't giving them every break because he/she thought the outcome might be such.  The point?  Enjoy the small victories when you can but do not let them set you up for a fall at the end - stay hungry and stay strong.

The bigger question to me is whether a few setbacks might cause TEO to re-think its litigation strategy.  It strikes me that so far TEO has operated under the assumption that its Dennis Canon claims are rock-solid and that they cannot lose.  Now, between the presentment memo about the P.O., her multiple episodes of embarrassment and misleading the HOB, and a few courtroom losses, one has to wonder when certain factions of the HOB will take a long step back from TEO's present course?  This speculation is further fueled by the belief that the presentment memo was commissioned by Bishops and clergy who want the P.o. out as P.B. so that they can themselves seek the office, sooner rather than later.  As I have said before, stay tuned.

A tip o' my kepi to Greg Griffith at Stand Firm for sharing the Colorado story and a copy of the Judge's Order.

Hey Kate! What Part of "Pedophile" Don't You Understand?

Hot on the heels of yesterday's James McGreevey story comes this report from David Virtue: Convicted Pedophile Episcopal Priest to Host Spiritual Retreats with Presiding Bishop's Blessing .  Is there now anything that TEO will not approve when the subject is sexual depravity?

The P.O. has now approved the use of facilities called the "House of Prayer" within the Diocese of Minnesota by C. Lynn Baumann, for the purpose of conducting so-called "spiritual retreats."  The problem here is that Baumann was convicted, and defrocked from the priesthood in the Episcopal Church in 1977 for sexual abuse of children, some of whom had been in attendance at similar "spiritual retreats" being conducted by Baumann in DioTex. Baumann received 10 years' probation, plus community service and a fine, after pleading guilty to charges of two felonies, second-degree child abuse of a then-eight-year-old boy.  The plea deal was reached to save the child from the further trauma of a jury trial.  Baumann has supposedly agreed with TEO that he will work only with adults and that all prospective attendees will be advised of his past with the upcoming retreats.  Yet apparently his own website and promotional materials make no such disclosure.

Some will no doubt argue that the church should be forgiving.  Forgive, yes, but not forget.  It is fine to forgive someone such as Baumann for his past sins, but it is utterly foolish to aid and abet him in going back into a highly-similar context to facilitate an adult retreat.  It is even more foolish for an institution such as TEO to do so, for it is taking on massive legal exposure should Baumann revert to form and molest someone at these retreats.  And it is beyond foolish for TEO to sign onto this nonsense given its rapidly-declining reputation for declining morality among American churchgoers.  Is TEO trying to replace the American Catholic Church as the home place for sexual depravity in America?  Seems like it.

Virtue also points out the inconsistency of this action with TEO's own stated position:

"In another note of irony the Episcopal Church passed two resolutions on child abuse in 2003, 9 altogether since 1985. The most pertinent one was in 1985-B014, which directed bishops to establish workshops for clergy on child abuse. At the 68th General Convention, it was passed overwhelmingly. In 2003, at the 74th General Convention of The Episcopal Church it passed resolution B008 titled "Protect Children and Youth from Abuse." It was overwhelming passed. "The 74th General Convention recommits itself to the vision of A Children's Charter for the Church, and directs each diocese to develop and adopt policies for the protection of children and youth from abuse."

So, here's the public perception of the TEO of today:  "Say, aren't you the gay church?  Yeah, and the one with the sex abusers and pedophiles in the clergy, even after they're convicted.  What's up with that?  Gee, I thought the Catholics were bad, but you guys take the cake."

No Surprises There - California Declares That "Marriage" Must Apply to Same-Sex Couples

We're no longer surprised at any Court decisions that come from the California judiciary.  Since I graduated from law school lo, those many years ago, one of the quickest ways to denigrate any legal authority cited by opposition has been to point out, "it's a California case."  The rest is understood - the state's courts are nationally known for liberal, judicial activism which often bucks national trends, and are often known for wacky, off-base reasoning.

Today, as expected, California found unconstitutional (under the state constitution) any laws that did not extend the term "marriage" to same-sex unions. I will admit to not reading the entire 172-page opinion and am fairly certain that I shall never be so in the throes of insomnia that I would do so.  I have, however, read the excerpt provided for us by Greg Griffith at Stand Firm, which seems to convey the essence of their thinking.

One interesting conundrum in this decision is he inconsistent manner in which they treat the existence of California "domestic partnership" laws.  On one hand, the Court seems to brag at how progressive California is by having enacted these laws, which "afford the couple virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges, and impose upon the couple virtually all of the same legal obligations and duties."  Later, however, in setting forth their reasoning for declaring any limitation on the use of the term "marriage" to describe a committed relationship, the Court found it to be discriminatory that same-sex couples could only use the term "domestic partners" as opposed to marriage.  Huh?  Didn't you just say the two were virtually the same thing?

The dissent points out that California voters passed Proposition 22, which limited the use of the term "marriage" to one-man, one-woman relationships, only 8 years ago, and that the Court was simply overriding the will of the people on this issue.  Do we see any parallels here?  Of course we do.  The liberal agenda always trumps everyone and everything.  Liberals are, of course, much smarter than the great unwashed masses, and are therefore entitled to tell the rest of us how to live and what to think.  So long as the liberal, GLBT agenda is at stake, then form will always triumph over substance, and the goals of the few will override the will of the many.

++Orombi Delivers Shot to the P.O. - Her Letter is "Stunning In Its Arrogance and Condescension"

I always enjoy reading the correspondence from Global South Primates to the P.O., and this time is no exception.  Archbishop Henry Orombi of the Anglican Church of Uganda has recently responded to the P.O.'s threatening letter demanding that he not come to visit a Church of Uganda congregation in Georgia.  ++Orombi is clearly not concerned with the P.O.'s verbiage.  Read the whole letter here , and a tip o' my kepi to Fr. Matt Kennedy and Stand Firm for sharing this with us.

++Orombi tells the P.O. that she has been "misinformed about key matters," most particularly that he is "not visiting a church in the Diocese of Georgia" but is "visiting a congregation that is part of the Church of Uganda."  ++Orombi responds to the P.O.'s references to the Windsor Report in her letter, noting that "it is quite ironic for you to be quoting the Windsor Report to me."  ++Orombi further states:  "Your selective quoting of the Windsor Report is stunning in its arrogance and condescension."  He notes that TEO and the P.O. are the root cause of the current troubles by their ignoring of the Anglican Communion's teachings and warnings about the fabric of the Communion being torn.  He also notes that TEO has rejected the pastoral oversight scheme and the proposed moratorium on litigation to which the P.O. verbally agreed at Dar Es Salaam.

++Orombi ends the letter by quoting Gamaliel from Acts 5:38-39, in which he says: "And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God."

This correspondence once again makes me wish the Global South Primates would reconsider their planned boycott of Lambeth.  While I doubt much can be accomplished in a substantive sense, I do believe that similar public denunciations of the P.O. and her minions would give heart to the orthodox around the world and let us know that our beliefs are being fought for.  Otherwise, Lambeth will be nothing more than another, further hijacking of the Anglican Communion by the liberals.

From the "Shudder and Cringe" Page - McGreevey Testifies to His Ambitions

I'm still trying to hold down the nausea and this blanket isn't touching the chills.  No, I'm not sick with one of those yucky spring colds - I just read the coverage in the New York Daily News of the McGreevey divorce trial.

A tip o' my kepi to Robroy and to StandFirm for flagging this one, and for seeing that I don't eat dinner tonight.

Remember McGreevey?  Former New Jersey Governor who resigned over having an extra-marital affair with a male employee?  And the male employee claimed McGreevey threatened and physically abused him?  And now the male employee is claiming that he participated in three-ways with McGreevey and his soon-to-be-ex-wife, Dina Matos McGreevey, in the two years prior to his election as Governor.  She, of course, denies it and maintains her claim that McGreevey defrauded her into marriage by concealing his bi-sexuality and later homosexuality, for purposes of furthering his political career.  There are also allegations of McGreevey having his young daughter sleep in the same bed with he and a male lover.  Yeah, that McGreevey.

And remember how General Seminary, where McGreevey is now matriculating (No, it doesn't mean THAT!), scrambled to claim that he was NOT in their program for the Episcopal priesthood, but was there as a non-Divinity student, because he had not gone through discernment, etc.?  This week, under oath (for what little that means to these people), in Court, McGreevey claimed poverty in trying to defeat Matos' claim for alimony, and stated that his ambition "was to become an Episcopal priest and do youth ministries."  Uggh.  Hang on.  Here comes the nausea again.

Okay, so, umm, maybe McGreevey can join up with Michael Royse Penland, formerly of St. Gregory's - Boca Raton.  Remember him?  Wasn't he actually a youth minister?  The Episcopal priest was arrested in Waynesville, NC, for soliciting sex in a park restroom while in town to perform last rites for an aunt.  Penland admitted to having been soliciting gay sex in a similar fashion for several years, dating to while he was in Seminary at Sewanee and before he took his ordination vows.  He had been doing so despite having been married for 17 years.  In case you've forgotten the Penland case, read my posts here and here .

Not that I have even a modicum of sympathy for the P.O., but one would think, if she had any sense whatsoever, that she would do something to persuade the powers that be at General to quietly send McGreevey off into that good night. (Strong-arm them, perhaps?  She's quite good at it.)  After all, if one's stated goal is to legitimize and be inclusive of the GLBT folks, McGreevey is the last thing she needs.  McGreevey brings home to roost all of the bad old stereotypes that unfortunately remain a fact of life for a portion of the gay community that could care less about sexual monogamy.

For the rest of the remaining Episcopalian pew potatoes, the McGreevey story only confirms the impression which has been perpetuated by Gene Robinson, et al., that TEO is "the gay church."  While most rank-and-file 'Piskies cling to the belief that the gay issues do not affect their local churches, the reality is that they do.  I cannot tell you how many times, while I was still Episcopalian and said so, I got the response, "Oh, you go to the gay church."  If you could get past that perception and move the discussion to theology, once again the Episcopalian was lost at the point of being asked, "What does your Church believe?" because the answer is, in a word, "nothing," or maybe "everything."  McGreevey remaining in the news and telling the world that his ambition, which is apparently unfettered, is to be an Episcopal priest and a youth minister, will render Episcopal clergy-hood even more laughable than the abandonment of Scripture has already left them.

The P.O. Is Coming to Kentucky - Pardon Me If I Skip It

What a month it is in Kentucky - first we get Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the long-running road show that has become the Democratic nomination process, and today I have heard that the P.O. is going to be the guest of the Diocese of Kentucky for a four-day visit May 15-18.  Anyone want to bet that +Sauls in DioLex is jealous, or that he'll be popping in at some of the events in DioKY?  Be careful, Bishop Sauls, because you know that crossing Diocesan lines without permission is a hangin' offense in the TEO these days, even for 80+ year old retired Bishops!

I'm going to skip it, if you don't mind.  We'll get all the reports of what comes from her mouth while she's there from our brethren and, you know, since that bad bout of acute gallstone pancreatitis in 2003 my stomach's been more than a little sensitive and I don't want to risk first-hand exposure.  Besides, I'm concerned she might wear the oven mitt again and I suspect if she does pretty soon we'll be seeing those things all over Louisville. 

What I AM going to be doing this weekend has now become a little ironic, because I am one of the authors participating in the 2008 Bluegrass Festival of Books here in Lexington, and will be signing my novel, Lest Ye Be Judged, which, in case you've missed it (and judging by sales figures a lot of you have), is a mystery/legal thriller about the murder of an Episcopal Bishop.  Maybe I should send a personally-signed copy to the P.O. care of Bishop Gulick's office?   Hmmm.

The Long-Awaited "Letter"?

Is this it? (letter)  Is this the long-awaited and much-discussed letter from Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to the Bishops in advance of the Lambeth Conference this summer?  Is this the warning letter +N.T. Wright told everyone about?  In a word, I'm under-whelmed.

Right up front, it becomes very clear that so very little, if anything, will be accomplished, and all he is discussing is the procedural format:

I indicated in earlier letters that the shape of the Conference will be different from what many have been used to.  We have listened carefully to those who have expressed their difficulties with Western and parliamentary styles of meeting, and the Design Group has tried to find a new style – a style more reflective of that Pentecost moment when all received the gift of speaking freely about Christ.

This, of course, is the "Indaba" idea, which +Williams says is a Zulu word for "purposeful discussion among equals."  Aside from the weak effort to pander to the Global South, this is akin to seeing the Methodist Women of my youth dressing in "traditional African attire" for their monthly mission study - can you imagine a group of white-haired, middle-aged women in dashikis?  Yep, about as goofy as a bunch of liberal Anglican and Episcopalian Bishops kidding themselves that they are conducting "Indabas."  Is there any reason to believe that anything will be accomplished in what promises, on some issues, to be a rhetorical free-for-all?

The paragraph which comes the closest to the "warning" we had been led to believe was coming is this one: 

As I noted when I wrote to you in Advent, this makes it all the more essential that those who come to Lambeth will arrive genuinely willing to engage fully in that growth towards closer unity that the Windsor Report and the Covenant Process envisage. We hope that people will not come so wedded to  their own agenda  and their local  priorities that they cannot listen to those from other cultural backgrounds.  As you may have gathered, in circumstances where there has been divisive or controversial action, I have been discussing privately with some bishops the need to be wholeheartedly part of a shared vision and process in our time together.  (my emphasis)

Who exactly has he been talking to, if in reality anyone?  The P.O.?  ++Peter Akinola?  ++Gregory Venables?  Somehow I find it difficult to believe that +Williams has been discussing with any of the major antagonists "the need to be wholeheartedly part of a shared vision and process in our time together," at least not without them laughing in his face.  And why not call out publicly the Bishops to whom he has been speaking?  Were I still Episcopalian, I would think I am entitled to know whether my Bishop has been called on the carpet by the ABC.

+Williams then says: 

Of course, as baptised Christians and pastors of Christ's flock, we are not just seeking some low-level consensus, or a simple agreement to disagree politely.  We are asking for the fire of the Spirit to come upon us and deepen our sense that we are answerable to and for each other and answerable to God for the faithful proclamation of his grace uniquely offered in Jesus. ( my emphasis)

If these words were from anyone of more substance and spine than +Williams, then I might be tempted to find some reason to be excited about his not wanting simply to agree to disagree.  Then I remember that this is the same man who has in the last six months referred to the Christmas story as the "stuff of myth and legend" and who has advocated implementation of Sharia law in British civil courts, and I realize that with him the "fire of the spirit" is akin to a Bic lighter down to its last gram of butane.

Ah yes, Lambeth 2008 - rhetorical free-for-alls called "Indabas" inside the walls accented by the high, keening sound of Gene Robinson working the fan fair outside.  Is this the picture on which much of the Anglican world is hanging its last, best hopes for reconciliation? 

Counterattack By Countersuit: Has It Come to This?

I was at a War Between the States living history event this weekend at Stratford Hall, VA, (more about that later) where I met a gentleman who is very active in things Anglican and moreso in spreading the Good News and fighting the fight for preservation of the historic faith handed down from the Saints.  This gentleman drove to Stratford, which is really not on the way to anywhere else, to talk to me about what I thought about this idea he had.  I won't spill the specifics just yet, but the essence was his interest in being pro-active in defense of the orthodox remaining in the Episcopal Church, by instituting litigation against TEO for fraud, malfeasance, and other claims.  He wanted my opinion of whether such a suit was viable.

Having never researched the question, I was left to discuss it from a purely theoretical perspective. Anyone who reads this and who knows more, please comment.  But our discussion centered around the theory of a suit against the P.O. and her pit bull, Beers, in the nature of a corporate shareholders' derivative suit.  In the corporate world, shareholders in a corporation are entitled to file suit against management when they believe that management has either grossly mismanaged the corporation, or fraudulently done so, in a manner inconsistent with the purposes and goals of the corporation, to the detriment of the "owners", i.e., the shareholders.  Would such a model work in litigation AGAINST TEO?   Hmmmmm.

Putting aside for the moment whether a legal/statutory framework that includes the doctrine of "separation of church and state"  (which I contend is a gross over-extension of the First Amendment) would contenance such a suit, the vehicle holds some interest.    In this setting the parishioners, who have pledged their money and otherwise supported the Church throughout a period of time, would file suit against TEO and its upper-level management including the P.O., Beers, and perhaps even the members of the HOB claiming that they had fraudulently and inappropriately managed TEO in a manner inconsistent with its mission and purpose, to the detriment of the church and its membership.  So far, this is fitting pretty good, right?

The prospective suit would seek relief in several forms - removal of the P.O., Beers, et al., from office;  removal of "directors", i.e., Bishops, who have aided and abetted the P.O. in her malfeasance;  a complete accounting of expenditures of Church funds, including those spent on litigation and on liberal causes that are inconsistent with the Church's historic teachings, such as pro-abortion rights and pro-GLBT groups, and reimbursement of same to the Church by those in management who have improperly authorized such expenditures; restoration or proper faith-based management of the Church; and so on.  All of which are things that truly need to happen in TEO.

The threshhold spanner in the works for attempting this in a public court of law would, of course, be the historical and arguably Constitutional reluctance of the secular courts to interfere in internal Church matters.  There would also be the problem of whether state or Federal courts would accept such a cause of action as being a legitimate exercise of judicial authority aside from the Constitutional issues, in the probable absence of a specific state statute providing for such a form of litigation. 

Assumming for the moment that roadblock could not be overcome, could there be found in Canon law a similar vehicle?  Quick reference to Title IV, Canon I, Section 1, together with some creative thought yields these possibilities:  (1) Section 1(c), "Holding or teaching, publicly or privately,  and advisedly, any doctrine contrary to that held by this Church"  (this is a moving target and probably un-satisfactory);  (2) Section 1(e), violation of Constitution or Canons;  (3)  Section 1(h), violation of ordination vows; (4)  Section 1(i), Habitual neglect of ministerial office; and (5)  Section 1(j), conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy.  The recent memorandum of law setting forth the P.O.'s most blatant violations of Canon Law would be a nice cornerstone for this case, but there are many, many more facts since the inception of her term as P.O. which would serve as building blocks for this sort of proceeding.

The point here seems to be this - there remain in TEO many thousands of Episcopalians who are very dissatisfied with the way their Church is conducting itself.  Many are unhappy with how their support of the Church has been bastardized into a vehicle to support so many liberal, secular, so-called "social justice" causes and agendae.  Many have stopped pledging or contributing tangible support and merely occupy pew space for lack of a better place to go.  Given the opportunity, I suspect that a fair portion of these people would join in a fight to take back their Church, and in doing so might attract back into the fold some of those who have left but remain dissatisfied with their current worship opportunities.  To this end, would not a Canonical proceeding styled on a shareholder's derivative suit be something worth support and pursuit?  It could have at its core the recent legal memo of specific violations, but go far beyond that into an examination of the entire term of office of the P.O.

Here is what I see - as I have said here many times, the P.O. has essentially destroyed what was once the Episcopal Church.  It is but a pale shadow of its former self, numbers of parishes and members notwithstanding.  Bragging and claiming "All is Well" based upon half-baked numbers does not a denomination make, and cannot mask the widespread destruction of the faith of the parishioners in the institution, much less the ability of the denomination to attract new members or evangelize the Word of God.  If, indeed, the Episcopal Church is still worth saving, still worth fighting for, I think perhaps the gentleman I spoke with this past weekend may have the right idea - it may well be time to go on the offensive.

News From the Front - Upper South Carolina

Sarah Hey, Jackie Bruschi and Stand Firm have two reports today from the Diocese of Upper South Carolina, one about  St. Christopher's - Spartanburg and the other about Trinity Episcopal Cathedral - Columbia .  While on one hand these reports are not news in the sense that they illustrate another small parish's membership leaving TEO in significant numbers, and a large cathedral having dire financial straits, the reports are nonetheless timely in light of Gene Robinson's appearance on The Today Show (link) and yet another factually-bereft pronouncement of "All Is Well."

In case the "Simple Country Bishop" (hereafter the "SCB") missed it while on his book-writing sabbatical or his subsequent book-signing tour, small TEO parishes have been biting the dust for a while now.   Some others may still be on the books and counted by the P.O. and the SCB as part of the number of parishes in TEO, but like St. Christopher's they are reduced to mission status and are a mere shadow of their former selves.  So, while SCB can go on national television and claim that only "100 out of 8,000" parishes have left TEO, we know (1) that number is false because TEO hasn't had that many parishes since early in the 20th century; (2) that number is false because it only counts parishes that have actually left to CANA, AMiA, or another Anglican affiliation, not those that are practically abandoned but being propped up by their Diocese or TEO, or are living on a shoestring; and (3) that number is meaningless without looking at actual TEO membership, with rolls purged, and ASA within those parishes that are nominally still in TEO. 

The "All Is Well" statement is also patently false, for if these "few" parishes leaving were so insignificant, why is the P.O. threatening Bishops and filing lawsuits right and left, spending millions of church dollars in the process?

The reality, SCB, is that parishioners are fleeing TEO as fast as they can fill the lifeboats.  Some are finding Anglican church homes, others are moving to other denominations or churches that are faithful to the Word of God, and still others are wandering in the spiritual wilderness awaiting God's guidance on where they should land.  More interviews and more TV appearances by SCB will only accelerate this outflow - wonder how many people took grief from friends or co-workers today?  "Say, aren't you an Episcopalian?  I thought so.  Saw your gay Bishop on Today this morning.  Where'd y'all find that guy?"

The financial picture at Trinity Cathedral likewise illustrates a real and serious part of the picture TEO would rather not discuss.  Over $100,000 of 2007 pledges have not been paid, and over 100 pledging units have failed or refused to pledge for 2008.  Anyone want to guess why?  If you said the lousy economy, you may be right in a few cases, but church giving is not typically that dramatically affected by economic hard times.  If people believe in the mission and philosophy of the institution, they will find a way to support it.  The parishioners at Trinity Cathedral are doing what church members often do when faced with an out-of-control hierarchy - they are voting with their feet, and with their checkbooks.

Again, join me in this prayer - "Dear Lord, open their eyes that they may see." 

The truth is right there in front of them.  I think perhaps the situation is somewhat like the time in my childhood when my Uncle Doug was teaching me to drive a team of mules.  I gently flipped the reins, got no reaction, and Doug laughed, "David, you've gotta hit 'em to get their attention."  Difference was, those mules eventually got it and understood what they needed to do.