:The Episcopal Majority

This article came across our desk and we thought it would be of interest to anyone interested in all things Anglican. We consider it must reading for anyone still in TEC.

 

The Episcopal Church in 2009 - A Primer for Those in the Pews

 by: R.A. Livingston

Purpose

To let Episcopalians know that a small group of single-issue activists has taken over the leadership and management of the church and turned missions, goals and budgets to their exclusive advantage.

To inform, educate and hopefully arouse Episcopalians to question the profligate spending by the church on lawsuits against fellow Christians and Anglicans.

To draw attention to violations of the Canons of the church by its leadership.

To provide practical methods whereby an individual can express displeasure at these actions.

Introduction

Over the past century The Protestant Episcopal Church in the U.S.A. has been transformed. What had been a church overly steeped in the ways of English gentlemen rewrote its Book of Common Prayer in 1928 to be more inclusive and friendly to those who worshiped each Sunday. Women no longer had to sit in a certain area at the back of the nave. The pure English rootstock of the church was being augmented by more recent arrivals to our country - once, of course, they had reached a modicum of wealth and position. The leaders of the church, bishops, priests and laity, were content that tradition still held and innovation was strictly limited.

Firm in their belief, the leaders guided the church through a depression, a world war, a cold war and a period of unbridled growth in the wealth and living standards of the American family. Oh, there were always disagreements within the Church, some quite heated. The most contentious during the first six and one half decades of the twentieth century was “Low Church” vs. “High Church.” Low Church congregations took the first word of the church’s name “Protestant” very seriously. One would never call the priest “Father” or, for that matter, think of him as a priest at all. He was a minister, thank you. These congregations would typically have Morning Prayer service on all but one Sunday in the month and then on the remaining Sunday, have Holy Communion. On the other end of the Episcopal spectrum were the High Church “Anglo-Catholics.” Smells and Bells. Priestly garb and call me Father. The Eucharist was the center of almost every Sunday service. We Episcopalians have always had a high tolerance for diverse opinions. Low Church/High Church tested that tolerance but with only a few convention fist fights and shouting matches, the church kept on its “via media” (by the middle) course.

The “Boomers” Take Command

Then came the ‘60s and ‘70s, a time of social turmoil, change and empowerment of significant segments of our society. Our church leaders were as unprepared for these events as were most white upper middle class families of the time. Some in the church began to become more active in society’s ills, espousing causes from voting rights to stopping the war in Vietnam. Many of the younger people in the church welcomed these changes and the increased opportunity to serve and potentially transform their community and the nation. As the years passed, these young people grew up and into positions of responsibility and authority in the church. They became priests, lay leaders and soon bishops. They served as delegates to diocese and General Conventions. They were far more welcoming of change than any previous group and change they wrought. In 1976 at a General Convention held in Minneapolis, both the House of Bishops and House of Delegates voted to permit women to become priests.

Losing our Middle Way

The first decade of the 21st century has seen change in the church that is as unsettling as it is dramatic. A small group of single-issue activists, using tactics of infiltration unchanged since the communists sought power in Russia a century ago, took over parishes, then majorities at diocesan conventions, and from there the General Convention and the office of the Presiding Bishop. Their issue is full inclusion of homosexuals in the church, including all levels of clergy and in the sacrament of marriage.

It is not the purpose of this paper to debate whether or not such activity is sinful, rather to concentrate on some of the issues raised by this takeover of the Church by single-issue proponents whose philosophy is that the end justifies the means. Far from being “inclusive,” the ruling group is intent on seeing that those who actively oppose it or attempt to leave are promptly and severely dealt with.

 

The Ostrich Syndrome

Some priests and local lay leaders have adopted a “congregational” approach to deal with the issues tearing at the fabric of our denomination and the Anglican Communion, i.e., “Let’s worry about our parish, not the diocese or the national church.” This tactic may keep the problems away for a while, but The Episcopal Church is a structured, and not a congregational, church— at least to the level of the diocese and its bishop. Dioceses are members of the General Convention and are affected by its decisions. Because of the success tactics of the group who have taken over the church and because most of the members of the church have been content in the pews, the majority of General Convention delegates are now solidly in the single issue camp and in control of The Episcopal Church.

We Don’t Have a Pope… Do We?

A huge change now taking place in our church is the de facto elevation of the Presiding Bishop to the position of Archbishop and Metropolitan; i.e. the direct boss of our diocesan bishops and the key person in determining the course of the national church. This change is of special concern because of the questionable actions and abuse of that power by the current Presiding Bishop, The Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori, who was elected Presiding Bishop by General Convention in November, 2006.

As the time of General Convention 2009 draws near, the church is hemorrhaging both money and members. While most dioceses are cutting programs and staff, the Presiding Bishop has just augmented her legal staff with a personal litigation attorney. Four Dioceses have left TEC to affiliate temporarily with other Anglican Provinces and the church is losing 1,000 members a week. A new North American Anglican entity is forming to serve those who have left. Its presence will undoubtedly cause further losses to the established churches in the United States and Canada.

Christians suing Christians - not all the costs are monetary

Spending Money on Lawsuits {See Note 1}

“Episcopal Church Sues…” reads the headline. Why is the Church so much in the news these days as the plaintiff in multiple lawsuits across the country, from Connecticut to California? The Church’s General Convention, which meets this summer in Anaheim, California, will be asked to approve a budget for the next three years that allocates $1.8 million for legal expenses (see line 57, column N). This is an increase of six times over the amount that was allocated by General Convention 2006 (see page 8, line 12).  {see Note 2}

And that is by no means the whole story. The estimate of just $300,000 for legal expenses made in 2006, for the years 2007-2009, was off by a factor of 1,560%! You can see the entire story in this one line (#57) on the first page of the proposed budget to be presented at Anaheim, which breaks out as follows:

57| Title IV & Legal Assistance to Dioceses

2007-2009 Budget: $ 300,000

2007-2009 Actual (estimated): $ 4,704,138

2010-2012 Projected: $ 1,800,000

The $300,000 is the amount that was budgeted in 2006 for 2007-2009; the figure of $4,704,138 is what the projected total for those three years is actually expected to be, based upon what has been spent and committed thus far. And the $1,800,000 is the figure projected for 2009-2012, which is proposed for General Convention to adopt this summer. (A small portion of these totals, approximately $100,000 annually, covers the cost of disciplinary (”Title IV”) proceedings against Bishops. The remainder is for outside lawsuits.)

If we add the last two amounts, we get the sum of $6,504,138 of Episcopal Church revenue—more than three-quarters of which comes from current donations plus income earned on prior gifts—being devoted to legal expenses, or more than one million dollars annually over the six-year period. When one compares this amount to the $100,000 per annum that was originally projected in 2006, one sees an eleven-fold increase, on the average, in this one budget item over the entire six years, and almost a twenty-fold increase just for 2008 alone.

At the same time, a review of the proposed new budget presentation for General Convention 2009 shows that the Church is slashing expenses in other areas. Anticipated revenues are down by $7.5 million; the presenters comment that they are “[c]urrently witnessing economic conditions not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s”. This requires “deferring major debt repayment,” freezing salaries, laying off staff, and “cutting most non-personnel expenditures”—while increasing legal expenses by more than ten times. What is going on here?

The Nature of the Problem

The problem, in a nutshell, is this: beginning in late 2004, the Episcopal Church began to intervene and participate in lawsuits brought by dioceses against departing churches. The object of each of these lawsuits has been to enforce through the courts a trust which the Church maintains exists on the property of every single one of its 7,000+ parishes. Under the terms of the trust, first expressed in an amendment (known as the “Dennis Canon”) to the Church canons (bylaws) in 1979, every Episcopal parish and mission holds its real and personal property—everything from the land, buildings and endowments down to the hymnbooks and altar furnishings—in trust for the diocese of which it is a member, and for the Episcopal Church as a whole.

The parish itself is allowed to be the trustee of the trust, and to use the property for its purposes, for as long as it remains in the Episcopal Church. Should it ever vote to leave its diocese, however, the Church and the diocese then become the co-beneficiaries of the trust, which would give them the right to enforce it, and assert that the property must go to them. These are the terms of the so-called “Dennis Canon”, enacted by General Convention in 1979, which lay dormant for more than twenty years before it first came into play against a parish that tried to leave.

With billions of dollars’ worth of tax-exempt religious property in the name of its parishes, the Episcopal Church committed itself to enforcing the Dennis Canon in the courts when parishes tried to retain their property after voting to leave. Most trusts are created by the person who has title to the property that is placed in trust. The Dennis Canon, however, is different. It is a trust created by the national Church, without needing the signatures of each parish vestry or rector to be effective—or so the Church claims. The lawsuits brought by the Church have each been filed with the purpose of obtaining rulings from the various State courts which uphold and enforce individual Dennis Canon trusts on parish property.

The Track Record Thus Far  {see Note 3}

Look back at the budget figures for the three-year period ending in 2009. The Episcopal Church expects that it will have spent nearly five million dollars pursuing its goal of establishing Dennis Canon trusts since 2006. What is its track record in that time? (We take into account only the track record of the national Church in cases in which it has participated as a litigant. This leaves out another fifty or so cases that have been brought by individual dioceses to enforce the Dennis Canon against departing parishes.)

It is this: it has won a preliminary round in California, but has lost a preliminary round in Virginia. (The loss in the court in Virginia, however, will become permanent unless the Supreme Court of Virginia accepts the Church’s request, which has just been filed, to review that decision.) It also was told that had an “insufficient interest” in the property of a parish in Syracuse, New York to be granted full participating status; that case later settled. Another suit brought by the Church is pending in a different court in California, and the Church has just requested permission to intervene in another lawsuit in Pennsylvania. Recent events in Fort Worth would indicate the Church is gearing up to file an additional lawsuit there, all pursuant to a master strategy intended to make the cost of departure too high for parishes and dioceses to consider.

When one considers that the very first lawsuit over the Dennis Canon—in which the national Church was a defendant, not a plaintiff—began in South Carolina in 2000, and is still not concluded, one may begin to get a sense of the horizon to which the Episcopal Church has committed itself in this area.

Carnage in the Church  {see Note 4}

Six million dollars spent on litigation against parish churches and departing clergy, however, does not begin to tell the ecclesiastical carnage that has occurred since the Presiding Bishop Schori assumed her office. There have been more bishops and clergy deposed, or involuntarily removed from the ranks of the Church, in the two-and-a-half years of her term than at any other time in its four-hundred-year history. The Presiding Bishop has brought before the House of Bishops resolutions to depose two active bishops, and one retired bishop (who was the oldest living bishop in the Church). She has declared that a further six bishops would be deprived of all ministry in the Church after they informed her that they were transferring to other churches in the Anglican Communion, and intended to retain their episcopal status. And following her leadership, the bishops of another two dozen dioceses have deposed or removed some ninety members of the clergy during the same period.

Normally, the only way that bishops and clergy may be deposed from their positions is after a trial, and proof of charges of misconduct. But such trials, like their counterparts in civil courts, can be lengthy, and are also subject to appeal. The only means by which more than 100 bishops and clergy of the Church have been deposed and removed in the last thirty months is by abusing the Church canons in ways for which they were never intended. Unfortunately, the Presiding Bishop has been the leading abuser of the canons, by far, while her peers in the House of Bishops have for the most part abetted her efforts. A total of five bishops and their dioceses have dissented from the depositions of the three bishops, and have refused to recognize their validity. Other churches in the Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church is a constituent member, have similarly continued to recognize the bishops despite their removal. The result has been the creation of two classes of clergy within the Anglican Communion, and indeed, within the Episcopal Church itself: those whose orders are recognized by the entire Communion, including the Episcopal Church, and those whose orders are recognized by all of the Anglican Communion except for the Episcopal Church (apart from five of its dioceses).

The Risks of Lawlessness {see Note 5}

As so often happens, lawlessness in one area begets lawlessness in other areas. From choosing to misread the language regarding the number of bishops required to consent to the deposition of a fellow bishop, the Presiding Bishop and her colleagues have gone to reading into the Constitution and canons language which simply is not there. The Episcopal Church is a voluntary association of member dioceses. Dioceses join the Church by agreeing to abide by its rules, just as in any other voluntary group. But there is nothing in those rules that says a diocese cannot leave the Church once it has joined. Yet the Presiding Bishop is currently staking millions of dollars on a bet that she can convince the courts that she is right, even without any express language to support her position. This is what is currently happening in the litigation in San Joaquin, is what the Church is seeking to argue in the Pittsburgh litigation, and no doubt is what it will soon be arguing to courts in Texas and in Illinois.

What is still worse is that the Presiding Bishop and those who support her are risking not just millions of dollars, but individuals’ lives and careers in the Church, on the correctness of their position. For if a diocese may voluntarily leave a voluntary association, then that association no longer has a diocese in the geographical area once represented by the departing diocese. A new diocese has to be formed out of those parishes that choose to remain. Those parishes have to come together in a new convention, adopt appropriate rules and bylaws, and then petition General Convention to join the Episcopal Church.

The Presiding Bishop, however, does not see things that way. To her, since a diocese may never leave the Church, only its people leave, while the structure itself remains. Even though a diocese is also a “person” in the eyes of the secular law, she refuses to admit that the courts can continue to recognize the diocese that departed as the same group that joined the Church originally, and that has now chosen to leave. Instead, she argues that the minority that remains behind continues to be that same original group, only now much diminished in numbers. This ignores the democratic right of the majority to vote to change their constitution and bylaws. And it takes us in a circle right back to the argument that dioceses are not free to change their bylaws so as to leave the Episcopal Church, even though there is no direct language to that effect in the national Church’s Constitution or canons.

If the Presiding Bishop’s position proves to be wrong, the consequence could be a disaster for all those who made decisions depending on it. If a diocese is found not to be a legitimate diocese, what happens to the resolutions it has made, the officers it has elected, and the deputies it has sent to vote at General Convention? What happens to the votes of those deputies who are subsequently found not to have been legitimately elected? And what happens to the pension contributions made on behalf of dioceses found not to have existed? All these are just some of the complications that could arise should the present course of the Church prove unjustified.

The Costs of Continuing to Fight Each Other  {see Note 6}

Such victories as the Church has managed to secure thus far in State courts have all dealt with the right of parishes to choose to leave their dioceses, and not with the right of the dioceses to leave the Church itself. The parishes that have lost have all had language in their corporate articles and bylaws by which they agree to remain subordinate to the diocese of which they are a member. No such language, however, exists at the diocesan level (Colorado, Utah and Los Angeles are exceptions, and do subordinate themselves to the national Church). Thus the theory on which so much is being staked is untested, and will require years and years of litigation in many State courts before its validity can be known for certain.

All of these lawsuits, depositions and removals come with a price that is far greater than the dollar amounts they have cost the Church thus far. The degree of stress and conflict is reflected in steadily declining membership numbers, and in the shortfall reported in contributions at all levels (which is only exacerbated by the recent economic downturn). As the canons of the Church are twisted more and more to achieve the short-term goal of ridding the Church of its dissenters, they are seen not as rules for Christian conduct, but simply as means to an end. Perhaps most harmful of all is the sheer hypocrisy of a church that professes to be Christian suing its members, and requesting tithes to support the enormous expenses of doing so.

Summary:

The General Convention in 2006 allocated $300,000 for all legal expenses in the years 2007-2009. Actual expenses will exceed $4,700,000 a 1,560% increase.

The proposed budget for the next three years is $1,800,000.

$100,000 of each of these budgets is set aside for disciplinary actions against bishops and similar cases. The balance is for lawsuits.

Other expenses both at TEC headquarters in New York City and elsewhere are being cut at the same time litigation expenses are significantly increasing.

The “Dennis” Canon purports to place all real and personal property of all Episcopal parishes in trust for the diocese and the national church.

Lawsuits by TEC invoking the Dennis Canon have been successful only about half the time.

When TEC sues or intervenes in a diocese’s suit, compromise and negotiated settlements are cut off.

Other carnage: There have been more bishops and clergy deposed, or involuntarily removed from the ranks of the Church, in the two-and-a-half years of Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori’s term than at any other time in its four-hundred-year history.

In doing so, the Presiding Bishop has repeatedly violated the Canons of the church.

Are dioceses members of a voluntary association from which they can depart or are they forever a part of the whole?

The threat of anarchy looms as multiple dioceses vie for the same jurisdiction.

The scorched earth policy in lawsuits has created tension and mistrust, increased the flow of those leaving and exacerbated the shortfall in contributions at all levels of the church

The twisted and abused Canons are seen not as rules for Christian conduct, but simply as means to an end.

What Can You Do?

What can individual parishioners do? Here are some practical suggestions:

1. Find out where your money is going. Ask your parish treasurer the amount that your church contributed to its diocese last year, and ask him or her to break it down into unrestricted funds, and funds designated for a specific purpose. Also, ask for an itemization of what your diocese contributes to the national Church, broken down in the same fashion.

2. Give no more money for lawsuits. Give your treasurer a letter specifying that no part of the funds you donate is to be used to support lawsuits at either the diocesan or national level. If the treasurer cannot guarantee they will not be so used, stop giving unrestricted funds to your church. Write a restriction on every check you give, such as “for parish salaries only”, “for Church utilities only”, and so forth.

3. Become involved at the local level. Get the word out, and get others behind the simple proposition that churches do not sue other churches, they mediate disputes as Christians. There are ways to share Church property and assets among differing groups that do not force a “winner-take-all” outcome.

4. Do not vote for convention deputies who want to see the lawsuits continue. This may be the most important thing you can do at the local level. Parishes elect deputies to diocesan conventions, and diocesan conventions elect deputies to General Convention. If those who elect the deputies insist that they commit to oppose any funding for lawsuits, then the Church will have to use other means to resolve its differences.

5. Become involved yourself, and get others to do likewise. It is your Church that is at stake here. Litigation is the last resort for most people, and it should not be the first resort for Christians—particularly against each other. Litigation is driven by emotions, not reason, and it is fueled by money. Withdraw the money, and refuse to legitimize the emotions, and the lawsuits can and will be settled. There is no other alternative, because the lawsuits will end up swallowing the Church as we know it.

Finally, spread the word! Get this information into the hands of as many of your fellow parishioners as possible. There are many links in this article to useful information.

NOTES:

Note 1 - The Church’s current master litigation strategy, discussed openly and freely for all to understand. 

Note 2 - Documenttion of the draft 2010-2012 TEC Budget is available on the church’s official website. 

Note 3 - A good article summarizing the parish property disputes, and explaining why most parishes are unsuccessful.

Note 4 - See pp. 19-27 of the Report referenced in n.6, and see this article:  Descent into Canonical Chaos:  the Presiding Bishop’s Response to Bishop Iker. 

Note 5 - Two excellent papers asking questions that need to be asked:  Subversion of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church:  On Doing What It Takes to Get What You Want and A Response to My Critics. 

Note 6 - A report to the Primates of the Anglican Communion published just after teh 2009 Primates Meeting in Alexandria, Egypt discusses in detail many of the issues caused by TEC and its Presiding Bishop. 

 

 

3 Comments

A blog appeared on August 9, 2006, claiming to represent The Episcopal Majority; now it has ceased publishing new posts–announcing its work is done. The blog sprang out of the Episcopal Church’s General Convention in 2006 as an effort to portray the stance of the majority of Episcopalians as inclusive toward changes in sexual ethics.

Our early posts said, “Not so fast.” Holding to a respectful tone, we looked into who the leaders of The Episcopal Majority blog were and what they were in favor of. Since they have closed down, we won’t beat a dead horse, but they turned out to be a small, elite, clergy-heavy group. Their leaders were identified with the organizations in The Episcopal Church (TEC) seeking the authorization of same-sex marriage in TEC, and of the ordination of partnered gays as priests and bishops.

After General Convention in 2006, the pilot group of the other Episcopal Majority felt the pressure on TEC to conform to the standards of the worldwide Anglican Communion on sexual ethics. But now they feel that “the good heart of the Church is safe” and their efforts are no longer needed.

We are willing to grant that the Presiding Bishop, the President of the House of Deputies, the Executive Council, and a majority of the House of Bishops are either all in favor of recent trends in the church, or they are cowed into submission. This looks like a very long-term movement. We think it is a fair bet that same-sex blessings will take a giant step forward at General Convention next year in Anaheim.

But we will raise the question of statistics again. Our earliest posts asked some of these questions (see the sidebar under Categories for : Majority? The numbers). The closing post-with-content on the other E.M. blog crowed:”News Flash: The majority of Episcopalians in the United States voted to stay in the Episcopal Church today.”

But, let’s be honest. The latest membership numbers from TEC report 2.2 million members, but average Sunday attendance is less than 800,000. On an average Sunday, 64% of Episcopalians are not in an Episcopal church. Allowing for the homebound, the sick, and those traveling, I would be depressed if, out of 100 members only 36 showed up week after week.

And then, any fair person will admit, the vast majority of Episcopalians have been kept in the dark about the issues underlying the sexuality debate. Rectors and Vicars don’t want trouble from above or below.

We all know that there are small minorities of activists at each end of the church debate. Larger minorities are paying some attention and have given some allegiance to one position or another. The Episcopal Majority–in the middle–is largely unaware of the real questions.

The blessing of same-sex marriages (and don’t kid yourself that this is not the goal of many of the guiding lights of the other E.M. blog) is not the most important issue in TEC. The membership slide of this church and all mainline protestant churches began in the mid-1960s when the message of these churches became confused. As a living symbol of that slide, it is well-documented that the Presiding Bishop of TEC can’t manage to sustain a paragraph that affirms the traditional gospel message about Jesus Christ. When she gets close, it is only after being pushed by a reporter or by clergy questions at diocese forums. It does not flow from within her.

Tens of millions of Anglicans around the world affirm the saving message about God, our profound spiritual need, and the reconciling grace accomplished through the death and resurrection of Jesus. Without that message TEC will continue its slide toward oblivion.

We began as an effort to challenge the assertion that the other blog represented the majority of Episcopalians. We did so with research and questions always striving to present facts without rancor so the readers could decide. Along the way, others in blogland seemed to be providing such excellent coverage that I wondered if our efforts were needed to expose the false premise of the other blog. I turned to other priorities.

Cam’s most recent post stated we would venture from our retirement from time to time. Most likely it will be when the Episcopal Left offers up yet another totally absurd assertion. We hope our efforts will bring such absurdities to the attention of one of the many excellent Anglican blogs doing the hard work of daily reporting.

For now, we hold onto hope that the real Episcopal majority will take the steps necessary to preserve their spiritual life and to serve Christ in this world.

No Comments

One of the more recent musings of Lisa Fox over at My Manner of Life has roused me from my retirement slumber. The article in question is about Greg Griffith from Stand Firm fame wherein Ms. Fox theorizes that Mr. Griffith is secretly infatuated with the Rev. Elizabeth Kaeton.

If one gives an honest reading to Ms. Kaeton’s words, one must admit that she tosses out more fodder than most. Her recent attack of the Rev. Anne Kennedy was stunning in its revelations — about Ms. Kaeton. It speaks volumes that the propensity of someone with the Rev. Kaeton’s high profile publicly expressing thoughts leaning far, far to the left has not given pause to anyone higher up the Episcopal food chain.

But, alas, this article is not about Ms. Kaeton.

As readers of this site are already aware, Episcopal Majority was formed to examine if, in fact, those individuals claiming the title, actually represent the majority of Episcopalians. The articles posted here have for the most part simply relayed the words and actions of individuals. Lest one think the words are taken out of context, care has been taken to provide copious amounts of links so the reader can be as informed as possible. The idea is to provide the reader ample information to make their own decisions.

This article posted by EM in September 2006 allows information in the public domain to describe Ms. Fox. She evidently did not like the attention her own words and actions brought. Her response offered us an even deeper insight than the words posted by EM.

Ms. Fox’s most recent article, Magnificent Obsession, wherein she fantasizes about Greg Griffith and Elizabeth Kaeton is most strange. She evidently feels that a site dedicated to traditional Anglicanism in America posting news and commentaries on happenings in the Anglican world should ignore a high profile Episcopal priest who makes public many of her writings and musings that are often contradictory of the established meaning of traditional Anglicanism.

A review of Ms. Fox’s writings offers some compelling information. During the last 30 days, Ms. Fox has posted 16 articles. Three of these articles were about an admitted obsession with Harry Potter. Six articles were either about Stand Firm or its posters. One article was a direct attack on Brad Drell that offers the unengaged by-stander another one of those deep glimpses into who Ms. Fox may be. Excluding the Drell attack, approximately 37.5% of Ms. Fox’s posts have concerned Stand Firm. Contrast this history with that of Stand Firm.

During the last 30 days, Stand Firm has posted approximately 189 articles, six of which involved words Ms. Kaeton placed in the public domain. Seven, if you count Mr. Griffith’s most recent article commenting on Ms. Fox’s Magnificent Obsession article. Using any version of math you prefer, that represents 3.7% of the site articles. That decimal placement makes quite a difference. It should also be noted that not all of these articles were written by Mr. Griffith. Three other posters, Sarah Hey, Jackie Bruchi and David Ould, contributed to the Kaeton articles during this time.

Lisa may benefit from a long look in the mirror. Who is obsessed with whom? Or possibly the more obvious question, why is Ms. Fox so obsessed with defending Ms. Kaeton? My manners prevent me from using a favorite saying of my brothers as an analogy here. For the curious it concerns smelling and dealing.

No Comments

The Rev. Mark Harris is a member of the Executive Council–the relatively small group of bishops, priests, and laypeople who are empowered to make decisions for the whole Episcopal Church between General Conventions. He was on the Nominating Committee for the Presiding Bishop. He was a member of the Special Commission on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion that prepared for the recent General Convention, at which he was also a deputy. There is hardly a more well placed priest in the church.

Harris is most recently a board member of an organization of around 300 (nearly half clergy) claiming to speak for the majority of members in the Episcopal Church.

We believe the true Episcopal majority would at least wince at Harris’s description of Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria.

A recent post on Harris’s blog has the title, “Be watchful, for your adversary is a roaring lion.” An introductory sentence reads, “The first among equals in the lion department is of course the Archbishop of Nigeria.”

The majority in the Episcopal Church will not get the point of Harris’s title, but most evangelicals know the verse without looking it up. The full quote from I Peter 5:8 is: “Be watchful, for your adversary the devil is a roaring lion.”

Harris may be counting on most Episcopalians being unaware, but he is sending a coded message to his friends. He knows the full quote of the verse he is using. There is no way of reading this without seeing that Mark Harris is identifying Archbishop Akinola with Satan.

We believe that the true majority of the Episcopal Church would back away from such an extreme suggestion. It is a poisoning of the wells with the Anglican Communion Primates meeting only weeks away.

3 Comments

The Rev. Robert Certain has had more press exposure recently than any other Episcopal priest. His homily at the funeral of President Ford was heard by millions here and around the world.

What is known only to a few is that Fr. Certain’s name was lost recently to the organization claiming to represent the majority of Episcopalians. Robert Certain, who probably does represent a majority of Episcopalians, withdrew his name from the list of signatories of that organization.

When we started following the organization calling itself “The Episcopal Majority,” we made their list of signatories into a database so we could sort it according to diocese, clergy titles, etc. Robert Certain’s name stuck out in the short list of names (325 at last count). Besides the Dickensian quality of his name, I had known of him from another diocese. I knew something of his story and was surprised that he would lend his name to this organization. It seems the questions were warranted since his name has now been removed.

We noticed the gap when Fr. Certain was named as homilist for President Ford’s funeral. Double-checking the website, his name was missing from its former place between The Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson and James Lynn Culp in the August 26 additions.

If any one priest actually represents the majority of Episcopalians, the Rev. Robert G. Certain qualifies for consideration. You may scour his writings at his church website (see Rector’s View) or elsewhere on the internet and not find anything showing him to identify with the views of either end of our theological spectrum.

He has been President of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Diego and a General Convention Deputy.

Robert Certain is by no means average. Before he was ordained he was navigator-bombardier on B-52s in the Viet Nam war, was shot down over Hanoi and held as a prisoner of war. He was awarded the Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts, five Air Medals, and other honors. He continued in the Air Force Reserve as a chaplain and retired in 1999 as a Colonel. He is a patriot.

Certain is retiring January 7 as Rector of one of the largest parishes in the Episcopal Church—St. Margaret’s in Palm Desert, California. Earlier in his vocation, he served in Texas, Mississippi, and Tennessee. He was nominated in the bishop search of Southern Ohio—one of the most prominent dioceses in the church.

In one of his posts from General Convention 2006, Father Certain answered the question, What is a moderate Episcopalian?

A couple of the points would make for a good dialogue, but the statement probably marks out the middle ground to which average members of the Episcopal Church would nod assent:

* Jesus Christ is Lord – everything else is commentary
* Belief in a Trinitarian God
* Commitment to the Nicene Creed
* Holy Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation
* The Book of Common Prayer (and its teachings)
* Adherence to the Constitutions and Canons of the Episcopal Church
* More comfortable with questions than with answers
* Listen carefully for where other people are in their faith journeys
* Listen carefully for other people’s passions
* Respond to the deep spiritual yearnings of people, not to their initial verbalization
* The primary qualification for participation in the Church is that the individual is a sinner
* Everyone who comes to the Church is led there by Christ
* When people come to the Church we have to explore why … the gifts the Church has that they need to bring them closer to a saving relationship with Christ, and the gifts they bring that the Church needs to enlarge our understanding of Christ
* God is large – a lot larger than any of us can comprehend
* We are to plumb the depths and riches of Christ
* God is a God of variety; the Church should reflect that variety
* Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life: He acts with us in the Church; He acts without us outside the Church
* Walls are not a particularly good thing
* I don’t agree with everyone else (I don’t even agree with myself sometimes), but that doesn’t make either of us wrong (or right, for that matter).

In his funeral homily for President Ford, Fr. Certain cited Ford as believing that the debate around sexuality in the church shouldn’t cause division. Whatever you may think of the propriety of mentioning the Episcopal crisis at Gerald Ford’s state funeral, Certain identified himself as a voice in the middle, believing in the goal of reconciliation. While we believe this rhetorical move glossed over the very deep fault lines in the church, we have to admit Fr. Certain probably would represent the hopes of the majority of Episcopalians.

Why did Robert Certain withdraw his name and support for the organization named “The Episcopal Majority”? We do not have to guess. The blogmaster has admitted that she had several “frank exchanges” with Fr. Certain about the blog in which he “challenged” them “to be more moderate.” Certain followed their press releases and blog entries and saw their one-sided, non-irenic, and sometimes caustic approach. He was clear enough that this organization does not live up to its claim to speak for the majority of Episcopalians to remove his name from their list.

We believe the true Episcopal majority would come to the same conclusion

No Comments

Who is Tom Woodward?

According to his blog profile, he is a male Capricorn in the religion industry currently residing in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Mr. Woodward adds juggler, fire eater, magician and mime in Uncle Billy’s Pocket Circus to his resume’. Mr. Woodward is a retired Episcopal priest formerly with St. Paul’s, Salinas, California. Most interestingly, Mr. Woodward’s blog profile lists his occupation as author and not that of priest.

He is also a founding and steering committee member of an organization that claims to represent the majority of Episcopalians. They seem a little confused about their identity right now so let’s just call them TEM.

Although The Rev. Woodward claims to be a moderate, his words tell a different story. He authored an article entitled Falsely Accused challenging conservative claims that the Episcopal Church has abandoned its traditional and biblical foundation. Mr. Woodward states:

For example, a couple of years ago a clergy couple was discovered to be interested in Wicca (pagan religion). Anglican Communion Network (ACN) spokesmen immediately rushed to charge the entire progressive leadership of our Church as embracing paganism!

Interested in Wicca. That’s like saying someone is a little bit dead. Here are the facts. After you read them, decide how you would feel if you found out the priest who was teaching your child’s confirmation class was sidelining as a Druid priest. Mr. Woodward also failed to comment on the virtual silence from the leadership of ECUSA. Charles Bennison, the Druid couple’s bishop, brushed it off as conservative groups seeking to destabilize the church. This seems to be the typical response of those who claim to be TEM members. Regardless how outrageous, how apostate, how heretical the actions, embrace it and condemn any who opposes the new innovation.

Mr. Woodward seems quick to offer criticism but slow to withdraw it even when it is unfounded. Take for instance this unwarranted rebuke of The Rev. Matthew Kennedy concerning one of his articles responding to Falsely Accused. (Rev. Kennedy wrote a series in response to the Falsely Accused article.) Mr. Woodward writes:

You do not reflect well on Stand Firm with remarks such as your: “Fr. Woodward seeks to disabuse his readers of the notion that he and his fellow travellers in the Episcopal Church have led the Episcopal Church into heresy/apostasy.” “Fellow travellers” is, of course, one of the catch phrases used by Joe McCarthy for smearing those he wanted to destroy. I assume you will retract that phrase. I assume your readers respond more positively to content rather than random smears. Let’s engage one another with our best, not our worst.

One would think that such an avid supporter of the Episcopal Church leadership would be familiar with the former Presiding Bishop Griswold’s use of this terminology. In fact he used it in his sermon given to Resurrection Church in Hiroshima.

Brothers and sisters in Christ: On behalf of my wife Phoebe and my fellow travelers from the Episcopal Church in the United States, I greet you.

It makes one wonder if Mr. Woodward’s offense was real. Possibly we should just assume he is confused as his writings offer us a smorgasbord of contradictions.

In his article, Falsely Accused, Mr. Woodward dismisses the charge that many of the Episcopal Church leadership believe that Jesus is only one of many paths to God instead of the only way. Strange considering his comment made on Drell’s Descants:

Brad, the notion that Jesus is the only access to the Father is the kind of triumphalism that has led to the persecution of the Jews, Buddhists and many other religions.

Or this comment on Stand Firm:

Yes, the “nobody comes to the Father but by me” in the hands of fundamentalists and newly “orthodox” represents a triumphalist theology. It is wrong, theologically.
I believe if conservatives were to listen to KJS, really listen to her—most of your concerns would wither away—especially if they were to give any weight to the Biblical witness to other ways to God.

Mr. Woodward claims to believe in the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth and asserts he is solidly orthodox.

I hope you can begin to understand the frustration of a solidly orthodox Episcopalian upon reading such accusations. – Tom Woodward, Falsely Accused

I certainly believe in the resurrection of the body of Jesus Christ and as promised to the faithful. As Paul would note, we already participate in that resurrection (we are ambassadors from heaven, our home/permanent address is in heaven). I would never have said the resurrection is “merely metaphorical.”

Do I believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Absolutely - I stake my life on it.

I have not denied belief in the Virgin Birth and I have clearly affirmed my belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

About the time the reader becomes heartened by these statements, The Rev. Woodward does a complete about face.

From which Gospel do you get a “literal physical resurrection?”

And I believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, without having to literalize the resurrection, robbing it of much of its power.

Confused? It gets worse.

I also understand the confusion of many people in dealing with religious language, which is often metaphorical rather than propositional.

I do not believe it is a matter of core doctrine that Mary was a virgin at the birth of Jesus—that His birth was at the divine initiative is important, but the history of the phrase, coming from a questionable interpretation of Isaiah, particularly its function at the time it was inserted into the creed indicate that it is the divine initiative that is important, not the nuts and bolts of it.

And what do you suppose Mr. Woodward believes to be the supreme authority? If your answer was the Bible, you are in for a big disappointment.

We get to differ about the nuts and bolts—unless that is defined for us at General Convention, in a new Book of Common Prayer or in a common agreement in a new (and pretty scary) Anglican Covenant.

The Rev. Woodward is open about his rebuke of the Network and claims made on the video Choose This Day and states:

I expect to be held accountable for my language and my public acts. I have yet to hear anyone accept responsibility for the slurs and the smears of “Choose This Day.” It is McCarthyism at its very worst and below the dignity of the leaders of the Network. (McCarthyism? Isn’t this what he called the fellow travelers reference?)

One might expect Mr. Woodward would be more prudent when writing his opinion of others. Not so. Read these words by Mr. Woodward about David Hicks in response to an article Mr. Hicks wrote concerning a speech Gene Robinson gave when Mr. Hicks was president at St. Paul’s School.

Those who have known Gene Robinson and who have worked with him over the decades can attest that the bizarre tale passed on by David Hicks is a sleazy bit of baseless attack on Bishop Robinson. The same is true with the alleged incident at St. Paul’s. That has been debunked for a long time—I’m surprized it is still around. It has all the credibility that the staged landing on the moon has.

or these comments left at the TEM site:

Those who have known Gene Robinson and who have worked with him over the decades can attest that the bizarre tale passed on by David Hicks is a sleazy bit of baseless attack on Bishop Robinson.

Such strong words. Let’s consider the credentials of Mr. Hicks. David Hicks graduated from Princeton University and was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University where he earned a master’s degree in philosophy, politics, and economics. He also studied at the University of Moscow, was an officer in the U.S. Navy, taught strategy and policy at the Naval War College, and was a candidate for Congress in New York’s Westchester County. Mr. Hicks has been the head of several schools over the past twenty years and is a respected author.

It seems Mr. Woodward’s proof that allowed him to make such derogatory and libelous statements against Mr. Hicks is that the Rev. Woodward’s brother works in the same town and was not aware of the incident. The comments of a blogger over at TEM sums up the matter quite nicely.

Now, let’s be impartial here. If this were before a court of law, who would win? Eye witness testimony of someone whose character has not been called into question counts for something, wouldn’t you agree?

Having been called on this rash accusation, one would think Mr. Woodward would be hesitant to again make such bold statements without the ability to back them up. But, nay. Here’s a comment he made concerning the vote for Katherine Jefferts Schori.

Bishop Iker’s problem is, perhaps, with Schofield and others who put her over the top.

Followed by this one:

Yes, the vote by Bishop Schofield is, indeed, well documented. He voted for Katharine Jefferts Schori. It was either his better judgment or it was the Holy Spirit speaking through him. (emphasis added)

As you might imagine the blogging world immediately called Mr. Woodward on his assertion. His proof - well read for yourself.

As to Bishop Schofield’s vote for KJS, there are those in whom he has confided his vote. I cannot expose them. I can only attest that I believe their witness. They are friends of John David’s, not some wild liberals wanting to do him in.

The last time we checked common gossip was not documented proof. Remember, Mr. Woodward’s earlier words, “I expect to be held accountable for my language and my public acts.” Guess he didn’t expect us to be listening – or reading.

Mr. Woodward’s contradictory words make his claims of being “solidly orthodox” appear to be a cruel joke and his writings do nothing to resurrect Mr. Woodward’s claim on orthodoxy. His blog challenges even the most basic of beliefs such as the sovereignty of God or the sinless nature of God. (The following excerpts are from a series of articles entitled God Diaries. They are to be read with God as the writer.)

At breakfast this morning, Jesus called me grumpy. Actually he said I had been grumpy all day. I told him I was entitled to my own feelings. He said I was a romantic. He said my feelings had compromised what I knew had always been true.

Matthew said I was just upset that I was not the first person the newly arrived wanted to see. I disagreed with him, of course, but that is what it is all about, isn’t it? I put on a good face for the old timers, but I feel a major depression coming on. Jesus all but ensured that the depression would be deep and long lasting with his cheap shot: “I can’t imagine how anyone so infinite can be so small.” The great night finally came. The place was full. And Brother Martin, bless his heart, had recruited several friends to join him at the Christian table – Peter, representing first century Christianity, himself representing Reformation theology, and St. Augustine as the “closer.” Martin and Augustine started the debate off to much applause and enthusiasm from the crowd. Augustine outlined the case for Christianity and detailed some of the more important Scriptural references. Then Martin took over. Martin had obviously been working with some of the more effective Black American preachers in preparation for the debates, because he was constantly interrupted with “Preach it, Brother Martin,” and “You lay it down and we’ll pick it up” as well as more “Amens” than most Lutherans have heard in a lifetime.
When Martin finally sat down, Gautama slowly approached the front of the stage, sat down, closed his eyes for several minutes and then, simply, stared at those sitting in front of him with such love and compassion and caring. That was it: no words, no gestures, no explanations. Sitting at the back, I could feel the tension for the first half hour. Then it melted away and it was like all the doubt, all the confusion, every bit of the need for explanation or information was sucked right out of the auditorium. We were all just there.
When the timer waved the yellow card, Buddha rose, bowed to the crowd, bowed to the Christian table . . . . and returned to his seat. Not a single person clapped or whistled. There was just respectful silence. It seemed clear to me that, at that point, the debates were over.

Peter did his best. He really did. If anybody can preach the resurrection, Peter can. And he did. It was clear to me, though, that Brother Martin had made a mistake by calling on Peter, not John. John would have shared his reverence for the great Buddha and then, quite humbly, would have spoken about the quiet and powerful presence of the Risen Christ as companion to the great Buddha, not his competitor or superior. Peter did his best, though; it just was not sufficient for the evening.

The final part of the program was the best. One of Buddha’s staff asked the crowd’s indulgence to accept, as the Buddhists’ final offering, a presentation by an adult and a children’s’ Buddhist choir. Then out came a mixed adult choir, followed by a large children’s choir, all dressed in lovely saffron robes. None of us was prepared for what was to follow.

“Rather than more words or silence,” the young choral director said, “we have prepared a short program – not for your edification, but for your entertainment.” The adult choir then sang a haunting, a capella version of Gershwin’s “I’ve Got Plenty of Nothing (and nothing’s plenty for me),” and then a knock-your-socks off Gershwin parody, “Porgy and Less,” with saffron robed baritone and soprano pouring their hearts out to one another. If that was not enough, the children’s’ choir (introduced as “Gautama’s Guys and Girls Junior Choir”) ended the program, and any remote semblance of dignity to the evening, singing, to a familiar tune:

If you are waiting for a rendition of Jesus loves me, hang on to your chair. Are you ready for this – wait for it….

Buddha loves me, this I know;
for the Buddha-book tells me so.
When I hear that great big gong,
I know I’ve been gosh-darn wrong.
Yes, Buddha loves me!
Yes, Buddha loves me.
Yes, Buddha loves me:
The Buddha-Book tells me so.

The Buddhists were right: the only path to humility is through silence or the ministry of the fool. They had given the gift through both. After many hugs and embraces, we all left in a spirit of reconciliation and joy. Peter and Augustine seemed crushed. I will speak with them tomorrow. Brother Martin was the only one that evening who laughed louder than me.
There can be no debates between us, only rejoicing in one another’s truth and laughter at our common folly. Like a fool, I jumped up and shouted, “I’ll drink to that!”

One wonders why Mr. Woodward feels compelled to imbue God with our human failings. We believe that most Episcopalians believe that God is truly sovereign and free from sin. Most take to heart the words of Paul to the Galatians. It is quite obvious Mr. Woodward does not.

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Galations 6:7

After reading Mr. Woodward’s own words, what do you think? Does he represent the majority of Episcopalians? Does he represent you? Is this your idea of orthodoxy?

No Comments

The Rev. Susan Russell, an Episcopal priest, President of Integrity—the gay lobby in the Episcopal Church, and a member of the organization claiming to represent the majority of Episcopalians, has declared victory for the liberal cause in the church.

In a friendly comment on Brad Drell’s blog, Russell can’t resist confirming Brad’s surmise that the demise of the liberal standard-bearer—The Witness—happened because it is no longer needed. The causes the magazine and website championed have won and are now represented by the official Episcopal newspaper— Episcopal Life.

As we read on another blog after the Episcopal General Convention of 2006: “The gay lobby owns the General Convention.” Now we realize, it also owns the media of the church.

Russell writes to Drell: “I believe its passing [The Witness] does recognize that what were once voices crying in the wilderness have become the mainstream voices of the Episcopal Majority.” We at this blog hope the real Episcopal majority wakes up to realize the ship of the church has been hijacked. The daily news briefings over the ship’s channel are controlled media.

1 Comment

Blame it on Sesame Street, but I love to count.

The recent open letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury from the steering committee of The Consultation represents twelve liberal activist organizations in the Episcopal Church. It might as well be thirteen, because many of the signatories are members of an organization claiming to represent the majority of Episcopalians. The Rev. David Fly, signs on to the Open Letter as President of that organization.

Appeals to sign the letter have been all over the liberal blogosphere.

They may need extra secretarial help to enter a pile of new names, but so far there are 146 names, including 62 clergy. Many of the names are the heavy-hitters of the gay rights movement in the Episcopal Church. But we should expect a big multiplication of numbers. So far twelve organizations have come up with “a gross” of names (12 from each on average).

The clergy petition sent to the House of Bishops before the last General Convention comes to mind. 1150 conservative clergy signed a plea for the Bishops to honor shared ordination vows. Lay people on blogs begged to sign, but this effort was limited to clergy.

So we will wait and see how many Episcopalians sign this letter. Will it come close to representing an Episcopal majority? We are interested. Really!

UPDATE: As of December 4, the count is up to 431 with 191 clergy, including 6 retired bishops (The Rt. Rev. Otis Charles, being one of them). The list as scrolled looks pretty impressive, but think of this as one congregation with 431 active members–a nice sized parish, but a parish with almost half clergy and a half-dozen retired bishops. Whew! Makes me sweat. Hey people, there were more than five times as many people at the first Plano conference of conservative Episcopalians. I was there. Now that was impressive. The letter from Cardinal Ratzinger was pretty cool too.

1 Comment

The real Episcopal majority should now wake up and listen. The story is in our title–”We are down to the end game.” Mark Harris, a very well-placed Episcopal priest, wrote those words in his blog November 27, 2006.

If you are just waking up, he is not talking about a new world chess championship. But there are parallels. He means that the crisis in the Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Communion is way beyond the opening moves (John A.T. Robinson, Pike, and Spong) and is at the end of the mid-game–arranging the pieces for the final thrust. The end game has its eye on final victory.

Mark Harris is a member of the Executive Council–the relatively small group of bishops, priests, and laypeople who are empowered to make decisions for the whole Episcopal Church between General Conventions. He was a member of the Special Commission on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion that prepared for the recent General Convention. He is also a member of the board of Witness magazine–the liberal flag-bearer in the Episcopal Church. Harris is most recently a board member of an organization of around 300 (nearly half clergy) claiming to speak for the majority of Episcopalians.

If there were odds in Las Vegas on the future of the Episcopal Church and you wanted to bet, Mark Harris would be someone to listen to. The real Episcopal majority should listen to what he has written. “We are down to the end game.”

We at this blog look at the stakes in this “game” differently from Mr. Harris. But we agree the game is somewhere near its end. In chess, a master can ward off the end fairly long. We think our new Presiding Bishop is not such a master. She plays more like a brash junior champion. The end may come sooner rather than later.

The Rev. Harris attaches “end game” to moves by conservatives in the Episcopal Church seeking a realignment of Anglican Christians in North America. But in our chess analogy, they are the black pieces. White goes first. Since the General Conventions of 2003 and 2006, the liberal powers in The Episcopal Church (TEC) have built on standard opening moves in the 1960s through the 1990s to launch a powerful mid-game for gay affirmation and for a social-action gospel. Many conservatives have warded off these moves until it has become clear that the end game is near. They are being driven by Christian conscience to bold final moves to preserve their integrity.
It is time for the real Episcopal majority to wake up to the bell Mark Harris has rung. Find out what is at stake in your church. We offer our blog as a place to start. You won’t see the pretty side of the church here. We have been showing what the extreme liberal end of the spectrum has been saying under the umbrella of an organization claiming to speak for the majority of Episcopalians.

We don’t have ready links to other websites, but we will point you to two blogs that do have helpful links. The encylopedia of conservative Episcopal blogs is titusonenine. They cover so much waterfront it makes our heads spin. Kendall Harmon, the blog owner is the soul of Christian fairness. Brad Drell is our very favorite Cajun-country lawyer at Drell’s Descants. Brad is a General Convention Deputy and has been in the “game.” Finally, we must say that we have found the most pertinent Episcopal crisis news and opinion (sometimes edgy) at Stand Firm in Faith. They have an excellent feature in their sidebar—Around the Web—with headlines from several other very good blogs.

On the other side of the “gameboard” we have linked here to Mark Harris. Susan Russell has an easy to see list of other links and you are off and reading. Lisa Fox is the webmeister for the organization calling itself “The Episcopal Majority.” Her own blog is My Manner of Life. How’s that for fair?

Wherever you find your information, read both sides, make up your own mind, and do something. It’s time. “We are down to the end game.” And this game is no game.

No Comments

Susan Russell, a prominent member of the organization we are looking at, has done us the favor of putting our church crisis in the most basic of Christian terms. Her blog links to a piece by John Kirkley which says the Episcopal Church has “taken up its cross” in pushing for absolute equality in all things for gays and lesbians in the church.

Russell, an Episcopal priest and President of Integrity USA (the gay lobby in the Episcopal Church), reprints with approval these words by John Kirkley:

Bishop Robinson has taken up his cross. The Episcopal Church has taken up its cross. Our Church is now enduring the consequences of bearing with discrimination, disdain, and demonization in solidarity with queer people. The way of the cross is painful, confusing, even frightening at times. But I am confident that new life, Resurrection life, is being offered through the faithfulness and courage of all-too-human disciples of Jesus like Bishop Gene Robinson. Bless you Gene!

John Kirkley, an Episcopal priest, is President of Oasis/California (which describes itself as “The gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender ministry of the Episcopal Diocese of California”).

Those of us who were at the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in Columbus (2006) know Kirkley’s words to be part of the gospel of gay activists in the church. We also know in our guts that no future General Convention will stand up to the relentless momentum of this movement. We think that future Deputies to GC should have their eyes opened by Mr. Kirkley’s imagery. To make the embracing of the gay rights agenda into “taking up the cross” goes to the limit of Christian language.

Mark 8:34,35 (parallel: Matthew 10:38,39 and Luke 14:27) makes “taking up the cross” an absolute condition for those who follow Jesus. Verse 35 explicitly links this death-to-self to the costs of “the gospel”–the announcement of God’s victory and kingdom. Do any of us fulfill this calling? No, we cast ourselves on the mercy of God in Christ. But Jesus still gets to define the terms.

If the support of the gay platform of equal rights in the church is elevated to this defining level of basic Christianity, where does this leave the large number of Episcopalians (possibly the real Episcopal majority) who cannot affirm gay marriage as a sacramental act of the church?

And don’t fool yourself by thinking such equality of marriage is not the agenda of the gay lobby. John Kirkley’s personal blurb on his blog includes the information that he is “married” to Andrew.

We have no doubt that the 300 or so signatories of the organization calling itself “The Episcopal Majority” support gay bishops and gay marriage as a defining Christian cause. We are much less certain that the real Episcopal majority does. But we are glad for the stark clarity as we try to navigate the coming months.

No Comments