The Honest Scrap Award

We have been blessed with an award.  The Honest Scrap Award comes to this blog by way of a good and faithful reader, cany.  Thank you, we are indeed honored to be in the company of such bloggers as Leonardo (my very first encounter, right Leonardo?), cany, a masterful blogger of the world of animals and politics, FranIam, Madpriest, Granmere and Friends of Jake!

Now, we are obliged to reveal 1o things heretofore not known about us.  So,

1, We have owned a Boston Great Dane of absolutely perfect proportions.  Unfortunately, while we owned her Boston (Black and Whites) were not showable.  We loved her anyway;

2, we owned one of the very first re-bred Tokinese cats.  A mix of Siamese and Burmese Tao was the most gentle of cats.  She would ride on my shoulders, she just loved it a bunch (and at 6'7" that was quite a ride);

3, we adopted a magnificent Siamese we named Mal Su.  But only for a short time as he developed a urinary tract infection and before we could find him  he was too far gone.

4, Connor Duncan is my grandson and he has connections with the Presiding Bishop, if you know what I mean;

5,  Wilma and I are good friends as well as all the other things that come with almost 39 years of marriage.

6, I love, honor and respect my two children.  Needless to say I am very proud of both my daughter and my son;

7, I am a huge procrastinator;

8, I came late to the blogging community but I am modestly addicted to it;

9, I have been so incredibly fortunate one would not believe (someday I will write about this.);

10, Finally, I credit my mother and my father for the greatest gift one could get, that is my faith.

Now, for the seven new blogs to be awarded my Honest Scrap Award:

1, Father T Listens,  I admire beyond words this blogging priest for reasons I cannot fully explain.

2, Preludium,  here again, Fr. Mark is a hero of mine (even though I get frustrated with him sometimes).

3, then there is my favorite friend James at the Three Legged Stool.

4, my newest old friend, Father Scott over at Father Scott and Co

5, then, Tobias Haller has become a great blog if you want to leave a blog scratching your head for about an hour, In A Godward Direction.

6, and, to my old friend Dusty, here ya go bud The Grapevine.

and, the final award to:

7, the person I am most jealous of; his knowledge of the scriptures simply boggles my mind the incomparable Goran Koch-Swahne.

I end where I began, with cany.  Thank you for your award and just for you -- ever try Messiah?

DOUBLE SPEAK

Merriam Webster definition:

Main Entry:

dou·ble·speak 

Pronunciation:

\ˈdə-bəl-ˌspēk\

Function:

noun

Date:

1952

: language used to deceive usually through concealment or misrepresentation of truth 

In years gone by Bishop John Howe, along with then Bishop Wantland and also ran bishop John David Mercer Schofield filed papers and claimed the name (actually "incorporated with the name) The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America.  At that time the sole idea was to subvert the Presiding Bishop and the Executive Council.

In years gone by then Bishop (now Mr.) John David  Schofield, when confronted with his concept of divorcing the diocese from the Episcopal Church in the United States of America,  tried to convince us in the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin that we had not "moved' but rather it was the National Church that had moved.

Now, in an attempt to justify the insidious move of the Communion Partners (including the Reverend Rob Eaton, Rector of St. John's in Tulare, CA in the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin), the Bishop of Central Florida, John Howe,  states the following:

We have not one iota of desire to promote schism. Our desire is to protect our constituent membership in the Anglican Communion. The Executive Council has said that the only body that can act upon the Anglican Covenant is the General Convention. We do not believe that is accurate. We believe that dioceses and even parishes could decide to "opt into" it.

Given all of that here is how I could see this scenario playing out.  Certain parishes and dioceses, claiming to be within the Episcopal Church, "opt in" to the RCDC Covenant.  Most of these parishes and diocese are de facto orthodites with an agenda against women, LGBT and other marginalized persons such as handicapped and the culturally different.  Those parishes and diocese that champion the full inclusion of all persons refuse to "opt in" to the "Anglican Communion" through the RCDC Covenant and are therefore "left out".  Then, the Primates Council, led by the infamous gay hating archbishop Peter Akinola "votes to recognize the true Episcopal Church in the United States of America, the diocese and parishes that have approved and opted in the Covenant.  

Case closed. "Episcopal"  Church is still with us.  God be praised and Alleluia we have won and salvation is upon us!

PS: I would recommend that Bishop Howe read the book written by William Winton Manross pages 351, 352, and 354.  While not conclusive it does give a slightly different historical perspective than what Mr. Howe remembers.

Politics and Power vs. Theology and Christian Living

A few weeks ago Mark Harris published his 1,000th posting.  In it he laid out 15 items that he "had learned about life in Anglican-Land.  At that time I asked, and received his blessing to do a few take-offs on those 15 items.  Now seems to be a good time to begin.

3. Lambeth 1998 1.10 was a disaster, being bad politics unaccompanied by theological underpinnings.

4. Authority delegated to select Lambeth resolutions as "the mind of the communion" is without warrant.  The politicalization of the Lambeth Conference in 1998 was unfettered and the blame lies with Archbishop Carey.  As a result it was the last Lambeth Conference to make plenary resolutions.  The supposedly advisory and consultative nature of the conference was compromised beyond repair.

5. An enhanced role for the Primates was a bad idea.  The increase de facto authority of the Primates Meeting has not been a source of unity, but of divison.  

Rev. Mark Harris

We have seen these three items Mark discussed earlier truly come home to roost  in a huge way.  First,  the so called Covenant document has moved from being an instrument of the Communion to a blatant political power play.  It has nothing to do with theology or religion or Christian living or anything else.  It is a group of bishops, a very small (in lots of different ways) group of bishops plotting on how to force a group of provinces either into or out of "The Anglican Communion".  If this document ever was about Christian living and Christian relationships it certainly lost its veneer on the Ridley draft.  It is, plain and simple, hate the sins and get rid of the sinner.  Let's cast them all into the fires of hell.  Never mind what the Bible says or how Christ taught us to love our neighbors and how all people are welcome to the table or even let's let God sort it out -- nope - it's open the pit and here they come!

Who has fostered this idea?  Well, Mark hit it squarely when he talked about the primates council.  This group of GAFCONEERS has really taken their work seriously.  They have come together, kept the primates they like, thrown out all those pesky women, and made it a good ole boys club.  Not only do they get to meet and have drinks together and talk about the "good old days" but now they actually think they can run the entire Anglican Communion.  In fact, they have already said that the Archbishop of Canterbury is superfluous, and Archbishop Rowan Williams has pretty much proven them right -- i.e, the position may not be superfluous but the person occupying the position seems to be.  He has allowed this group to simply walk all over the communion and in some cases, most notably in the General Convention coming up may actually help these vicious old men in their quest for power.  That is correct, they have had a taste of power and have become drunk on it.  It is time for the Archbishop of Canterbury, this one preferred but the next if necessary, to put all "all these bad boys in detox" as soon as possible.

Finally, Lambeth and the meetings of the primates have become nothing more than a show and tell of political power.  The conferences deal endlessly with stupid, nonsensical politics.  How about these meeting go back to what the best of our provincial leaders viewed these meetings - -how about they talk and meet and discuss issues that will have a truly lasting effect.  How about they talk about things Christ would have us talk about?  Christian living, Christian relationships and how the various provinces share in the gospel of the Lord.  Seems to me that when one meets every ten years one ought to be about something more substantial than "I ain't taking communion with no wemmin!" 

It is time to move back to Godly respect for all of us and Christian love and way from the political games of the Primates that has been fomented by such groups as GAFCON, ACNA, ACI, Communion Partners, Common Cause Partnership, etc and once again lead the world in faith and understanding and with Godly love.  Most of you folks aren't very good at this poltical game anyway.  Leave politics to the politicians. Let's restore a little peace and quiet so we can at least all start praying again!

Thanks Mark!

BabyBlue Gets the Credit

The Rev’d Mr Harris has released via his blog confidential emails not addressed to him. We assume him to be a man of civility and honor, in view of his role as a member of the Executive Council of The Episcopal Church. The Anglican Communion Institute has long been on record as supportive of the Anglican Communion, the Covenant process, and the flourishing of the Episcopal Church and the defense of its Constitution. We have welcomed the Pastoral Visitors idea as emerging from the Communion’s common life, and have been engaged, through Communion Partners, with a plan that would honor the polity of this Church and find a way to maintain the unity of the Church and of the Anglican Communion. Communion Partners has from its inception been on record as wishing to prevent churches from leaving because, given the season we are in, they were unclear about the place of their own mission within the larger Anglican Communion. Our understanding of the proper role to be exercised by the Presiding Bishop, consistent with the Constitution of The Episcopal Church, is the subject of a public document to be found on our web-site (see the 12 March 2009 essay below) and so no secret.

Mr Harris has put before the public email communications that are not addressed to him, but are fully consistent with this larger goal of maintaining the witness of the Anglican Communion and the role of The Episcopal Church as integral within that. The statement that be refers to, signed by Bishops of this Church, is equally fully consistent with this position on the place of The Episcopal Church within the world-wide Anglican Communion. We would request that he indicate, given his role on the Executive Council, what the justification for this publication of email correspondence not addressed to him is; and further, why he did not discuss the matter of private emails with the principals before releasing them on his blog and passing them on to his colleagues elsewhere. We request that Mr. Harris explain to the public how he obtained access to this confidential communication.

The Revd Canon Professor Christopher Seitz
Research Professor of Biblical Interpretation
University of Toronto, Wycliffe College
Director, Incarnation School of Theology, Dallas

Add to the following:

Once again, we have evidence that if one does not tow the official line, if one dares to go against the status quo, then one will be branded as disloyal - or worse, "manipulating a schism driven agenda" to "undermine the mission and ministry of the Episcopal Church." Yikes! The former Archbishop of Canterbury wasn't kidding when he warned the Communion Partners last week that regarding the remnant orthodox wing of The Episcopal Church “all signs suggest that over time they are likely to be cleaned out of TEC.”  Babyblue

Well, the plain and simple truth is if you look at a prior posting you will find that if one puts together a comment on a blog from Babyblue with Radner's comments with the Diocese of the South West resolutions it is pretty simple to conclude what the orthodites of the world are up to.  They seem to think that because we are kind we are weak.  They think that because we do not think as they do that we are stupid. I expect they will think differently from now on

If the Communion Partners, Fr. Rob Eaton included, thought that they could destroy the Episcopal Church from within they need to think again.  No organization of any kind will allow dissension to the point of its own annihilation.  That is not going to happen and it certainly is not going to happen here in TEC.  TEC will allow genuine discussion and argumentation for the sake of moving the faith forward but TEC will not stand for the internal destruction of the Episcopal Church.  You all seem to think that you could change the game and hope no one would find out -- sorry about that.  It is my fondest hope that TEC will develop a strategy that will put this group of hate mongers out where they can do the least amount of damage -- that would be somewhere other than the Episcopal Church!

A Little Revolution

Shays' Rebellion — a sometimes-violent uprising of farmers angry over conditions in Massachusetts in 1786 — prompted Thomas Jefferson to express the view that "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" for America. Unlike other leaders of The Republic, Jefferson felt that the people had a right to express their grievances against the government, even if those grievances might take the form of violent action.

There is a "new" issue floating on both Thinking Anglicans, Friends of Jake and Preludium discussing the Communion Partners and the RCDC and the idea that churches/diocese are somehow independent entities vis-a-vis the "National Church" - The Episcopal Church in the United States.  As if ACNA is not enough, as if the "stealing of property in Quincy and Pittsburgh and San Joaquin and Fort Worth is not enough; as if the attempt way back when to abscond with the name "Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America" by Wantland and Schofield and Howe et al was not enough.  

Ladies and gentle persons of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America please WAKE UP".  This group, morphing as it does from one venue and name to the next, is not interested in creating an alternate province if you will or for that matter an alternate anything.  This group, from the time of Wantland and the rest through the Chapman Memo to the RCDC Covenant to the Communion Partners (Fr. Eaton?, are you listening) has set out to quite literally "kill"  the Episcopal Church as we know it.  These group does not want us to go away or become some thing else anymore than they wish to become another "denomination", they want to eliminate the Episcopal Church from the face of history books. This not a little revolution, as Jefferson speaks above, this is hunt the TEC down until there is no more room to maneuver and then eliminate them from existence.  This group wants nothing more than to erase TEC from not just the Anglican Communion but from existence. 

TEC plays nice and assumes that this group, ACNA - Communion Partners/ACI Schfield, Iker are all just angling for some pointy hats and more power.  You make this assumption at great risk my friends.  It must now be clear they want TEC gone - kaput- bye-bye! And the folks playing this game are in it for real and for good.  What did you expect from a person who says that "She (the presiding bishop, ++Schori) never has had any power over me.  Never has and never will." Iker, or how about mr. Duncan, did you think that the man who thought he should be "king" (actually presiding bishop) is just going to take his new role, hat and all and not strike back at Katherine Jefferts Schori and the church that deposed him even though his grandfather was an Anglican?  Did you think that the Archbishop of Nigeria, one who has condoned nasty violence against LGBT Christians and Muslims was going to simply allow TEC, the bane of his existence, to walk away or worse that he would just walk away?  No folks, this is not the pleasant parting of company between old friends, this is a group of people who will not rest until TEC is buried.  

Who needs Whom? Or, Are We Looking At This Correctly?

Let us reflect for a few moments on those diocese that will shortly be receive both property and people.  Now, many people would have us believe that through some form of magic we will bring everyone back into the fold by being open and loving and caring.  The fact of the matter is that we did not move anywhere nor were we ever not open and loving and caring.  In fact, those that are left in these diocese, at least San Joaquin, are the ones that have always been willing to sit down, listen, talk, agree to disagree, work problems through, and pass the peace and receive the Eucharist with one and all.  If memory serves me correctly (at least) two main types of people left TECUSA.  The first were those stubborn, angry, frustrated and unwilling listen and discuss what needs to be discussed.  The second, those who left because their vested interest in the buildings and grounds was "larger" than their vested interest in the Episcopal Church.  

I suggest the following.  Those who return must submit to the following two conditions.  First, our baseline has now become full inclusion of ALL persons in All aspects of the Episcopal Church.  No studying the issues, no discussing the degrees to which one may participate, no dallying with issues of sex (gender) or sexuality (LGBT).   Second, voting rights for those who have left the Episcopal Church will be suspended for a minimum of 5 years.  That is correct, 5 years!  If you want to come back you may participate fully and completely in all aspects of the liturgy and the rites and privileges of the Church -- BUT you may not participate in any aspect of the governance of the body politic for 5 years.  Harsh, maybe so but if you are really interested in returning to the Episcopal Church and you left for the Church of the Conealoneialists where you had no say in what went on anyway what's 5 years between friends? 

Why, one may ask?  Simply put, it will take 5 years to recover from this fiasco created solely by  those that left and there is a strong need/desire to make sure that some other technique such as that suggested by the RCDC version of the Covenant be used to further exacerbate the already fragile nature of the diocese that have been put into this position.  It is a small price to pay for the Episcopal Church to move on.   

144,000 IS the Magic Number

The Moderator, Mr. Robert Duncan had much to say during an interview with the Church Times.  For example, let's begin with this wonderful statement:

"Bishop Duncan echoed the insistence of the Primates that theirs was not a breakaway movement. “I’m a cradle Anglican. My grandfather was a boy chorister. ."  

 It is my humble opinion that the only birthright we have coming into this world is sin.  We are born with sin and only when we are baptized do we then revert to one of God's own people.  I did not know nor did I think that we are born to be Anglicans or Catholics or Presbyterians or whatever -- in fact, we are baptized Christians.  

Mr. Duncan goes on to say,

He said that he had given a progress report to the GAFCON Primates. His Church had 100,000 members in 700 congregations in 28 dioceses. On any given Sunday, there were about 80,000 worshippers, about ten per cent of the numbers in the Episcopal Church, “and growing all the time”.

 Can some one please help me out -- when did any church, let alone the Anglican Church, become his?  I thought all this time the Church belonged to Jesus.  Now I am beginning to understand why Mr. Duncan thinks so highly of himself, it is his church!  

Then, Mr. D goes on to add,

The creation of the ACNA had meant that the United States now had two parallel Anglican provinces, Bishop Duncan said, and this was “not altogether comfortable”, as the meeting of all the Primates in Alexandria had admitted.

 So, we now have two Anglican provinces in North America?  Must be true, the head of the whole church, Mr. Duncan has declared it to be so! 

Here comes the kicker:

It was clear that Bishop Duncan thought that Anglicans in the United States were more sharply divided than elsewhere. “You really have two religions. You have one that believes as Anglicans always have believed, that Jesus is the only way to salvation, and you have another led by our Presiding Bishop of TEC [the Episcopal Church], who says ‘That would be to put God into a small box.’ One is classic Christianity. One is actually not Christianity, at least not in the way that classic Protestantism, classic orthodoxy, or classic Catholicism would recognise it.

 

Not only does Mr. Duncan believe that the church is his but he has now determined who has received salvation and who has not.  I have no idea what in the world now possesses Mr.Duncan and his brood of vipers.  Clearly, women are lost or at least make no theological sense, LGBT people are lost, Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, Hindi, Jainists, etc are also lost.  Everybody but Bob Duncan, a few 100,00 people who follow Mr. Duncan, a couple of has been bishops, several primates in the Global South -- maybe 144,000 is the right number? Holy Smokes, the Jehovah's Witnesses must be in! 

COVENANT: THE LATEST AND GREATEST

We have now seen the latest and greatest revision of the "Anglican Covenant" and once again it falls short. While many try to analyze it piece by piece or portion by portion or word by word the GAFCON community moves forward with its own agenda. While TEC gets hung up on language the GAFCONites get hung up on action. TEC thinks about things while the Global South pretty much does what it wants to do and when it wants to do it. TEC takes the Covenant as a document morally based and prayerfully considered while GAFCON takes the Covenant as a politically based and action oriented document. TEC wants to work things out through the normal "process" while GAFCON works out things. Just when are we going to learn? Perhaps it will take a deposed Robert Duncan sitting on a golden throne issuing orders to the Anglican Church of North America to wake people up. Will it take John David Mercer Schofield telling our Presiding Bishop ++Katherine Jefferts Schori that "even women have a place in the church" for the rest of this province to rise up?

The Covenant is a document designed to "put TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada in their place, or more profoundly, out of their place. It is a political document not a theological work and it is not written with the community of Christ in mind. Has anyone noticed that while we examine and wring our hands and reach for our thesaurus GAFCON meets and moves forward.

Can someone look up for one second to see what is happening? Does anyone have a plan besides the one in play now? We are all busy writing and analyzing and figuring out this document while GAFCON has already planned through the winter of 2010! We cannot play catch up! We must put a plan of action together that will turn the tables and put the pointy hatted people out!

Easter Monday and The Light Of Day

In a previous post I attempted to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that there was a move to circumvent the Episcopal Church in the acceptance process of the latest revision of the "Covenant".  The authors/revisers have placed a poison pill clause in the document that will attempt to discredit and eventually eliminate the Episcopal Church in America-- at least for all intents and purposes.  I now wish to do two things.

First, here is proof positive that the intent by the reasserters is to do just that.  Here is an open letter to the Communion Partners from  the American Anglican Council.

An Open Letter to the Communion Partners Good Friday 2009

“When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3)

On behalf of the Episcopal Desk of the American Anglican Council, we extend thanks to the Communion Partners group and the Anglican Communion Institute for their efforts to develop an Anglican Covenant that will establish doctrinal and disciplinary boundaries for those who wish to remain in the Anglican Communion—especially for those in TEC who continue to affirm the uniqueness and universality of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord of all, the authority of His word and the faith once delivered to the apostles.

In the face of unprecedented departures from that faith by the leadership of TEC, the abuse of canon law by the Presiding Bishop and her House of Bishops, continued violations of the Communion moratoria on same-sex blessings, and accelerating litigation against the faithful, we affirm the right of individual Bishops and Dioceses to sign a Covenant—even over the objections of TEC’s leadership and General Convention .

. . . 

Under God’s mercy and faithfulness,

The Right Rev. David C. Anderson, President and CEO. American Anglican Council

The Rev. J. Philip Ashey, J.D., Chief Operating Officer and Chaplain, American Anglican Council 

As we saw in an earlier post the Diocese of West Texas has already set the ball rolling (so to speak).  Check out their website.  The resolution in the post two below this one is one of four on the West Texas diocese.  There is clearly a move to isolate and eliminate TEC.  These wascally wabbits need to be stopped.  The first step is always the light of day.

The Second Point is one closer to home.  There are two "groups" in the Communion Partners.  The first is the bishops group.  The second group is the rectors group.  One of the members of the rectors group is none other than San Joaquin's own Father Rob Eaton.  Yes, this is the clergy person who protested vehemently to the presiding Bishop that HE WAS THE STANDING COMMITTEE of San Joaquin after John David took the entire diocese including the Standing Committee to the Southern Cone.  This is the same Father Rob Eaton who showed up at the special San Joaquin convention in March and, after signing a pledge to remain Episcopal, rejected Bishop Lambs appointment and chastised the entire convention for convening illegally.  Yes, this is the same Father Rob Eaton who, after having his church's special Merrill Lynch account impounded decided that he could support Bishop Lamb and then went to the October Convention and tried to degrade those marginalized by John David by leading a substitute motion to "gut" the study of those marginalized by John David Mercer Schofield and his 20 years of failed policies.  This is the same Father Rob Eaton who went to the October convention and tried to ramrod a late resolution to give his parish special treatment on diocesan assessments.  This is the same Father Rob Eaton who is a member of the Rectors version of the Communion Partners and now wants to circumvent the Episcopal Church In the United States of America by being able to recognize the Covenant as a parish (check out the resolution and the RCDC revisions of the Covenant).   

Easter - The Son Also Rises

Well, while this may not be the most liturgically based music nor may it be the most reverent.  It is a piece that has always allowed my spirit to soar, but that is just me.  I am hopeful that those who stop by are not disappointed.  The old stuff isn't always the best stuff, if you know what I mean.

May you all have a blessed Easter.

UPDATED: Preludium + Off Topic = Real Anglicans (NOT)

Father Mark began a post with a discussion about the "latest and greatest" covnenant draft and focused in on the following section of the re-re-re-revised document:

"(4.1.5) It shall be open to other Churches to adopt the Covenant. Adoption of this Covenant does not bring any right of recognition by, or membership of, the Instruments of Communion. Such recognition and membership are dependent on the satisfaction of those conditions set out by each of the Instruments. However, adoption of the Covenant by a Church may be accompanied by a formal request to the Instruments for recognition and membership to be acted upon according to each Instrument's procedures."

The comments section was fairly normal at the beginning but then along comes BabyBlue, a notorious reasserter and a blogger of enormous "clout" in the sphere and hear what she says:

 BabyBlue said...

Would the therm(sic) "Church" not also include Episcopal Dioceses to join if - should that time ever come - General Convention rejects the Covenant?

9/4/09 5:38 PM

Comments such as these might be construed as a mere comment or is it?  Perhaps, BB has tipped a bit of the next attack on The Episcopal Church.  Why do I say that.  Well, what follows is the Diocese of West Texas and one of the most insidious resolutions to pass ever.

WHEREAS, the General Convention Budget has historically been funded by dioceses based on their financial capability and voluntary choice;

 
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 105th Council of the Diocese of West Texas affirms that the Diocese of West Texas is in union with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ directly through the Anglican Communion, its Instruments of Unity, and our Diocesan Bishop, the Rt. Rev. Gary Lillibridge; and 
 
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council accepts no actions by General Convention that would reverse the authority roles between Dioceses and the General Convention, or would grant the Office of the Presiding Bishop executive powers over Dioceses and their Bishops; and
 
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council accepts no specific actions by General Convention that would

• mandate financial assessments from Dioceses to the General Convention budget;
• unilaterally impose trust interests on diocesan and congregational assets.

It appears that there are several issues at work here.  One separating from TEC so that the property does not belong to The Episcopal Church but to the diocese.  Second, it allows the diocese to circumvent a Province and go it alone.  This goes back to the issue of 4.1.5 of the Covenant.  

So what do we have? Well, this suggests at least a two-pronged approach to the covenant.  First, ACNA approves the latest and greatest revised Windsor Covenant and thereby circumvents the "routine" procedure and in effect gets expedited treatment toward a recognized province, IN LIEU of  The Episcopal Church.  The second prong is those diocese such as West Texas, Central Florida, Louisiana et. al. reject the Episcopal Church as a province and approach the Covenant as an independent diocese and recognize the covenant. That in turn puts the Episcopal Church in an awkward situation to say the least.  

Based on section 4.1.5 the covenant should be dead before arrival and I am hopeful that 815 is alerted to the nonsense perpetrated by some diocese that looks a lot like separation with property.

One of the major architects has this to say about the issue of church versus province:

31. Ephraim Radner wrote:

Dr. Noll asks one of the question very much in some people’s minds.  The answer is that the word “church” is not carefully defined because it would have been overly limiting of a number of potential situations we did not feel it was wise to constrain in advance, including churches now in a relationship of ecumenical partnership, as well as future uniting churches, currently extra-jurisdictional dioceses, or future ones, etc..  The specific issue of ACNA or an individual diocese in a non-covenanting province was placed on the table, discussed at length, and we agreed that no limitation on this possibility would be defined.  I.e., of course ACNA or siuch a diocese can sign and formally request recognition and participation.  (The latter might finally function under some metropolitan aegis as currently happens with e.g. Lusitania.  The seeming inconsistency between the Preamble and these kinds of possibilities was noted, and understood to be acceptable as the price paid for the organic transformation of the Communion under the covenant as I have noted it in a previous comment (I think!):  the Communion is not static.

In fact, we are now looking not at what is good for the "Anglican Communion" but rather what punishes people.  So, this covenant is good for who?  It promotes what?  I am hopeful that not only does this covenant not see the light of day but the revisers are chastised for this most recent revision in which they politics above everything else.

Thank you to Father Mark and to Lynn, Episcopal Cafe.

Pro-Life -- Holly Near Has A Question

Holly Near is a gifted singer songwriter who has been around since the days of the Viet Nam war. Frequently touring with the very best folksingers she has never risen to the point where her name rolls off your tongue ala Joan Baez or Joni Mitchell  or Emmy Lou Harris.  She is frequently found hanging with Ronnie Gilbert from the Weavers.  Well, here is an absolutely terrific song by Holly that I hope gives everyone pause to think.  I am going to start with the lyrics because I cannot find the full song ala youtube or wherever anywhere.  The lyrics are great but listening to this song drives the issue into your head (hope everyone understands that old sixties stuff).  If you have not got a copy of this song I will shamelessly promote the album called This Train Still Runs, go buy it and listen to this dynamic duo.

Why Oh Why

words and Music by Holly Near

They say there was a baby

Born wit ha special calling

Laid him in a manger

And then took him before his time

And I want to know why oh why oh why

if you care about life, why don't you care about mine?

why oh why oh why

if you care about life don't you care about mine?

Look at all the babies

They ain't got no mangers

Lying in the doorways

And dying before their time

And I want to know why oh why oh why

if you care about life, why don't you care about mine?

why oh why oh why

if you care about life don't you care about mine?

Come along another baby

If I have it I can't feed it

I got to think about my other children

Six hungry ones in all

And I want to know why oh why oh why

if you care about life, why don't you care about mine?

why oh why oh why

if you care about life don't you care about mine?

Do you care about the babies

or just the wars that keep them hungry?

I'm lying in the back alley

And I'm thinking about my right to life

And I want to know why oh why oh why

if you care about life, why don't you care about mine?

why oh why oh why

if you care about life don't you care about mine?

So I died on Christmas morning

Leaving all my babies

Now they ain't got no mama

And ain't that a pity and a shame.

And I want to know why oh why oh why

if you care about life, why don't you care about mine?

why oh why oh why

if you care about life don't you care about mine?

What follows is a brief excerpt from the song (hope it works).  It is a haunting song as it should be.

Why Oh Why 

Many may ask why is he bringing up all this stuff now?! Can't he just stick to the Episcopal Church stuff and leave all that social stuff alone?  The short answer is nope!  I would like to think that this will change some minds but at the very least I hope it gives pause for those "logical" thinkers to re-think.  The right to choose one's destiny is a God given right that cannot and should not and ought not be taken away.  It is not our choice, it is not my choice, it isi not your choice, it is her choice.