Real Anglicans

It is the 4th of July

2011-07-04T08:51:00.000-07:00

Hope everyone enjoys their Independence Day.

If You Build It They Will Come

2011-07-01T07:01:00.000-07:00

In a recent post on Off-Topic Allowed I spoke about how to begin to rebuild the Anglican Communion. It is imperative that we begin, if not just as was laid out in that post then something similar and something very, very soon. The other thing I would suggest is that the Episcopal Church subsidizes the entire conference, that will help those less fortunate and will demonstrate both our sincerity and our devotion.

One of the major outcomes will be a renewed interest in the Anglican Church (the only Real Anglicans in the United States belong to the Episcopal Church) throughout the world. See, we do not need to worry about "our numbers". We are not GAFCON/FCA/AMiA/AMiE/CANA/and all the other alphabet soup, we are the real Anglican Communion dedicated to demonstrating throughout the world that there Christ is alive and well and bringing the gospel message to everyone in the world. We are not exclusive, we are not bound by numbers, we are not hate-based, we are not condemning. We are resoundingly based in the gospel, both the two Great Commandments and Matthew 25 for starters. We care about people not numbers and we care about including everyone and not excluding anyone. We are about a Eucharistic centered, prayer based, Christ centered world-wide work that celebrates our differences and rejoices in our Christ-centeredness. We take seriously, in fact one of our main goals is to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick, elevate the poor, share all our abundant resources joyfully and freely excluding no one and lifting every single person up both one at a time and collectively.

In this new Anglican Communion we need to demonstrate that we care less about what our neighbor is or is not doing and we focus on our relationship with God and our relationship with our neighbor. That is what matters and that is what we work on. When we share the peace we forgive our brothers and sisters because Christ has taught us to do that and we receive communion with everyone.

Yes, fellow Anglicans, "if you build it they will most assuredly come."

SPREADing the Manure

2011-06-26T17:17:00.000-07:00

There is a "new" name amongst the Conelonialists, Charles Raven. His little slice of heaven is called SPREAD - yes and acronym for The Society for the Propagation of Reformed Evangelical Anglican Doctrine . And, I would believe that Charles Raven is the chief spreader. The Head Spread, if you will. He, like so many of his brethren are one sided and his argumentation is based on "My way or the highway". Where this guy came from I am not sure nor who he really is but I know where he is going. Let me SPREAD some information:

The Society is dedicated to the preservation and propagation of the reformed Christian faith as classically expressed in the Anglican Formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal.

Here is his tie to the Conelonialists:

In 1999 the then diocesan bishop publicly disowned Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference which reaffirmed biblical teaching on sexuality. As a result St John’s, under Charles’ leadership, broke fellowship with the bishop as a matter of biblical conscience and in 2002 it became necessary to continue as a self funded mission congregation outside the official structures of the Church of England, now known as Christ Church Wyre Forest.

And renowned writer and great theologian that he is he has come up with this little gem almost ALL BY HIMSELF.

Events between the 1998 and 2008 Lambeth Conferences demonstrate decisively that the Communion's present "instruments of unity", including the See of Canterbury itself, are no longer fit for purpose when confronted with deep theological confusion in which evil is held out as good and good as evil. A merely institutional unity not firmly rooted in the revealed truths of God's Word written is not only counterfeit but also toxic, exposing the whole Communion to the false teaching and immorality absorbed by the Western Churches.

As I wrote earlier, we are headed down a one-way road that ends with a train wreck. The AMiE will turn out the current Church of England and "recreate itself anew". If the Archbishop of Canterbury does not start with eliminating these cancers from the body of the Anglican Communion the Communion will die -- at least ass we know it.

I have been harping on this very issue for months and months to no avail. If you, the Archbishop of Canterbury and his henchmen do not get with the program pretty damn quick the Archbishop of Canterbury is going to be the Archbishop of weareallburied.

As to our formal SPREADERS, you will be outed along with your Latimer Trust and every other group that supports your hatred and spews your lies.

Still more to come!

When Is A Poke In the Eye -- Just A Poke In the Eye?

2011-06-25T08:11:00.000-07:00

Well folks, the report from the SCCC is released and can be found at The Lead. Thanks to Jim Naughton for all his labor and intense pressure brought to bear on the Executive Council to have the report released. This document is a long, thoughtful and precise examination of the impact of the Anglican Covenant on the Constitutions and Canons of the Episcopal Church in he United States of America. I sure hope it makes everyone feel better.

The Anglican Covenant was borne out of a combination of hate by the Global South Primates and a lustful desire for power that only can be satisfied by being the absolute ruler. In this case, Robert Duncan, John David Schofield, Jack Iker, Peter Jensen, Peter Akinola, Micael Nazir-Ali, Henri Luke Orombi and several others want to play "god". They have placed scripture as the end all and be all AND have positioned themselves as the only true doctors of the church that not only can understand scripture but can interpret it as well!

What do they hate? They hate any and all LGBT persons who have been called by our Savior to be included in the full life of the church. They hate women, especially those in powerful positions such as priest, bishops and presiding bishops. These primates and would be pretenders to the throne will not even take communion with the Presiding Bishop of our Episcopal Church.

The Windsor Report gave the Global South the opportunity to band together to steal property from the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, and soon, the Church of England. While they were doing that, providing a safe haven for thieves and deposed bishops and priests, we were distracted by the wonderful Archbishop of Canterbury telling us we had violated the Windsor Report and slapping our wrists. And we, the Episcopal Church in the United States of America took it. We wrung our hands and tried to figure out how to play nice because that is what everyone asked us to do and we are the good child and follow our parents command.

Then the Global South/FCA and all the alphabet soup came up with this Anglican Covenant thingy. We talked about and through it for four iterations. All the while GAFCON and the Jerusalem Document was formed/written, the ACNA Province was formed and made Robert Duncan a provincial ruler -- yep, a deposed bishop gets to play with the big boys while we were wrestling with the iterations of the Anglican Covenant.

In the next few weeks and months were are going to continue the debate over the adoption of this silly piece of paper in hopes that we can hold the Anglican Communion together. Guess what? The Global south does not care one whit about this document or the Anglican Communion. They have called for another GAFCON conference with a pre-conference to be held in New York (how is that for a slap in the face/). The FCA has set up shop calling themselves the AMiE so that they can be legitimized in the eyes of the Anglican Communion by being -- what else but Anglican. They have also sent Martyn Minns to England to set up shop as well.

Hey, but we have this lengthy, well written, beautiful piece of work that has provided the Episcopal Church in the United States of America with a way to review and analyze the Anglican Covenant especially as it impacts our Constitutions and Canons. We, collectively have spent more time on this one document throughout the Episcopal Church than we have spent on Episcopal Relief and Development in the last three years. More time on the Anglican Communion than on seeking out ways to enforce the depositions of those who have stolen property from the four diocese. We have spent more time on this document than on almost anything you can name. And for what? Do you think the Anglican Communion is going to last more than a few years? At least as we know it?

Once again we have spent more time on trying to figure out why we got poked in the eye with a sharp stick than is in our wildest imaginations even necessary. The Anglican Covenant, the poke in the eye, is just that, a poke in the eye.

Have we had enough time reacting to all the junk that has been thrown at us? It is time to make some bold statements and move forward. Give the Global South something to really talk and worry about, they love numbers -- we love people -- they love buildings and cash -- we love Christ and the bringing His message to the world. Can the Executive Council and the rest of the elite structure of our church stop being the patsie and start leading in such a way that those on the outside will want to come in to the inside. Our tent is big -- we know that. Let's by not only words but by actions show the world we belong to Christ and not to some Anglican Covenant.

It Is Too Late -- At Least For Some

2011-06-23T22:21:00.000-07:00

Well, England is about to be invaded! By whom you ask? By those who would pretend to be Anglican and need a basis for claiming as such. I have preached about this for almost all the time I have been blogging and now we are on the cusp of a New Anglican Communion, one that does not involve the Archbishop of Canterbury, and in fact does not involve the Church of England (as we know it) at all.

A new work is being performed by the global south/GAFCON/Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans.

Here is the beginning of the end:

The Anglican Mission in England (AMIE) held its inaugural event on Wednesday June 22 during an evangelical ministers’ conference in central London.
AMIE has been established as a society within the Church of England dedicated to the conversion of England and biblical church planting. There is a steering committee and a panel of bishops. The bishops aim to provide effective oversight in collaboration with senior clergy.

Yep, that which began in America and was fostered by the Archbishop of Canterbury in a crazy attempt to appease the Conelonialists has now come back to bite ++Rowan in of all places -- England!

And why? Well the answer is fund in the following simple statement:

The AMIE will continue to encourage church planting and all forms of Christian witness in accord with the Jerusalem Statement of the GAFCON Conference in June 2008.

According to the Jerusalem Declaration the Archbishop of Canterbury is an antiquated idea that has become superfluous to the GAFCON congregations. So, Martyn Minns is in and Rowan Williams is out.

What this group needs desperately, is a claim to English succession. Planting the AMiE will give them that. John David Schofield has said all along he will keep the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin close to the Anglican Communion. Now we know what he meant.

In addition, they really do not need much out of England other than a few throwback bishops, preferably those that have been deposed so they will all look alike. And, here is the kicker, I have to admit I was incredibly and devastatingly wrong about Mr. Robert Duncan. I have said for years that he was pissed that a woman go t the job he so richly deserved and that he was out for his own province. Wrong, he is out for his own Communion! Why have a diocese when one can have a province and why have a province when one can have a communion.

So, let's get back to arguing about the Anglican Covenant so that we do not have to worry about this. If we do not feel stupid yet, just wait a little bit longer, it will become clearer in just a few months.

Archbishop Rowan Williams, I will ask you a question someone once asked me, "Got your resume up to date?"

A Call To Disband the Communion Partners

2011-06-21T22:47:00.000-07:00

There is a subversive group within the Episcopal Church in the United States designed to work from within to destroy the Episcopal Church. For those of you who do not know it, it refers to itself as the Communion Partners. In the interest of transparency, there are at least four former rectors from the diocese of San Joaquin that were mentored by Mr. John David Schofield. One of those authored the constitutional revisions that the Conelonialists used to split from the Episcopal Church of the United States. The interesting thing (at least one) is that these folks will not step up to the plate and declare their allegiance to the Global South. They would rather pretend (for the definition of pretend please ask Leonardo Ricardo, he can fill you in) they are "working within" the confines of the Episcopal Church for the betterment of the Episcopal Church. But let's look at their actions as based on their own commitments.

What follows is a direct quote from the CP website (in black) and the editorial comments (in blue).
Purpose:
Communion Partners

provide for those concerned a visible link to the Anglican Communion

The only real Anglicans in the United States belong to the Episcopal Church and we are already represented by the Presiding Bishop to the rest of the world.

Many within our dioceses and in congregations in other dioceses seek to be assured of their connection to the Anglican Communion. Traditionally, this has been understood in terms of bishop-to-bishop relationships. Communion Partners fleshes out this connection in a significant and symbolic way.

Again, the only real Anglicans in the United States are represented by the Presiding Bishop. She, has and continues to reassure the entire Episcopal community within the United states that we are "connected". I am unclear about this concept of "bishop to bishop" since each province is represented by the primate of that province. Our basic relationship within the Anglican Communion is Primate to Primate. The Communion partners have violated this concept on a number of occasions including a surreptitious meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury that was never sanctioned by our Presiding Bishop.

provide fellowship, support and a forum for mutual concerns between bishops

The House of Bishops in the United States provides a perfect opportunity for this. The idea that a combination of rectors and renegade bishops can do this better through some back door methodology is pure pride.

The Communion Partner bishops share many concerns about the Anglican Communion and its future and look to work together with Primates and Bishops from the wider Communion. In addition, we believe we all have need of mutual encouragement, prayer, and reassurance. The Communion Partners will be a forum for these kinds of relationships.

This is not their role. The role of a bishop is to provide pastoral care to their diocese. The role of the primates is to discuss Anglican Communion relationships. What pride! What ambition! Why do the diocese for which these power hungry folks come from allow them the time to do that. I bet these bishops are the same ones that tell their diocese that they do not have the time to meet with each church on a yearly basis.

provide a partnership to work toward the Anglican Covenant and according to Windsor Principles

This is not their job/role either. They should be directing the affairs of their diocese and allow the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies to take care of these events. They are usurping the role of the people who are elected and attend convention.

The Communion Partner bishops will work together according to the principles outlined in the Windsor Report and seek a comprehensive Anglican Covenant at the Lambeth Conference and beyond.

Once again, did the Presiding Bishop abdicate her role and did the deputies to convention abdicate their role so that this group that "clearly represents the majority of the Episcopal Church" could fill in for them?

This ragtag spawn of John David Schofield should be disbanded immediately. We do not need a bunch of cowards to weak to declare their allegiance to the Global South and too lustful of power and too much like their "friends" in Fort Worth and Pittsburgh and San Joaquin to really be a part of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America. Communion Partners please do not go away angry, just go away.

Let's Give The Anglican Covenant All The Time It Deserves

2011-06-19T08:00:00.000-07:00

The Anglican Covenant was born out of a combination of pure hate and absolute lust.
Those who put forth the covenant, primarily the Global South better known as Conelonialists, determined a long time ago to kill the Episcopal Church in the United States of America. As far as I can tell, the Anglican Church of Canada runs a real close second but the primary goal was/is to eliminate the Episcopal Church of the United States. This group hates women, as does little Bobby Duncan and big old "Texas" Jack Iker and rolly polly John David Schofield. It hates the LGBT community and has enlisted not only many unwitting laity from the United States but has found an incredibly strong financial partner in the Institute for Religion and Democracy. But make no mistake, the goal since before the year 2000, was to put the Episcopal Church out of business.  But the ultimate result is for this group of primates, Orombi, Akinola, Duncan, Jensen, Venables, et al, is to either completely take over the Anglican Communion OR to form a new Anglican Communion and take it over. In either case, and I believe they do not care which of these two results is the final one, they just want to be the power. Yes, it is lust, but it is lusting for power.

This group of primates, the Conelonialists, lust for power. Therein may be the reason why they are so intent on distracting everyone by use (or abuse) of the LGBT community. Read their documents from the Chapman Memo to the Jerusalem Declaration to everything in between. They are a lustful bunch hell bent on taking all the power they can get and using it for their own advantage. They accuse everyone else of carnal sins that violate the biblical commandments when all along it is they who are the real violators. Their lust for power consumes them all and they will not stop until they have what they want. Talk about out of control human beings, wow! Read their statements and see if this is not a perfect match!

And, the Archbishop of Canterbury is knee deep in this as well, but for a slightly different reason. He has been chosen by the Crown to lead the Church of England and by definition, the Anglican Communion. Why does he do what he does, generally violating his own personal faith and principles to get there? Because of power! He has been "chosen by the crown" (read that by God) to lead his community and he dare not let it slip away. Read the Archbishops books if you think it does not violate his personal beliefs.   His lust for power is one in holding the Communion together at all costs. He does not want to be the Archbishop that under his watch witnessed the destruction of the Anglican empire! So he balances everyone against the middle. See his latest antics if you do not believe that, he is holding the communion together at all costs, including his own soul. He cannot afford to have primates taking his power and wielding it like a sword cutting off "errant" provinces heads at a moments notice and on a whim. No, no, no, that just will never do. It is so messy and he can do so much better of a job. He does not want a split communion even though by definition the Conelonialists cannot be Anglican without him.
So you see, this covenant is something no one should even spend a moments worth of time on since it is born out of hatred and lsut and will serve no good no matter how one has "wrapped the present".   But, we (as well as every other province) struggles to come to grips with a stupid, worthless document that will serve no one any good at all. In the meantime, we watch as the Conelonialists continue their lustful charge for more power. They set up offices in England, the call for another GAFCON conference and we fiddle while Rome burns. If we do not snap out of this pretty quick we will deserve exactly what we get.

Ignorance Is Bliss

2011-06-18T14:05:00.000-07:00

I believe this is the new mantra for the Conelonialists. Why do I believe that? Well, the final Canadian Supreme Court decision has been out for days. Many bloggers have picked up on it and written about it. The problem is that none of the "biggies" have even mentioned the decision. What is the decision, you may ask. In a nutshell the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that the property that was stolen from the Anglican Church of Canada by the Conelonialists and there henchmen MUST be returned to the rightful owners, that would be the Anglican Church of Canada. Let me say this one more time so that everyone can understand -- The one, final and complete decision in Canada is that ALL the property stolen by the friends of the Anglican Church in North America must be returned to the Anglican Church of Canada.

Now, this, it would seem is good news for us in San Joaquin, Fort Worth, Quincy, Virginia, Pittsburgh and while Canada has nothing to do with us here in the United States it is big news for us. Except no one from Stand Limp to Title 1/9 and MJC and even Karaoke Land has never mentioned one word.

The only thing I can posit is that ignorance is bliss -- but you already knew that.

Death Be Not Proud

2011-06-17T20:30:00.000-07:00

DEATH be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadfull, for, thou art not so,
For, those, whom thou think'st, thou dost overthrow,
Die not, poore death, nor yet canst thou kill me.
From rest and sleepe, which but thy pictures bee,	5
Much pleasure, then from thee, much more must flow,
And soonest our best men with thee doe goe,
Rest of their bones, and soules deliverie.
Thou art slave to Fate, Chance, kings, and desperate men,
And dost with poyson, warre, and sicknesse dwell,	10
And poppie, or charmes can make us sleepe as well,
And better then thy stroake; why swell'st thou then;
One short sleepe past, wee wake eternally,
And death shall be no more; death, thou shalt die. John Donne I thought this to be appropo for the moment.

Real Anglicans Own Thier Own Property

2011-06-16T20:42:00.000-07:00

It appears that the long awaited day has arrived, at least in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada as well as two lower courts have ruled in favor of the Anglican Church in Canada. That is to say, the property that was absconded with by those who left the Anglican Church to form the Anglican Network in Canada have had their final day in court and lost. According to some records those ANiC folks spent over $1.3 million in their quest for recognition.

The current bishop, the Right Reverend Michael Ingham, tired and worn but quietly satisfied then said,
"The money, time, and energy taken up by this long and unnecessary conflict can now be directed back to the real work of the Church."
Cheryl Chang, special counsel to the ANiC, said Thursday the court decision was "extremely disappointing" and should be of concern to all Christians.
"While these congregations have remained steadfast in their faith, and have not changed the traditional teaching of the Christian church, they have now been called to sacrifice all their assets, including their church properties, for the sake of their faith."
Chang added: "We just have to find new places to worship."

I think the only way to interpret what Ms. Change says is as follows: "Remained steadfast in their faith means supported greedy, power hungry bishops in their quest for Anglican domination." "Have not changed the traditional teachings of the Christian Church (except modified the "Thou Shalt not steal commandment as authenticated by the Supreme Court of Canada)". "Have now been called to sacrifice all their assets including their church properties (I refer you to the commandment thou shalt not steal).

For those of you occupying the property here in San Joaquin that does not belong to you, and to those in all the other schismatic diocese that are occupying property that does not belong to them I call upon you to call your leaders to task for the sinful waste of your money (see the costs to ANiC ) and stop now and give the property back to the rightful owners. Now is better than later. You also can "just find new places to worship".

The Real Anglicans in Canada own their property as do the only Real Anglicans in the United States.

H/T Vancover Sun
H/T The Lead
H/T Diocese of New Westminister

How Many People Were At The Cross

2011-06-15T22:34:00.000-07:00

I am still flabbergasted at the Global South's infatuation with numbers, inflated, regurgitated, and created for the sole purpose of the personal gratification of people such as John David Schofield, Robert Duncan, Peter Akinola, Henry Luke Orombi, and Gregory Venables and Peter Jensen.
From the time I first came into the Diocese of San Joaquin these folks starting with John David Schofield have insisted that the way to heaven is through more and more and larger and larger numbers of people coming into the parish/diocese. That motivation has in part led to the idea that any action that might reduce those numbers is morally wrong. So, we get this little ditty from the man closest to virtue:

Bishop Chester Talton of the rump TEC Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin has told diocesan clergy that as of the Sunday of Pentecost, June 12, they may bless what a press release called "sacred unions."

The June 7 release said that, following consideration by the diocese's Equality Commission, "the clergy in the Diocese of San Joaquin may perform blessings of same-gender civil marriages, domestic partnerships and relationships which are lifelong committed relationships characterized by 'fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God.' "

Talton's authorization notes that because Episcopal Church canons and California law do not allow same-gender marriage, no diocesan priest may solemnize such a marriage until both sets of laws allow such an act, and the diocesan bishop specifically allows such solemnization. No priest is required to bless same-gender relationships.

San Joaquin's decision came in part, the release said, in response to General Convention Resolution C056 which states that "bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this church."

Now you know why the bulk of this diocese fled TEC and is now a member of the Anglican Church in North America.

One of the hallmarks of the continuing diocese of San Joaquin is we are now connected to the rest of the Episcopal Church. That connection develops into a strong desire to follow Christ particularly as it relates to including ALL of God's children in all of the sacraments -- marriage included. If in doing so it means that we lose some "membership" then so be it. If it means we were to lose all the membership then so be it. There were but a handful at the cross when Jesus died. We recognize that fact.

The Purple Shirts Are Coming! The Purple Shirts Are Coming!

2011-06-12T21:51:00.000-07:00

Here is the latest news from the other side:

Global South Primates are planning a second GAFCON in 2013 to be preceded by a leadership conference in New York in 2012. This can only be seen by Dr. Williams as a smack in the face against his authority as GAFCON represents more Anglicans than he does. What about the failure of pan-Anglican liberalism doesn't he understand?

And how do we know this? Well, not only has the website of GAFCON announced it but David Virtue has declared it to be true, and David Virtue would never lie to anyone.

That means the crack team of Gregory Venables, Peter Akinola, Henry Luke Orombi, Peter Jensen and the whole cast of :"Conelonialists come to town: one if by land and two if by sea." are coming to New York in 2012. These are the same fellows who gave safe harbor for the "Anglican" diocese of San Joaquin, Fort Worth, Pittsburgh and Quincy. In exchange these diocese have sent cash to these neer-do-wells particularly in the first year of their absconding with the property (including cash).

Well, I may have suggested this before but the time is really ripe what with the whole cast here in 2012. Let's issue subpoenas to each and everyone who has received any cash from these diocese on the premise that they are part of the grand theft church property. Then, let's request the police/state department to pull their passports and visas until the lawsuits can be settled. How long do you think it would be before the lawsuits were once and for all settled? You are reading correctly, let's wait till everyone gets to New York and then lock everyone in a room until the lawsuits are settled. What do you all think?

And just asking, but do you suppose anyone in GAFCON has asked the Presiding Bishop for her permission to come to New York, her hometown to hold this conference? Aren't we part of the Anglican Communion -- at least for a little while longer.

The Hallmarks of The Faux Anglican Diocese

2011-06-11T15:28:00.000-07:00

I am not sure anyone has yet to categorize those issues that are near and dear to the hearts of those who live in the world of Faux Anglicanism, better known as the Global South. Let us see if we can hit some of them today.

First, solo scripture -- the only thing that matters is scripture. God said it, I believe it, that is all there is to it. Please do not confuse me with the facts. And, it appears that the Old Testament carries more weight than the new testament. How do I know this? Well, read the blogs that cater to the Conelonialists and the Old Testament is more often quoted than any other thing (except Matt Kennedy). They seem to use the New Testament only when forced to and then just enough to dance on the head of a pin and no more. The most noted outcomes from this are the hatred for women and LGBT members of our community. They are always quick to point out how someone or some group is not fit to be at the rail with them or their minions but are real slow on the part about helping others such as Matthew 25.

Second, lots and lots and lots of male Bishops. I did a parody a few months back on this but it seems that there is just no end to the amount of bishops these folks want and need. The only other religious group that has more bishops than the Global South/ACNA would be the Mormons. you can always tell the lead up to a new one by the things the soon to be bishop talks about. I am humble, following the spirit, driven by the Lord, my path has led me to this since I was knee high to a grasshopper. And yet, the more they consecrate the more they fly all over the world. And, ever hear these folks talk about their "flock" except in raw numbers? I gots 40 billion, that is two billion more than the Catholics and 75 billion more than the Episcopal Church.

Third, speaking of raw numbers, the Global South/ACNA has this burning need to have more laity than any other group known to man including the Catholics. These folks like to proceed any conversation about the Episcopal Church in the United States with how many laity they have and how few (and getting fewer or is it lesser) the Episcopal Church has all the time. Why pretty soon, ACNA is going to have enough people to occupy several planets each one with at least forty bishops.

Fourth, they have a burning need to evangelize, especially the young families. They are out there all the time bringing in more and more and more to their church. Do you suppose it is fro the good of Christ? No, of course not. They simply want to tell the Archbishop of Canterbury how many kabillions of new Anglicans he will have when he recognizes ACNA as the new Anglicans in the United States.

Finally, they are fond of telling the world how the Archbishop has recognized the good friend of the Archbishop of Uganda who has recognized the Bishop of Farout who has recognized the priests and bishop of oh say, San Joaquin, which nullifies their being stripped of orders and therefore they have been sorta, kinda, almost for real recognized by the Anglican Communion.

There ya go, any thing else to add?

Hope I Die Before I Get Old --

2011-06-07T05:59:00.000-07:00

The heading is taken from a Who song in the early sixties entitled My Generation. I think, no I believe, that the 1960's were an extraordinary time. Many of us came of age, in more ways than one, during this tumultuous time. We rejected many of the staid and unprovable "facts of Life" in favor of a more thinking or at least a more thoughtful approach to the world. The political idea that you were either for us or against us crumbled with the Vietnam war. The social mores that there were white and black drinking fountains, and restrooms and soda fountains were rejected as separate but not really equal. We were brought up on VISTA and the PEACE Corps and service to one's community and country was the highest calling to which one could respond. Religiously, starting with the Catholic church the walls came down and the windows and doors were kicked open. My lament at this point in my life, is what the heck happened? We traded in on tie-dye for blue serge and our service to mankind in favor of service to ourselves.

I had a brief discussion with Mr. Dale (can't be father since he was defrocked) Matson in which for some strange reason, he and at least Mr. McAlister (both Conelonialists) find the whole world came crashing down when "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" came to the foreground in the 1960s. That it is my generation more than anything else that has caused them to reject everything we stand for and in order to return to those golden years of the 1930's??? (I guess). Our move to full inclusion is racked by secular humanism, not by Christ's two great commandments and it seems that punishment and not forgiveness is what Jesus/God is known for and how can we possibly get those two mixed up!

Why do I bring all this up? Am I hung up on the 60's? Well, actually I didn't start the discussion but I find their arguments to be so out of my world view as to be almost silly, if the argument was not so narrowly defined and in fact blinded by superficial facts. But, more importantly, I cannot live with a group that espouses a world view I cannot understand and do not believe in. So what you say? So, one more reason to move on as we are and IF the Anglican Communion moves with us fine, if it does not, no great loss.

People try to put us d-down (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
Just because we get around (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
Things they do look awful c-c-cold (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
I hope I die before I get old (Talkin' 'bout my generation)

This is my generation
This is my generation, baby

Why don't you all f-fade away (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
And don't try to dig what we all s-s-say (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
I'm not trying to cause a big s-s-sensation (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
I'm just talkin' 'bout my g-g-g-generation (Talkin' 'bout my generation)

The Big Huge Awful Terrible Lie!

2011-06-03T05:55:00.000-07:00

This is a huge lie. It is Coward and the Church of England's homosexuals (and TEC's) along with their refusal to be obedient to scripture that is destroying the Anglican Communion. It is why GAFCON/FCA exists. It is why there is a Jerusalem Declaration and why a Covenant will not hold the Anglican Communion together. It is why Primates of the Global South will never sit down again with Katharine Jefferts Schori or attend another Primates meeting. They will never be seen in the same room with her. The only time they will be seen on US soil is to announce the date for the next GAFCON meeting in Jerusalem or to converse with ACNA Archbishop Robert Duncan.

Here we have a direct quote from the one who, believes if you say something long and loud enough everyone will believe it.

I am going to skip all the niceties, all the subtle nuances and get to the heart of the matter. No, those in GAFCON/FCA, especially the Americans (and we all know who they are by now), use this LGBT thing as a ruse. The Americans have joined the Global South to grab as much power as they can. These folks literally lust after power. That is the most un-Christian thing of it all -- they beat up a small vulnerable segment of society in order to accrue as much earthly power as is possible.

That is the long and the short of it!

To My Comrades: Memorial Day 2011

2011-05-30T10:47:00.000-07:00

'nuf said.

Everybody is An Expert!

2011-05-29T15:51:00.000-07:00

Do tell, seems everyone is an expert. From education, I went to school so I must know how to run an educational institution to our professional military. We have taken the idea of "do it yourself" way to far. For the most recent example, here is the mouthpiece of the Ahmanson's, David Anderson;

This weekend is when the United States remembers all of those in the Armed Forces who have given their life for the cause of their country since our founding as a nation. In addition to giving thanks for the price paid by those who served - those killed, wounded, or safely returned - and how they have defended our freedom and liberty, let all Americans be vigilant so that this price was not paid in vain. Since we are in difficult times and the military leaders are being pushed to accept "progressive" social viewpoints, let us pray for our military leaders, that they truly will have the brass to stand up to the social agenda many politicians are pushing, and the pressures from a President whose stand is already clear.

Seems that Mr. Anderson has decided that the leaders of our armed forces are driven by a social agenda. Clearly, Mr. Anderson has no concept of what or how or why the Joint Chiefs of Staff make decisions. I will say this, most, in fact I believe all, have faced combat at one time or another in their careers. Certainly those in the Army and Marine Corps have -- if not Iraq, Afghanistan or Viet Nam. Mr. Anderson has already decided for the Joint Chiefs that having someone next to you in combat that is LGBT will hamper your chances of staying alive. Clearly, Mr. Anderson has never EVER been in combat. With bullets and RPGs and mortars flying all around no one cares about one's sexual orientation and certainly no one is going to ask you about it. I was in tanks, and tanks are staffed by four persons. I never asked and I never cared -- we were too close to worry about those things. We relied on each other to stay alive -- that, for me is the issue and I think that is the issue for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Let me be clear, I had no social agenda in my tank other than staying alive and the people I worked with never let me down and I never let them down. Mr. Anderson, you ouht to stick to what you know -- if there is anything.

Any More Questions?

2011-05-28T10:52:00.000-07:00

Well, the revelations over the past few days by Colin Slee and the "bigwigs" in the Church of England should have removed all doubt about the Anglican Communion and the Anglican Covenant. Many in and out of the Episcopal Church in the United States have talked and debated and discussed and thought and prayed all to the end that we must slowly and deliberately consider this Anglican Communion. Now we find out that we were all "getting played" by the guy that could not imagine a world without the Anglican Communion being led by the Archbishop of Canterbury and his right hand guy, the Archbishop of York.

Well, way back when I wrote this "Isn't There Something About Lying ++Rowan Williams". And a little later we wrote this about his work "Tokens of Trust". And I wrote this about the similarities between Rowan Williams and Neville Chamberlain. All in all I wrote about the machinations of the Archbishop of Canterbury almost 25 times. What I suspected has now been proven to be true. The fact is the (arch) Bishop has transformed himself into a pawn. A pawn of those forces that seek unity in place of God. The forces that seek hegemony instead of universality. The forces that seek to destroy anyone or anything that gets in the way of power and corruption. The forces that seek to refuse to accept Christ's commandment to reach out into the world and love your neighbor AS YOURSELF.

There is an old adage that goes "absolute power corrupts absolutely" and once again we have first hand knowledge of that. Now, I ask the question I have asked on many occasions, "Is this the Anglican Communion that we (the Episcopal Church in the United States of America) wish to remain in communion with? It is not just the refusal of the Archbishop to accept, really and truly accept, LGBTI persons as fully God's children but it is the evil and mean spirited ways in which the Archbishop of Canterbury has gone about keeping them out of full inclusion. The lying, the cheating, the power-grabbing, the two-faced bold-faced untruths that he has told not only in his writing but in his daily actions. Is this what we aspire to? Is this what we wish to remain a part of? Is this what we long for in our relationships both here and abroad? Is this the head of OUR Communion?

I will once again renew my plaint that we must be about the business our Lord and his father created for us. If others wish to follow fine, if not fine. But, let's not fool ourselves any longer. "As for me and my house, we will follow the Lord."

John Guernsey Finally Gets What He Really Wants -- A Real Purple Shirt

2011-05-24T05:56:00.000-07:00

Many, many years ago, in a land called Virginia, our family was one of 36 families that made a difference in a place called Dale City. We began as a mission of St. Margret's, Woodbridge, VA and met in an elementary school cafeteria that served on Sundays as our "little church". From that came a growing and loving community that Father Chuck Stein nurtured and developed. Then, Father Stein retired and we began the arduous search for a new rector. During the interim we had a marvelous woman, one of the first ever ordained, and then, John AM Guernsey. John was smart, talented, a good preacher and very ambitious. From the very beginning, he believed he was marked for greatness.

We left that parish in 1983 and travelled back to the land of our ancestors. John stayed and worked hard but apparently never quite made it to bishop -- until the Ugandans decided he should have a purple shirt. Listening at times (actually reading) John was never completely comfortable until now. He has been elected bishop of the Mid-Atlantic faux thingy that is part of the pretend church in America -- Yep, ACNA. To read his submissions to the selection committee reads like any other anxious, ambitious, over-reaching priest with a need to be a bishop. Clearly not satisfied with his work as a pastor, even in a huge flock, loved by most of that group, his need to be a bishop has driven him, just like so many others in that fakeAnglican group. Names like Minns and Thompson and yes, even in our own circle, Daniel Martins.

It is interesting to note that in John's most recent missives he needed to be a bishop, consecrated in the United States. Why, I have no real idea other than ambition and perhaps envy.

"Such men as he be never at heart's ease whiles they behold a greater than themselves, and therefore are they very dangerous."

Congratulations John, you finally got what you have sought most of your ordained life.

The Elasticity of the Anglican Communion

2011-05-22T07:15:00.000-07:00

There are segments still debating the Anglican Covenant prior to a vote at Convention. Folks are still looking for reasons to either support or defeat the Covenant. If there are pros and cons; if there are good things and bad things about the covenant then I believe less is more.

Let us begin with putting lipstick on a pig. Many claim that the "new" version of the covenant is so much better than the old version. That the basis for creating the covenant, namely Windsor 1.10 and the actions of both TEC and the Anglican Church in Canada in their radical inclusivity are no longer the point. Well, I think a bad idea is a bad idea no matter how one dresses it up. The pig, is still the pig.

Let us talk about the "consequences" clause of the covenant. Better to be on the inside working to moderate those issues than to be on the outside? What a waste of time and by the way, there will be times when one is not the majority nor could one swing a majority and then what? We argue and we fight and we discuss and we debate and we endlessly struggle when our energy should/could be better spent working Christ's saving grace in the world. Why would anyone in their right Christian mind stop to argue about issues that have absolutely no bearing on our work in the world? We have already spent way too much time on a document that has no real flavor and we must be about God's work in the world. If we want to spend this much time on a concept how about we figure out what we, the Episcopal Church in the United States really do stand for and articulate that in some form of a strong, loving, Christian statement that brings people to TEC and through TEC to the saving grace of our Lord and Savior. Wow! what a concept.

Finally, the Anglican communion is incredibly elastic. For years we have struggled with evangelical, orthodox, liberal, high church and low church and all sorts of issues have come and gone. Some times we hug everyone and sometimes we don't. We have done this without benefit of primates and archbishops handing down their brand of Christianity. The idea of "take it or leave it" is a false dichotomy that no one needs to subscribe to, lest of all us. Let's not take the elasticity out of the Anglican Communion and replace it with some half baked notion that if one archbishop is good than two must be better and a gaggle of archbishops must be best.Let us reject this document because we are much more open to God's word and much more able to move with the Spirit, that is what the elasticity does for all of us.

The Anglican Covenant began as a bad idea, it continues to be a bad idea, and it continues to occupy our time way out of proportion. We do not NEED a covenant, no one does. Let us continue just as we are and get on with our Savior's business. As Jesus once said, "Let the dead bury the dead."

Here We Go Again

2011-05-16T20:44:00.000-07:00

The Anglican Covenant just will not go away. Here is the latest from Tobias Haller and In a Godward direction. His latest is Capacity and Potentiality. One of the drawbacks of the three-legged stool approach is rational people can disagree and must discuss. Tobias says we should support the covenant because it does not mean what it set out to mean and because it is better to be a part of the process where a process is inevitable. (Sure hope I got that right). I think Tobias Haller is a clear, rational, logical thinker who explores all avenues and comes to well-thought out conclusions. This time, he is just wrong.

The Anglican Covenant is a bad idea. If the Anglican Communion wants to stay together it has all the wherewithal right now. Been together since 1878 or so been functioning just fine for lo these many years. Did I mention that the Anglican Covenant is a bad idea? We can put lipstick on that pig but whose gonna kiss the pig? A bad idea is a bad idea and no amount of ribbons and bows is going to make it more attractive. You want a covenant? See the baptismal covenant? You want a covenant, see the two great commandments? You want to use and abuse people? See GAFCON/FCA/CANA and the rest of the alphabet soup.

Being a part of the process merely legitimizes the process, especially for those that look to The Episcopal Church of the Untied States for Leadership? Being a part of the process compromises the Episcopal Church's stance on inclusivity. Being a part of the process sounds a little like 1939, especially as it involves the LGBT community.

Sometimes a little rebellion is a good idea, just ask Thomas Jefferson. If the only choice is the Anglican Covenant with the Anglican Communion or no Anglican Communion. Well, to the Anglican Communion I will say, "Don't let the door hit you on the way out."

H/T Tobias Haller

Absolutely, Positively, The Last Time I Will Write About the Anglican Covenant (Until Next time)

2011-05-16T05:54:00.000-07:00

The REAL Anglican Covenant: "Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’^[a] ³⁸ This is the first and greatest commandment. ³⁹ And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’^[b] ⁴⁰ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Matthew 22:37-40. This passage also appears in Mark and Luke in slightly different language but the same covenant.

Once again, many of our most learned members of the Episcopal Church continue to grind on the Anglican Communion Covenant. Is this not a waste of time, talent, and treasure? Could these folks better spend their time figuring out "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin"?

We are the Episcopal Church of the United States of America and by now, it is clear to the international community that the covenant we follow is summed up in the two great commandments. Nothing is going to change that. Nothing is going to somehow magically change the voices of those who would punish and kill those members of our community that wish to "have life abundantly". We work on our relationship with God and our neighbor virtually everyday and nothing he Global south or the folks that like to confess everything but their sins against their fellow man/woman can say or do to stop us.

So I ask, why all the "deep and serious" writing about "The Anglican Covenant"? If it is because the Archbishop of Canterbury "asked" us to I need to say why? The last time that happened in any serious vein I think we formed and Army and beat the snot out of Cornwallis. Do we think that somehow the "Anglican Communion" in all it's glory outweighs the message in Matthew, Mark, and Luke? I certainly hope not. Does it make any sense at all to "review and discuss and vote" on a covenant that will set up the primates so that they can then be the new and improved Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? For my money, I have heard nothing from a single one of them, including the Archduke of ACNA and the Global South that even closely approximates the message Jesus gave us. Why then would we allow this bigoted, mean-spirited, evil group of men "run the Anglican Communion" let alone tell us how and what to think.

This covenant deserves no time, no energy, no more paper and ink and no more thought. We need to use our precious resources to serve the hungry, needy, naked, and imprisoned. We need to be about "our Father's business."

De Plan(e) ... De Plan(e) ... De Plan(e)

2011-05-15T07:52:00.000-07:00

As the scene opens there is a plane circling Heathrow Airport and a former bishop from San Joaquin is waiting with a limousine and a driver. Suddenly, John David looks up, sees the plane with faux bishop Martyn Minns on board and begins to yell ... well you know how that story goes, we've seen it on TV about a few hundred times, except that life is frequently stranger than fiction.

What seems like 20 years ago was only 2007 when former bishop, now Mr. Schofield, announced that he was taking his diocese with him to get closer to Canterbury. He made the rounds to virtually every parish in the San Joaquin Diocese and explained that for many reasons, but chiefly the issue of remaining close to the archbishop of Canterbury and "our" Anglican history, it was necessary to break away from the apostate Episcopal Church of the United States in order to stay in communion with the Anglican Communion.

So Mr. Schofield took a large chunk of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin into what could only be called "purgatory" (the place between heaven (Canterbury) and hell (TEC,)). Note that until now, and despite the many and varied lies being told by not only John David but Bob Duncan and Jack Iker as well as others the ACNA, the breakaway diocese of San Joaquin, Quittsburgh, and Fort Wrath, have never been recognized or accepted (tacitly or other wise) by Canterbury. That means that their orders are still not valid and the sacraments they have tried to confer, including ordination and consecration are not valid. I mention that in passing for our laity in these diocese who some how think they have been receiving valid sacraments lo these last few years.

Now, the plan, ah yes, the ever changing always one step ahead plan of these neer-do-wells has brought them a fake bishop in a real place in England. How much more clever of a ruse can one get than to set up their version of the Anglican Communion in of all places, Anglicanland! Yep, Martyn Minns is going to head up the new GAFCON/FCA version of the Anglican Communion in merry olde England. How much better can it get? The global south gets rid of the millstone (and the charge of incursions), the silly little people who still think they are bishops in some branch of the church get to claim they are Anglican, Martyn Minns gets as much power (maybe more) than Archduke Duncan and all the laity gets to finally be claimed by someone in England as being part of some version of the Anglican Communion. Yep, it can only be minutes before Minns recognizes the ACNA as part of the world wide Anglican Communion, whopee! Or better, abracadabra, open your eyes and see we are now the Anglican Communion.

What started out as a stupid little movement in the United States by a few men who could not stand to be given orders by a woman and who wanted more and more power has turned into a colossal cluster "****" involving the entire Anglican Communion and making most of that communion irrelevant, including themselves.

Mr. Schofield, Mr. Chapman, Mr. Duncan, thanks so very much, we find your plan to be unacceptable. Please do not go away mad, just go away!

More later.

H/T Fr. Mark

What Is The Mightest Navy In The World Afraid Of? Hint: Initials stand for Republican

2011-05-13T18:02:00.000-07:00

Well, what do you think would scare the stuffing out of the United States Navy? The Iraqi navy? No way1 The Russian Navy? Absolutely not! How about the maritime marauders of the world, the British? Nope, it ain’t them at all! So who do you think would scare the strongest, mightiest, bravest Navy in the world? Yep, it is the Republican Party. Specifically, you may remember that the Navy only a few days ago approved the use of Navy base chapels for same-sex blessings. Now, there were some caveats, but none the less the Navy’s highest authority approved this. See my blog Is Hate A Republican Value?. In that same article the Christian right-wing tea-party folks raised objections. The same old tired garbage, the Defense of Marriage Act. (Never mind that their own justice department will not defend against suits brought in opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act, just ask Eric Holder, Attorney-General.)

Well, the mightiest Navy in the world has “cowtowed” to the Republican Christian right. And, here is what was said,

"There was some attention on the Hill," Pentagon spokesman Col. Dave Lapan told reporters Wednesday morning. "That raised the issue so that the (Pentagon) legal counsel then again took a look (and) determined it needed further review."

I particularly like the segment, “there was some attention on the Hill” . That is akin to saying that Japan had an earth tremor last month. The pleasant euphemism for the Christian right is “attention on the Hill”.

At this point I would like to point out the Navy Seal Team 6 flew into Pakistan with no prior warning, one helicopter crashed, and still they took out Osama bin Laden, about three other bad guys, and left as quietly as they came in. How could this same group, albeit on a larger scale, be so concerned about a little attention on the Hill as to make a public reversal on a huge public statement that came from the highest authority in the Navy?

On the other side of the issue, Servicemembers United Executive Director Alexander Nicholson insisted the Navy was within its rights on same-sex marriage policy.

Nicholson said the Pentagon should not be distracted by "pressure from reactionaries."

"At a time when the economy still needs attention, Osama bin Laden was just killed, and revolution and conflict continue to rage across a fragile Middle East, having policy makers spend valuable and limited time on whether a few gay couples may or may not use a Navy facility for a private ceremony at some point in the future is just plain silly," Nicholson said in a statement sent to CNN.

"The Navy was right in their analysis last month that nothing stands in the way of operating facilities without discrimination, and further review will no doubt validate that position," said Michael Cole-Schwartz, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, which supports same-sex marriage.

So, like the incursion into Pakistan, if they got it right, what is the problem? (hint: money)

Is HATE the Real Republican Agenda?

2011-05-10T05:54:00.000-07:00

Since the election of last fall and the entry of the "T-party" folks it seems that the real agenda for the Republicans is HATE! They hate the poor, because the poor need help like food stamps, health care and head start. The Republicans hate the the middle class. All those civil servants giving up a lifetime to serve the needs of the people and then expecting a pension? Well, no T-party person worth their salt is going to let that happen! They hate the unions because the unions have brought better wages, better working conditions and better retirement systems. They hate kids otherwise why would they try to educate a student on no revenue in order to protect the rich? And they certainly hate the LGBT community, especially the part where everyone is treated with equity.

The US Navy announced recently that they were going to allow same-sex weddings to take place on/in Navy chapels in places that do not violate state laws. See Navy Allows to read the whole article. This is all in response to the DADT change in policy. But,

A letter from Rep. Todd Akin, R-Missouri, to the secretary of the Navy asking him to block the change has been signed by 63 members of Congress, according to Akin's website.

Akin says the Navy's permission for gay weddings in military chapels, once the current policy formally is ended, would violate the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Now, we already know that the Department of Justice will refuse to defend this silly and hateful law but apparently the T-party doesn't care about that, or anything else. C;learly the Republican party simply want to pursue their agenda of HATE.

Hat Tip To CNN

Osama bin Laden: A Birdwalk

2011-05-07T22:26:00.000-07:00

So very much has been written about the killing of Osama bin Laden and I think I have read most of the work. Most recently the work of NT Wright in the Church Times: The US plays with myths of heroism
and I think I am sorry I have. There is way too much hand wringing and worrying over the surgical strike that killed Osama bin Laden. Wright discusses the perceived need for a international body to "handle" these types of situations. I think not, the interests of a nation are far to important to water down and trust to an international group that has politics as its basic mode of operation. Nations are from time to time required to act in their own best interests. This was one of those cases.

Wright then goes on to talk about the Christian gospel still "waiting". This will not garner me any friends but I would choose for this world to be not ruled by a faith based process. The problem with theocracies is that it becomes a matter of interpretation and I am unimpressed with any one's interpretation of "God's will" on this earth -- be it God or Allah or Shiva or Confucius or any other "god". I am willing to allow for those things to be rendered to Caesar and those things rendered to God, so as to speak.

Finally, Wright ways, ": (a) the forces of law and order are weak and inefficient; (b) the bad guys are getting away with it; (c) the hero has to act outside the law, under cover, to perform the redemptive violence that will restore order to the embattled community. "

So we can set the record straight, the international forces of law and order are weak and inefficient. The bad guys do get away with it, even God admits that. And, it is a matter of interpretation if the hero has to act outside the law, under cover to perform redemptive violence that will restore order.

And yes, if there was a group of "pick your favorite terrorist group" was hiding out in the United States and the US refused to do anything about it after a significant terrorist act was performed by this group, then another country could swoop in and resolve the issue and I do not think I would mind nor do I think our government would mind.

What the Untied States did after September 11 was promise that the perpetrators would be found and captured or killed. We simply fulfilled on that promise. To do less would have given license to the forces of evil to do it all over again. Action with consequence is a basic disciplinary rule.

This is Real Anglicans and this post is a basic bird walk from my usual stuff, I apologize.

Real Anglicans ARE Fully Inclusive

2011-04-30T16:05:00.000-07:00

This is right from the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin.

Dear Friends,

This Friday Reflection contains the Authorization for the Blessing of Sacred Union. I commend this to the Diocese of San Joaquin.

AUTHORIZATION FOR THE BLESSING OF SACRED UNIONS

Since its reorganization in March 2008, the Diocese of San Joaquin has made incredible progress in recognizing a basic truth expressed in 1976 in Resolution A069 of the 65th General Convention, which stated in part, "That it is the sense of this General Convention that homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church."

Since that time the Church has continued to examine what that full and equal claim means. In 2009, the 76th General Convention passed Resolution C056, which directed the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to "collect and develop theological and liturgical resources" as they relate to the blessing of same gender relationships. That task is in progress and the results are to be reported to the 77th General Convention in 2012. In the interim, Resolution C056 stated that, "bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church." With respect to the nature of the relationships being considered, they are described in Resolution D025, a related resolution as, "lifelong committed relationships 'characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God' (2000-D039)."

In 2009, at its Annual Convention, the Diocese of San Joaquin adopted a resolution supporting C056. Further, following the Annual Convention in 2010, the Commission on Equality, along with Bishop Lamb, hosted a forum on the issue of blessing same gender unions. The forum was well attended and the sense of the forum was that the Diocese is ready to take the next step in full inclusion and support the blessing of these unions.

California currently finds itself in an odd position regarding same gender marriage and unions in that for a short time in 2008, same gender marriages were lawful. The passage of Proposition 8 in November 2008 added a provision to the California Constitution which limited marriages to the union of a man and a woman. This was swiftly challenged. The California Supreme Court, in the case Strauss v. Horton, ruled that Proposition 8 was valid, but would not apply to those same gender couples who were lawfully married prior to the November 2008 general election. This constitutes approximately 18,000 couples whose marriages are legally recognized despite Proposition 8.

California also permits the formation of Domestic Partnerships under state law for same gender couples as well as opposite sex couples if one or both of the persons is 62 years of age or older. These Domestic Partnerships confer upon the couple all of the rights and responsibilities which pertain to marriage under California law.[1]

We must also recognize that there are same gender couples in relationships which reflect the characteristics set forth above who have not entered in Domestic Partnerships, perceiving them to be inferior to marriage, and who, for various reasons, did not or could not marry during the brief time when same gender marriages were legal.

Couples in such relationships are part of the Diocese of San Joaquin. They are in our congregations and in positions of leadership. They are our friends, neighbors, and brothers and sisters in Christ. It is now time, to the extent permitted by California law and the Canons of The Episcopal Church, to extend to these couples the "generous pastoral response" necessary to meet their needs as members of this Church.

Effective on Pentecost, June 12, 2011, clergy in the Diocese of San Joaquin may perform blessings of same gender civil marriages, domestic partnerships, and relationships which are lifelong committed relationships characterized by "fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God."[2] Said relationships shall be called "Sacred Unions" for purposes of the blessing and recognition of these relationships. A liturgy authorized for use within the Diocese will be published separately.

It must also be recognized that the Canons of the Church currently limit marriages to opposite sex couples[3], as does California law. Accordingly, until such time as both the Canons and state law permit the solemnization of the marriage of a same gender couple, and specific authorization of the bishop is given, no priest of this Diocese shall attempt to solemnize a marriage between two persons of the same gender.

It is to be understood that no clergy will be required to perform these blessings in contravention of his or her beliefs and conscience. However, prior to June 12, 2011, all clergy are encouraged to engage in open discussion of this matter with members of their congregations, particularly those who are members of Vestries or Bishop's Committees.

May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers and sisters,

+Chet

It is not perfect, but it is not complete either. And for the Epsicopal Diocese of San Joaquin this is a huge step into Christ's ever-present love.

Rattle Your Windows and shake Down Your Walls!

2011-04-25T08:54:00.000-07:00

I was lucky enough to live in So Cal and saw these guys when they were a "warm up" group. A warm up group?!

Random Thoughts On The Covenant This Holy Week

2011-04-21T05:53:00.000-07:00

As we move into the the most sacred time of the year I offer some random thoughts on our proposed covenant. I am hopeful they are not lost in some morass of global warfare.

Jesus allowed both Judas and Peter to exercise their free will and pick what they would do? Both picked wrong but, when one asked for forgiveness was not denied the love no one deserves but everyone gets.

Jesus instituted the Eucharist and gave it freely to all the disciples, men and women. And, to punctuate the need to be a servant, washed everyone's feet. Not only did one servant need to wash but all servants needed to allow their feet to be washed. Not some, all.

Jesus was not very popular, especially among the orthodox members of the Jewish tradition. The Pharisees and Sadducee's grew to hate him for hanging out with sinners, tax collectors, all the general riffraff of the day. But they condemned him to death when he told them they ought to do the same.

Jesus wept. Jesus asked for everyone to weep for the world. Is it possible that death and destruction should be met with tears rather than death and destruction?

Do you suppose Simon of Cyrene would have preferred justice to mercy?

What better covenant do we have, do we need, should we build than the cross and the tomb? A death he freely accepted so that we might all have life.

The Orthodox Way of Counting

2011-04-17T16:14:00.000-07:00

Our friend over in virtueless land is making things up once again. Much as the orthodox folks like to "count" the "billions and billions served" by way of the Global south/GAFCON he has now published a letter "demanding" that the Episcopal Church 'splain all the litigation dollars spent. Never mind that those Anglicans that have lost their way are spending millions and millions of hard earned and hard saved dollars they took with them and believe they can spend any old way they want (see old what's his name in Colorado) including suing every Episcopalian in sight. These folks had a chance to consolidate several cases in California and thereby cut costs and they fought the saving of funds every inch of the way. Not because they think they can win, but rather the goal is to attempt to run the Episcopal Church out of funds.

So, what gives now? Well there is this letter from a group supposedly attached to the Episcopal Church:

The Trust Fund Coalition

c/o American Anglican Council of Washington, Inc.
and the Anglican Laity Fellowship, Inc.
email: info@aac-washington.net
301-542-343

So I decided to go and see just who this group is? Far as I can tell it is nothing more than a front group for our favorite virtueless writer. For example, here is one of the groups "supporting" this Trust Fund Coalition.

The American Anglican Council of Washington (AAC-W) is a non-profit 501-(3)-(c) Church organization with Clergy and Lay members in the Episcopal Church (TEC) or the Anglican Communion-North America (AC-NA).

Now, when was the last time you saw ACNA and TEC in the same 501(c)(3)? Never would be a pretty good guess.

And here are the "resources" cited:

AMERICAN ANGLICAN COUNCIL OF WASHINGTON, INC. www.aac-washington.net

AMERICAN ANGLICAN COUNCIL www.americananglican.com

VIRTUEONLINE www.virtueonline.org

So, let's just say that perhaps the first step in resolving this difficulty would be for the various diocese in ACNA that have taken the property (cash included) to reveal how much they have spent on litigation and perhaps share with the Episcopal Church why they fought the consolidation of court cases that would have saved them time and money and saved the Episcopal Church the same.

Conelonialists Must Come Clean!

2011-04-12T22:50:00.000-07:00

The "orthodox" Anglican Conelonialists have harped on "just how much is TEC spending on litigation?" and I find that question to be laughable. Why? Well, one need look no further than the "Anglican Defense Fund". This is the brainchild of Mr. John David Schofield. He has decided that his brand of distinctly "non-anglican" worship coupled with the stolen property of The Episcopal Church is worthy of folks sending Mr. Schofield much money to "fight the evildoers".

Here is the problem with that. First it is important that he, Mr. Schofield, come clean on just how much money has been collected through this defense fund (though I think it is more offensive rather than defensive). In addition, how much of the funds collected through this fund were spent specifically on the legal fees incurred by the various parishes within his faux diocese to keep their stolen property. Also, Mr. Schofield has absconded with millions of dollars of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin cash reserves. How much of those has Mr. Schofield spent on legal fees and how much has he spent on his crystal and china? Assuming that the real Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin has found most if not all of the funds Mr. Schofield shoved in his pockets while heading to South America and that those funds are tied up in the legal battle, just where is the legal defense fund coming from? Are they/he mortgaging the property that is not theirs in order to fund the defense of their ill-gotten gain?

And, how much of this defense fund is going to other diocese with in the Continental United States? How much of these funds have gone to Archduke Venables and the sad story of his personal residence?

Mr. Schofield, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Venables how much have you shared with your own mis-guided parishioners? Or maybe this is too sensitive to share with just lay people?!

The Bible Says It, I Believe It, Don't Talk To Me!

2011-04-10T07:56:00.000-07:00

As I view the current political landscape I am growing frightened by the lack of real dialogue that goes on these days. While clearly there is this problem in the House of Representatives, specifically those newcomers to the House, it's presence is significantly felt in our Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.

There is a post over at a not-to-be-named "Orthodox" website by a priest that clearly sets the tone and tenor of Christian apology at angry. The post goes from 0 to angry in about two lines and then he sets himself up against any discussion by saying that Jesus would truck no discussion why should we? Well, words to that affect.

From a theoretical perspective, the folks over there would have us believe that this is Biblical anger, not unlike that which Jesus undertook in the Temple. But look more closely, please, it is hatred "justified" by biblical anger. It sounds to me like the same rationale used by the Ku Klux Klan for over a century and it smacks of the same approach that Hitler used to attempt to eradicate the Jews. And how does this play out practically?

First, that seems to be in line with the lack of reason that the new Anglicans wish to promote inside our communion. The three-legged stool no longer exists for this group. Solo Scriptura is the only thing that matters and discussion and true discernment can ONLY be what an elite few say it can be (if you don't believe that read the proposed Anglican Covenant). But they take this hard edge, this anger against the world and promote it. The "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any longer" only works in movies folks. It has no place in society, certainly not a free and democratic one. And yet, this same group of people that now occupy a small corner of the House of Representatives is not only saying that but practicing it as well. It is this type of anger that fuels the murders of men and women both here at home and worldwide. They will argue against it but the fact remains that this hatred leads to violence. Don't believe me see Uganda, Nigeria, Rwanda, Wyoming, Oxnard, Texas and just about everywhere.

The current climate both in and out of our Communion is growing in anger and hatred. If that is what the new Anglican Communion is all about, if it is only a little about, if there is only a small circle of people who "stand firm" then there is no doubt in my mind not only MUST we reject the Anglican Covenant but it is time to leave the Anglican Communion.

How About A Simple No?

2011-04-06T06:00:00.000-07:00

We continue to struggle and search and research and study and re-study the proposed Anglican Covenant. This transparent document is designed to punish the Episcopal Church in the United States of America for all the perceived mis-guided antics we have perpetrated on the Anglican Communion since 1979.

The GAFCON/Global South continues to search for the latest and greatest way to ostracize the Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion. In addition, the Conelonialists want to set up a tribunal of sorts made of those primates who believe that only they can interpret what God wants us to do and to assure themselves that something like what has happened in the Episcopal Church never ever happens again.

We in the Episcopal Church, and elsewhere, take this so very seriously that we have read and studied and written and researched until that is just about all we do. After all, we do not want the world to think that we are not taking the Global South seriously, do we?

Think of all the time, staff power, paper, blogs, parishes and diocese that have been consumed by this antic. Then think of what we could have been doing in the world had we simply said NO. Think of all the people we could have helped, all the work we could have put into ERD and the earthquake in Haiti and Japan and all the work needed in Africa.

The answer to the Anglican Covenant is simply, No.Now, let's get on with what Jesus wants us to do.

The Faith Once Handled

2011-04-04T20:18:00.000-07:00

I find it amazing that the Southern Cone/GAFCON/Great Pretenders/Conelonialists work so hard to make their points. They have conferences and secret meetings and Primates meetings and all sorts of meetings to lay their claim to the faith once handled.

Do you suppose that Jesus worked this hard? He wandered from place to place usually at a leisurely pace (save perhaps the meeting of the Samaritan woman at the well) and managed to grow the faith with out counting how many bishops and followers he had. Do you suppose there is a missing gospel where Jesus is found to spend each evening counting the number of followers he has or picked up that day. He fed 5,000 people with a couple of loaves and some fish and sent everyone home with leftovers. Would Mr. Duncan or Mr. Minns try something like that he would need Bill Gandenberger to count up the number of people sitting on the hill, estimate those that would eat and those that would fast and then subtract the number of gays and lesbians and go shopping to get the necessary food. In the meantime they would teach the Alpha Course to all those on the hill while making sure that no one had an original thought.

Or how about when Jesus turned water into wine. Mom came and talked with her son and the next thing there was more wine. I wonder what would happen if Bishop Orombi's mom came up to him and asked him to play nice. There would be renting of garments, reading of scriptures, two conferences (one in Australia and the other in Jerusalem), three Primate meetings of which four Primates would attend one while seven missed that one but made the third one but only because they all stayed in separate rooms and no one touched anyone else (or talked to Bishop Robinson).

It appears that the faith once handled by the GAFCONeers has been massaged and kneaded and left to mold for a while until Jesus and the faith he left to them is unrecognizable.

Is Springfield Getting Ready to Leave The Episcopal Church?

2011-03-27T07:44:00.000-07:00

Well, much to the chagrin of many people in the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, the Reverend Dan Martins become a bishop. Over the course of the last few months he was questioned about whether he would leave the Episcopal Church for some other brand of "Anglicanism" and he has said he would not.

What do the signs say? By signs I mean who Bishop Martin hangs with, who trained him and what are his past practices.

Past practice. He was vehemently in favor of the Diocese of San Joaquin leaving the Episcopal Church. I do not care what he says now, I do not care what others have said, I know what I heard him say. He was Mr. John David Schofield's righthand man. He did Mr. Schofield's bidding. He met on at least one occasion and debated with our Remain Episcopal group. It was not long after that, that Fr. Miller left the diocese, chased out by hurtful and despicable clergy. At that meeting, that night, then Fr. Martins clearly and unequivocally stated the only thing that could be done was the leave the Episcopal Church. And, he wrote the canons that took the diocese out of the the Episcopal Church. He says he left because he was not in favor of the move. What typically happens is Mr. Schofield finally double-crosses his underlings and they leave. I believe that is what happened here, to Fr. Martins.

Mentoring/training. Bishop Martins was mentored by Mr. Schofield. Mr. Schofield on many occasions, stated he would never leave the Episcopal Church, yet he did. Mr. Schofield sent at least two pastoral letters indicating he would not leave the Episcopal Church. Then, he said it was the Episcopal Church that had left him. Then, much like Pilate, on the day of the convention in which the convention voted to leave, Mr. Schofield rent his garments and said, "My flock has spoken. What can I do but continue to lead them in the path of righteousness." Bishop Martins has learned these lessons well. Read his statements. Check out the Communion Partners website. I have to say, it sounds just like the early days of John David Schofield.

The company he keeps. The Presiding Bishop was at his consecration. But then, she is the Presiding Bishop. But who else was there? The ENS news article read like the Communion Partners website. This included Bishop Ed Little and Bishop Mark Lawrence, both tutored by John David Schofield. Other bishops present included Bishop Beckwith and a bunch of the clergy also signed on the Communion Partners website.

The signs all point to a delayed "adios". But time will tell. I do wish the laity on Springfield all the best because those who never thought about leaving he Episcopal Church.

And now, the icing on the cake:

The Illogic of the "Christian Right"

2011-03-19T20:17:00.000-07:00

Every now and then I wander from my base of Episcopalianism to think about other things. Sometimes it is politics and sometimes it is culture and some times it is education. The last few days I have been "cogitatin'" on the idea of the new right and their brand of moral legislation.

The new right steadfastly opposes abortion -- for any reason at any time and for no reason at all times. So, everybody is forced to have children regardless of the circumstances.

Then, in order to remain perfectly faithful to their logic the new right is trying to eliminate WIC and Food Stamps and medical for children. That way we make sure no baby grows up well fed and healthy.

Then, the new right wants to help children out by denying them Head Start programs and Free and Reduced Lunches. After all, why should children have pre-school and learning and good food.

Then, the locals have decide that public K-12 education should be reduced to large class sizes, no special education, no free and reduced lunches, no special programs (GATE as well ass Special Education). After all, who needs education when we have sweatshops and 80 hour work weeks.

Once that child has grown up they are denied an opportunity to go to college or university when the new right eliminates Pell grants and other financial aid.

So that child goes to work but is denied the opportunity to be represented by a group that will assure clean and safe working conditions, fair pay, overtime, health and welfare benefits. Why would anyone need health and welfare benefits since each woman is going to have every baby and die in child birth.

Why Oh Why
by Holly Near

They say there was a baby

Born with a special calling
Laid him in the 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, why don't you care about mine?

Look at all the babies
They ain't got no mangers
Lying in the doorway
And dying before their time

Comes along another baby
If I have it I can't feed it
I got the thing about my other children
Six hungry ones in all

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
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, why don't you care about mine?

Maybe this group should be called the new wrong?

The Methodology of the NEW Anglican Communion

2011-03-13T09:05:00.000-07:00

Many years ago Mr. John David Schofield was asked whether he was going to leave the Episcopal Church. There are at least two (2) "pastoral letters" Mr. Schofield in which he clearly stated that he would not (I think he said never but who knows) be leaving the Episcopal Church.

By the time the year 2007 rolled around Mr. Schofield was preaching that the Episcopal Church had shifted so far to the left that in point of fact, the Episcopal Church has left the Anglican Communion. For several months he hammered at this message. 2008 comes to convention and the convention votes to "remain with the Archbishop of Canterbury". When queried about all his prior statements about not leaving the Episcopal Church Mr. Schofield said, "I did not leave the Episcopal Church. The people have spoken. I must follow what my people have done."

I believe that this process now gives us a glimpse of what is/will happen with the "Anglican Communion". I first refer you to Off-Topic, I also refer you to Preludium, and with great trepidation I refer you to "The Oracle of Delphi.   There are others and I am sure you can find them and read them. Here is the catch, read not just the original posting, but read the comments, particularly the comments at the oracle. Mr. Kennedy's are most illuminating (if not totally anti-Christian). The laity is building a case to leave the Anglican Communion. Provinces like Nigeria, Uganda, Australia, and the Global south in general do not need to have the laity say or do anything -- since the laity there has no say in anything they do. But ACNA, the great Archduke ~~Ferdinand~~ Duncan needs to build a ground swell of laity to leave the Archbishop of Canterbury.

By the end of this year (2011) the GAFCON members of Confessing Anglicans of the African Mission in America etc. will restructure their version of the Anglican Communion into a Jerusalem centered Anglican Communion and probably with Mr. Mouneer Anis as it's titular leader. Briefly, least controversial, the "home of Christianity" and it keeps it away from the strife of Africa. Lots of folks will vie for the Archbishop role next but for the first say, three years this appointment seems least controversial.  The long and the short of it is it will be the "will of the laity" and not the clergy.

I would also add Lionel Deimel's blog for some additional background on this issue.

What we need to do to get ready is the subject for the next posting. Let's digest this for a moment and let me know what you all think.

OOPS! Regular Episcopalians Need Not Apply

2011-03-12T17:48:00.000-08:00

In my last post I bragged about the fact that our Deanery "opened itself" up to voting by all deanery Episcopalians who are communicants in good standing within their parish and also within the deanery. Our thinking is/was that at least at the next lowest rung of the hierarchy, and for small things, we adopted an all-inclusive voting policy. The least we could do, we thought, to reward those who were willing to participate at the deanery level, and to keep as many persons interested in the issues of the day, was to allow them to vote. The thinking was designed to begin a process of more laity involvement so that the issues that split us in the past, one of which was keeping everyone in the dark and feeding them "pre-manufactured fertilizer" , would be less likely to happen. Well, it did not take long to discover how really wrong that thinking is.

Our new bishop, upon review by the Chancellor of the diocese, has determined/opined/stated that there is no vote permitted at the deanery level save by the legally elected delegates from each parish; oh, and the canonically resident clergy in the deanery (how about that one!). To be fair, this is the existing canon. By that I mean this part of the canon has been in existence since prior to the split of our diocese. See Canon XVI on Archdeacons and Deaneries. However, this canon was re-written just last year in order to move us from four deaneries to three deaneries but no one thought to open up the voting to all persons and so it is not. In order to to what we had originally done we need to first change the canon by convention. The change we did do violates our current canon and so it is null and void. One side-note, by going from four deaneries to three deaneries the unintended consequence (I am hoping anyway) is that the deaneries are now stacked with more clergy. That is, instead of four deaneries with the same amount clergy and more lay voting members we are now at three deaneries with the same amount of clergy and fewer overall lay persons. Clergy now have more power by virtue of the consolidation, this means that lay persons have less.

I am hoping not everyone goes nuts on this part but, what do you all think? It appears the deaneries are still stacked in favor of the bishop -- since the bishop approves/licenses all clergy in the diocese. To be sure, deaneries usually vote on diocesan council members and officers in our deaneries and that is about it. Nonetheless, it seemed like a small issue to repay interest and attentiveness with voting privilege. Oh sure, we can, and perhaps will change this in the future but my point is the deck is stacked against the laity exercising too much power -- or so it seems. I am also assuming (dangerous as this is) that it is true in all or almost all existing diocese.

Change will be long, arduous and gut-wrenching.

The Trouble with Tribbles Laity

2011-03-06T16:04:00.000-08:00

The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin held a wonderful celebration yesterday and all went very, very well. We seated our newest provisional Bishop Chet Talton and had a chance to celebrate the ministry of Bishop Jerry Lamb.

There was one bit of work that did indeed throw some of us for a loop. Well, not a loop, but we were taken aback by the attitude of some of our fellow delegates. Alas, I get ahead of myself.

The bit of work we needed to do had to do with the reconstitution of our deaneries. We have historically had four deaneries in our diocese but as of now we have reduced to three. In that process we have restructured and are now electing a chair and a vice chair that is either lay of clergy (but not both). These two offices will serve on the diocesan council. The deaneries are supposed to revitalize our diocesan life and so are now required to meet (at least) 4 times a year. We are working on a lot of functions and activities but we came to a fork in the road and need to vote on an issue that I thought was a "no-brainer". The issue was voting rights at the deanery level. Again, historically on delegates have been allowed to vote on issues within the deanery and someone thought it was time for a change. The resolution on the floor was to permit all members in good standing that were present at the meeting of the deanery. WOW! You would have thought we had just taken someones pocketbook and would not give it back! There was a hue and cry about -- guess what? privilege, yep, privilege. Those who were delegates wanted to maintain their elite status and not permit anyone other than an officially elected delegate be allowed to vote.

Now, here are some issues I found persuasive. First, we want as many persons to be involved as possible and in order to get them to a deanery meeting what better way (in fact what other carrot is there) than the vote? AND< what is so all fired important and so all fired secret that ONLY delegates to convention should vote? I do not think anything that happens at our deanery levels warrants on exclusivity provision. The simple fact is that if the diocese of San Joaquin had continued to hold deanery meetings where everyone was invited and involved the likelihood of breaking away would have been diminished. Not eliminated but diminished.

Second, we, the Episcopal Church, needs more laity input and more laity control and this is a good start. Maybe some would say it is only a "bone thrown to appease" but we have to start somewhere.

Third, it was apparent that many of our laity had not learned the lessons currently being taught under the guise of exclusivity. Furthermore, we need to not trust our fate to a few when we can shine the light of day on these types of issues.

The resolution passed. Anyone who wishes to attend and takes the time to be involved can and will vote on whatever issues are presented at that time. But, the vote was 16 to 8. While the majority clearly ruled the minority voice clerly indicated there is still much work to do, even here in the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin.

Thinking Alike?

2011-03-04T07:09:00.000-08:00

I was reading Thinking Anglicans Nineteen Anglican bishops meet in Dar Es Salaam when I decided to look at the last time a bunch or primates meet in Dar Es Salaam (2007) and compare the results. Of course the results are radically different but what struck me is something that has probably already been discussed because it struck many others a long time ago. somewhere along the continuum that is fondly referred to as the Anglican Communion, someone decided we must all "think alike". The "dispute" that has arisen is one in which apparently no one province can think differently than the "group", the group being the Anglican Communion. In recent years the policy that has evolved is no one can think any differently than the Global South, also known as the Conelonialists. The primates from that neck of the woods have fallen back on the "appeal to authority" also known as "the faith once delivered" and "solo scriptura" to cut off any and all discussion. This group has turned into a gang of thugs either punishing or wanting to punish anyone who thinks or acts differently than they do. They develop Windsor reports, they develop covenants (also known as covenants not to compete) and they punish primates that do not toe the line by no taking communion with them, by meeting in separate rooms, by ignoring you to your face and other middle school antics designed to make them feel better.

The upshot of all of this is "group think". We must all think and act alike. There appears to be no room for thinking and exploring and just plain wondering let alone acting on clearly defined requirements from Jesus.

I write this for the following reason. When I was working in another world/lifetime I had a discussion with one of my bosses. It seemed we were not on the same page and we were not on the same page in public, usually not a good thing, but I felt pretty strongly about my position. After the public debate I was talking with this person and I apologized for the clearly different stance. He said to me, "If we both always thought alike then one of us would not be necessary." I took that to heart and it has become one of my guiding principles. It is how we grow and mature. While this person is not God (I have never made that mistake) I believe the nugget there is that God's greatest gift to us is the ability to think and reason. That is how we mature and grow in our faith. So I add to the conelonialists, "If we both always thought alike then one of us would not be necessary."

Who Are Your Heroes?

2011-02-27T22:16:00.000-08:00

In recent years I have thought much about heroes. So, in this moment in time, as I share some of my heroes with you, I am curious who your heroes might be. Let us begin with a common definition:

A hero (heroine for females) (Greek: ἥρως, hḗrōs), in Greek mythology and folklore, was originally a demigod, their cult being one of the most distinctive features of ancient Greek religion.[1] Later, hero (male) and heroine (female) came to refer to characters who, in the face of danger and adversity or from a position of weakness, display courage and the will for self sacrifice—that is, heroism—for some greater good of all humanity. This definition originally referred to martial courage or excellence but extended to more general moral excellence.

Stories of heroism may serve as moral examples.

As a combat veteran I would add that a hero/heroine is an ordinary person who steps into an extraordinary event and excels at something or for some reason whether on a one-time basis or perhaps in a continuing role.

I have many heroes; John Basilone, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Jesus, and a several folks none of you would know because by definition, they seek no glory -- that is antithetical.

I have added three in recent months. IT and BP and Leonardo Ricardo. These three folks display great courage each and every day and are wonderful moral examples. They struggle with issues that should have been settled many, many years ago and yet are not. And, while they quietly insist on a certain level of respect, for which they are resoundingly abused at times, continue the struggle not just for them, but for all LGBT persons. I ask you, how can you not have heroes like this?

This is the front line or at least the last vestige of the small-minded, bigoted person who wants to feel better about themselves by crushing other folks. Race, ethnicity, religion and to a large extent sex (though in some circles of Conelonialists this is still a fight to be waged) are all gone. No one can get away with even a smart-aleck remark without being justifiably chastised for the gross insensitivity. But it seems even in elementary school, it is still acceptable (and done with an alarming degree of frequency) to call someone gay or a lesbian or a homosexual as a derogatory term.

It is in the face of these assaults that IT and BP and Leonardo extend themselves every single day. That certainly fits my bill for hero. Recently IT and BP had a blessing of their marriage. What a pure joy that must be for them -- and yet they go back into the fray again to continue the struggle until everyone is free.

Who are your heroes?

CANA's Doctrine of Reactionary Inclusion

2011-02-26T13:13:00.000-08:00

The LEAD reported the following:

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports:

Speaking during his recent visit to London , Okoh said: “CANA is now part of the Anglican Province of North America (ACNA)."
“We are not interested in territorial ambition; our main reason for going to America was to provide for those who were no longer finding it possible to worship in the Episcopal church.
“A new structure has been put up in the U.S. which is ACNA.
“CANA now belongs to ACNA even though they still relate to us;but essentially it now belongs to Anglican province of North America,” he said.

Bishop Minns, suddenly realizing that CANA had just been dumped and his and all his buddies "ordination" out the window must have had an appopletic fit. And, in keeping with CANA's reactionary inclusiveness the church of Nigeria and Cana now have FAQs that reiterate "dual citizenship and how all that works. The LEAD now reports this:

CANA’s Missionary Bishop Martyn Minns (who is currently in Singapore en route to Nigeria for the Church of Nigeria’s House of Bishops’ meeting, which is to be followed by a meeting of the Church of Nigeria’s Standing Committee) has asked me to pass along this information to you:

Earlier this morning Bishop Minns heard from both Archbishop Nicholas Okoh and Registrar Abraham Yisa who were surprised to see a recent statement in the media that suggests that CANA is no longer part of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion).
Both Archbishop Okoh as well as Registrar Yisa told Bishop Minns that such reports are erroneous. They assured him that there has been no change in the status that exists between CANA and the Church of Nigeria, that Bishop Minns and CANA’s suffragan bishops continue to serve as members of the House of Bishops in the Church of Nigeria, and that the Church of Nigeria at the same time continues to promote the full recognition of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) as a province in the Anglican Communion

So, what we have here is the new and improved version of the doctrine of reactionary inclusion. That definition is: a clergy person, currently under deposition or threat of deposition by the Episcopal Church in the United States of America that feels unloved and unrequited and enjoys a hatefulness for that province and wishes to thumb their nose at that province but needs a place from which to accomplish that task. And, of course one gets to remain in the Anglican Communion by way of the Church of Nigeria (or alternatively the Southern Cone). These persons are also known as Conelonialists. This reactionary inclusiveness is also known as dual citizenship.

This whole thing gives new meaning to the old joke how many faux Anglicans does it take to screw up a ~~light bulb~~ province?

WOW! Will wonders never cease!

The Great Masquerade

2011-02-23T20:58:00.000-08:00

I am certainly no canon lawyer, as I am sure you have all found out. If you have not I am sure someone like the old A. Curmudgeon will come along and set me (and everyone else he talks to) straight. That being said, I have some really interesting questions.

In our denomination, should a deposed priest preside/consecrate the bread and wine and distribute communion to a group of Episcopalians is the deposed priest guilty of a sin? I always thought he/she would be. In addition, if the congregation/parishioners (some or all) know that the priest is deposed, then they are also guilty of sin. (Those that are not genuinely aware I believe are not guilty of sin and in fact, through some metamorphosis actually receive a sacrament.)

Now, by extrapolation, let's look at say, the "Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin". All the clergy in the "diocese" have been deposed by a lawful bishop and House of Bishops. Those individuals who currently attend the rites and services in the Anglican Diocese have been well apprised of the depositions of their clergy. So, are they all in sin each and every Sunday or not? Is deposition a relative thing that really exists only in the mind of the deposer and if so what is the real purpose?

Let's take this one last step. If a bishop, knowingly brings a deposed priest to a parish and installs that deposed priest as the rector, is the bishop guilty of a grievous sin? And, if the depose priest destroys the parish (the people now, not the building) who is guilty of sin? And, if some of the parishioners knowingly participate in the charade including receiving fake sacraments from the deposed priest what then?

finally, are the clergy deposed by the Episcopal Church deposed throughout the Anglican Communion or just locally? And are the clergy free to do as they please without recrimination throughout the same Anglican Communion as long as they do not practice in the Episcopal Church. Now, one rule for response please. let us assume for the sake of this discussion, that ACNA, AMIA, CANA et al are NOT some Other form of denomination. THEY think they are Anglican, so are they only deposed as long as they think they are Anglican and as soon as they think they are Calvinist or Methodist or Unitarian are they no longer deposed?

Lionel? Mark? Tobias? Paul? What's up?

To enhance your thinking ability I have taken the liberty of added this:

Who Is Going to Pay For "Our" Excesses? (Really)

2011-02-21T11:32:00.000-08:00

Does John Boehner sound like a revamped and re-invigorated Newt Gingrich? Certainly hearkens back to the early to mid-1990's. And now, the rallying cry is do not saddle our children and grandchildren with programs and taxes that are needed today. Let's just cut huge chunks out of the budget so that no one has to pay for those later. What a huge crock of ***t.

Let's take a close look. Education is being cut at both the National and state levels. Class sizes up, ANY "non-essential" program is O-U-T! Lets strip these excesses down to the bare bones. Close schools, eliminate all forms of transportation including, in North Carolina, for racial equity. So someone thinks that our children and our grandchildren are not going to pay for this? Who do the Republicans think we are educating? Our old citizens? You bet our children are going to pay for this -- not just now but in the future with an inferior education. And, the right would be perfectly happy to dismantle public education. Why not only allow those who can afford education to get some. The rest of our children can go to work.

Let's talk about work. Wisconsin, among other states, is currently in the process of dismantling collective bargaining. They governor says he just wants to spread the pain, but the civil servants are willing to take pay cuts and health insurance premium increases but the governor wants to eliminate collective bargaining. And the Republican Right led by the Tea Party does not want to just have them share the burden, they want labor unions G-O-N-E! There is no greater advocate for middle class than the bargaining unit. And who will pay for this? How about our children and grandchildren when we lose minimum wage guarantees, eliminate child labor laws, eliminate over time pay, work week assurances and most important health care. Our children will work long hours in sweatshops for little or no pay in company towns that trap persons and families for life.

Let's talk about child welfare. Without WIC, MEDICAL/CARE, Head Start our children and grandchildren will pay not just in the future but right now! Nutrititous meals, basic medical care and early education head start are all gone! What about Free and Reduced Lunches? We go back to the days when children do not get to eat three meals a day?

The size of government is too big? Let's just lay-off half the workforce, they are just "pulling at the public trough", right? Who pays for that? How about all the children affected right now? How about all the jobs that will collapse and all the many benefits from regulations and oversight -- like banking and lending? Don't need those do we? How do you think we got into this mess to begin with and yet those clever little folks over on Wall Street have managed to turn the tables and make it all government's fault!

There was an interview in Madison the other day and the person being interviewed was complaining because of all the "benefits" that one public sector employee or another had gained and bemoaning the fact that they (the speaker) did not have those benefits so why should anyone? Well folks, you have fallen into the trap set by some very sophisticated wealthy families that have co-opted the Republican Right and Tea Party followers into a stupid argument. The correct question is how do you get the same benefit? Duh, how about by organizing?

So who really is going to pay for what and is this the real argument! I think not since our children and our grandchildren are going to pay the price no matter what we do. So, what is the answer? The answer is build a better union, build a better society and let's begin to really care for everyone. No, you are not going to get rich, okay? No you are not going to build a portfolio the size of a Rockefeller's or anyone else. But, you are going to build a just and fair society that builds the community and that lifts us ALL up not just the rich.

The Episcopal Church International Lobbying Effort

2011-02-20T08:04:00.000-08:00

You read the title of this blog posting and you ask, "What is Fred talking about? There is an international lobbying effort on behalf of the Episcopal Church?" Well, you are right. There is absolutely, positively none --- that can be deciphered by those of us in the pews. What has been the net result of this lack of bending someones, any one's ear? Well, Father Mark has the latest in this abomination. An ACNA deposed priest has now been appointed to anAnglican Communion international body that supposedly does not even recognize who the hell this person is. Furthermore, TEC presence has been greatly reduced on this same committee. The Episcopal Church has deposed an incredible number of clergy for their schismatic attempts to formalize hate and loathing in the Episcopal Church in particular and the Conelonialist brand of "old time religion" to the Anglican Communion and have been rewarded for their efforts. WHY? WHY? WHY? Because their public relations is on an international level and the Episcopal Church is still trying to be nice. Despite the fact that over 100 clergy have been deposed including Jack Iker, Robert Duncan and John David Schofield we still refer to them as "bishops". 35 clergy in the diocese of San Joaquin alone have been deposed and yet they are allowed to practice their ordination vows with impunity. When will the Episcopal Church launch a national and international campaign to have these clergy ostracized for their despicable and hateful behavior? Why do we not have clergy in every part of the world but especially Canterbury insisting on our depositions being recognized by the entire Anglican Communion? What is going on?

The ACNA PR machine coupled with the slow erosion of the Episcopal Church in the Anglican Communion is apparent and growing bolder by the minute. How else could the Epsicopal presence be reduced on an international committee while simultaneously increasing ACNA presence on that very same committee?

Sometimes I sits and wonders, sometimes I just sits.

Full Scale Assault On The Middle Class

2011-02-18T09:04:00.000-08:00

I am a student of politics. As a student of social revolutionary theory I enjoy watching and discussing such issues as is what is happening in the Middle East right now. I generally leave the blogging to a much more capable person such as IT or MADPRIEST. But, I must admit, I am really growing weary of the full scale assault on the middle class that is now underway by the Republican party and rabidly so by the TeaParty.

For your consideration. How many states are currently after public employee pensions? What do you suppose the middle class did for old age before pensions? Now, the goofs want to strip that away since no one is prepared to pay for it?! Medicare and Social Security are "eating" up our budget and so no one wants to pay to be sure that our parents (and shortly us) will be taken care of in our later years.

For your consideration. How many states, including Wisconsin, are now attacking employee rights to form a union and bargain collectively? How does one think we got to be middle class? Who do you think is going to protect you form child labor, long hours, no vacations, company stores, NO health care, no minimum wage and every other attempt by the very rich to keep every penny they make and give nothing back to those who create the product?

For your consideration. How many states are balancing the budget on the backs of schools? We should not increase taxes because our children will pay for it? And pray tell, how is that going to happen if they cannot get a decent job? Why would business move to a state where they cannot send their children to the schools because they are awful? This is really, really, really, dumb!

If you think you are immune or are not touched by one of these and you think you are middle class I suggest you think again and then get out there and do something! Pretty soon it will be too late.

Blind Faith

2011-02-17T06:05:00.000-08:00

In this complex and compound world it is sometimes so very difficult to search for and gain answers. The Conelonialists are but a more perfect example of this very fact. The apologia from the Episcopal Church wizen is softly complicated and difficult to follow. The argumentation from the right is uncomplicated, simple it is language and easy to understand. For many, that is or can be the only answer -- no one wants to think hard and no one wants to believe in something so very complicated, so many take the simple answer. God said, I believe it and that is all there is to the situation. Now they can go about their business on a day to day basis unfettered by thoughts that crowd out how to make money, how to spend the money I make and how to live my life. Blind Faith is on the one hand, uncomplicated and makes for easy living but it obviously overlooks the complicated relationships that God has graced us with. I think we all know the onion metaphor so I will not go into that one but I must say that when one "discusses" complex issues with the person in the pew that simply does not want their life any more complicated than it has to be, we tend to lose the argument. The reason leg of the footstool is rather fragile and breaks rather easily.

For those who have been patient with me and waited all this time, yes, there is a song that goes with this little ditty. Something to think about both the name of the group AND the song lyrics. Please do not go away until it is all over -- and I thank you.

Vanity: My Favorite Sin

2011-02-13T18:23:00.000-08:00

There is a lively discussion over at Preludium about ACNA and Robert Duncan and all that that entails. Everyone is trying to figure out what pushed Robert Duncan to the "limit"; what caused him (and so many like him to go over to the dark side? Is it the LGBT issue? Is it the prayerbook issue Or perhaps it is the need for scripture to reign over reason. Personal opinion, having lived through the actual day to day routine with John David Schofield is that it is pride -- or more apropos, vanity. And what is vanity? Here is the wikipedia definition:

In conventional parlance, vanity is the excessive belief in one's own abilities or attractiveness to others. Prior to the 14th century it did not have such narcissistic undertones, and merely meant futility.[1] The related term vainglory is now often seen as an archaic synonym for vanity, but originally meant boasting in vain, i.e. unjustified boasting;[2] although glory is now seen as having an exclusively positive meaning, the Latin term gloria (from which it derives) roughly means boasting, and was often used as a negative criticism.[3]

In conventional parlance, vanity is the excessive belief in one's own abilities or attractiveness to others. Prior to the 14th century it did not have such narcissistic undertones, and merely meant futility.In many religions vanity, in its modern sense, is considered a form of self-idolatry, in which one rejects God for the sake of one's own image, and thereby becomes divorced from the graces of God

This whole sordid mess reminds me of a conversation in the Devil's Advocate, a movie starring Al Pacino and Keanu Reeves. In one of the concluding scenes the discussion between the two attorneys heats up. It goes like this:

I'm a lawyer! That's my job!

That's what I do!
I rest my case.

Vanity...
...is definitely my favorite sin.
Kevin, it's so basic.
Self-love.
The all-natural opiate.
It's not that you didn't care for Mary Ann, Kevin...
...it's just that you were a little more involved with someone else.

Yourself.
You're right.
I did it all.
I let her go.
Don't be too hard on yourself, Kevin.
You wanted something more.

Believe me.
I left her behind and just kept going.
You can't keep punishing yourself.
It's awesome how far you've come.
I didn't make it easy.
Couldn't.
Not for you.....or your sister.
Half-sister, to be exact.
Surprise.
Some scene, huh?
Don't let him scare you.
I've had so many children.
I've had so many disappointments.
Mistake after mistake.
And then there's you.
The two of you.

What do you want from me?

I want you to be yourself.
You know, I'll tell you, boy.....guilt.....it's like a bag of fucking bricks.
All you got to do....is set it down.
I know what you're going through.
I've been there.
Just come here. Come here.
Let it go.
I can't do that.
Who are you carrying all those bricks for?
God?
Is that it?
God?
I'll tell you.....let me give you a little inside information about God.
God likes to watch.
He's a prankster.
Think about it.
He gives man......instincts.
He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do?
I swear, for his own amusement......his own private, cosmic......gag reel.....He sets the rules in opposition.
It's the goof of all time.
Look, but don't touch.
Touch, but don't taste.
Taste, but don't swallow.
And while you're jumping from one foot to the next, what is He doing?
He's laughing his sick, fucking ass off!
He's a tightass!
He's a sadist!
He's an absentee landlord!
Worship that? Never!
"Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven," is that it?

After reading the dialog can't you picture Robert Duncan or Jack Iker or John David Schofield in the role opposite Al Pacino? I surely can. NO, the core issue with ACNA is vanity. So let's turn the tables on these folks for just one more second and quote scripture right back at them: Ecclesiastes 1:1 "The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity."

And so it goes.

The PR machine that is the Global South

2011-02-06T09:01:00.000-08:00

I am now watching as the next step in the Global south public relations program kicks into high gear. Way back when, specifically the Jerusalem Declaration, in a little preface work, the Conelonialists siad that the Archbishop of Canterbury was NOT NECESSARY for an Anglican Communion. That discussion lay dormant for many months and then a few months ago the rhetoric kicked in. With the advent of the Primate's meeting in Dublin the PR moved into high gear. Look at ACI, ACNA, or even the Soundings Board over at the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin and you will see that there is a call for the Archbishop of Canterbury to step aside/down/get the hell out of the way. Read the trash that was posted in South Carolina when Micahel Nazir-Ali was there. If he isn't bucking for the top job then ain't nobody. Even our goofy friends in Fresno think he would be good for the job.

I digress. The fact is that we, the Episcopal Church of the United States has been one step behind all the public relations stuff from ACNA and the Anglican Communion has been having it's tail wagged by the great PR folks from the Global South. They make some silly argument and we bite. They say it is the numbers and we bite. They say it is Canterbury and we bite. When is this going to change? Well, it isn't going to change until we (local, national, international) decide to go on the offensive. Take away that leading edge that the Global south always seems to have. We need to put them on the defensive once and for all. How you ask? Well, how about for starters those that have been deposed by our diocese and province are not recognized by the international bodies that allow them to play in he sandbox? How about we start to create a public relations campaign that the Global South has to take account of? How about we start with the issue of full inclusiveness and the fact that the vast majority of the global south are bigoted haters who cannot stand personal liberty and free will?

A special note to the laity of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin. You have never been recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury, regardless of what John David Schofield says. Now, if you read Soundings, you will find that you are moving inexorably away from even an association with the Archbishop of Canterbury. John David Schofield PROMISED you the split would bring you closer not further away? How much more information o you need to see that you have been grossly mislead? Come on home, we have left the light on.

The Primates Meeting

2011-01-25T23:17:00.000-08:00

I have decided to become a member of the Primates meeting and I now wish to make decisions on behalf of all the millions of Anglicans I represent.

So here it is folks:

Put me in coach, I' ready to play!

Your Are Not Episcopalian (and You are not Anglican): Stop Holding Yourself Out as One

2011-01-23T09:22:00.000-08:00

The Court orders provide in part that the defendants, including Bishop Jack L. Iker, “surrender all Diocesan property, as well as control of the Diocesan Corporation, to the Diocesan plaintiffs and to provide an accounting of all Diocesan assets within 60 days of this order.” Additionally, “the Court hereby orders the Defendants not to hold themselves out as leaders of the Diocese.”

This quote is from the latest "rambling of a lost soul" (as Conelonialists will call him) the Judge in the Fort Worth case. See Thinking Anglicans. Clearly, there is no judicial authority that thinks that what the four diocese have done is legal or proper. There is also an interesting read at GAFCON, Father Christian has, as always, put things into perspective for the viagravillians.

The most interesting comment made was not that any of these cases have been lost, which most assuredly they have, but what the judge said. "Stop holding yourselves out as the leaders of the diocese". These folks are clearly no longer Episcopalian and they have said over and over again they do not want to be Episcopalian. But neither are they Anglican. The Archbishop of Canterbury does not recognize them as Anglican -- of course if you read the Jerusalem Declaration they do not recognize him as Anglican either so there -- I guess they are even. But, they are not Anglican. Stop holding yourselves out as Anglican you are not! You recognize some foreign powers as your theological authority, the Primates of the Southern Cone, you may be Christian though your beliefs do not seem to indicate that, you may be Jewish but your beliefs do not indicate that, you may be Calvinist but I am not sure if you even fit that category or if they would have you, but you are clearly not Anglican. The Chicago Quadrilateral is not good enough. You have to have an Anglican Covenant, something your primates made up on the spur of the moment to exclude provinces that are all-inclusive. No, you are not Anglican. Remember this folks, the only real Anglicans in the United States are Episcopalians, and you are not!

The Global South Marches On and so should TEC

2011-01-21T23:36:00.000-08:00

Over at Fr. Mark's place, Preludium, there is a discussion about two recent postings. The first is by the ACI (Anglican Communion Institute) and the second by the GSA (Global South Anglican). The articles discuss the need for the Archbishop of Canterbury to step aside, yes let's face it, the meaning of these articles is to essentially minimize if not negate the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Why is that? Well lets take one quick look at the currently operating document of the Conelonialists:

Our fellowship is not breaking away from the Anglican Communion. We, together with many other faithful Anglicans throughout the world, believe the doctrinal foundation of Anglicanism, which defines our core identity as Anglicans, is expressed in these words: The doctrine of the Church is grounded in the Holy Scriptures and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular, such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal. We intend to remain faithful to this standard, and we call on others in the Communion to reaffirm and return to it. While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Building on the above doctrinal foundation of Anglican identity, we hereby publish the Jerusalem Declaration as the basis of our fellowship.

This paragraph is from the "Complete Jerusalem Statement". The group is now sick and tired of the old man with the white beard telling them what they can do and what they cannot do. They are finished with his weak-kneed approach to the Episcopal Church of the United States and the Anglican Church of Canada. They have grown impatient with the whole idea of "approving the Anglican Covenant" province by province particularly when they could, in the words of Jean-Luc Picard, "Make it so!"

This is the next natural step in wresting the Anglican Communion away from the Church of England and creating a brand new Anglican Communion. How this is so is a little beyond me but that is what is going on and it is time for the rest of the Anglican Communion to take back their communion. It is time for the Episcopal Church in the United States of America to walk with the Lord. We should invite those who are willing to be inclusive to walk with us but as Yogi Berra once said, "When you came to a fork in the road, take it."

There Is Joy in "Mudville" Tonight

2011-01-18T23:15:00.000-08:00

Well, we, the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin has announced the proposed selection of our new provisional bishop to succeed our current bishop, Jerry Lamb. It seems that Bishop Chet Talton, retired suffragan bishop from Los Angeles has agreed to become the new provisonal bishop of our diocese. We are pleased to have him aboard (election will take place in March) and we will have one last chance to say farewell to Bishop Lamb and salute him for the absolutely outstanding work he has done here in San Joaquin.

You may all read the formal announcement here http://diosanjoaquin.org/

Thnaks to everyonefor their prayers, especially our world famous Grandmere Mimi -- she is a real prayer warrior and I am thnkful to have had her praying for us!

No Gurls Allowed!

2010-11-30T20:51:00.000-08:00

MadPriest was quoted in detail at Friends of Jake on the issue of Gene Robinson and his consecration to the episcopate. MadPriest is effusive of his praise of +Robinson and rightfully so. All of what is said both at Friends of Jake and at OCICBW are right and true.

But, do you suppose there may be at least one unintended consequence? The fallout being the pushing to the side of the issue of women's ordination and consecration? The LGBT issue comes to the front burner and begins to actually be accepted when suddenly the issue of women's consecration rears it's head again but this time it is in the form of a "primate" or, as we know it, our Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori? When Bishop Robinson was consecrated a lot actually did happen (see above) but from the Anglican Communion crowd all we got was a bunch more hot air from the usual blowhards and then suddenly, the "men" had to be subservient to "that woman". Everyone now moves more quickly than anyone expected -- I mean John David Schofield hadn't move that fast since he last flew in a jet plane and yet had his diocese out and gone before a miter could hit the floor!

The primates then decided that they could not be at the Eucharistic table with her and now we have this wonderful little ditty courtesy of David Anderson:

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr. President and CEO, American Anglican Council, had a different perspective . . .saying, "I would strongly advise the orthodox Primates to 1) organize before the Primates' meeting, and 2) attend and remove by force of numbers the Presiding Bishop of the American Episcopal Church (not physically, but by either voting her off the "island," or recessing to another room and not letting her in). The meeting is a place to gather and potentially to settle some of the issues that are pulling the Anglican Communion apart, and to begin to restore health to a most wonderful communion.

Can you imagine this? It sounds like a bunch of boys playing in a backyard treehouse and someone's sister came out and wanted to play only to discover that the "boys" had a sign out that said:

Then the "boys" pulled up the rope ladder and believed they were safely ensconced in their own little world. When lots of folks called the primates on this issue they countered with the Anglcian Covenant. Now they want to do everything in their power to punish perhaps, not TEC per se but rather +Katherine Jefferts Schori specifically, in effect "putting her in her place." It's got to be a "man thing", just ask +Peter Akinola. After all a woman's place is barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen. Women should not be found taking care of "men's business" in the Anglican Communion. Look at who has left the the Anglican Communion and where have they gone? To Rome!

What does this mean? Well, let's assume the Anglican Communion is gone -- which it is and now there is a new "Anglican Communion" made up of all the boys in the treehouse and they are not letting any women in.

This is the "boyz" only group.

As far as don't ask don't tell is concerned -- they haven't taken a survey yet. Perhaps they can call on the Secretary of the Defense.

The Anglican Communion Equation Grows More Complicated

2010-11-27T08:30:00.000-08:00

The last equation to hit the blog was No Anglican Communion = (Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral) minus the (Jerusalem Declaration). Apparently, the Most Reverend Greg Venables did not like that equation, or rather, it was not sufficiently complicated, so he, in the name of the GAFCON/Confessing Anglicans decided to make it a little more complicated. They have since added the Oxford Statement. so what does the new equation look like:

No Anglican Communion = (Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral plus Primates meeting[including Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori] plus [Separate meeting Rooms]) minus (Jerusalem Declaration plus (Oxford Statement) plus [Primates Meeting minus 10 Global South Primates])

If, for some reason, you doubt for one more moment that the Anglican Communion is not dead (just not buried) here is an excerpt from the Oxford Statement:

3. We believe that we are now entering a new era for the Anglican Communion. New ways of living out our common life are emerging as old structures are proven to be ineffective in confronting the challenges of living in a pluralistic global community. We rejoice in the call of the Jerusalem Declaration for a renewed commitment to the authority of scripture and the centrality of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Sadly the rejection of these historic anchors to our faith has brought us to a crisis in the life of the Communion.

And this,

5. For the sake of Christ and of His Gospel we can no longer maintain the illusion of normalcy and so we join with other Primates from the Global South in declaring that we will not be present at the next Primates’ meeting to be held in Ireland. And while we acknowledge that the efforts to heal our brokenness through the introduction of an Anglican Covenant were well intentioned we have come to the conclusion the current text is fatally flawed and so support for this initiative is no longer appropriate.

And, should you think that Canterbury has any sway or power in this battle take a look at the BOLD statement from the Oxford thingy:

7. The Primates Council, as bishops of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, wish to affirm the reality of human sin and divine judgment, the only way of salvation from sin through the death of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross, the sufficiency and clarity of Holy Scripture as the revelation of God’s will, and the transforming power of the Holy Spirit as he brings new birth and holiness of life.

Isn't it nice to know we have a group that can determine what sin is for us? More importantly, the language is clearly dominant and not the least bit deferential to Canterbury or anyone else (at least on this earth).

Also. look at the Jerusalem Declaration (posted above) as it says that the one does not need an Archbishop of Canterbury (sorry John David) to be Anglican (huh?)!
And more yet:

11. We remain convinced that the unique character of GAFCON/FCA with its diversity of cultures and its embrace of the Jerusalem Declaration as a common theological confession is a vital contribution to the future of the global Anglican Communion. We are persuaded that we must offer new initiatives to more effectively respond to the crises that confront us all. We must strengthen our communication capabilities and we are also looking to build partnerships with other denominational churches that share our faith convictions.

And finally, when will GAFCON give the Anglican Communion (as we know it) a Christian burial, we now know that as well:

12. Specifically, we are planning a leadership conference in the latter part of 2011 that will focus on the need to “Contend for the Faith in the Public Square.” We are also beginning preparations for an international gathering of Primates, Bishops, Clergy and Lay leaders in 2012, provisionally designated “GAFCON 2”. To support all of this we have approved the expansion of the Secretariat.

Clearly, the Anglican Communion no longer exists, and while the Archbishop of Canterbury is trying to explain to the Queen where the empire went GAFCON/FCA is "stealing" it out from under his nose. So, what should we be doing?
Episcopalians, we need to step out in faith and begin to lead as we have never done so in the past. With firm conviction, with the moral strength of a David and give Anglicans worldwide a far more inclusive approach to our God than GAFCON/FCA is willing to provide. Now is a good time to begin, don't you think?

(Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral) minus (Jerusalem Declaration) = NO Anglican Communion

2010-11-24T20:45:00.000-08:00

UPDATE: Reposted with a Title

Here, for the first time ever, is the comparison of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral with the Jerusalem Declaration. This, along with the proposed Angliacan Covenant will completely re-create the Anglican Communion in the image of those who, in my humble opinion, least understand it. The Covenant is not a unity document, it is a document, along with the Jerusalem Declaration that will transform the "Anglican Communion into a Fellowship of Confessing Conealonialists. If that is what you as an Epsicopalian and a member of the Anglican Communion want, then by all means vote for it. if, on the other hand, on the off chance you would like to see the historic Anglican communion continue as it has, but with the renewed energy that comes from an all-inclusive, big tent, Christ centered people then actively work to defeat the proposed Anglican Covenant.

Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral
1.The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as "containing all things necessary to salvation," and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.

2. The Apostles' Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.

3. The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself — Baptism and the Supper of the Lord — ministered with unfailing use of Christ's Words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him.

4. The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.

Jerusalem Declaration
1. We rejoice in the gospel of God through which we have been saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Because God first loved us, we love him and as believers bring forth fruits of love, ongoing repentance, lively hope and thanksgiving to God in all things.

2. We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God written and to contain all things necessary for salvation. The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading.

3. We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

4. We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.

5. We gladly proclaim and submit to the unique and universal Lordship of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, humanity’s only Saviour from sin, judgement and hell, who lived the life we could not live and died the death that we deserve. By his atoning death and glorious resurrection, he secured the redemption of all who come to him in repentance and faith.

6. We rejoice in our Anglican sacramental and liturgical heritage as an expression of the gospel, and we uphold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, to be translated and locally adapted for each culture.

7. We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.

8. We acknowledge God’s creation of humankind as male and female and the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family. We repent of our failures to maintain this standard and call for a renewed commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married.
9. We gladly accept the Great Commission of the risen Lord to make disciples of all nations, to seek those who do not know Christ and to baptise, teach and bring new believers to maturity.

10.
11. We are mindful of our responsibility to be good stewards of God’s creation, to uphold and advocate justice in society, and to seek relief and empowerment of the poor and needy.

12. We are committed to the unity of all those who know and love Christ and to building authentic ecumenical relationships. We recognise the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice, and we encourage them to join us in this declaration.

13. We celebrate the God-given diversity among us which enriches our global fellowship, and we acknowledge freedom in secondary matters. We pledge to work together to seek the mind of Christ on issues that divide us.

14. We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord.

15. We rejoice at the prospect of Jesus’ coming again in glory, and while we await this final event of history, we praise him for the way he builds up his church through his Spirit by miraculously changing lives.

FCA: Fellowship of Confessing Conealonialist Anglicans

2010-11-22T21:47:00.000-08:00

Wow, sometimes I am absolutely amazed and the sheer audacity of some folks! Over at the Fellowship of Conealonialist Anglicans Bishop John Rodgers has decided that the Anglican Covenant is not acceptable to them for some of the following reasons.

First,

the Primates are not the body to oversee compliance, the Standing Committee,is and the committee has historic standing in the Communion.

Where in the world did that come from? We all just assumed that the primates were a bit power hungry and if there was any doubt this has removed it. Never mind the Standing Committee, just hand over the jewels to the Primates, after all, who could possibly know better than Peter Akinola and Henri Orombi and Rowan Williams and Greg Venables to name a few. Hell, they would not even sit down with a woman for fear of cooties, why would I want them adjudicate anything of real meaning. Look at the countries they represent and tell me that they stand between the devil and the high road? I think not.

Then there is this even more astounding comment:

it would be strengthened were the Jerusalem Declaration added to the standard of Faith to which all signers were committed and held accountable.

A rather self-serving document written by at least one canon from the Anglican diocese of San Joaquin and with no input from half (or more ) of the Anglican Communion. Lest you think I am kidding, here, in his own words (Bill Gandenberger, former Episcopal priest) from the blog Soundings:

I am writing you on the last day of the GAFCON, or Global Anglican Future Conference, in Jerusalem. It has been a long 10 days since the Bishop and I arrived, with the bulk of my time spent in our hotel, working with the other delegates on a statement that will provide the groundwork for a new, biblically orthodox, mission-focused, global Anglican movement. The Final GAFCON Statement

And then there is this charming little ditty:

It is clear that the revisionists are allergic to any covenant that would interfere with their autonomy, not only in things secondary but in the primary matters of the Gospel

Apparently living up to the gospel of full inclusion: "and the second is like unto it, love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the laws and the prophets." is not what the Global South Primates and GAFCON have in mind. They would prefer to be true to scripture and make everyone live down to the Jerusalem Declaration.

So the reason that GAFCON and the Global South Primates will not sign on the the Anglican Covenant is because they do not get to be the judge, jury and executioner for those who "do wrong".

My final question for this group is: "Who died and left you God?"

The Constraints of the Anglican Covenant

2010-11-20T10:22:00.000-08:00

For openers, I strongly encourage each to read the following essay on line: The Church Idea. Just what is this vague but intriguing work? Well, it is an essay written by William Reed Huntington ( a priest and not a bishop) and is the basis for the Chicago Quadrilateral, that statement adopted first by our House of Bishops and then by the Lambeth Conference, all back in the 1870-1880s. I believe it is as timely today, right now, as it was back then. It addresses among other things, the uniquely American experience that is centered in the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It makes a very clear distinction between how and why we as Americans are governed and every other country including, by inference such places as Nigeria, Uganda, Argentina, and yes, even merry-olde England. If you read no other part, read the American Problem. It also discusses such issues as Romanism, Puritanism and the DREADED liberalism.

This very fine work turns out to discuss the very same issues that we are discussing today and while the names have been changed to protect the guilty, we are still hashing and re-hashing the same points and counter points. Let me add as a footnote, the William Reed Huntington was the primary mover and shaker that back in the 19th century wanted women as deaconesses and through patience and persistence got it and became a haven for women to become more included in the full life of the church.

There are two brief points I would like to make. First, we really did settle this argument a long time ago with the Chicago Quadrilateral and I have heard, read, seen, or been privy to any new arguments that would make an Anglican Covenant necessary. We already have the four main points and do not need any more, at least based on the Huntington work. Don't take my word for it though, read it and see what you formulate. This Church Idea is a brilliant work that covers all the bases including the "need" for something that looks like the 39 Articles -- folks it is in there, it is included in the Quadrilateral.

The second point is perhaps a more pressing argument for today. The point behind this Anglican Covenant is supposedly one unifying, in essence "rally round the flag boys" kind of issue. This is so that when we approach other denominations approach us on issues of unity they (the other denomination) understands what and who we are. Here is the rub. The original Quadrilateral posed stumbling blocks of universality back in the 1880s and it had the four points we all know and love. With the newest proposed Anglican Covenant those stumbling blocks become larger. How so? Well, we are in effect setting up a a ruling junta not unlike the Roman "magisterium". The more formal but inconsequential power structures the Anglican Communion sets up the more likely they will become additional impediments to coming together. One of the major issues with ARCIC is not the Pope per se but rather the magisterium, check it out. So, what is it that we are doing? The Anglican Communion removed the Episcopal presence on the Faith and Unity Commission thinking that it was a impediment to the ARCIC program. The proposed power structure for the Anglican Communion becomes just as great an impediment.

So, what is the upshot? We have the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and it dealt with all the issues that we are re-visiting today. If pithy is best, then we need to stay with the quadrilateral and leave all this other nonsense alone. If, on the other hand, this really is a power grab and an extreme effort to wreak havoc by those who have power (or about to get it) on those who have no power then isn't that reason to not approve the Covenant as well?

Who Says The Anglican Communion is Broken?

2010-11-18T20:30:00.000-08:00

There has been an incredible amount of talk about the Anglican Communion and the Anglican Covenant. Much discussion has circled around the Anglican Covenant. But who says the Anglican Communion needs a covenant? Who says the Anglican Communion is dysfunctional? Who says the Communion is broken?

Perhaps, just perhaps, the Anglican Communion is functioning as it always has and as it always should! Whenever there is a problem to be fixed the first thing one ought to do is name the problem. I have heard no one name the problem, have you? If one cannot name the problem then how is one to fix it? How is one to determine what the fix is if no one can determine what the problem is?

So what is the problem? Some groups do not like women's ordination though it has been around throughout the communion for thirty or more years. Others do not like the issue full inclusion -- though there is sound biblical grounding for that. Still others think divorce is either a big thing or no thing depending on who and where you are. And still others do not like the Book of Common Prayer as developed and used in one or more provinces. And so what do we do? We argue and sometimes we yell and sometimes we scream at and by and through each other. Sometimes we are not civil and sometimes some of us lose our tempers and refuse to go to the rail with the rest of us.

Sounds to me like one big family trying to live with each other. See, I come from a family with 7 siblings and two parents and the escapades that go on both now and in the past are pretty much the escapades that go on inside the Anglican Communion. And let's face it, relationships are not just built on hugs and kisses they are also built on arguments and making up.

So what is the problem? I do not think there is a problem and therefore no fix is necessary. True, some within the family do not want to argue -- so would rather have this nice and smooth sailing for ever and ever. They are the ones that do not want to argue and discuss and kind of spit and chew. But there are those in every family. They are the ones that can't stand messy messes. But our communion is built on messy messes. That is how we grow and live and learn and ultimately get closer. Making up gets to be that much more fun (well most of the time).

So what should we do? We just continue to live our lives as we see the gospel leading us - here and abroad. Those that are having hissy-fits can continue to have hissy-fits and if they must leave they must leave (keep in mind the prodigal son story). We and the rest of the communion just move forward in love and discussion. We continue the dialogue as we have and we continue to move -- sometimes in our own ways and sometimes together. Isn't that what the communion is all about? Isn't that what family is all about?

The Episcopal Diocese of San JoaURAquin

2010-11-16T22:32:00.000-08:00

Well, everyone, ya just can't make this stuff up. The current Provincial head of the Southern Cone, just happens to be the bishop of Uruguay and they want to ordain women. Certainly a just cause. In point of fact, their provincial constitution "supposedly" allows for churches to expressly do this. My initial reaction is to say, What the ????

Then good sense and an eye toward connecting the dots takes over and I calm down and things look different.

First, the Province of the Southern Cone was just this month "punished" for their cross border excursions.

Second, the provincial head IS the Bishop of Uruguay. He wants to "break away" from the province and find a home some place else?

Third, the issue is women's ordination??? The very reason why some of the diocese in TEC fled to the Southern Cone. Certainly John David Schofield and Jack Iker.

The diocese of Uruguay -- does it have a parliamentary style of governance similar to TEC? Probably not, but I do not know.

What happens if Uruguay is picked up by the Diocese of San Joaquin or by TEC? NOW we have the cross border excursion problem and they (Southern Cone) would point out very quickly that they are doing nothing more than what we are doing. Still, the dust settles and TEC has the issue of full inclusion which lots of folks including the Southern Cone don't like.

What happens if we do not pick up Uruguay? A bishop, in good conscience could still ordain women. Bishops in TEC did it years ago, why not the Bishop of Uruguay? What then? Greg Vulnerable has to sit on it and rotate? Right?

No, I propose we let them stew in their own juices for a while. Uruguay can still do what they want to do without aid from us -- at least for the time being.

The Episcopal Church, The Anglican Church of Canada and the "The Episcopal Church Covenant"

2010-11-16T06:05:00.000-08:00

I am genuinely unclear on why the Anglican Covenant continues to get so much "air time". That which I read indicates that pretty much everyone knows that the document, such as it is, is designed to:
1, at a minimum rehabilitate the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, or
2, remove these two entities from at least the top layer of the Anglican Communion; and,
3, further send more Episcopal diocese to the "other" provinces including the Wizard of Ahs province and Archduck Robert Duncan and the ACNA; and,
4, setup the Wizard of Ahs, Archduck Robert Duncan as the new "presiding bishop" of the newly minted Anglican Church in North America as the real province of the United States.

Given all of that hooey, and the fact that some folks, like Dr. White from Louisiana actually like the concept of a covenant, are we not working on a version that will clearly and unequivocally keep all the provinces from crossing borders and stealing diocese, property and money. Also, including in that document the fact that when a person of orders is deposed by a duly authorized and empowered source such as the Episcopal Church in the United States of America not fully and completely deposed in all the Anglican Communion. And also including in that document a little something that "satisfies the soul" when sneaky back-stabbing clergy come around from behind the presiding bishop and slip off to Canterbury to tell the Archbishop of Canterbury "it really is all those other Episcopal people and not us types that insist they are the good guys and can't they please take over when the rest of the Communion throws out the Episcopal Church "-- yep the Commode Partners needs a little something in the new Episcopal Covenant for them to chew on.

Once a good document is written, I cannot imagine it would take much time, we could use the Anglican Covenant as a "go by" since a bunch of folks seem enamoured with that Introduction at least, and then begin to lobby the world over for the acceptance and ratification of the Episcopal Covenant.

We as a province need to bring in the Church of Canada and begin to visit the world over and have those who would pass the Anglican Covenant pass the Episcopal Covenant. What are we doing that will solve the Gordian knot? We need to sidestep the stupid document called the Anglican Covenant and begin to exert some leadership overtly in the rest of the world. We need to markedly demonstrate to the rest of the Communion that we are following the path of Christ and that we are not hiding our light under a bushel basket. Now seems about as good a time to start as any.

God Does Not Depend On Me (or the Anglican Communion)

2010-11-14T07:59:00.000-08:00

Let me start with a huge disclaimer that this may go far astray. I am not a theologian. I know that truly great minds, far greater than mine, have tackled this issue and been only mildly successful, depending on how one defines success. However, on occasion, it is good to stray out of our comfort zone and to allow others to perhaps help set me straight on some very, very basic issues.Hold the cries of heretic and the resounding denunciations at least for a little while.

God, as I know and understand the concept, the person, the almighty, omniscient and omni-present being does not depend on me for his (or her) existence. God knows me and perhaps knew me before I was even born but I did not know him until a little thing called sanctifying grace came along and moved me in his direction. In point of fact, God's existence does not depend on any of us at any time for any reason. To somehow say something else, or believe something else, shrinks God to our size. My God, and I hope your God, is much, much much larger than that! The God I now know, can perform miracles. Did so in the past and does so now and will continue to do so in the future whether I believe it or not.

What God asks of me, more than anything else is to enter into a richly rewarding relationship with him and through him with my neighbor.  These relationships are not based on what church I attend or what communion I belong to or even what version of the bible or Koran or any other book I read. It is based on the concept that God is my God, I am his child and my need to love, honor, cherish, obey and follow him wherever he leads me is paramount.  And, that every other person on the face of this earth is also a child of God (whether they know it or not, whether they accept it or not, whether they believe it or not). And again, God's existence does not depend on this either. But as such, God wants me to be in a "right" relationship with my brothers and sisters. In fact, all His creation!

Yes, I do use my relationship with God, my church and my "religion" and a bible to help me discern this relationship. I am too weak, too fragile, to ignorant and too sinful to believe for even one moment that I can do this all by myself. So I talk to God, yep, I talk with God. Prayer is the most powerful thing I have ever come across. It quite literally has saved my life at least once.  So, the very first thing I use is, of all the silly things, my relationship with my God to help me understand and grow in that relationship. In effect, I ask God what I should be doing to create a more perfect union between God and me and me and my neighbor.

I also have figured out that God has called me to worship him in the most pure and heartfelt manner that I can find. And I do that as Moslems do that, as Hindi do that, as Buddists do that. See, the relationship I have with my God creates a need for me to be a Christian just as the need in others creates a need for them to be whatever they have discerned God is asking them to be. This is what I call reason. I could be wrong but reason, for me is the expression of how I understand what God has shared with me in prayer and how I put that into action.

Because of this selection I use a Bible and follow Christ. I could have used a Koran and followed Mohammed or the I Ching and followed Lao Tzu but while many millions of others have, I have picked a different path. The path I picked is, only in my opinion better because that is what, through prayer, I have discerned God wants me to do. I do not think for one second any one else has picked another path simply to irritate me or God.

The book I read, the Bible comes in many forms, or at least many translations. Unfortunately for me, I do not read or speak or write any of the ancient languages I find the original documents to be written in. If I did I do not think I would be a whole lot better off because I still need to read and discern the will of God and these books while great and I believe inspired only help me with my conversations with God. You know what, sometimes I find that the passages are contradictory, conflicting and very confusing. So what do I do? I go back and open another dialog with, you guessed it, God. And I hope and pray that what I finally determine is the right path is indeed the right path -- but keep in mind it does not change God, it only changes me.

One thing I find immutable at this point in my life. There are two great commandments. I find that Moses had ten and gave us all ten but those ten can be reduced to the two that Jesus gave us. First, love God with all your heart and all your mind and all your soul and, love your neighbor as yourself. (On these two commandments hang all the laws and the prophets.) But even having figured this much out, God's existence does not depend on me and these two commandments, only my relationship with God and my neighbor.

And so my actions, insofar as they affect my relationship with God and my neighbor depend on those things. Should there be more? Can there be more? What about all the other stuff like tradition and the Anglican Communion and the Archbishop of Canterbury and all that stuff? Well, that which I have described informs ALL my other actions and decisions. Notice that I said it informs MY actions and decisions. I have chosen to be Episcopal/Catholic (another time for that definition). I will say this much, since it has taken me about forever to get here (and I apologize to those who have been here and those who should have been here and were held out for reasons not entirely clear) that in my basic understanding as written about above, no one is excluded from participating.  Not a single solitary soul. It cannot be, it should not be, it must not be.

Insofar as the Anglican Communion is concerned, if it promotes that which I have described, then we should keep it. If it does not, then jettison it just like so much flotsam and jetsam. The Anglican Communion should promote the healthy relationship between each individual and his/her God. I do not see that as happening, at least not right now. It has become an impediment to our journey and should be released. Nothing terrible will happen. God will not cease to exist because we do not belong to this Anglican Communion. Our relationship with our God and our neighbor will not be irreparably damaged if it goes away. Let others argue about the Covenant and about the Communion, it has become a millstone around our necks. Time to move on, time to get back to what matters, time to renew our relationship with God and our neighbors -- ALL our neighbors!

A hat tip to Father Mark. This is your fault (;-).

The "Brotherhood" of the Clergy

2010-11-13T08:15:00.000-08:00

There is a poorly documented at best and perhaps at worst an undocumented, "brotherhood" of priests that has existed since the about the time the Apostles walked the face of this good earth. While you and I are not directly "privvy" to this "brotherhood" we see it come out in so many bizarre ways today.

First, let us be clear, it is a "brother---hood" and if you would like to know why there is such an uproar in the Communion over women clergy and especially women bishops, you need look no further than the "brotherhood". Women have broken into the clique that has been dominated by men for centuries. I am willing to bet you my old favorite "dollars to doughnuts" that Susan Russell, Kathryn Galacia, Elizabeth Keaton and all the other women bump into this about every other day.

Think back to when you were in middle school and high school and there was this group called the "socs" (short for socialites). There were secret words and bonds of affection and a circle of protection that blanketed virtually all of them. And, whoa unto you that tried to get into that group. Well, this "brotherhood of priests is even more tight and more protective than that group ever was and "no women allowed". This group has pulled up the ladder and will not allow any women into that group in the Anglican tree houses in Texas and in San Joaquin.

In the most extreme form it looks like Bishop Bennison in Pennsylvania. It looks like the Roman Catholic protection of so many clergy that have offended God and abuse little children. (Yes, this brotherhood extends throughout the clergy and without regard to denomination). It is a "code of honor" that says we are special, we have been set aside for special work and only "we" can judge and condemn or approve those who have done wrong. It is a group that circles the wagons every time there is an accusation or an issue the "brotherhood" believes will lessen their power hold on the rest of the church.

Gils Frasier writes:

The Church of England – and by that I mean the ordinary man and woman in the pew – is considerably more progressive, on women bishops and gay marriage, than its conservative and often overly fearful leadership. Churchgoers know that the time for change is overdue. And many have come to see this because of the inspiring and compassionate faith of people like Robinson.

For too long Christianity has lent the bigotry of homophobia a cloak of respectability. Robinson is, of course, quite right to shout loudly about those "tragic stories of teenagers who have taken their own lives because religion tells them they are an abomination before God, and who believe their lives are doomed to despair and unhappiness". These days the alibi for this sort of prejudice is called unity – that we mustn't do anything that might upset our conservative brothers and sisters. Indeed, had the covenant existed in the era of the prophets of the Hebrew scriptures, it would have provided a perfect way of muzzling them too.

(My emphasis)

It is this "brotherhood" that is now holding hostage the issue of inclusion. Whether it's women or LGBT or handicapped or whatever that is different this "brotherhood" has decided that THEY are not worthy of being in with the "socs". The "brotherhood" has fought long and hard to keep these people out and why? Because they did not want to give up the "secret handshake".

(I caught this by secret camera)

Now, guess what? With full inclusion the "brotherhood" will not only have to let everyone know the secret handshake but many in the brotherhood fear that they will have to protect their new found fellow bishops from the same "harm" and with the same ferocity that they have protected all the "good old boys" for centuries. They hate that -- but more to the point now everyone gets to have power and gee whiz, that is just awful. How are they going to be "separate and equal" with all these other people getting to come in?

Overturn the "brotherhood", break up the "socs'" clique and I believe everything else will go much more smoothly. But who is going to do that? Well, +Gene is just about to retire and he is going to be replaced with that bastion of freedom and inclusivity Father Dan Martins. What a blow for inclusivity that is! What a step in the direction of fresh air and openness.

Want to know why I recommend the House of Bishops goes away? Why there should only be a unicameral house? Look no further than this issue. Will the bishops give this up willingly? I do not think so but that is yet to be seen. Let's hope (better let's pray) someone steps forward and begins the process but believe me the punishment heaped on +Gene will be minor compared to the punishment heaped upon those that step forward to break this "brotherhood" up.

Beyond the Anglican Communion

2010-11-11T21:27:00.000-08:00

This little ditty appeared as a segment of the Archbishop of Canterbury's proposal for the "upcoming Primates meeting. I snatched it from Thinking Anglicans

In a letter to the primates dated Oct 7, Dr. Rowan Williams suggested that given the “number of difficult conversations” and the threat of a boycott of its meetings, a regime of separate but equal facilitated small groups sessions might better serve the primates’ “diverse” perspectives and forestall the substantial “damage” to the communion a full-fledged boycott would entail.

While I would actually love to dissect the issue of "separate but equal" perhaps another time. The fact is the entire communion is on the verge of a complete breakdown/breakup which is exactly what GAFCON/ACNA/FCA/AMiA and the rest of the alphabet soup folks have worked for over the last 20 years. They are on the verge of getting their wish. Notice I did not say win, since no one will win in this mess, in fact the only winners will be those who recreate their own future depending on how each treats the next 18 to 36 months.

What needs to be done. First, the Anglican Covenant needs to be resoundingly rejected in toto. It would be great to simply ignore this proposed document but it is now absolutely and totally meaningless and therefore no one needs to spend any time on it, except we said we would. So, we spend a de minimis amount of time and then send the whole thing packing. It was the figment of the GAFCON imagination to begin with to keep the rest of the communion busy while they did their own nefarious things (and have now succeeded). There is no reason to even think about this except we said we would and so we need to fulfill the promise. If you do not see it circling the bowl on a large scale we need to make sure it gets flushed.

Second, we need to redouble our efforts to regain all TEC property and with the falling out about to fall out it should make it easier because there can be no claim to an Anglican Communion and therefore Anglican property if there is no Communion to hang on to. Good news for The Episcopal Church.

Third, we should now move to consolidate diocese and provinces to take advantage of the economy of scales and to the extent necessary, re-do any bishops out a diocese as suffragan or co-adjutator for other diocese. The reduced numbers of administrative offices and the possibility of such issues as a national payroll office and other national office consolidated would be most beneficial.

Fourth, those parishes recovered through litigation that are unable to be self-sufficient are either mothballed or sold. Those mothballed may be returned to working status upon demonstration that their mission status is viable and there is a reasonable opportunity to move to full parish status within three to five years. Those parishioners returning to the Episcopal Church are not permitted to hold any office in the parish or diocese for a period of no more than five years.

Fifth, consolidate the house of Bishops with the House of Deputies and become a unicameral house. Bishops retired are bishops retired and may have seat but no voice or vote in the new house.

Sixth, all new bishops are elected without consent of the new house but only for seven years. At the end of seven years a bishop may be re-elected and for life but not without the consent of the new unicameral house.

Seventh, job descriptions for bishops are re-written to remove the issues of property and administration from the job. These duties are fully vested in the Standing Committee and the Diocesan Councils. This way bishops can concentrate on those issues most near and dear to their hearts, pastoral care.

For Those Contemplating The Approval of the Anglican Covenant

2010-11-09T05:49:00.000-08:00

Let us begin with a statement on the retirement of +Gene Robinson from, as Father Christian has called him, "The Lord High" Peter Jensen (from Australia) the Secretary to GAFCON/FCA:

Statement by Archbishop Peter Jensen

General Secretary of GAFCON/FCA

The agonising dispute in the Anglican Communion is not about Bishop Robinson personally. It is true that his consecration as a Bishop seven years ago was one of the flashpoints for a serious re-alignment of the whole Communion. But many things have happened since then. GAFCON is about the future. It is dedicated to the future of a renewed Anglican Communion centred on the orthodox teaching of the Jerusalem Declaration.

7th November 2010

Find and read the Jerusalem Declaration because you also find out it is not about the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is not even about sola scriptura. It is about power. Who has it, who wants it, who is willing to pay any price to get it. The group that is "GAFCON/FCA" are the archbishops tired of playing second fiddle to the Episcopal Church in the United States, The Anglican Church of Canada and the Anglican Church of England.

It is also about those who are willing to follow the folks who are willing to dump TEC, COE, ACC -- yes it is about ACNA and Mr. Duncan and whoa - hold on to your hat - it is about the Communion Partners. You want to send a message to GAFCON/FCA that we are not going to sit still for this type of power grubbing play they continue to display? Do not consent to the election of Father Dan Martins. This will tell them we will not willingly add to the prestige and power of those who are willing to kill the Episcopal Church.

Bishop Jerry Lamb is Leaving the EPISCOPAL Diocese of San Joaquin

2010-11-08T04:00:00.000-08:00

`

As I mentioned in an earlier post Bishop Jerry Lamb has announced that he will retire after the diocese finds a new provisional bishop later this year.

Today, Bishop Lamb visited our parish for the last time. It was a fitting occasion. We celebrated All Saints Day and with that had one baptism and one reception into the Episcopal Church. I had the great privilege of serving as Bishop Lamb's chaplain for this last visitation. As I stood next to Bishop Lamb during the baptism and the reception there was not a doubt in my mind that the Spirit was moving in the actions of this great bishop.

Bishop Lamb came to us in the Spring of 2008 as we were reconstituting the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. Many may think he is a gentle soul but I think not. Oh to be sure, he loves the people in our diocese and is both gracious and caring. He has worked very diligently and with great patience and care at bringing us all together once again. But gentle, I think not. He has had to stare down some of the most intransigent groups of "Anglicans" this world may ever know. He has done that with grace and dignity but not particularly with gentleness.

Bishop Lamb came to us as he was retiring from his original diocese in Northern California and at the request of the Presiding Bishop he came to us. What a spirit guided decision that was! To coin an old saw "he kicked down the doors and flung open the windows" on 20 plus years of secrecy and subterfuge and we (The Episcopal Church) are all better for him having done that.

Today he was gifted a wonderful fishing rod. If he is as good at trout fishing as he is at people fishing his creel will always be full! We will miss you deeply Bishop Lamb. I will miss you Bishop Lamb. We love you and I will not say "good-bye", but rather, "Until we meet again."

The face of the young man standing at the top of this post is the face of the reconstituted Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. Today, at the peace he came into the church and the very first thing he did/said was he pointed right at Bishop Lamb and said, "There is the bishop!" Truerer words were never spoken.

My Covenant (Not Anglican)

2010-11-07T20:40:00.000-08:00

All the covenants I have ever made have only been with God, my father as mediated through Jesus Christ my Savior as revealed by the Holy Spirit. None of those currently employed by the various churches in the Anglican Communion including Mr. Akinola, Mr. Orombi, Mr. Jensen, Mr. Rowan Williams, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Venables or any other even closely resembles God in any of the three forms. I therefore submit that I pass on the Anglican Covenant. I suggest that everyone else follow suit.

Job Duty of a Bishop

2010-11-04T21:42:00.000-07:00

Brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus, you have heard testimony
given that the Reverend Daniel Martins has been duly and lawfully elected to be a
bishop of the Church of God to serve in the Diocese of Springfield
You have been assured of his suitability and that the Church
has approved him for this sacred responsibility. Nevertheless,
if any of you know any reason why we should not proceed,let it now be made known.

Much is still being written about the bishop-elect of the Episcopal Diocese of Springfield, Father Dan Martins. Much of that which is written is not based on personal experience but rather on what they read and what someone has told them. Many think that it is "unfair" and disingenuous of the clergy and laity in the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. I must say, no I am obliged to say that many of you, most of you have not lived through the horror of a complete breakdown and breakup of some of the most fundamental belief systems one has. Whether Father Martins was the single most important person or just one of many, there can be no doubt he was a significant clergy person in the breakup of the diocese. But I am getting ahead of myself. I wish to approach this on a couple of additional levels.

First, the issue of "where is Father Martins when the chips were down?" Yes, he states that he did everything in his power to convince Bishop John David Schofield that what he was doing, leaving the Episcopal Church was all wrong. Over 20 or more years the drive by John David Schofield has been moving toward the split and Father Martins never had a chance to convince JDS otherwise? Well, Father Joel Miller stayed and fought, Father Glenn Kanestrom, stayed and fought and Father Mark Hall stayed and fought, to name but a few. Father Martins was is just incorrect in saying that there was not base for fighting the bishop. There was a basis and a group for staying and fighting.

Will you boldly proclaim and interpret the Gospel of
Christ, enlightening the minds and stirring up the
conscience of your people?

In addition, and perhaps a less known fact, is the reading public aware that Father Martins actually debated Father Joel Miller at St. Francis Episcopal Church on the efficacy of staying with the Episcopal Church? Father Martins taking the side that it was not in the diocese of San Joaquin's best interest to stay within the Episcopal Church. That not withstanding, IF Father Martin's changed his mind why did he not stay? There was support here for those that stayed, call Father Hall or Father Kanestrom.

Bishop Edward Little talks about how he knows Father Martins very well, and I suppose he should. They served the same Bishop in the same way for much of the same time -- And so did Bishop Mark Lawrence. Father Martins and half a dozen rectors from both Northern Indiana and Springfield (as well as one from the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin) as well as two Bishops, one from South Carolina and one from Springfield belong to the Communion Partners. This group has specifically degraded the presiding bishop and the house of bishops for its actions in deposing bishops that have left the Episcopal Church. In addition, it has, without regard for the Presiding Bishop, gone over and around her to the Archbishop of Canterbury to assure him of their fealty and the erroneous ways of the Episcopal Church. Yet, they are two timid to actually take a significant action that would jeopardize their positions, rather opting to wait and "takeover" by subterfuge.

Will you guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the
Church of God?

Will you share with your fellow bishops in the
government of the whole Church; will you sustain
your fellow presbyters and take counsel with them;
will you guide and strengthen the deacons and all
others who minister in the Church?

Now, there is also the issue of SSB and all that that entails and there are two areas of real concern, or at least there should be.

As a chief priest and pastor, will you encourage and
support all baptized people in their gifts and
ministries, nourish them from the riches of God's
grace, pray for them without ceasing, and celebrate
with them the sacraments of our redemption?

Okay, so you think SSB is bunk, and not a given and whatever? How about the fact that when the chips were down, Father Martins looked around and saw many, many good people, laity and clergy that were significantly hurting and what did he do? He did what any one might do -- he left everyone in the lurch. Maybe he wasn't thinking that this was going to ruin his run for bishop but what about the hurt and the pain that so many people felt during that time when he was still in the diocese of San Joaquin? Weren't they deserving of his love and care?

Finally, the issue of "but the Springfield Diocese has called him and the consents ought to be given." Well, let's not talk about several almost bishops that were not granted consents because they were Buddhist or Hindi or women, or gay, or whatever, lets talk about the stuff that ought to make a bishop. A bishop should be concerned about ALL the diocese and when the going gets tough the bishop ought not to leave? Or am I wrong? If there is a stand to be made shouldn't the stand be clear and unequivocal and shouldn't the bishop be the firstest with the mostest? How does that stack up against the Communion Partners "nibbling around the edges". A bishop should figure out what is the right course of action and not decide after 3,4,5,6,?? years that whoops! I need to change my mind and do something else. A bishop needs to care for all his flock not just those that are easy to care for and leave those that are difficult to fend for themselves. A bishop should be true to the doctrine and discipline of his church and not gallivant off to a foreign land for aide and comfort.

And oh, by the way, if he does not receive the necessary consents, does that mean he will not continue his ministry in the exact manner in which he has in the past? Oh, no, we cannot assume that since he has already demonstrated by his actions something different.

A Community Opposed to the Anglican Covenant

2010-11-03T05:48:00.000-07:00

There is a new website coming up entitled No Anglican Covenant. It is a majestic site worthy of at least one trip there. Here is the linkage, No Anglican Covenant. I encourage you to go and visit and take in as much as you can. Here is a cite to the prayer page of this webpage and at a minimum we all ought to be praying that the Covenant fails. This is also an international site that will ring the world, or at least that is the hope. And therein lies the problem.

We as members of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America have a unique and glorious organization that no one else in the world (well, in the Anglican Communion) really understands. We are a collaborative and deliberative body that incorporates the thoughts and ideas of the laity as well as the clergy. We recognize that God's voice comes sometimes, from the frailest, weakest, most extraordinary of persons. We not only honor that thought but we routinely incorporate it into our daily church lives. THERE IS NO OTHER ANGLICAN COMMUNITY LIKE OURS! For years, but particularly right now, this fact is one of the glaring issues of our time and the rest of the Anglican Communion cannot even begin to truly fathom how we operate let alone respect and honor TEC for this unique quality.

But that is a two-edged sword. I have had the great pleasure of talking on a number of occasions with (retired) Bishop Shalita, bishop of Uganda. (Please do not run off!). Many of our conversations have been centered on the difference in which the Episcopal Church does business as compared to virtually the rest of the world. The Primate of a province, say Uganda, while he can incorporate what the clergy have to say into his decision making is not obliged to and certainly no one really asks the laity what they think. To paraphrase Bishop Shalita, "Why would I do that?". The real hard fact for us to understand is the reverse of what the rest of the world cannot seem to understand about us, we have laity that participate in the decision making process, virtually everyone else does not.

What does that mean for this new and great website? Good luck for starters! It can and should help us here in the United States in defeating the Anglican Covenant but I am not so sure it will do much of anything internationally -- the primates have made up their minds what they are going to do and convincing the laity (or for that matter other clergy) will not do any good, they do not operate like we do (Thank God!).

I beleive that the Anglican Covenant is not for us, in fact it ought not be for anyone. I am wondering if the long term outcome is to just move on without the Communion, if only for a while and continue our work and direct all our efforts into the full inclusion of everyone.

Father Dan Martins and the Story of the Scorpion

2010-11-02T07:09:00.000-07:00

Father Mark Harris posted an "apology" for Father Dan Martins' consent as bishop. I just could not let it sit -- I think the world of Father Mark Harris (and for that matter Father Weir) but the "flaw" that is present in our body is no more prominent than here.

Given the opportunity to be "a bishop" or "suffer the slings and arrows of chance" what would you say? Please, let me be bishop, I promise I will not sting you. I find the 'argument' to be unpersuasive and in fact in keeping with the documents Father Dan writes. What happened in San Joaquin? Read between the lines, he lost whatever he had been promised by Mr. Schofield and needed to get out! He said he had no choice - either drietrly oppose the bishop or leave? There was clear support for an opposition to the bihsop but he choice the coward's choice thereby leaving Father Mark Hall and Father Glenn Kanestrom and Father Joel (see the posting at Real Anglican that has a tale of two priests) to name but a few to carry on the fight. No, he had a choice and he made the choice that made him look good and kept his "reputation" in tact.

The Scorpion and the Frog

One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.
The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn't see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.

Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

"Hellooo Mr. Frog!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?"

"Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly.

"Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!"

Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. "What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!"

"This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn't be able to get to the other side of the river!"

"Alright then...how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?" said the frog.

"Ahh...," crooned the scorpion, "Because you see, once you've taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to
reward you with death, now would it?!"

So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog's back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog's soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of
the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.

Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of
the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog's back.
A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.

"You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"

The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog's back.

"I could not help myself. It is my nature."

Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.

Self destruction - "Its my Nature", said the Scorpion...

Now, while it may be the "fair" thing to do to consent to a bishop-elect that has "repented" keep in mind that bishop-elects have, in the not too distant past, said things and then either not followed through or weaseled their way around the words or perhaps just not told the truth. If we hand the Episcopal Church another "loaded weapon" how can we be surprised if we shoot ourselves in the foot?

Maybe, one really does have to experience this crap in order to fully understand. The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin did the only thing it could in order to provide leadership to the rest of the Episcopal Church in an area that you all have very little knowledge or understanding or experience. The diocese not only refused consent but put out the reasons for their thinking, more than Father Dan Martins did when he "left town". The flaw in the Espicopal ethos that I see is one of overly graciousness in granting the honorable opposition room to roam, so to speak. Look back on all that has happened in the last 10 years, read the Chapman Memo and ask yourself is that not exactly what those who would destroy the Episcopal Church count on?

In closing, ultimately, all I ask is that you pray and then cast your vote.

Attention Diocesan Standing Committees: Enough Information to decline to grant consent to the election of Father Dan Martins to Bishop of Springfield

2010-10-31T15:15:00.000-07:00

In an earlier post, I espoused the position that it was not in the best interests of the Episcopal Church to grant consent to the election of Father Dan Martins as the bishop of the Episcopal diocese of Springfield.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, I WAS WRONG! Many of you may have already known that, assumed that, figured that I had been smoking something funny or otherwise was just "off my rocker".

Let me be clear. I was/am not a fan of Father Dan Martins and never have been. See my prior posts on this priest who fled the diocese and let it in a shambles. I just did not see any genuine reason why/how consent could be withheld, given our governance system and the grounds. Well, sufficient information has now been released via the Episcopal diocese of San Joaquin to create enough doubt in the minds of every member of every standing committee in the Episcopal Church that bishop-elect Dan Martins would stay with the Episcopal Church.

The long and the short of the information you are about to read is that Father Martins was knee-deep in the split of the Dioceses of San Joaquin from the Episcopal Church. He helped write the constitutional changes that "made it possible" for the diocese of San Joaquin to "leave". Father Martins ~~speaks disparagingly~~ cunningly discusses the strategy to remove the diocese from the Episcopal Church. The operative word here is "cunning" -- Father Martins is cunning, keep that one word foremost in your mind.

Here are the citations:

Diocesan Council Minutes

Bishop Schofield's Address to Convention identifying Dan Martins as a ~~co-conspirator~~ author of the constitutional amendments

Father Dan Martin's email (cunning??)

Standing Committee minutes in which Fr. Martins participates "fully" in the discussion of the split.

Email from Dan Martins 2006

Lest you think I am alone, here is the letter from the Standing Committee of the EPISCOPAL DIOCESE of San Joaquin on there lack of consent.

Standing Committee letter on withholding consent of the election of Dan Martins to the bishop of Springfield.

I do not do this lightly, this is a very serious matter, but there is no doubt in my mind that much as Fr. Martins' mentor, Father Martins will do what HE feels is best, regardless of who gets hurt or what happens!

Convention Vignettes:Updated

2010-10-18T20:30:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: sorry, the vidoes were private but now they are PUBLIC! Please forgive the new guy, he knows not what he does.

And now, I have added a bunch of brief videos from the convention. It was a pretty ordinary convention but the homily from Canon Straub was outstanding. The reading came from Exodus when the Israelites came up against the Re(e)d Sea and saw Pharaoh's chariots coming right at them. They had already witnessed two miracles and were still doubting the power of Yhwh. Canon Straub reminded us of a couple of things. First, we have already witnessed a couple of miracles in our diocese alone and there will be more to come. But what I got out of the homily also was we need to whine less and pray more (working more would also be helpful). We need to pray hard and move out in faith. We started the journey that way and now is no time to stop.

The Issue Is Justice Not Disunity!

2010-10-18T07:24:00.000-07:00

We, the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin just finished our 51st Annual Convention on an incredible high. Gregory Straub "filled in" for Bonnie Anderson at the last moment and all I can saw is Wow! For the first time I heard a national officer of the Episcopal Church state clearly and unequivocally our position with regard to full inclusion. And then, today I started to read Leonardo Ricardo's blog, Eruptions At the Foot of The Volcano which is an outstanding piece but it took me to a posting from Father Jake in 2005 which led me to this quote:

To return us to the issue of the Windsor Report, I'll close with a quote from Bishop Spong which Kennedy includes within his essay:

(The Lambeth Commission) decided mistakenly that they were dealing with an issue of disunity, when they were in fact dealing with the evil of prejudice. That was clear when their solution was to invite those churches that have banished their homophobic prejudices to consider apologizing to those parts of the church that were offended by their inclusiveness. That would be like asking those nations that have thrown off the evil of segregation to apologize for hurting the consciences of the segregationists. It was an inconceivable request. Whenever growth occurs there is always conflict and dislocation. The world would still be practicing slavery, child labor, and second class status for women, had not a new consciousness confronted our prejudices in a movement that always destroys the unity of the old consensus.

I bring this up for a couple of reasons. First, it more than adequately describes the level (or multiple levels) upon which our conversation on the Anglican Covenant is based. Second, though it has been said before it bears repeating, repeating and repeating until the conversation comes back to the real issue, that of mellenia of prejudice. Our parish is currently dealing with the Anglican Covenant just as the Presiding Bishop, Executive Council and the General Convention has asked for us to do, but it is so very hard because the Anglican Covenant deals with, has been written in, and is being deciphered and dissected on the basis of Anglican Unity and not prejudice. In each section and at every turn we read about those things that bring the Anglican Communion closer together and what would happen if one does not "walk the line" or "toe the mark" but it leaves not room for real discussion and genuine disagreement when it comes to biblical social justice issues such as prejudice. We are just not communicating.

The primates of the Global South want to have a uniform means and manner of presenting issues that affect the communion, such as full inclusion, and are willing to remove anyone from the "confessing community" when we do not confess our sins against unity. The Archbishop of Canterbury views this as much the same thing, an issue of unity. When we talk about the Anglican Covenant, we talk about the same thing, it seems reasonable. But It IS Not! We have been forced to take up the conversation that those in the global south see as the issue, one of disloyalty to the Anglican Community. WRONGO BUCKEROO!

We need to reshape the discussion to the real issue of prejudice and full inclusion. Dr. Straub's speech on Friday night clearly laid that out. We need to send messengers to all corners of the Anglican Communion to accomplish this task, and we need to do it now! (By the way, while I wish Bonnie a speedy recovery we are/were glad to have had Dr. Straub with use, and thank you to Dr. Straub for coming.

h/t Leonardo Ricardo
h/t Fr. Jake
a big thank you to Dr. Straub!

Final Convention News Update - Conelonialists Do Not Need to Think

2010-10-17T06:45:00.000-07:00

Well, I still have pictures and fond memories of our 51st Convention in the diocese of San Joaquin. But, I wish to remind those who may read this blog but are "ANGLICAN" of the Conelonialist persuasion of one huge fact. We went to convention and we voted at convention. We elected delegates to the General Convention for 2012 who met at the end of our convention to discuss issues of the National Convention. When the conelonialists meet, I wonder who gets elected to the General Convention in the Southern Cone? Oh, no one you say? Oh, boy, did ya'll forget about the fact that the Episcopal Church is so unique that there is no other province that is organized like we are? So, you are going to go to your General convention and ~~vote~~ be told what is good for you to believe and what is good for you not to believe and when do you get to vote on your constitution and canons and how you are governed and who governs you. Never, you say? Just one of the fringe benefits of being a conelonialist -- you no longer have to think!

More Convention News

2010-10-16T22:00:00.000-07:00

Here was the agenda :

51st Annual Convention
Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin
Modesto, California
October 15 - 16, 2010
Friday, October 15, 2010

12:00 Noon – 3:00 PM Set up

3:00 PM – 7:00 PM Registration Open

5:00 PM – 6:30 PM Workshop #1

6:45 PM Dinner
Speaker, Bonnie Anderson
President of the House of Deputies

Saturday, October 16, 2010

7:30 AM Registration Open
Exhibits Open
Coffee in the Exhibit Area/Parish Hall

8:00 AM - 9:15 AM Workshop #2

9:30 AM Brunch in the Parish Hall

10:45 AM – 2:00 PM Convention Business Meeting

2:00 PM Holy Eucharist

3:00 PM – 4:00 PM Workshop #3

4:00 PM Sandwich & Salad Buffet, Parish Hall

4:45 PM Discussion regarding full inclusion of lesbian,gay, bisexual,and transgender persons in the life of the Diocese of San Joaquin led by Bishop Jerry Lamb.

Here is the sad news that goes with this year's convention news. Bishop Jerry Lamb AND Canon Mark Hall (see a prior posting on Canon Hall) will retire this year. We said farewell for the first time today and there will be more but these are big shoes to fill!

UPDATE: Canon Straub Tells It like It Is

2010-10-16T20:45:00.000-07:00

I fugired out the video thing and so I have posted a brief piece from Canon Straub from Friday night. He is a powerful speaker. Bonnie Anderson was supposed to be with us but she became suddenly ill and so sent Canon Straub in her place. Great Choice!

I took some video of Canon Straub as he was making his presentation to the dinner group but it just did not work out -- so much for my movie skills! Canon Straub shared with us the direction we as a church are now sailing and it was pretty clear. Our beloved Episcopal Church WILL be fully inclusive of all! No, ifs, ands, or buts. Those who reject this idea need to think long and hard about who we are and what we do, for there will be no equivocation.

Get 'cher Red Hot News!

2010-10-15T05:53:00.000-07:00

From Yosemite to Tracy,CA and from Bakersfield to Lodi the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin begins it's annual convention this evening at around 5 pm. As a delegate I will try to keep everyone informed of the news hot off the presses. Last year was a gala event in which we shared the good news of the continuing Episcopal diocese of San Joaquin with the rest of The Epsicopal Church. We have a bit of heavy lifting with Title IV and all but we should also have some fun, a concept foreign to this convention a mere 3 years ago.

Hi ho hi ho, it's off to cvonvention I go!

From Bishop to Servant

2010-10-10T11:47:00.000-07:00

Let's start by saying that there is indeed a role for bishops, after all, they are the successors of the apostles in the modern church. So, let's begin with a few definitions of bishops:

•a senior member of the Christian clergy having spiritual and administrative authority; appointed in Christian churches to oversee priests or ministers; considered in some churches to be successors of the twelve Apostles of Christ
•port wine mulled with oranges and cloves
•(chess) a piece that can be moved diagonally over unoccupied squares of the same color
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

•A bishop is an ordained or consecrated member of the Christian clergy who is generally entrusted with a position of authority and oversight. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop

•In the Catholic Church, a bishop is an ordained minister who holds the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders and is responsible for teaching the Catholic faith and ruling the Church.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_(Catholic_Church)

•Bishop is the highest priesthood office of the Aaronic priesthood in the Latter Day Saint movement. A bishop is usually the leader of a local congregation of church members. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_(Latter_Day_Saints)

•A bishop is a person of authority in a Christian church. In particular, see also: * Bishop (Catholic Church) * Bishop (Latter Day Saints)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_(disambiguation)

Clearly, from day 1, bishops have had a pastoral role in the church. But, for some reason, perhaps good, perhaps not so good, bishops have picked up the function of "administrative/organizational/political arm of the church, especially our church. Over the course of time the position has come to be sought after by many. Let's face it, in American society (at least)we have an "up or out mentality". While this is prevalent in the military it pervades our entire society. It means that if one is not being promoted one is not doing the job correctly. I ask you, what priest in seminary, has not asked/day-dreamed about becoming "The Bishop"? My guess is at least every one of them that carries a mitre and crosier today, plus some that have not yet got it but are in the wings (wink, wink, nod, nod, Fr. Martins). The upshot is that very few priests daydream about being a parish priest, worker priest, chaplain or whatever. Most are looking for the kick in pay and more importantly, the kick in authority. After all, once made a bishop, one gets to join the good old boys club, better known as the House of bishops. One then gets to travel to all parts of the country (and nowadays the world, ask Robert Duncan, John Guernsey, Martyn Minns, etal) and affect the lives of thousands of unsuspecting Anglicans the world over.

One interesting idea promulgated by the current definition of bishop is that of "teacher". In days gone by, like hundreds of years ago, books were in short supply and clergy "had to teach" the laity what the laity needed to know. Well, I think there are enough books and texts and the laity is smart enough now to figure things out, at least as equals. In effect, the need for bishop as teacher is gone, though one will not get many bishops to agree to that! Ask Mr. Akinola, Mr. Orombi and Mr. Venables.

So, what do we need to do? Well, for openers, let's dissolve the House of Bishops and return them to the House of Deputies. Voting by orders is not very productive when the orders are feathering their own nests. Let's mix things up a little more, after all, William White originally saw no need for a House of Bishops. He was pushed into a compromise from the delegates from Connecticut. Time to do away with that.

Next, let's move the authority of the bishop back to pastoral care only. Bishops complain they never have enough time to see everyone. Let's make sure they have enough time to do so. Certainly the Standing Committee and the Diocesan Council can carry the weight of the political/administrative end of the diocese. Bluntly, bishops should be kept home. It ain't no fun, but they were not elected to have fun, they are elected to care for the flock. By flock that means clergy first and laity second.

Next, bishops should be elected to seven year terms. Certainly a bishop, doing a fine job could be re-elected as often as the diocese wants but there should always be an opportunity for the bishop to return to the regular orders. In addition, and as a new twist, with a seven year term, there is no need for approval from the other bishops/standing committees.

So, where would the eccelsiastical authority lie? Well, on most matters, primarily with the Standing Committee and then secondarily with the Diocesan Council. The Bishop becomes a member of those committees and voices his/her opinion on certain matters affecting the pastoral care of all the flock. Standing Committee is a committee of the whole and no one person could do anything (or for that matter is anything without a majority vote. Same would be true of the Diocesan Council. A possible unintended consequence would/could be the rise in authority of the Canons, but that can be dealt with later.

Another consequence of the seven year vote would be that Archbishop Duncan would only be Mr. Duncan not only for us but for the ACNA as well. In effect, had he been re-elected he would certainly be unelected shortly. Same is true of Minns and Guernsey and Anderson and all those who would pretend to the throne.

Clearly, we need to do something and something dramatic and soon. The abuse of the bishops position has grown beyond that which this church can much longer stand. We need to move forward and forget the past. This becomes the springboard for just such a move.

Canon Mark Hall Is FAMOUS

2010-10-08T22:19:00.000-07:00

We have a very fine priest, Father Mark Hall, who has truly suffered the "slings and arrows" from the former bishop, now Mr. John David Schofield. Father Mark was the rector of St. Anne's in Stockton and is now the Canon to the Ordinary for our own diocese of San Joaquin and of course our bishop, Jerry Lamb. There are very, very few priests who were able to weather the full force of the maniacal idiocy that seemed to overtake almost every clergy person in our diocese back in early 2000s. I believe that Father Hall was here when John David Schofield arrived and much to his credit and to our great benefit, he was here when John David Schofield left. In between those two bookend events, he rode what could only be euphemistically called a real roller coaster.

As it turns out now, Father Mark enjoys a modicum of peace and quiet as well as a renewed sense of purpose and a renewed sense of pride. He is a great source of strength for our diocese. Now, he enjoys a new notoriety. The following appears on the Institute for Religion and Democracy's home page:

"...We are using the only means in our system, the civil courts, because we need to stand up for the organizational integrity of the Episcopal Church. And possibly ever more importantly, we are also standing up for the Truth of Jesus."

- Canon Mark Hall of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin (CA), explaining to the continuing diocese why it needs to sue the departing Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin and claim ownership of departing church properties.

If you would like to know where David Anderson (CANA, AiMA, ACNA, etc.) gets his money; if you would like to know where much of the vitriol for LGBT community and the funding for the proposition 8 (California style) funding comes from then just visit this site. Incidentally, the president of this august body, Mark Tooley, is a former "analyst" for the Central Intelligence Agency and supposedly his area was Central America and South America. Wonder if he had anything to do with that thingy in Guatemala?

The lead guy on all things Anglican is Jeff Walton. Form his bio on the site:

Jeff worships at Restoration Anglican Church in Arlington, Virginia, a daughter congregation of the Falls Church in Falls Church, VA, where he is active in the young adult and global missions programs. Jeff holds a degree in Political Science and Communications from Seattle Pacific University.

The IRD is the brainchild of Howard Ahmanson -- wealthy conservative who wishes to bring back the ten commandments as the law of the land. Congratulations Father Mark, you are quoted in high places!

It Is Too Late To Save The Communion

2010-10-05T20:57:00.000-07:00

In a nutshell, yes. The Anglican Communion has been split. There is no turning back and there is no repairing and there is no fixing or making better or even a reason to pretend, though apparently many in the Episcopal Church would like for us to continue to pretend (Leonardo, what do you think of pretending?)

The Anglican Communion was doomed when Bishop Wantland and Mr. Schofield and Mr. Howe all decided to "steal" the corporate jewels: "The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America", maybe before. The fate of the Communion was sealed when the diocese of San Joaquin quit and went to the Southern Cone. The full program had been developed and put into play way back then. If you haven't noticed, we in the Episcopal Church have been one step behind every twist and evil turn that came from the Primates, ACNA, Robert Duncan and Jack Iker. Ya know what, good riddance to bad rubbish. As Jesus would say, "Let the dead bury the dead." Let's get on with living.

It is time to say goodbye and move forward with our plans. Here is what I suggest:
First, send the Anglican Covenant back to the Archbishop of Canterbury in tiny little shredded pieces.

Second, reconstitute the Episcopal Church in the United States of America to create a unicameral house, the House of Delegates where each member votes and the majority plus one rules. Not all bishops, not all clergy would be members but rather a structure not unlike the house of representatives could be created and then used as a base for all future conventions.
Third, re-write the "job description" of the bishop (of all bishops) to create a truly (and only) pastoral role for this order. The bishops should be first, last and always charged with the care and feeding of the lambs including the clergy. Let's strip the mystique from this order and bring them back to earth to do what they should have been doing all along.
Fourth, title V and the canons that go with it, should be re-written to include anyone with an ecclesiastical role can be presented including lay and clergy -- for the ecclesiastical roles only.
Fifth, kick open the doors and windows and lets get EVERYONE fully included in the life and work of the church. We stand for the love and care of Jesus Christ, the embodiment of the two great commandments, let's make that ring out from sea to shining sea.
Sixth, create a prayerbook that reflects our love and care and concern and still has the prose and beauty of it all.
Seventh, collapse the dioceses and the provinces to sizes that make sense in both numbers and geography as well as finances and outreach.
Eighth, rewrite the procedures for becoming a bishop -- create bishops that are 7 year bishops and then they go back to being just regular clergy. Based on a good job description of bishops lets let everyone (well, okay, most everyone) take a crack at being a bishop.
Summary, lets stop playing like there is something to lose and nothing to gain. We have lost the Communion and we stand to gain our church back. Let's get going -- time's awastin'!

The #@$% Anglican &%$!# Covenant

2010-10-04T05:40:00.000-07:00

Over at The Lead Mr. Naughton writes about how Bishop Chris Epting would like to know our thoughts on the issue of the Anglican Covenant, better known in my circles as the "poison pill". This is of course, an offshoot of what the Presiding Bishop and the Executive Council would like for all of us to discuss in our next conventions and leading up to the General Convention of 2012.

My question back to them is, "Why are we taking this so seriously? What makes anyone think that those enemies of the Episcopal Church would for one second allow the Episcopal Church (or the greater Anglican Communion, room to breathe should we all, all of a sudden, decide that the Anglican Covenant is the greatest thing since, oh, say, popcorn?!

Does anyone, for just one holy second, believe that Mr. Duncan and Mr. Schofield and Mr. Iker (along with Mr. Orombi, Mr. Akinola and Mr. Venables) would sudeenly give in and say, "O look, the Episcopal Church has agreed to the Anglican Covenant, we all need to forgive and forget." If anyone on this side of the Atlantic believes that then I want some of what they have either been smoking or drinking 'cause livin' in California gots nothin' on what you got!

Who says that the ACNA, CANA, CAPA, AiMA and all the other alphabet soup even cares whether we approve the Anglican Covenant? And do you think for even a nano-second that the ACI and the Communion Partners and the primates will not immediately exercise Section 4 of the Covenant to remove the Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion?

So, let's give them something to really worry about -- how about we not only say no! but Heck No! (this is church). And, we develop some alternatives of our own and simply say that if you all want to play the game then this is how it is done! What those alternatives are could be developed right now, in our meetings and brought to General Convention in 2012.

To Bishop Epting, to all the bishops of the Episcopal Church, I ask, why are you even worried about this Covenant thingy? Why are you folks not spending your time voluntarily disbanding the House of Bishops and reconstituting the House of Deputies to include all orders including the bishops. Why are you not spending your time redeveloping your job descriptions to exclude all the political stuff and growing your pastoral duties? Why are you bishops not out at every other bishop/presiding bishop/province talking about rejecting those who would think they can ignore our inhibitions and defrockings? Why are we not standing on the Archbishop of Canterbury's toes asking him to reject those who would serve a poison pill to the Episcopal Church of the United States of America? What are you waiting for? The Chapman memo and the GAFCON Jerusalem Statement have clearly laid out the plans of those who would oversee the demise of our beloved church!

Howard Ahmanson Opps David Anderson Strikes Again

2010-10-03T06:54:00.000-07:00

Father Mark Harris writes a marvelous piece on the darling of the religious right, David Anderson and his latest missive about muscular christianity, it is a good read, and Father Mark is his usual polite and gentle soul.

Mr. Anderson ends his long and destructive letter with the following line:

Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,

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

He ~~asks~~ demands that the Primates lose their Christian hospitality in favor of all out war against the Presiding Bishop, Katherine Jefferts Schori, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams and the Episcopal Church in the United States of America and has the audacity to end his letter with blessings and peace in Christ Jesus?

Let's one more time keep in mind where this guy gets his muscular Christianity from. Oh, who is his "best friend"?

But this would take money. After the meeting, Anglican Council vice president Bruce Chapman sent a private memo to the group's board detailing a plan to involve Howard F. Ahmanson Jr., a Southern California millionaire, and his wife, Roberta Green Ahmanson, in the plan. "Fundraising is a critical topic," Chapman wrote. "But that topic itself is going to be affected directly by whether we have a clear, compelling forward strategy. I know that the Ahmansons are only going to be available to us if we have such a strategy and I think it would be wise to involve them directly in settling on it as the options clarify." It was a logical pitch: As a key financier of the Christian right with a penchant for anti-gay campaigns, Ahmanson clearly shared the Anglican Council's interest in subverting the left-leaning church. Moreover, Ahmanson and his wife were close friends and prayer partners of David Anderson, the Anglican Council's chief executive, while Chapman and his political team were already enjoying hefty annual grants from Ahmanson to Chapman's think tank, the Discovery Institute.

Avenging Angel of the Religious Right

That is correct, his best friend just happens to be Howard Ahmanson and perhaps more directly his best friend is Howard Ahmanson's MONEY!

What does Ahmanson want in return (Mrs. Ahmanson explains):

"His goal is -- this is going to sound crazy -- his goal is to do with his money what God wants him to do," she explained.

And why does God want him to give to so many right-wing causes?

"The Christian view of man is that we're not perfect. You don't give to things that base themselves on the optimistic view that human beings are going to be doing it right," Mrs. Ahmanson explained. When I asked if this meant she and her husband would still want to install the supremacy of biblical law, she replied: "I'm not suggesting we have an amendment to the Constitution that says we now follow all 613 of the case laws of the Old Testament ... But if by biblical law you mean the last seven of the 10 Commandments, you know, yeah."

Avenging Angel of the Religious Right

I would call Mr. Anderson's attention to this quote (It is from the Bible in Basic English:

No man is able to be a servant to two masters: for he will have hate for the one and love for the other, or he will keep to one and have no respect for the other. You may not be servants of God and of wealth.

Mr. Anderson and the AAC, CANA, ACNA, et al, find their version of muscluar Christianity rooted in money! It is not the typical build up them abs sort of thing it is by the best equipment money can buy and then SAY we are muscular.

There is an old adage that applies thatgoes something like this: "Money talks and B***S*** walks." Sounds to me like Mr. Anderson has that down tight.

Diocese of San Joaquin Reflection on Current Issues

2010-10-01T19:37:00.000-07:00

Canon Mark Hall found this reflection written by the Rev. Don Hill online and wanted to share it with you.

(Blog author Note: Comes from the Friday Reflection from the Dicoese of San Joaquin)

One of the most solemn moments of my ordination in June of 1970 was when the Bishop asked me "Will you be loyal to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church?" That question was an important one for me. We were embroiled at the time in the vestiges of the controversy over the General Convention Special Program and in the midst of very heated discussions over the ordination of women and prayer book revision. It was a time of highly charged theological and emotional discussion and debate.

The current level of emotion, recrimination and debate in the Anglican Communion reminds me of that time in our history. And that question is always on the back burner of my consciousness.

One of the Examining Chaplains of the Diocese of Western New York, Ken Seitz, had told us to carefully listen to that question. "You are being asked that not just for today or for yesterday but to commit yourself for all the tomorrows of your professional life; to the church's journey of progress in understanding the revelation of Christ as this church has received them."

The church continues to be embroiled in conversation and controversy as we look at issues such as the ordination and leadership of the LGBT community in the life of the Episcopal Church; whether relationship blessing and marriage is limited to heterosexuals or is available to those making same-sex commitments as well; legal and illegal immigration issues; death penalty, peace & justice issues, etc.. And I continue to trust the church to be led (sometimes unwillingly and sometimes in fits and starts) into new understandings where the truth of God continues to set us and others free. I understand I have pledged not only my life but also my loyalty to that quest. Others may choose to give up that trust and question the direction - desiring to end the journey in past or present understandings. But in John Jesus is clear that the disciples cannot take in everything all at once and promised that we would led by the Spirit into a fuller truth.

For me God never calls us into what has been but instead calls us into what shall be. The God is a god of the living, a God of possibilities, a God of transformation; a God who awaits us and calls us into a new future he invited us to help create.

Don

Too bad several other priests from San Joaquin didn't pick up on this.

Comin' Late To The Party -- Title IV

2010-09-30T16:42:00.000-07:00

We just finished our deanery meetings in anticipation of the convention on October 15 and 16 of this year. Yes, the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin is alive and well and ready to take on the next big challenge -- Title IV and the related canons. I realize this is old news to most but I thought I would raise one issue just for the fun of it.

This revision, given our experience in our diocese is a great thing and we are welcoming it -- but it does not go far enough. Yes it takes on errant bishops and clergy but there is, as I understand it, little room made for the laity, specifically, the laity seated on the Standing Committee. If a "good" bishop, such as JDS does his homework he will stack the Standing Committee with both laity and clergy that are "bought and paid for by him". So, the canons come into play and there are presentment charges against the bishop and they stick. So, the ecclesiastical authority devolves to the Standing Committee. So presentment charges are brought against the clergy on the Standing Committee, and those charges stick. There are still the laity residing on the Standing Committee (as the ecclesiastical authority) and they can still take the diocese out of the Episcopal Church. Yes I know, then the presiding bishop can step in but that is not the point -- there is still no way to stop the process before it gets to the problem of the property has left the building. See, apparently the issue of the laity got derailed back in GC and boy is that too bad. The issue here is that the laity becomes THE ecclesiastical authority and as such should be subject to the same rules and regulations that all the other ecclesiastical authority is subject to. If I misunderstand then if someone would please set me straight I would appreciate it but this would have happened in this diocese, of this I have no doubt(the laity on the Standing Committee completingthe heinous crime of theft). The penalties must be swift and sure and severe so that the likes of what is happening in South Carolina can be stopped and should this start up in Springfield it can be shut down rapidly. As it stands, I see a major loophole that will continue to plague the Episcopal Church.

Why The "Big Tent" Cannot Work with ACNA

2010-09-26T01:00:00.000-07:00

The Episcopal Church has always prided itself on being all-inclusive, all loving and in fact, "THE BIG TENT". Yes, we have always believed that we were embracing of virtually everyone.

The big tent has now come to an end. It is unfortunate, but it is true, at least for the moment. For literally years, we were able to talk and work things through reaching a compromise with virtually everyone be they evangelical, anglo-catholic, high church, low church and everyone in between. It was not easy and from time to time we would lose one or two or three people along the way, but that was pretty rare. Let's face it, our entire political structure, the House of Deputies, the House of Bishops, the Presiding Bishop, even the Anglican Communion was based on the idea that we could talk and pray and reach agreement.

Along comes what is now known as the Chapman Memo, a memorandum authored by a priest from the Pittsburgh diocese and presumably at the behest (at least tacit approval) of then bishop Robert Duncan. Here is the final answer for those who became outraged at the election of Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori:

1) Our ultimate goal is a realignment of Anglicanism on North American soil committed to biblical faith and values, and driven by Gospel mission. We believe in the end this should be a “replacement” jurisdiction with confessional standards, maintaining the historic faith of our Communion, closely aligned with the majority of world Anglicanism, emerging from the disastrous actions of General Convention (2003). We believe this goal is now pressed upon us by the Holy Spirit as a result of the rejection of the historic Christian faith and the rejection of biblical and Communion authority by the leadership of ECUSA. We will lead our congregations and partners in making the adjustment to adopt this strategy. We seek to retain ownership of our property as we move into this realignment.

In effect, they moved to what can only be called a zero-sum game. What is a zero-sum game? Good question, glad you asked.

A situation in which a gain by one person or side must be matched by a loss by another person or side:

In game theory and economic theory, zero-sum describes a situation in which a participant's gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other participant(s).

Situation or interaction in which one participant's gains result only from another's equivalent losses

In decision theory, situation where one or more participants' gain (loss) equals the loss (gain) of other participants. Thus, a gain (loss) for one must result in a loss (gain) for one or more others. Also called constant sum game. See also negative sum game and positive sum game.

In 2007, the Big Tent changed for ever. In December of 2007 the diocese of San Joaquin voted to leave the Episcopal Church AND to take all the land and the buildings and the assets with them. The zero sum game became a reality. The Chapman Memo was put into play in a way that everyone could see. A few months later the diocese of Pittsburgh under the tutelage of Robert Duncan repeated the process taking all the assets of the diocese with them. Then, the diocese of Forth Worth. Along the way a variety of independent parishes moved in the same direction. Supported by the province of the Southern Cone and Rwanda and Nigeria and Uganda (among others) they found a home away from home, making the opportunity to win everything more appealing and the decision to "go it alone" less alone.

In 2010, the replacement Province was founded by Arch-puke Robert Duncan and took the name Anglican Church in North America. So now the decision to leave is one in which most can leave and go somewhere without ever leaving home (I think that is a commercial somewhere).

Robert Duncan, Leo Jack Iker, and John David Schofield have played the game, and won. Mark Lawrence and probably bishop-elect Dan Martins will/are playing the game and will win. And the big tent will get smaller and smaller and in fact, there is nothing we can do about that. There is nothing that can repair that breach when your win becomes my loss and my win becomes your loss.

We in the Episcopal of the United States of America need to develop a plan the answers that zero sum game in a fashion that creates a bigger loss for them tan for us. We need to create a balance that is not -- that is, the win cannot be as great as the loss. Until that happens, no one will come back to the table to negotiate. Until that happoens the arch-puke will continue his running amuck.

Bishop Mark Lawrence Dumbs Down the Episcopal Church

2010-09-25T08:57:00.000-07:00

There is much going on in the diocese of South Carolina these days and it seems like a whole bunch of "stuff" to write about. In a recent response to a letter from the Episcopal Forum (our version of Remain Episcopal) to the House of Bishops and the Executive Council Bishop Lawrence prefaces his remarks with this little gem:

I do not want to let these accusations stand or go without response. Perhaps in their anxiety they have done us all a favor—indeed, presenting me with a teachable moment for this diocese and, dare I hope to believe, for others as well who may have read their letter. I will strive to refrain from using ecclesiastical language (Episcopalianese) or unduly difficult theology. Unfortunately, due to the accusations, a certain amount of each is necessary. Nevertheless, I will tune my writing as well as I can for the person in the pew. I will proceed by first putting forth in italics the accusation. In most cases I will just use their language, then, give my response. This could be much longer, but there is little need to try your patience…

I am so pleased that Bishop Lawrence is going to use language that even I can understand. As a lay person in the pew it is important for me to understand why he is among other things, arrogant, insensitive, anti-women, anti-LGBT, against inclusivity and now he is trying to raise the level of my understanding to a point where even I might be able to comprehend the difficult language of the church. Holy S**T!!! If I had only known that was my problem I would have been to Bakersburg every Sunday so that he could instruct me. Little did I know that my current level of education, your current level of education, was insufficient to fully comprehend what is going on in the church!

Now, I am going to say this again, and again, and again, and again -- Dissolve the House of Bishops, take all the political power away from these poor fools, let them do their pastoral thing and leave the politics to the House of Deputies. The utter arrogance of these folks absolutely astounds me!

H/T Thinking Anglicans

Horns of a Delimma

2010-09-24T22:24:00.000-07:00

Well, now we are stuck! The Reverend Dan Martins has been duly elected by the diocese of Springfield. Now, what should we, we being those outside the diocese of Springfield do? By that I mean the various standing committees within the Episcopal Church of the United States?

The Reverend Martins is on record as being pretty much anti-Episcopalian, as in John David Schofield Anglican. We can anticipate a route and a routine very similar to that of Mark Lawrence, bishop of South Carolina. He was rabidly anti-Episcopalian while he was in the diocese of San Joaquin frequently being the front person for the antics of John David Schofield. He suddenly left the diocese just before the final vote and moved to Warsaw, Indiana where he "recanted" just enough to then be in the running for a bishop's position. His blog continues to champion themes and processes that are against the tone and tenor as well as many stated positions of the Episcopal Church.

All that being said, I cannot bring myself to say, Standing Committees must vote against the ratification of the consecration of this person as a bishop. He has violated no canon, no constitutional provision and to the best of my knowledge not violated any of his vows. Every fiber in my body says he will move Springfield out of the Episcopal Church in due time. But, we cannot act on that which has not happened nor on that which we think someone might think or that we might think someone might think (huh?). He was duly elected by the delegates to the Springfield Diocesan convention and they deserve to get what they voted for. Furthermore, to deny him the appropriate ratification is too allow the other side to deny say, Mary Glasspool, the same ratification. Our body is not formed like that. We are a democracy of sorts, and we must uphold the sum and substance of that formation. I want each diocese to get exactly what they want, what they deserve and the only way to do that is to allow them to elect the candidate of their choice.

The Interchangeability of bishop elects from the Anglican San Joaquin Diocese.

2010-09-20T22:21:00.000-07:00

Well, here we go again! Another San Joaquin alum has been nominated for bishop. This time it is Springfield. If you read the current Bishop's statements one begins to figure out why. That leads to the next question, will the script be any different? So let's listen in on an interview that is held and the person being interviewed could be almost anyone -- from San Joaquin. You want to know if this matches anything -- go back and read the words and speeches of those both in and out of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin. Keep in mind this is just a spoof -- (I think).

Conservative Interviewer: What canonical options do you see for the Diocese of Springfield now over the next few months?

San Joaquin Prima Donna: The canonical options are for them to look at their diocesan canons and constitution and the canons and constitution of the Episcopal Church and to see what the direction is, it's that simple. The canonical option - there is no other option - that's it.

Conservative Interviewer: So, as you understand it, is it or is it not an option to hold the election again with you as a candidate, or as the only candidate?

San Joaquin Prima Donna: I'm not sitting here looking at the canons of the Diocese of Springfield, I don't even have them. I'm not looking at the canons of the Episcopal Church, but I know what it says, it says that the diocese shall hold another election. It doesn't say whether the person can be elected, I'm sure they can. It's happened before, so it can be. The question is what the standing committee will do - that's a simple one.

Conservative Interviewer: If, in fact, another election is held and you are eligible to stand for election, would you want to do so?

San Joaquin Prima Donna: In some strange kind of way, the heart of my wife, and my heart, have been knit to the people of Springfield over the last five months, and from the standpoint of whether I would want to go through this again, no I don't want to go through the abuse again, but I would consider it for the sake of the people of Springfield, if that was their choice, and if God called me to do that again, I shall do it. But nobody would want to go through this abuse. I've been asked questions and more variety of questions, as far as I could tell, than any other candidate in the history of the Episcopal Church, at least in the modern era.

I mean, they were parsing the word "intention." One standing committee member, who was trying to get his committee to focus not on what I have done, but on what I might do, asked me what my intentions were. So, I write in the statement on March 8, "My intention is..." and what happens on the House of Deputies listserv and just about every other liberal blog? "Martins says 'intention.' The path to hell is paved with good intentions."

What do they want here? Do they want me to bow my knee to the almighty institution, and elevate it over the Scriptures - over the teachings of the one holy and apostolic church - over the worldwide Anglican Communion - or successive Lambeth Conferences? I'm not going to do it. It is all those things together that make us Episcopalians. You cannot be an Episcopalian without those things. They define our canons. Our canons don't define them.

Conservative Interviewer: When you were elected, I think most people, at least those over here on the conservative side, assumed that it would be a somewhat closer call than normal. But most of us figured that only the real doomsday types were thinking, with any seriousness, "Oh, I doubt he'll get consent." Were you surprised at how difficult it was - how challenging the whole process was?

San Joaquin Prima Donna: No. I've been to General Convention in 2003 and 2006. I was on the committee for the consecration of bishops. I've been in the middle of the fray, whether I wanted to be or not, and it hasn't surprised me at all. What surprises me is how few people understand the gravity of the situation in the Episcopal Church.

As I said before, this whole election process has drawn back the curtain on the stage of the Episcopal Church, and what the whole world can see right now is the theater of the absurd. If you've been in the play before, you are not surprised at Act III.

Conservative Interviewer: Do you think this is being observed closely by the Primates and ++Rowan Williams, and what do you think their reaction is likely to be?

San Joaquin Prima Donna: I don't have the slightest idea what their reaction will be. I suppose it will be mixed. I'm so grateful, words cannot express how grateful I am to the Primates of the Anglican Communion for their communique issued at Dar es Salaam, for the sacrifice that many millions of Christians are making for the cause of orthodox Christianity in Africa, and the way they have extended themselves. I am also grateful for the Archbishop of Canterbury's role in Tanzania. I'm grateful for the things he has issued - for his letter issued after General Convention in 2006, and I'm grateful for his recent letter issued to the Episcopal Church and to the Primates summing up what the communique is all about. That is Anglicanism as I understand it.

Conservative Interviewer: Soon after your election, talk started circulating about the possibility of your not getting consent. A few influential conservative leaders speculated that should that happen, it might hasten a communion-wide split, because it would so clearly and finally signal to the rest of the communion that there's no longer any place for traditional Anglicans in the Episcopal Church, that orthodox primates would throw up their hands and say there's no hope of rescuing it.

San Joaquin Prima Donna: I think the jury is still out on that one. What has been going on in the Episcopal Church, let's say for the past 25 years - we can go back further if you want, but for the last 25 years - in my opinion, a radical group in the Episcopal Church has been pushing an agenda, it is essentially a political agenda, a social justice agenda. And the sad thing is that because they've always framed it as social justice, it has hindered the debate that needs to take place over the teachings of Scripture, the nature of a human being, and all sorts of other things.

For the most part, those of us in the orthodox camp have been pastoring our churches, preaching the Gospel, trying to grow our congregations, and ignoring the political issue at hand until, in recent years, in successive General Conventions, even before '03 and '06 certainly, but '03 and '06 galvanized the orthodox in a way that they weren't before. Anyway, in the orthodox camp - what I'd call mainstream Anglicanism in the Episcopal Church in the United States - we began to see that we had better enter into the political debate. That, then, began a polarization within the Episcopal Church between what some call the left and others call the right, whether one wants to call it - progressive or reappraising, reassertive, all sorts of those terms, it doesn't matter, we all know who the players are - that has grown so polarized that the broad middle has become very uncomfortable, many of them have chosen to put their heads deep in the sand. Others have chosen to say, "You know, I wish these people wouldn't fight so much."

Until the Primates communique, it was mostly those in the orthodox camp who talked about leaving, or who did leave. The dynamics have been like a dysfunctional family - where two members are quibbling with each other and the others don't want to get involved in the quibbling - when Mom says, "I can't take Dad's abuse anymore," and the children turn on Mom and say, "Mom, why are you ruining our family?" Now, the problem is, anyone who stands up to those in the radical camp, those who are pushing this political agenda, are immediately called homophobic, bigots, reactionary, and whatnot. Nobody in their right mind wants to be called homophobic, bigoted, or reactionary. I understand that. And so the broad middle have not gotten involved very much, and when they have, they've blamed those of us on the orthodox side who say, "We can't take it anymore. We're leaving."

Now, what happened in General Convention 2006, and the passing of B033, the middle said, "Hey, we don't want to leave the Anglican Communion." And so they rose for a brief moment. Now, the message that I think the rejection of my election in Springfield is sending to the broad middle of the Episcopal Church, which for the most part is uninvolved in this debate, is that it's time that you wake up, if you want the Episcopal Church to look anything like you've known in the past - one that really is a place where people of different perspectives can live out their Christian lives under the grace of Jesus Christ.

For the past 20 years, the virtue of tolerance has been the virtue before which all other virtues have bent the knee. I think people are beginning to see that without the other virtues, tolerance is not a virtue that can stand on its own. Without truth, without honesty, without integrity, without the classical virtues of prudence or wisdom, temperance, justice, courage, faith, hope, and love... tolerance will not survive. What we see in my election is that tolerance is not sufficient, inclusivity is not sufficient. That is why, in the wisdom of the ages, we've had seven virtues, to deal with the seven deadly sins of pride, envy, sloth, greed, anger, gluttony and lust. So, I think there will arise a generation who will see that tolerance is, of course, a precious thing, and ought to be honored, but she is not the virtue before which all other virtues must bend the knee. She is a virtue with which all of the other virtues need to live, and that tolerance needs to find her rightful place among the others.

We in the orthodox camp don't want to be painted with the brush that we are intolerant or that we are not inclusive. The irony of this is, I had more gay and lesbian parishioners here at St. Anne’s before 2003 than I have now. And here is the thing I'd love to have a research project done on: I bet that since 2003, evangelical Episcopal churches have lost more gay and lesbian persons to other denominations than progressive Episcopalians have brought in. And, that is because, as William Temple once put it decades ago, "The church must be very clear in its public pronouncements, so she can be very pastoral in her application." Now, isn't that ironic? I know gay persons who have gone from the Episcopal to the Roman Catholic Church. And I've asked them why, and they say "It's because homosexuality is a settled question in Roman Catholicism."

Conservative Interviewer: Back to the people in the unengaged middle. You say this should be a wake-up call to them, that this should cause them finally to get engaged. But why? Why should they get engaged over something as arcane as San Joaquin Prima Donna’s failure to obtain consent?

San Joaquin Prima Donna: It’s not really about that. It’s what that whole rejection represents. Here you have a priest who has served the church for almost 27 years in ordained ministry without a single black Prima Donna on his record, who has under God’s grace grown every conIntervieweration that he has been a part of - numerically, financially, spiritually - and who before that worked as a lay person in his parish church, who was put forward, drafted if you will, to be a bishop; and because he puts his allegiance to Jesus Christ, the trustworthiness of the Scriptures, the teachings and fellowship of the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the teaching and communion of the Anglican Communion as essential aspects of what it means to be an Episcopalian... he has to be rejected. Therein lies the theatre of the absurd. Bishops have been approved in this Church who have failed to keep the most sacred of vows, and when I've gladly kept mine for three decades, they still question whether I'll keep the Oath of Conformity.

Conservative Interviewer: I have said often over the last few years that about the worst thing that you can say to folks in the unengaged middle is that there is something wrong with the Episcopal Church, that it's dysfunctional, it’s unhealthy, it’s sick and it needs help.

San Joaquin Prima Donna: Well we know what families do when someone faces the specter that there may be dysfunction there. The whole ethos of denial enters in and you have to do something with the person who is trying to intervene. You have to discount or discredit them.

Conservative Interviewer: You have to shoot the messenger.

San Joaquin Prima Donna: There you go.

Conservative Interviewer: What has been the most painful aspect of the past six months? I have a sense that the real story is not that there were irregularities that shaved off a few points from the score. It's like a football team in the playoffs that loses by a field goal, then blames it on a holding call in the second quarter.

San Joaquin Prima Donna: Right... it's not bad refereeing!

Conservative Interviewer: A team that deserves to win the big game has to put it out of reach, so that it won't be close. That is the story here. It would have been one thing if we had gotten what we expected: A slim but safe win. What we got, though, barely qualified as slim.

San Joaquin Prima Donna: I think it's hard not to see the hand of God in this. That it comes down to a church that has jettisoned the trustworthiness of Scripture and the historic teachings of the church, and relies increasingly on its polity, its constitutions and canons, that it comes down to canonical interpretation. Only God can so craft something to make it end up that way. A touch of irony.

Conservative Interviewer: Let's shift gears and talk about the challenges to you and your family over the past five months. Can you talk about some of that?

San Joaquin Prima Donna: Let me just talk about the whole process. It began for me, I think it was March 25, 2006. We had the Order of St. Luke's here at St. Paul's on a healing conference. They took the initiative to book Father Michael Flynn who came from Fresh Wind's ministry to lead a weekend on healing. On Saturday, late morning, after several teachings, he said, "I'm just gong to serenade you [the group] in the Spirit." He has a beautiful Irish baritone voice. As he began to sing I saw myself journeying through different lands. Then I heard the words, "The journey begins, the journey begins, the begins. Pack your things, pack your things, pack your things. Give your children your blessing. You've been in one place long enough." Then the Spirit of God came over me in such a way that I just began to weep there at the table quietly. I was just overwhelmed with the sense of God's presence, that He had spoken. During the break I met with my wife in the office and I said, "What happened to you during that time?," and of course she told me, and then I began to tell her what happened to me, and as soon as I began speaking the words of the prophetic word that came to me, "The journey begins..." the Spirit of God came upon her and she began to weep. She hardly heard the rest of the words, she was so overcome, undone. She quotes those words of St. Augustine, "He wrapped me in His splendor and sent my blindness reeling."

And, so, we didn't know exactly what that meant. We just lived with that through lent and the first couple of Sundays of Easter, and then, I think it was around May 1st, or the last Sunday, April 30, something like that, and I got a phone call from a friend in Columbus, Ohio, who's never done this before, and he said, "I was praying for you this morning, and God spoke so profoundly to me, and said that he was going to be moving you from being the pastor at St. Paul's Episcopal parish, and to move you into a role of preparing the faithful for the battle ahead." I didn't know what to make of that.

Wednesday of that week I'm in my office saying morning prayer and my devotions, and I get a phone call from the retired bishop of Pittsburgh, Bishop Alden Hathaway. He said, "Prima Donna," and he's tried to get me into episcopal elections before and I've just stayed out of them, "I wonder if you'd be willing to allow your name to be put in for the bishop search for the Diocese of Springfield." I didn't know anything about it. I hadn't been following it. You know, just doing my ministry here. And, given the prophetic word that I'd heard in late March, and what my friend had said, I just heard my self saying, "yes." The "yes" came out of my mouth before I could put it in. And, with the "yes" came a sense of ominous, "Oh my gosh." I couldn't get it back. It came out of my mouth before I could stop it. And, of course, Alden was completely surprised. He was stunned. He said, "I thought I was going to have to twist your arm." I said, "Bishop, you are no more surprised than I am." Well, suddenly I was sucked into the vortex, if you will, of this search process, and before you know it, there I am one of the finalists, and it was astonishing. The things I've noticed over the last couple of months, as some of these bloggers on the left have said, "Why in the world does he want to be a bishop?" I wanted to say, "Who in the hell said I wanted to be one!?" I was drafted. I didn't necessarily think I was called to be bishop of Springfield. I didn't know what I was called to me. I did believe that God had called me to be a part of the process. I mean, He said, "The journey begins," I don't know where it's going - where the destiny is. I just knew that I was on a journey.

I began to realize something just before the walkabout and the election taking place, and that was, "Prima Donna, you have to begin to own this. You can't see it as just God calling you to be a part of the process. You have to personally begin to own it." The thought of that filled me with dread. I can't tell you how profoundly dreadful it made me feel. It is beyond words to tell you how dreadful it was. After the election, I lived with that dread up until Sunday night before the deadline for consents, and it suddenly lifted. I don't even know how to go about describing that. It was a path I was prescribed to walk, and if I sound exuberant now - these reporters are probably surprised that a person is not downcast, that sort of thing - no rejection could be anywhere near the heaviness of that dread that I lived with for five months. Added to that is that my wife's heart was so profoundly inclined towards the good people of Springfield - she just fell in love with the people there and the whole place - so she was continuously having her heart go there and then seeing the developments and having to pull it back, so it has been an emotional struggle for her having to continuously relinquish and surrender this whole sense - she felt a sense of call, I just felt a sense of, "I'm in this. I will be faithful to this." I don't know what it means, but it's my burden to carry.

Conservative Interviewer: Ellis Brust and Steve Wood were the other candidates. Do you think there would have been a difference in the outcome had one of them been elected? In other words, was this a debate about the man San Joaquin Prima Donna, or about the Diocese of S.C. and how others perceive it and its future direction?

San Joaquin Prima Donna: If you had asked me in the first months of the consent process, I would have said it was about the issues, I think it eventually became, not about San Joaquin Prima Donna, but about the issues of APO and the theological debates within the church. I think it started out like that. I think pretty soon it did become about San Joaquin Prima Donna because certain persons made it about San Joaquin Prima Donna. I didn't make it about San Joaquin Prima Donna; others did. They did that because they are so committed to their agenda that anyone who stands in the way becomes part of the problem and needs to be dealt with. Eventually, they would have done the same thing to Steve, they would have done the same thing to Ellis, they would have just have had to take different tacks. I had certain things that I had written that they could try to exploit, misquote, misrepresent, decontexulize, whatever... and they did that. I don’t know if I take it personally, even though they have made it personal. This Sunday [March 18] I am preaching - I’ve been doing a series during Lent on the Lord’s Prayer - and this Sunday is "Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us." So I find myself asking, 'is there anyone in this whole process that I need to forgive, and if so how do I go about doing that?' If there is someone, then I’ve allowed it to become personal, too. I’m not sure, I haven’t had anyone come to mind. Certainly there are people who have led the charge against me. There are four stages of forgiveness: 'You’ve hurt me and you’ve hurt me badly" is stage 1. Stage 2 is "It wasn’t okay then, and it’s not okay now, and if I live to be 100 years old it won’t be okay." Stage 3 is "I surrender my right to get even." If there is a just universe and someone has done me wrong I have a right to get even. So in Stage 3, I surrender my right to get even. Stage 4 is reconciliation: "I allow you back into my life."

Now, one can only reconcile completely with someone who has acknowledged their part in the wounding. For the most part I haven’t allowed this to become personal with most of my accusers. But I do find their tactics unconscionable, and in some ways abusive, and, you know, if we are going to have a discussion, let’s have a level playing field. If you are going to quote someone, don’t quote them out of context. Don’t misrepresent their position because then you don’t get at what needs to be discussed. This church is in desperate need of a genuine conversation and debate about its future, and many, because of their commitment to their agenda, are truncating that debate.

Conservative Interviewer: One of the more controversial statements you've made was in response to a question regarding how hard you would work to keep the Diocese of Springfield in the Episcopal Church. You replied something to the effect of, "As hard as the other bishops of the Episcopal Church work to keep us in the Anglican Communion."

San Joaquin Prima Donna: Well, that is a turn of phrase that is meant not to be evasive but to be a call to mutual accountability. That is, Lambeth '48, Lambeth '78, Lambeth '88, Lambeth '98 - all used the term when speaking about the Anglican Communion, mutual accountability. The bishops of the Episcopal church attended those Lambeth conferences and up until 1998 for the most part went in favor of all those votes on all of the issues. Now what happened in 1998 is the shameful accusations that those on the orthodox wing of the Episcopal church began buying chicken dinners for the African bishops in order to get their votes. How insulting. How shameful, how racists. The reality is that those were bishops who have faced persecution and in some cases close to martyrdom; are in death struggles with political and religious struggles that we in the U.S. can't hold a candle to in terms of persecution, and to dare suggest that they could be bought by chicken dinners is insulting. Anyway, so you see, in all this debate about autonomy, the fact of the matter is that since the bishops of The Episcopal church have been participating in the Lambeth conferences and signed on in 48, 78, 88 and 98 to the mutual accountability phrase, we are already in a state in which we are called to live with mutual accountability by their own acquiescence to it. And that is somewhat, some would say, already a surrender of complete autonomy if we are to be Anglicans. But what has happened is there has arisen a generation of leaders in the Episcopal Church who know not Joseph. They know not the language of Zion, so to speak. They are ignorant of the history of the Anglican Communion for the most part and Anglicanism by and large, and now are describing us who are part of the mainstream of the Anglican Church as extremists. We are just trying to bring a little of reality into a church which has become increasingly marginalized by its commitment to in-house causes and special interest groups of the extreme political left.

That term, "mutual accountability." is a term used within the Anglican Communion for the national or the provincial churches of the Anglican Communion to keep in mind in all there deliberations and polity and national Christian life.

Conservative Interviewer: Right, but to describe TEC's leadership as "mutually accountable" could not be less accurate.

San Joaquin Prima Donna: Well that is the posture that some are taking and even as they look at the Primates' Communiqué, more than a few of them have stood up and said, we don't want to be accountable to you. Now let's hope that by September 30 there is a majority of Bishops who are willing to say we want to be mutually accountable, we want to be in a covenant relationship with the Anglican Communion. We see that one of the things that it means to be an Episcopalian is to be an Anglican.

Conservative Interviewer: Let me wrap up by asking you to comment on Jan Nunley’s recent rePrima Donna regarding the communique, which was, "It’s not an ultimatum unless you think it is."

San Joaquin Prima Donna: That term, "ultimatum," does not come from the communiqué. The term "ultimatum" is coming, obviously, from a church that is grappling with the appeal of the primates for the Episcopal church to seek the communion. To begin to use that kind of term - "ultimatum" - is already a breach of affection. It is like a family member responding to another family member's urge to be in love and fellowship with one another by saying. "Is this an ultimatum?" It comes out of a willfulness that is unbecoming of the Christian. And so to use that kind of term - to say that that is what the primates are doing - misunderstands the spirit of the communiqué. It misunderstands the heart of the archbishop. It misunderstands the heart of the primates. It is a sad self-indictment.

Conservative Interviewer: But don’t you think that kind of misunderstanding is what led to this crisis in the first place - to the crisis to which the communiqué is just the latest response?

San Joaquin Prima Donna: The willfulness of a church that will exalt its autonomy over others, that will function unilaterally, breaching the bonds of affection, is what has led to the need for the communiqué, but frankly that was seen coming by many within the church, when in '48, '78, '88 and '98 the term "mutual accountability" came to the fore. You see, we are not talking about a decade; we are talking about two generations of rising willfulness against the fellowship of the communion, and that has got to grieve the heart of God and it has to grieve the heart of every Episcopalian who sees what it means to be an Episcopalian, to be in communion with the See of Canterbury, to be a constituent member of this glorious thing we call the Anglican Communion, and to be what we have in the past rejoiced to call ourselves Episcopalians

Marc Antony, Brutus and Dan Martins

2010-09-14T20:15:00.000-07:00

As many of you know, the Reverend Dan Martins has been nominated for Bishop in the diocese of Springfield. I simply could not do justice to the work Mr. Martins performed while here in the diocese of San Joaquin. I have neither the eloquence nor the erudition and so I will allow William Shakespeare to tell the tale.

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury the Episcopal Church, not to praise it.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with the Epsicopal Church. The noble Dan Martins
Hath told you the Episcopal Church was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault;
And grievously hath the Episcopal Church answer'd it.
Here, under leave of Dan Martins and the rest, --
For Dan is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men, --
Come I to speak at the Epsicopal Church's funeral.
It was my church, faithful and just to me:
But Dan Martins says the church was ambitious;
And Dan is an honourable man.
He hath brought many captives home from Rome.
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in the Episcopal Church seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, the Episcopal Churh hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Dan says the church was ambitious;
And Dan is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented to the church a crown,
Which the church did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Dan says the church was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
I speak not to disprove what Dan Martins spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love the Episcopal Church once, --not without cause:
What cause withholds you, then, to mourn for the church?
O judgement, thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason! --Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with the Episcopal Church,
And I must pause till it come back to me.
............
But yesterday the word of the Presiding Bishop might
Have stood against the world: now lies the church there,
And none so poor to do the church reverence.
O masters, if I were disposed to stir
Your hearts and minds to mutiny and rage,
I should do Dan Martins wrong and John David Schofield wrong,
Who, you all know, are honourable men.
But here's a parchment with the seal of the Episcopal Church in the United States, --
I found it in the closet, --'tis the church's will:
Let but the commons hear this testament, --
Which, pardon me, I do not mean to read, --
And they would go and kiss the dead church's wounds,
And dip their napkins in the sacred blood;
Yea, beg a hair of it for memory,
And, dying, mention it within their wills,
Bequeathing it as a rich legacy
Unto their issue.
........................
Have patience, gentle friends, I must not read it;
It is not meet you know how the church loved you.
You are not wood, you are not stones, but men;
And, being men, hearing the will of the Episcopal Church,
It will inflame you, --it will make you mad:
'Tis good you know not that you are it's heirs;
For, if you should, O, what would come of it!
..........................
Will you be patient? will you stay awhile?
I have o'ershot myself to tell you of it:
I fear I wrong the honourable men
Whose daggers have stabbed the Episcopal Church; I do fear it.
...........................
You will compel me, then, to read the will?
Then make a ring about the corpse of the church,
And let me show you him that made the will.
Shall I descend? and will you give me leave?
.............................
Nay, press not so upon me; stand far
.............................
If you have tears, prepare to shed them now.
You all do know this mantle: I remember
The first time ever the Presiding Bishop put it on;
'Twas on a summer's evening, in her church,
That day she overcame the earthquakes and floods:--
Look! in this place ran Jack Iker's dagger through:
See what a rent the envious Robert Duncan made:
Through this the well-beloved Dan Martins stabbed;
And, as he plucked his cursed steel away,
Mark how the blood of the church followed it,
As rushing out of doors, to be resolved.
If Dan so unkindly knocked or no;
For Dan Martins, as you know, was the church's angel:
Judge, O you gods, how dearly the Episcopal Church loved him!
This was the most unkindest cut of all;
For when the noble church saw him stab,
Ingratitude, more strong than traitors' arms,
Quite vanquished him: then burst the church's mightly heart;
And, in the church's mantle muffling up his face,
Even at the base of Rowan William's statue,
Which all the while ran blood, great Episcopal Church fell.
O what a fall was there, my countrymen!
Then I, and you, and all of us fell down,
Whilst bloody treason flourished over us.
O, now you weep; and I perceive you feel
The dint of pity: these are gracious drops.
Kind souls, what, weep you when you but behold
Our Epsicopal Church's vesture wounded? Look you here,
Here is the church, marred, as you see, with traitors.
........................
Stay, countrymen.
........................
Good friends, sweet friends, let me not stir you up
To such a sudden flood of mutiny.
They that have done this deed are honourable; --
What private griefs they have, alas, I know not,
That made them do it; --they are wise and honourable,
And will, no doubt, with reasons answer you.
I come not, friends, to steal away your hearts:
I am no blogger, as Dan Martins is;
But as you know me all, a plain blunt man,
That love my church; and that they know full well
That gave me public leave to speak of it:
For I have neither wit, nor words, nor worth,
Action, nor utterance, nor the power of speech,
To stir men's blood: I only speak right on;
I tell you that which you yourselves do know;
Show you the sweet church's wounds, poor poor dumb mouths,
And bid them speak for me: but were I Dan Martins,
And Dan Antony, there were an Antony
Would ruffle up your spirits, and put a tongue
In every wound of the church, that should move
The stones of the United States to rise and mutiny.

by (and with apolgies to) William Shakespeare

The State of The Episcopal diocese of San Joaquin

2010-09-13T19:49:00.000-07:00

The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin will meet in convention (again) on October 15 and October 16, 2010 and I would like to submit a state of the diocese from the pew.

Keep in mind, I am not in the know and I do not sit on any committees though I do have proper credentials to go attend and vote in convention.

Let me start with the really big good issue. This diocese, or rather the laity and some clergy weathered the storm in an incredible fashion. There is a study that has been done that dispels the rumor that "we (those who remained in the diocese during the darkest hours) aren't victims. Our resiliency is documented by an independent study that reported that those who remained were incredibly strong, vibrant Christians of the Episcopal persuasion. We waited patiently for those in positions of power to recognize that we never left the Episcopal Church and we needed help. That was three months (some might say we are still waiting). parishes have since flourished in a way that only the strong could have imagined in December of 2007.

Now, for the three big downers. First, we are still struggling to regain property that we should have never had mistaken for Southern Cone property. This continues to be a function of the conelonialists who refuse to give back that which does not belong to them and barring that, they wish to try and bleed the Episcopal Church of all cash, excess and not excess. This we struggle with.

We struggle with the Episcopal Conference Center of Oakhurst. Currently, we have financial control but nothing else and yet we cannot even get the name changed back to what it should be. Currently, we must call it the Evergreen Conference Center of Oakhurst. Why, because "they" say so. Huh?!

Secondly, we have in our midst, a Communion Partner rector that "switched sides" when faced with the reality that he was going to have problems with his original choice to go south. So, he jumps back to the Episcopal diocese and then gives the diocese a ration of you know what at convention and continues to participate in the Communion Partners, an espoused group of renegades designed to "take over" should the Episcopal Church in the United States end up in the "tank". Here is the issue: we give aid and comfort to a person that is in a group that routinely circumvents proper channels of authority and rejects about everything the Presiding Bishop has done since SHE became presiding Bishop. furthermore, they support the Anglican Covenant, a document designed to be a poison pill for the Episcopal Church. They encourage cross border incursions and would do so themselves except that would "crush" their paper thin facadeof being within the Epsicopal Church.

So we go into our third convention since the split hale and hearty but weighted with some old baggage. The people in the diocese of San Joaquin are strong, resilient and effervescent. We are building a new diocese and a new day. Convention is October 15 and 16 -- come visit (see diocesan webpage) and see for yourself.

Episcopalians Are A Reasonable, Thoughtful Group

2010-09-12T06:36:00.000-07:00

It was interesting to "wander around" the blogs this week-end. When I do that I actually learn something, sometimes, and in some ways. This week-end was no exception. Let's look at a thoughtful post by James at the Three-legged Stool. James says,

"And, let's face it, friends, TEC has its faults and although it hurts to have one's faults pointed out. At least Mr. Jordan does so in a gentlemanly fashion."

And this is only the most recent and reasoned explanation of whatever is Episcopalian. Mark does that at Preludium, and several others including Jake over at his place all liketo be reasonable and polite recognizing the failings we Epsicopalians exhibit from time to time. We are after all, a group of thoughtful, reasonable folks who rely on scripture, reason, and history to illuminate our way. We are, "nice" people.

Now, over at GAFCON, our wonderful doctrinal warrior gives us this little tidbit to chew on

: "Nine years ago today almost 3,000 people died because 19 gullible young men were convinced God wished them to commit an act of unspeakable evil. Today we call these murderers “fundamentalists”, but that's probably according them a degree of systematic coherence they clearly lacked. In reality they were just another teardrop in the vast ocean of post-adolescent males who’ve been seduced by a dangerously stupid cocktail of testosterone and religious idealism. A cocktail which continues to be served unimpeded, and not just in socio-theological basket cases like Iran and Afghanistan.

Sure the after-effects are rarely so obvious: the self-righteous drinkers in Pittsburgh might not execute homosexuals as their counterparts do in Tehran, and those imbibing in the ACNA Diocese of San Joaquin might not allow their revolting misogyny to express itself as blatantly as their Taliban equivalents in Quetta (although I fear it’s only a matter of time before someone emails with news of the evangelicals of Sydney stoning women caught reading the bible aloud while clad “immodestly”), but talk to any of them privately, when their guard is down, and you’ll invariably reach the frightening conclusion that their deepest hope is it’s only a matter of time…"

The Episcopal response to all the havoc and the mayhem set upon our beloved Church by the mob of Duncan, Iker, Schofield, and all the young fundamental radicals has been one of nice and genteel responses. You know, we love the sinner and hate the sin kind of stuff. Big tent stuff, even for those who would (figuratively) load the Episcopal Church into a rail car bound for nowhere good. That is correct. Has anyone seen anything from any blog or writing or memo or letter or communication that says, "Oh, ACNA just wants to allow everyone to live and let live. We mean the Episcopalians no harm. We at ACNA just want everyone to know that we can co-exist with the the Episcopal Church." Have you? Well, have you?!

So what, pray tell, are we waiting for? We formed the Anglican Communion, we are the driving force behind this confederation and we must have had a reason. Why are we so willing to allow ourselves to be beaten, besmirched, belittled, and bedraggled by a group of old men who lead young men into a battle to wipeout the Episcopal Church. When are we going to wake up and smell the coffee? It is past time to "gird our loins and put on the shield or righteousness" and do battle with the evil forces that are out there -- the evil forces mustered by Akinola, Orombi, the sneak of an Archbishop in South America, Mr. Schofield, Iker, Duncan and the whole lot of them. There is no reason to treat them kindly or gently. Why are we not insisting that those who have crossed borders are not brought to justice? Why are we not out there insisting that those who have been inhibited and defrocked are held accountable for their despicable deeds? Why are we not out in every province in every country insisting that the Episcopal Church is the one and only Anglican presence in the United States and there is no other.

We need to drop this facade of kindness and gentle loving and get on with the business at hand. Please be sure to understand, I am not suggesting we stoop to the tactics that they are currently using, though it is appealing, but rather we use those tools at hand and use them effectively. AND, we do not give quarter where quarter is not due. This idea that we can talk about the "Episcopal Church warts and all" aids and abets those who would bury the Episcopal Church. No more!

We Should Be Impatient -- It Is Overdue

2010-09-11T19:07:00.000-07:00

The time has come to merge the House of Bishops with the House of Delegates. Bishops do not need political power, at least not nearly the amount they have now. They are for pastoral care, primarily for clergy. It is overdue -- we need to create a unicameral legislative/executive body.

Do We Really Need All The Friends We Can Get?

2010-09-11T07:31:00.000-07:00

How would you classify a group of people who are only "trying to help you"? Most of us would say that anyone trying to help us would be a friend, and in this day and age we could sure use a friend. Just ask James Taylor if you do not believe me. "Ain't it good to know you got a friend."

Well, we here in the Episcopal Church of the United States of America have a bunch of friends, they call themselves the "Communion Partners". The most current help they have given is the help in trying to unconsecrate Mary Glasspool as bishop in the diocese of Los Angeles. The document is called A Statement from the Communion Partners Clergy Steering Committee On the Bishop Suffragan-Election In the Diocese of Los Angeles. This is a nifty little article on the idea that sharing our faith with everyone is not quite what Jesus had in mind. Apparently we are too edgy for them as they echo the Global South and Mr. Duncan's stance on only some people get to fully share in the faith while others have to hope for the crumbs that fall from the table.
Then there is this little gem, Communion Partner Rectors Ask Global South Anglicans To Endorse the Anglican Covenant. In that little ditty apparently the Communion Partners really do wish to see the Episcopal Church removed from the Anglican Communion since that IS the REAL rationale for the Anglican Covenant. It is a poison pill setup by a few evil men to eliminate the Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion. The lone voice of inclusion would be silenced by male dominated imperialist leaders who would rather see the communion break into a million pieces than accept a power-sharing arrangement that includes all persons sharing fully in the gifts of Jesus Christ.
And in another "erudite document" the Communion Partners on behalf of the Episcopal Church "humbly accept" the admonitions and discipline from the Archbishop of Canterbury for having nominated Mary Glasspool as bishop of Los Angeles.
These friends are just wonderful aren't they? They go to visit the Archbishop of Canterbury without a so much as "by your leave" from our primate, Kathryn Jefferts Schori to talk about not being forgotten when the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Magesterium kick out the Episcopal Church from the communion; they accept the punishment on behalf of a grateful Episcopal Church and are all but ready to fill the gap if and when the Episcopal Church is removed from the Communion all the while professing to be our friends. All the while they do not want to leave the Episcopal Church. WOW! What are we waiting for? These folks need to get medals! Why have we waited so long? Can't we see that all we need are these folks to lead us out of the quagmire and into the bright sunlight? Hip Hip Hooray for the Communion Partners. And, what is even more astounding, we have one of those "great men" in our midst! That is correct San Joaquin. The Reverend Rob Eaton is one of these brave and true lads that is trying to be our friend. He can hardly wait to become a bishop -- in fact he is so anxious to do so it appears he left John David Schofield high and dry to come over to our side and help us. My God, are we lucky or what? When you see the reverend Eaton next at convention in October let him know how much you truly appreciate his help and his friendship!

Why does the Episcopal Church allow these fellows to continue to perform their duties as clergy in the Episcopal Church? Why can't something be done when all they are waiting to do is take over? The only difference between them and the others is the others have the guts to setup an opposing organization and face the Episcopal Church. The communion Partners are nothing but vultures waiting for someone else to do the killing so that they can pick the bones clean. There must be something, with friends like this, who needs enemies?

Mr. Duncan "Pops Off" Again

2010-09-09T22:10:00.000-07:00

Mr. Duncan, the former bishop of Pittsburgh and the person who currently occupies the "Chief Pooba" of the Conelonialists had this to say:

"As archbishop I have articulated four areas that I believe need to become our distinctives:

1) that we know ourselves to be the beloved of Jesus;
2) that we become a people committed to personal holiness
3) that we understand our work as fore-runners of Jesus; and
4) that we are those who sacrifice for the sake of others.
Among other things, such distinctives would form us
into a different people than we presently are.

1) If they knew themselves to be the beloved of Jesus Christ would they not take more seriously the two great commandments. Notice I said to upon which "hang all the law and the prophets".

2) If they were committed to personal holiness would they not be more concerned with their relationship with God rather than someone else's relationship with anyone else?

3) If they understood more about how their work fore-ran Jesus Christ would they not be focused on their relationship with Jesus and not their attempts to help other people relate to Jesus Christ?

4) If they were folks who "sacrificed" for the sake of others why are they refusing to return property they hold that belongs to the Episcopal Church?
Sure makes you different.

In conclusion I call every one's attention to a Peter, Paul and Mary song/medley. The medley is a Union song but the part that most intrigues me as it pertains to this post is the following line:

"Put it on the ground boys, spread it all around boys". Once again the Grand Pooba has done just that.

BTW: Oral arguments on the property issues in San Joaquin have been postponed again. Whopee!

How About Them Yankees?

2010-09-08T05:33:00.000-07:00

Well, there has been as much ink (digital and otherwise) expended on this Anglican Covenant to drawn at least the horse we rode in on. But, the Presiding Bishop and the Executive Council believes that we "ought to play the game". By that is meant, please consider the Anglican Covenant in time for the next triennial convention. And they said that with a straight face!

A large minority of provinces, led by the Southern Cone, want The Episcopal Church of the United States gone, yes gone, defunct, out of business, and dead in the very worst way and they re willing to go to any lengths to accomplish this task. Keep in mind that the "Anglican Magisterium, most recently asked for sanctions against the Episcopal Church in the United States for consecrating Mary Glasspool, and got them! Yes our personal envoys to at least one committee was reduced to "observer status" because we dare to include ALL our brothers and sisters in FULL life of Christ on earth.

This group of neer-do-wells is aided and abetted by a large group of disaffected (and generally speaking dumber than the proverbial fence post) Americans led by old white guys that are tired of sharing power with women, gays, and disabled/marginalized persons who really should not be in positions of power anyway! The group, led by former bishops Robert Duncan, Martyn Minns, John David Schofield, Jack Iker, John Guernsey et al are chomping at the bit to push the Episcopal Church over the edge so they can become the "one true Catholic church" in the Untied States.

So, into this cauldron, we as the laity and clergy of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America are thrown! We are now supposed to consider thoughtfully, prayerfully, meditatively, the current edition of the Anglican Covenant!? Just what have these folks been smokin? The Anglican Covenant in all its glory, is simply the Episcopal Church in the United States of America's way of committing assisted suicide! It is nothing less than the Global South's way of removing us from the Anglican Communion, quietly, discreetly and with our own approval. Now, we may, as a matter of course, take ourselves out of the communion, and we may not (after all it was us that began the concept) but why would we hand someone else the necessary approval to remove us from the communion? We are perfectly capable of doing it ourselves, if we choose. I am not sure that is what we choose.

And in the meantime, what have we done with our unruly bandits here in the United States? Well, we continue to allow them to play all sorts of games that allow Bob Duncan and his unholy crowd to out maneuver us on all fronts. We should be lobbying every primate including the Archbishop of Wontebury to remove these evil folks from their roles and responsibilities since they continue to perform cross boundary incursions and continue to not uphold our inhibitions. Why are we not out in public and all over the world constantly hammering at these folks in the press and in the court of world opinion? No, instead we are here,at home, asking politely to please consider the Anglican Covenant.

How About them Yankees?

Why Are They Still Here? Why are they still Bishops?

2010-09-04T07:11:00.001-07:00

Well folks, the "All Africa Bishops Conference" is now over and we are once again, the main target of their venom. We being the Episcopal Church in the United States. To this "All-African Bishops" we add folks like Robert Duncan and Martyn Minns and John Guernsey and a handful of other interlopers. Interlopers being those who are currently crossing provincial boundaries to actively break up and destroy the Episcopal Church in the United States of America.

This action, cross boundaries work is illegal. Many of these "bishops" and "priests' have been inhibited/defrocked. So, why is it Bishop Schori does not have a contingent sitting on ABC Williams door step insisting that the ABC take some form of affirmative action to eliminate this activity? Why is it we do not have a contingent from our Church travelling the world stopping at each province and working the primate until these folks are abandoned just as they abandoned the Episcopal Church in the United States? What are we waiting for? Why can't we get this done? What is keeping us from reducing these wrong-headed fools to a footnote in religious history?

Just asking?

They Bite the Hand . . .

2010-09-02T22:09:00.000-07:00

If you do not read Jon Carroll (SF Chronicle) then one is missing a very fine columnist. In the September 2, edition Mr. Carroll takes on the "greed" that seems to have overtaken our country. In the middle of his column Mr. Carroll writes this, "Very rich people always believe that thier success is the result of a hard work and great virtue. They don't like to think that they are the beneficiaries of a rigged system." The gap is growing ever so much larger between the rich and everyone else. What strikes me as odd is that many of "us" think that we (us) are in that 1% that are considered rich.

Now, someone is not playing with a proverbial full deck, yet, those who enjoy the fruit provided by unions are now thinking that unions are the cause of all our problems. There are many of "us" that think that pensions are "too high" and must be cut. There are still more of us that want so badly to have health benefits but will shop at non-union organizations and organizations that make a living on non-union non-full-time workers, Walmart.

There are those of "us" who now want to repeal social security and medicare and supplemental income because they are "too expensive". Where are their minds? When they get to 65 (or whatever) and there is no social security or it is so low that they cannot survive then what?

And what gives the Wall Street "whiz kids" the right to be bailed out and then dump on the American public when new taxes are suggested (actually not new taxes, just a repeal of the cuts made by my favorite president). A significant drawback to capitalism, particularly big corporations, ones that have been "bailed out" is that they now believe they are invincible -- or at least untouchable because they are "essential to our capitalism economy".

And one expects this from Meg Whitman, Daniel Loeb, Haliburton, and others but from Joe the plumber and Jim Sixpack?

A New Look

2010-09-02T21:16:00.000-07:00

There is a new look on this blog and a new approach. For some reason there seems to be this belief out "there in the ether" that Epsicopalians will roll over and play dead.

Here is the new blog motto:

"I do not intend to tiptoe through life only to arrive safely at death."

Forewarned is forearmed.

We Are At War -- A Culture War

2010-08-30T22:00:00.000-07:00

I was not going to do this anymore. In fact I finished my chapter 1 and am waiting for the response from my dissertation chair. I need desperately to get away from this stuff and finish my dissertation. But what Father Mark posted touches the heart of so much of what my dissertation is focused upon.

Father mark posted this on his blog a day or so ago:
The Fault Line Runs Right Through Here: And when is the Anglican quake?

What I think is actually happening is nothing less than a culture war -- except in reverse. Whether it is Reed Hasting in California education, or Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin and Michael Savage in the arena of "schlock radio"/politics or Jack Iker, Robert Duncan, and John David Schofield in religion the real upshot is that old white men want to preserve the power status quo. Yes, the war is taken to the streets in the name of "let's bring back the good old days", or let's put "God" back in our country, or Scripture is the only way to know God but face it, it is old white guys upset that they are losing their grip on the culture. Keep in mind that John David Schofield has said that since the 1960's TEC has been headed in the wrong direction. Do you suppose that has any connection to, let's say, the civil rights movement? The founding of La Raza and MECHA? Or maybe the women's movement?

The manifestations include anti women, anti-gay, anti-Obama, anti-"loose morals", anti-education, anti-teachers, anti-just about everything. But, they stand for nothing -- they are not for anything except themselves and they hide behind things like "that old time religion", men-were-men, women have a place in the home (barefoot and preggers), and the American Flag. These folks have an incredible anti-intellectual, anti-education, anti-learning, anti-books program that is, for some unknown reason, attractive to so many men and women it is hardly laughable. In fact, it is not laughable, it is beginning to rock the foundation of our nation.

What do they want? Well, they want not to lose power. They want the white male European culture to remain dominant. What they see is the battle that is raging in places like New York, California, Texas, Florida and other states wherein the cultures are beginning to reach a point where there is no dominant culture, but rather that patchwork quilt we have talked about for so long is beginning to take hold. What those who gathered (last week-end) in Washington, D.C. want to maintain is not a culture of power sharing but rather a largess system where the white guys give every body some power, not just too much. We allow folks to think, just not critically. We allow some decisions just not those that will affect me and my lifestyle. By doing so they have fooled themselves into believing that "they share Martin Luther King's dream" of a better America. Better to them means please enjoy the power we allow you all to have.

Father Mark, and others, have clearly begun to peel the onion back on these hypocrites. What needs to be done, first, is stop treating them like some small but likable aberration. Sarah Palin is just like Jack Iker just like Michael Savage. These are incredibly dangerous people and yes, we could lose our Episcopal Church, Anglican Communion, and yes our country if these dreadful people are allowed to continue unabated. We need to get the message out that these folks are not forward thinkers, in fact they are not thinkers at all. These are power gathering people who intend to use it in ways that we have not even thought of yet. We need clear cut statements that reject the status quo, that make room for all people and all cultures. We need to define the "big tent" far better than we have to date and begin programs to not only bring everyone under that tent but to marginalize those who refuse to accept the new power structure. That means allowance for the immigrant from wherever and however that immigrant got here to get a job and contribute and find the dream just like so many of our parents and grandparents did a generation or so ago. We need to look forward not back. We need to refute quickly and effectively all the nonsense that questions one's loyalty, one's heritage and one's birthright.

For The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion it means "graciously" removing the Archbishop of Canterbury. Under this description it becomes so very easy to understand what is going on in Canterbury and how duplicitous the current Archbishop is.

The Episcopal Church needs to take an even harder line with those who would plunder the United States for their own greed and power. Lobbying throughout the world for full exclusion of those who have attempted the coup should be swift and effective.

Legal action must be complete and with no quarter given for those who have tried to abscond with property that does not belong.

New sections of the canons and constitution should be drafted and approved that will reduce the effective position of bishops and clergy raising the level of authority for the laity.

The people who would reduce full inclusion to a mere footnote in the annals of the Episcopal Church must themselves be reduced to a mere footnote in our history.

Thank you Father Mark for the clarity.

For IT and BP

2010-08-07T17:51:00.000-07:00

Forgive me folks, I know your anniversary is close, but I do not know the actual date -- So I guess -- today! Happy Anniversary!

And now, I say goodbye! It was a good run and there is more to do -- much more. But I have always wanted to leave on a high note and I can think of no better one than to celebrate the anniversary of two very dear people, IT and BP.

To James, Father Scott, Lynn, Father Jake, Father Mark, the great Leonardo, Lost Sheep, and everyone who has been so kind and so generous with their time and their work -- I thank you all. Blessings to everyone --

There is as surely a Resurrection as there is birth and death.