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?!
A Place for Discussion
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Sunday, April 10, 2011
The Bible Says It, I Believe It, Don't Talk To Me!
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
How About A Simple No?
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 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.
Monday, April 4, 2011
The Faith Once Handled
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.
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.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Is Springfield Getting Ready to Leave The Episcopal Church?
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:
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:
Saturday, March 19, 2011
The Illogic of the "Christian Right"
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.
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 WhyMaybe this group should be called the new wrong?
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?
Sunday, March 13, 2011
The Methodology of the NEW Anglican Communion
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 ArchdukeFerdinand 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.
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)