The Internet was awash in forwarded emails and blog postings of the news about the secession of the Diocese of San Joachin from the Episcopal Church. The Bible study couldn't start until we had discussed it. Will other dioceses follow? What will it mean to us? Will there even be an Episcopal Church in that part of California?
Of course there will. If the leadership of San Joachin doesn't want to be an Episcopal diocese any more, someone else will do that. If they are successful in taking all their property with them, as they hope to be, new Episcopal churches will be planted and will grow in other locations. It will be an exciting time and place to be a young priest, I think: to be part of that missionary response, making common cause with those who treasure the comprehensiveness, diversity and respect for conscience most of us have come to consider one of Anglicanism's great gifts.
Maybe it's time for this to happen. It cannot have been to anyone's soul's health to be primarily identifiable by being against things for so many years. There needs to be more to faith than what one opposes. The glamour of seeing oneself as part of a faithful remnant is both seductive and addictive -- will these dioceses, who have nursed their grievances for so long, even know who they are if they are no longer aggrieved? I hope they do, and that now, free from the onerous burden of their association with us, they can turn their energies to better things.
For it must be true that they, like the rest of us, take seriously the duty we all have to care for those in need. I hope they turn to that work as soon as possible, that they -- and we -- don't choose to squander time, energy and huge amounts of money in protracted fights over buildings and bank accounts. All of us need to ask ourselves if those things are more important than getting free of the malignant tumor of factionalism that has developed its own blood supply and sucked way too much energy from the body of Christ, energy urgently needed by a world that longs for the love of God and doesn't even know it.
And one thing more: this moment in history will come to an end. The time may come when we are one again. We need to welcome that moment with an open heart. Let's keep the door open and leave the porch light on.
Copyright © 2007 Barbara Crafton
Found here: The Geranium Farm
Commentary:
A friend and I were talking after EfM last night about this very issue. In any diocese that leaves, indeed, in any church that leaves TEC, there is and will always be those few individuals who do not wish to leave. I find myself appalled at the lack of support for the very real emotional and spiritual crises in which they find themselves. What is being done as a church body to succor and help them? For I see nothing and I hear very few express concern. I suppose I am highly irritated at our Presiding Bishop for getting so caught up in the legality of the issues that it seems she forgot that churches are not buildings. Churches are not places, or revenue or grants. Churches are people. And there are people who are being set aside at the moment for what I know is a very difficult litigation. However, and this is a big however, to ignore members of our own church body for reasons of connivance is to not act as the leader and spiritual guide for all members of the church body. And shame on our PB for forgetting that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
erm, So lets just understand what we are saying:
The folks who left are being disobediant to the rules; that is the constitution and canons of the Church, they are being disobediant to the Lord God's basic set of 10 by claiming that which does not belong to them.
++KJS, who understands the idea of the vows and the consequences for the deliberate breaking of them is wrong for fulfilling her obligations to the very rules the departing are trashing.
hummmmm
In my opinion humble or otherwise: All are free to join or leave the Episcopal Church, including the Bishop of San Joaquin (abandoned).
While I agree that those who repent of their breaking of the rules should be welcomed back into the fold, none of them have and until they make known to us that is what they desire, we should as many have wish them well as they travel down the road.
That does not give them the right to remove the property of the Episcopal Church and does not release the Presiding bishop from her obligations to the Canons and Constitutions which cleary tell her she has to do what she has to do and to ask her to do otherwise is to ask her to do just what the bishop of San Joaquin (abandonded) did, turn away from the very rules that are there to guide us.
Not at all what I am talking about, William. I suppose I should have been more clear as I do agree with you. The people being abandoned by the TEC at this juncture are those who wish to remain in TEC despite the rest of the congregation and, in some cases such as Ft Worth, the diocese wish to cede. They are fighting to remain in the national church without any support from TEC.
Despite repeated requests for aid. They are the one's being abandoned by the greater church.
Sorry, I guess I had one of those adult moments at the outset
and I didn't say that I have read reports that ++KJS has stated the Diocese will continue albeit with new management. That is the starting point and she is running with it.
What sort of abandonment are you speaking about, what do you know, that is going on, that hasnt been shared with the rest of the world?
Because I consider what she has done so far as part of her responsibility as covered in the Canons and Constitution of TEC - I am sure that she and David Booth Beers have a list of what has to be accomplished for the faithful remnant of the Diocese of San Joaquin to see that the Diocese continues to function for its membership and the world. I have to believe that care and feeding the faithful remnant is high on, if not at the top of, that list, I say this based upon several of the Blogs I have read quoting various ENS reports and press releases.
Nothing happens with the snap of fingers in the real world. One could find fault that, it appears, ++KSJ etal are unprepared to deal with what was a foregone conclusion in the rest of our minds.
One has to act within the realm of the reality of the rules they live within. ++KSJ hasn't got the authority to act on what may/might happen in the Church. Now that it has happened she can act.
Going forward she has the opportunity to be faithful to the Canons and Constitution and the game plan in Luke 6 since the appropriate authority who was in place has chosen to do otherwise.
Giver her a chance, this whole brave new world is just over 72 hours old; we are in new and uncharted territory; there is plenty of prejudging going on already; we should at least let her fail before we start hurling complaints that the top management of the Church isnt doing anying to help/support/comfort/guide the people in the pews do what they are supposed to do.
What I have read is about Ft Worth. I am only making the assumption (based upon conversations with friends from near that area) that the same thing is occuring there.
In Ft. Worth there are groups who wish to remain in communion with TEC. They have repeatedly sent requests for help in maintaining that connection. Some of the groups are individuals and some are who parishes. They have been ordered into silence in Ft Worth, are not allowed to speak at the conventions and fear the loss of their churches to the ceding Ft Worth diocese. They have requested legal help from TEC and have sent letters (and who knows where letters end up as I am sure the PB gets a lot of mail) requesting a legal team to deal with the laws within the church. To this date they have recieved nothing.
http://www.fwviamedia.org/begin.html
Meant to add:
My information is old so I am hoping that actions have begun and did not mean to sound so dramatic at the end.
oh I bet your information isnt as old as you think it is.
I do understand what you are talking about and yes it is really happening in Fort Worth and probably happened in San Joaquin too.
The more I read about the San Joaquin Convention the more I can see that San Joaquin was going through the same sort of grief.
My guess is that none of these actions are anticipated or planned for and therefore the National Church is prevented from taking action by the Canons and Constitution in the internal business of the diocese.
The structure to deal with this is either was never anticipated by the General Convention or set up so that one of the "oppressed" has to complain to the highest authority. This is something the General Convention will have to address.
Because at this point in time I do not believe you can have intervention by the national Church in a diocese to head off this sort of action.
I get it that this doesnt help the current situation.
You bring up some excellent points which I had not considered. The very cannons which Ft Worth has so continuously rejected maybe the very ones that are preventing anyone from outside rendering aide.
It may be that the governing body's hands are tied until further clarification and action is taken. I know I will be watching San Joaquin as a precursor to what will be occuring closer to home.
Its a terrible time for us all, and one which, I think, might well be unavoidable in Ft Worth as they have been in violation of church cannon for upwards of three decades.
Well, I'm on the other side of the Atlantic so I may not have the full picture. No, they absolutely can't have their cake and eat it and the faithful few need pastoral care, but in the end you are better off without them.
I suspect a fair few will come back when it doesn't quite work out for them. The other diocesan grass isn't necessarily greener.
Post a Comment