It strikes me that if they actually need to make a point, they need to do 2 things. 1)Withhold an amount equal to whatever TEC contributes to the RCRC plus the various in-kind contributions TEC makes in the way of providing paid personnel to work with the RCRC. The diocese could then use that money to provide mission work with unwed parents, support adoption, or similar outreach. 2) Excommunicate the TEC members who serve on the RCRC board or otherwise provide assistance on the church’s time to the organization.
While I think saying what you believe is all well and good, this resolution does not even go so far as to recommend that C. Florida’s GC delegation vote against RCRC funding- or against Exec Committee members who support it.

“empty symbolism”

The entire “inside stategy” in a nutshell. Brilliant.

ACI, are you listening? Bp. Howe? Dio CFL? Folks such as Sarah Hey and Kendall Harmon?

Cue the crickets…

It’s worse than empty symbolism, it is claiming “guidance from the Holy Spirit” for the purpose of quenching the Holy Spirit.

“Resolved, that our minds be distracted and our consciences numbed that we may stay in bed with what God hates.”

Not nearly enough, Diocese of Central Florida: To quote a celebrated Anglican cleric and poet, “He that lies with dogs, riseth with fleas.”

There obviously are a couple of deep pockets in the few remaining Institutionalist-Idolator-Enablers of the diocese. Gotta keep those pledges coming in by throwing a bone out there once in a while…

BB, our late pastor put it more bluntly, “Sleep with a whore, smell like a whore.” Anyone still in the Gay Church verily stinketh.

I think part of this strategy is to create a block of dioceses that have voted to disaffiliate from the RCRC, or for some type of action against the TEC membership, in anticipation of General Convention this summer, where they are hoping to get something on the floor, and not killed in committee as it was GC06. Already six or seven dioceses have voted on this, so we’ll see how it goes. (And, for the record, TEC is the ONLY CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION that has membership in the RCRC – various parts of other Christian denominations are members, like the Presbyterian Women’s Ministry, but TEC is the only member where the ENTIRE CHURCH has become a member – and the RCRC website proudly displays TEC as the first member listed.)

Central Florida does not contribute money to the National Church, so the criticisms here are worse than just inaccurate; they are self-congratulating. Maybe you’ll be congratulated on Judgement Day, maybe not; don’t rush it. In the meantime, stand meekly with anyone who seeks to do good.

That’s the key, Kevin. Doing good. Central Florida may not be sending money to the national church but I’m not either so I don’t see why that matters. And the Diocese may be opposed to any connection with anything as repulsive as the RCRC but so is every other morally sentient being. However Central Florida is still a member diocese of the Episcopal Organization, the very organization that thought a relationship with the RCRC was a good idea.

Is the Diocese contributing to local pro-life organizations? Will Bishop Howe observe the next anniversary of Roe vs. Wade with special observances or pro-life speakers in Central Florida parishes? If the Diocese is doing that or something similar then God bless Bishop Howe. But if all the Diocese is doing is expressing its displeasure and leaving it at that then it’s not really doing much of anything meaningful at all.

The most valuable thing that TEO gives to pro-abortion organizations is the implication that an ancient and historic and (formerly) respected Christian denomination supports abortion. How much money is required to neutralize that sort of public relations?

And, if you can spend enough, congratulations! On one of the crucial issues of the day, you were a cipher. A net zero. Zip. Nada. Worthless.

Since the above applies to so many of the other political positions advocated by TEO, it became clear to me that staying in that left wing political action organization could not be justified.

Ephesians 6-7: “… the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not become partners with them.”

Break away, Central Florida, before you are destroyed by that which has destroyed most of the other Dioceses.

Entirely too little, too late. Think of where Bishop Howe was once rector and what he was very involved in, helping bring it to a nationally-known ministry (NOEL, now Anglicans for Life). Why wasn’t something like this proposed and passed years ago? And does it have feet? (I hae me doots!)

This is the line in the resolution that bothers me: “Episcopalians hold varying political positions on the morality, legality and necessity of abortion.” They’re disassociating because they hold varying positions on the morality of unlimited abortion on demand. It’s good to disassociate from a murderous organization (RCRC), but it’s not good to be ambiguous about the morality of sacrificing children for convenience. Translation: “Some of us worship Moloch, and some don’t.”

Branford,

The problem remains that General Convention is rigged. In the house of deputies every diocese, regardless of size, has the same number of votes. The few remaining orthodox dioceses could evangelize and grow to the point that their numbers equal the numbers of the rest of TEO, yet they would have no greater voting impact than they do now. At the opposite end, Newark could shrink to a dozen members in the diocese and they would continue to have the same number of votes at General Convention.

I went to GC 2006 as a deputy hoping we could begin to turn things around. When I was there, I saw the problem with the method of representation. I also realized that these people don’t want to change. They love who they are. With the way the voting at General Convention is rigged, they don’t ever have to change.

But there is a greater problem than the rigged voting system. Below is how I described it in a comment over at Stand Firm.

There is something wrong with a system that leaves the orthodoxy of an institution at the mercy of the popular vote. Democratic elections are very good at determining the will of the majority. However, they are poor vehicles for discerning the will of God. As Bishop Atwood has observed, what the Bible teaches us is that if you want to know God’s will, take a popular vote and do the exact opposite of the majority. The majority didn’t want to enter the Promised Land. The majority shouted “Crucify him!”

The popular vote is intended to measure the prevailing culture. Hence, institutions governed by this method will eventually reflect the culture rather than the will of our Creator. Even being a church governed by bishops is no safeguard if the bishops are selected in the same manner. I pray we will learn this lesson in the ACNA where we have our own work ahead of us to become one.

EATING IT TOO

Was there supposed to be a “SH” in front of the “IT” in the title of this blog post? As in “Having your cake and …”.

———-

I commend HLP’s excellent comment above.

They who have ears to hear, let them hear:

(1) Athanasius Returns: “empty symbolism”

The entire “inside stategy” in a nutshell. Brilliant.

ACI, are you listening? Bp. Howe? Dio CFL? Folks such as Sarah Hey and Kendall Harmon?

(2) Alfonso: It’s worse than empty symbolism, it is claiming “guidance from the Holy Spirit” for the purpose of quenching the Holy Spirit.

“Resolved, that our minds be distracted and our consciences numbed that we may stay in bed with what God hates.”

(3) MidwestNorwegian: There obviously are a couple of deep pockets in the few remaining Institutionalist-Idolator-Enablers of the diocese. Gotta keep those pledges coming in by throwing a bone out there once in a while…

(4) Peter C.: BB, our late pastor put it more bluntly, “Sleep with a whore, smell like a whore.” Anyone still in the Gay Church verily stinketh.

(5) Michael D.: Ephesians 6-7: “… the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not become partners with them.”

Break away, Central Florida, before you are destroyed by that which has destroyed most of the other Dioceses.

————-

And then we have this lovely post at SFIF which gets repeatedly bumped up to the top as of late: “A Strange Little Question for Strategically-Minded Conservatives Who Are Staying In TEC” where Sarah Hey writes:

“I use the phrase “Strategically-Minded” deliberately, for that’s what I am. I’m a conservative Episcopalian, staying in TEC, and interested in doing more than just sitting around and saying “ain’t it awful.”

Here’s my question.

If there were to be a day-long [no more than six hours, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.] gathering/meeting of like-minded conservative Episcopalians who are staying in The Episcoapl Church for the forseeable future, and who are interested in discussion, sharing of issues and struggles and solutions, and fellowship together, would you be interested in attending such a gathering?”

Hmmmmmmmmmm, what does this tell you about Sarah Hey and what she has done over the years with her furious promotion of the strategy and tactics of “Little Stone Bridges: A Battle Plan for Christians in a Faith Under Siege”?

Let’s take a look at what we’ve seen offered up as rationale:

(1) Strategy and Tactics to Reform TEc.

Uhhhhhh no. ACI and Sarah Hey have both said that they concede that the “inside strategy” is not going to reform TEc. I recall Sarah Hey being rather dismissive and contemptuous of RobRoy when he really thought the goal of all her blather was to reform TEc.

(2) Called to serve as a “Witness”.

William Tighe wrote an excellent rebuttal to this claim.

(3) Mundane Reasons as written by A Senior Priest in the “Laodiceans” thread.

Shown to be inadequate by myself and Alfonso.

(4) Matt Kennedy says there’s a *real* inside strategy.

What it is, I don’t know. Can anyone tell me what this *real* inside strategy is? Because right now, I think that Athanasius Returns, Alfonso, MidwestNorwegian, Peter C., Michael D., et al have shown far greater insight into the matter than has Sarah Hey despite her prominence and prodigious output of blogging diarrhea.

There obviously are a couple of deep pockets in the few remaining Institutionalist-Idolator-Enablers of the diocese. Gotta keep those pledges coming in by throwing a bone out there once in a while…

It’s as the Germans say: “Mitgegangen, mitgefangen, mitgehangen” – “You went with them, you were caught with them, you hang with them.” Central Florida is sticking with TEO, and presumably see this as a beneficial connection, however obscure the advantages may be to me. They can’t escape the consequent infamy when their partner in crime is exposed. It’s too late to say, “Oh, heheh, we only went along with it for the choir music and pretty architecture, we’ll just be on our way now, Officer.”

Dr. Mabuse, Brilliant!

TUaD, Your summary, brilliant!

Mr Johnson’s post and the ensuing comments have definitively and decisively put the inside strategists on notice that we all KNOW there is NO inside strategy!

There’s some shaking off of dust needed here, y’all!

You don’t think fire is being held until the very whites of the enemies’ eyes are seen, do you?

HLP, you write of the “tyranny of the majority,” a notion that frightened the Federalist into creating a federated republic for our country, not a true democracy. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not democratic, which ensures innovations and heresies are kept in check, although the Catholic Church had a close call these past 40 years.

Because of its democratic structure, the Episcopal Church is unable to fend off the whims of contemporary culture and is in free fall. Nothing will stop it.

“TUaD, Your summary, brilliant!”

Thanks Athanasius Returns. By your wonderful blog handle I’m glad to have found a kindred spirit.

“Mr Johnson’s post and the ensuing comments have definitively and decisively put the inside strategists on notice that we all KNOW there is NO inside strategy!”

Obviously Sarah Hey and Matt Kennedy would disagree with you and I and many others.

I found what Matt Kennedy alluded to here, but it looks like vaporware to me. There’s no there there.

He writes: “The inside strategy is far from dead. The collaborationist strategy is dead. The “hole-up-together-in-a-quivering-mass-and-wait-for-the-Lord-because-strategy-is-evil” policy ala the Communion Partner’s is simply unworkable…but a real inside strategy…not dead.

Versus Athanasius Returns: “Mr Johnson’s post and the ensuing comments have definitively and decisively put the inside strategists on notice that we all KNOW there is NO inside strategy!“

Katherine – that line is in there because in 1994, TEC passed a resolution recognizing that abortion is a reality for some and that the church should help in those decisions – I completely disagree with that resolution, but for those still trying to stay in TEC, they have to acknowledge that the official church policy includes supporting abortion in some cases.

HLP – I agree with you completely. I was just explaining what the rationale of the diocese was. I know this because in San Diego, we tried the same thing. Our resolution, along with all others, was shot down in GC06 – as a matter of fact, the San Diego resolution was declared in “improper form” (and yes, I got the phone call from the diocese one day before GC06 to let me know that was the case – no one mentioned it at our diocesan convention several months earlier when we passed the resolution requesting that membership in the RCRC be presented to the entire GC for a vote, instead of a done deal by the Executive Committee). San Diego has passed another resolution at our 2008 diocesan convention requesting that GC09 revisit this membership. Will it happen? I don’t know, and since then I have swum the Tiber – I was done with inside strategy and with a child to raise, I knew it was time to go.

Here’s a copy of the 1994 resolution A054 on abortion (TEC’s “official” stand):

Resolution Number: 1994-A054

Title: Reaffirm General Convention Statement on Childbirth and Abortion

Legislative Action Taken: Concurred As Substituted and Amended

Final Text:

Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That this 71st General Convention of the Episcopal Church reaffirms resolution C047 from the 69th General Convention, which states:

All human life is sacred from its inception until death. The Church takes seriously its obligation to help form the consciences of its members concerning this sacredness. Human life, therefore, should be initiated only advisedly and in full accord with this understanding of the power to conceive and give birth which is bestowed by God. It is the responsibility of our congregations to assist their members in becoming informed concerning the spiritual and physiological aspects of sex and sexuality.

The Book of Common Prayer affirms that “the birth of a child is a joyous and solemn occasion in the life of a family. It is also an occasion for rejoicing in the Christian community” (p. 440). As Christians we also affirm responsible family planning.

We regard all abortion as having a tragic dimension, calling for the concern and compassion of all the Christian community.

While we acknowledge that in this country it is the legal right of every woman to have a medically safe abortion, as Christians we believe strongly that if this right is exercised, it should be used only in extreme situations. We emphatically oppose abortion as a means of birth control, family planning, sex selection, or any reason of mere convenience.

In those cases where an abortion is being considered, members of this Church are urged to seek the dictates of their conscience in prayer, to seek the advice and counsel of members of the Christian community and where appropriate, the sacramental life of this Church.

Whenever members of this Church are consulted with regard to a problem pregnancy, they are to explore, with grave seriousness, with the person or persons seeking advice and counsel, as alternatives to abortion, other positive courses of action, including, but not limited to, the following possibilities: the parents raising the child; another family member raising the child; making the child available for adoption.

It is the responsibility of members of this Church, especially the clergy, to become aware of local agencies and resources which will assist those faced with problem pregnancies.

We believe that legislation concerning abortions will not address the root of the problem. We therefore express our deep conviction that any proposed legislation on the part of national or state governments regarding abortions must take special care to see that the individual conscience is respected, and that the responsibility of individuals to reach informed decisions in this matter is acknowledged and honored as the position of this Church; and be it further

Resolved, That this 71st General Convention of the Episcopal Church express its unequivocal opposition to any legislative, executive or judicial action on the part of local, state or national governments that abridges the right of a woman to reach an informed decision about the termination of pregnancy or that would limit the access of a woman to safe means of acting on her decision.

Citation: General Convention, Journal of the General Convention of…The Episcopal Church, Indianapolis, 1994 (New York: General Convention, 1995), pp. 323-25.

- – - – -

All the pretty words above mean nothing when you see what is actually resolved to – legal abortion on demand.

Chris -

I think that this passage from St. James might be more appropriate.

But, your mileage may vary.

TU..AD et al. -

You have definitely exposed the “Inside Strategy” for what it is: Just another example of the Emperor’s New Clothes™.

Branford has shown us how those who are experts in parliamentary procedure can undo any good that is attempted. Instead of just saying, “this resolution is in improper form,” why didn’t the resolution committee help get it put in proper form? Since the above is pretty much of a rhetorical question, you already know the answer.

Since the zealots in TEC regularly ignore any prior resolutions that have come from General Conventions, why should Central Florida acknowledge anything? But I think we have shown that this is just window dressing.

“See, Lord? We tried! What else did you expect us to do?” I expect he will refer them to this saying of His.

They have been warned.

Branford, I re-read it and I see what you mean. Thanks. So as it stands, it says that the church Executive Council had no business affiliating the whole church with the RCRC since there is disagreement within the church. That’s better.

It’s still a sad acknowledgment that TEC does include lots of people who think abortion on demand is okay.

Ladies and gentlemen, please! Traditionalists could not disclose the “inside strategy” on a public website! The Revisionists’ highly-paid minions, at great personal distaste, would read it, and develop strategies to defeat it. You’ll just have to trust them on this one.

BTW, Central Florida DOES give to TEC. Full assesment for 2006 and 2007. IIRC 21% for 2007. Haven’t seen 2008/9…odd, not on the website this time. Hmmm.

But it was written that monies set for the Network will now be sent to ACI.

At our church, to designate monies not to go to TEC get designated to the discretionary fund – receipt reads that and not pledge/giver of record.

Lakeland Two, does that mean that your giving is not counted in the plate/pledge total on which the national church assessment is based and paid? That’s the only way people can be sure they’re not supporting the national church, since money is fungible.

Some random, but related thoughts. There have been some layoffs in a dio CFL cardinal parish over the last couple weeks. Giving shortages are popping up throughout the dio. Giving network money to ACI will actually register with some givers as capitulation to TEC. Decidedly not a pretty picture for Bp. Howe, the Standing Committee, and the people of the diocese. Still wondering why Bp. Howe took the dio off the cut list.

The subject resolution is a tepid, token gesture by comparison.

Truth Unites (or anyone else who has it), would you mind posting a link to William Tighe’s rebuttal of the “witness” rationale for staying in TEC? I’d be most grateful.

Pigeon

Katharine – on the surface that’s what it seems. But it’s the priest’s discretionary fund…if he chooses to send a cut, he can. When we turned in our pledge card we specifically wrote on it that we did not want any of our funds to be used to fund lawsuits of any kind. Our church’s choice to handle it is the discretionary fund. We tend to give cash or supply specific items for youth ministry, VBS, etc., that aren’t recorded. So our full giving is not documented or understood. But the diocese is getting their full cut and it’s my understanding that what our church gives is unrestricted unlike several other churches in Cent. FL.

We want to live under the “don’t let your left hand know what the right hand is doing” as well as not funding lawsuits. God knows what we do, that’s all that really counts to us. We haven’t worried about declaring it on taxes – Standard Deduction, baby!!!Except there are bean counters who keep an eye on who donates what. In a previous parish, someone breached the giving records and spread the word who gave what. Some priests “pastor” according to what they think they know. God bless the priest who doesn’t care or even want to know.

Here you are, Pigeon. (I have corrected a few infelicities in the original.)

William Tighe
February 14, 2009

Re:

“those who have as their vocation the call to remain in TEC”

“the call is recognized as to stand as a witness to the truth in the midst of the theological chaos. They are called simply to be the Church and provide an alternative model of doing church within TEC”

I agree with the immediately-preceding comments of FW Ken and Russell. Wherever, in terms of historical Christianity, does the very notion that one can have a “call” to remain in an heretical and apostate denomination, and that others should “respect” such a “call” come from? I know of no “orthodox Christian” that declared a “calling” to remain among the Arians, the Donatists, any of the Gnostic sects, the Marcionites, the Montanists or any of the organized heretical groups or counter-churches of the early centuries. I think that the reason for this has to do with the one anachronistic word in what I have just written, “denomination.” None of these early groups, with the exception of the Gnostics (who conceived of themselves as philosophical-religious “schools” of thought and practice, and rejected the concept of “Church”) thought of themselves as “denominations” bur rather as “The Church,” alone and exclusively. It took the Reformation, or rather its follow-through, to conceive of the idea of “the invisible Church” — no longer Augustine’s or Calvin’s collectivity of the predestined elect, known only to God, but, rather, the collectivity of all Christian “denominations” — and to reduce any visible and earthly Christian religious organizations, above the congregational level at least, to mere “denominations.” But even orthodox Protestants of any and every stripe would have concluded that a “denomination” that had become heretical and apostate was no longer Christian (as most non-Lutherans believed of the Catholic Church, for example), and that to remain in it to “witness” was as absurd as as a converted whore to remain in her brothel and to continue to ply her trade there as a “witness” to her co-workers.

There are two possible exceptions. Tyconius, a Donatist theologian and writer of the Fourth Century, is sometimes alleged to have conceded that that Catholics were probably correct, but decided to remain as a Donatist anyway, perhaps (it is speculated) to promote “reconciliation” between the Donatists and the Catholics (that is why an ELCA pastor-friend once took an e-mail address beginning with “Tyconius@”). However, most authorities think that Tyconius actually held that while the Catholics may have had the better historical case as regards the original circumstances in which the Donatist Schism arose in the first decade of the Fourth Century, the Donatists had justified themselves by their superior allegiance to the moral demands of Christianity than the Catholics, and that this was the important thing.

The other example is Martin Luther, who unlike any other Protestant Reformer was totally unwilling to the visible, if in his view to a large measure corrupt and apostate, institution of the “Catholic Church,” until he was excommunicated in 1520, and even after that, took no thought for conceiving or building any “rival church” until the bad example (as he saw it) of the Anabaptists and “fanatics” (as he termed them) in doing so, and the demands of secular rulers who had embraced Luther’s views and wanted to force the clergy in their territories to do likewise, brought Luther to deliver, with a rather uncharacteristic diffidence (not shared by many of his followers and associates), his thoughts on how these princes and rulers might proceed to do so.

I do not think, however, that Tyconius or even (if arguably) Luther provide a real precedent or justification for what we see today. That seems to proceed from a modern and subjective “let’s pretend” attitude towards ecclesiology that, if not unique to Episcopalians and other liberal Anglicans, is certainly seen most conspicuously among them. “Let’s pretend” that “our denomination” (for that’s what it really is, historically) or (to use the lingo of high-church Anglicanism) “our branch {one among several) of the Catholic Church (or ‘Church Catholic’)” is THE CHURCH, with all the authority to command allegiance that such a body, if it existed at all in a visible fashion on this Earth, or in an undivided state, could command. Such an attitude is, of course, the triumph of fantasy over reality, of nonsense over history — impressive in its own way, but possible even so only, I suspect, due to that phenomenon that Mr. Johnson has had occasion to mention in the past: the tendency of the media to treat TE”C” as its ideal of what the Catholic Church (the “RC” Church, as in Real Catholic) should be like.

(No offense to the Orthodox intended here, and I hope not taken by any Orthodox readers.)

Thise who wish to explore this subject in motre detail might start with these two books:

Werner Elert, *Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries* (1966, 2003) and

Ludwig Hertling, *Communio: Church and Papacy in early Christianity* (1972)

Elert was a reknowned German Lutheran theologian; Hertling was a German Jesuit church historian.

There are copies of both books available at http://www.abebooks.com. I would recommend them both; they complement each other nicely.

Thank you, Dr Tighe.