David Virtue Gets It Wrong – Way Wrong!

David Virtue wrote a series of observations/rants about what horrifies him about the Episcopal Church (can you imagine making what horrifies you about the Episcopal Church your life's work?). I noted that his reference to "Mrs. Schori" was a slight beneath the dignity of anyone in any church. In response to his hand wringing about all the money being spent on the lawsuits over property, I noted that the Episcopal Church is bound to protect its ownership of its property and, as countless others have seen, if those leaving the Episcopal Church would be civil and decent enough not to take property that does not belong to them there would not be the occasion for lawsuits.

I noted as well that there is no ownership of church property by those who make charitable gifts to the church, either through pledged support or capital gifts. If David Virtue had supported the church financially at any time over the past two decades he would have known that, as Church Treasurers have to note in their parish giving statements that nothing of value, other than spiritual value, was provided in exchange for the contribution to the church. Thus, if you claim a tax deduction for your pledges or capital gifts and then claim the property belongs, in part, to you – you can count on receiving free meals at a Federal facility or paying a large fine and penalty for violation of Federal law.

One of the first to respond was Cennydd, from Los Banos, California in the breakaway group John David Schofield engineered out of the Episcopal Church:

Re: Virtue Article - Orthodox Parishes Win In VA -- Schori Will Attempt to Depose Bp. Duncan.

TBWSalinas, David isn't the only one to refer to your "Presiding Bishop" as "Mrs Schori." And we are perfectly within our rights in doing so, since we do not believe that she is a validly-ordained member of the clergy. Yes, The Episcopal Church claims that she is, since your Church ordains women. This diocese does not, a fact of which I am sure you are well aware.

The lawsuits you mentioned....every single one of them....were brought against faithful orthodox Anglican Christians who want nothing more than to remain in the spiritual homes which they paid for and have maintained, where they were married, where their children and grandchildren were baptized, confirmed, and married, and yes, even buried from. The Episcopal Church filed those lawsuits; no one else did, and you know it!

In most cases, the dioceses and the Church have not contributed a dime to the purchase and upkeep of these properties; the people themselves having contributed gladly and with no thought that they would ever be sued in court simply for wanting to remain in their church properties....again for which they paid.

You will no doubt say that "faithful Episcopalians" also want to remain in their church homes, and you'd be right. I was once a faithful Episcopalian, and I never dreamed that I would one day leave the parish in which I had spent so many years of my adult life.

But when the Church I once loved decided to begin ordaining women to the priesthood and to do nothing to discipline +John Spong and +James Pike for their heresies (Pike got his hand slapped and was told to not do it again), and when they consecrated your present leader as Presiding Bishop....a woman who openly stated the "there is more than one way to God than through Jesus," when Jesus Himself said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He who hath seen Me hath seen the Father,"I knew that I had to make a decision. You know by my avatar what decision I made.

Yes, the lawsuits can stop, and they should! It has been said that Christians don't sue Christians. Certainly, Christian churches don't, but The Episcopal Church has chosen to ignore that message, and have diminished themselves in the eyes of the rest of Christendom. It is a proven fact! The issues of ordaining known non-celibate homosexual persons and of same-sex "marriage" are merely "presenting issues." The real issue is one of remaining faithful to 2000 years of teachings of the Church through Holy Scripture.

The Episcopal Church was once a great and highly-respected part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Sadly, by its own actions, it is no longer.
Cennydd
MY RESPONSE:

I hope the IRS does not see your response, Cennydd. They believe that when you donate money to the church, you give up control over it -- otherwise no tax deduction. When the dissidents assert, as you seem to, that you have bought and paid for the parish churches you are stealing from TEC you are violating federal law and every principle of Christian Stewardship.

Please don't try to fool me into believing that you believe all of "2000 years of teaching of the church. . ." If you read early church history you are aware that there were many theologies and ethics for a long time -- and little of early Christian ethics and understanding of the church's place in culture survived very long -- but then you may be in favor of the subjugation of women, the institution of slavery and approval of polygamy -- and what about women having their heads covered in church, etc., etc..

Isn't it odd that the women who were the only followers of Jesus who remained faithful through his crucifixion, who were the first witnesses to the Resurrection and leaders in the early church are branded by you and some others as unfit or unqualified for priestly or episcopal ministry in the church of Jesus Christ. So much for Jesus' witness regarding the place of women in his living and dying.

Cennydd, I believe your vision of the mission and identity of the church lacks the compassion, generosity, vision and witness of Jesus Christ. And those who agree with your understanding of John 14.6 are a marginal group, with few Biblical scholars to back them up. Jesus seems to disagree with you. Paul, even in Romans, disagrees with you. The Roman Catholic Church disagrees with you. You have made what you see as correct belief a substitute for faith -- and in the process have turned faith into a work, losing any sense of Grace. What you have is salvation by works -- that has been declared a heresy over and over again.

I wish you well in your brand of Christianity. I wish for you the joy and peace that is the Christian Gospel -- but to gain that you are going to have to let go of Christianity as a Country Club for the guys -- and straight guys only, at that.

Thomas B. Woodward

A Communion Sidetracked by a Morality of Works

In the church as in life, how easily we get sidetracked. Nowhere is that more evident than with our current struggles within the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion.

It seems clear to me that a good part of our problem throughout the church stems from treating Christianity as a moral code. People in all parts of our church are struggling with different moral codes -- and identifying them with the Christian gospel. This was a major error of the Eames Commission, reflecting the notion that Christianity is a set of rules and regulations to which one gives assent rather than a response in faith to the revelation in Jesus Christ. This error then led to an enormous amount of mischief and grief.

The Episcopal Church and the wider Anglican Church is not alone with this misconception. Here is a brief excerpt from Jacques Ellul's book The Subversion of Christianity: "When I say that the revelation of God in Jesus Christ is against morality, I am not trying to say that it replaces one form of morality with another. . . Revelation is an attack on all morality, as is wonderfully shown by the parables of the kingdom of heaven, that of the prodigal son, that of the talents, that of the eleventh-hour laborers, that of the unfaithful steward, and many others. In all the parables the person who serves as an example has not lived a moral life. The one who is rejected is the one who has lived a moral life. Naturally this does not mean that we are counseled to become robbers, murderers, adulterers, etc. On the contrary, the behavior to which we are summoned surpasses morality, all morality, which is shown to be an obstacle to encounter with God." p. 71

What we now have before us is a morality of works, a litmus test replacing the grace and love of God. However, the parables of Jesus are subversive -- often as with the parables of the Leaven, Mustard Seed and Prodigal Son they subvert the authority of the purity code. They also subvert the kinds of divisions in this church around human sexuality. We are not talking about Paul's distinctions between sarx (flesh) and the Spirit. We are falsely labeling some spiritual relationships as though they were sarx (the way of identifying ourselves with the world), thus undercutting the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

While we humans seem to have a penchant for the security of rules and proscriptions, Jesus refused to give into that penchant. Instead he spoke of human qualities in the Beatitudes (Matthew 5), as Paul did of the marks of the Holy Spirit in Galatians 5. In what we have in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus speaks in hyperbole and metaphor, but not with rules and regulations.

As Christians, we are not governed by rules and proscriptions. We are governed by a Vision and a Life lived and given. As Paul notes, we work out the details in fear and trembling, but always in the context of trust and acceptance. That is the opposite of deciding the future of our Communion on the basis of a morality rooted elsewhere than in that Life. Living morally as a Christian is full of doubt and discernment and struggle --and absolutist versions of Christian morality detract from that vocation and eventually subvert and destroy it.

Put simply: our moralities are responses to the revelation of God through Jesus Christ, but they are not that revelation.

We have become so enthralled with the argumentative possibilities in defending our favorite morality or in attacking others' that in arguing about morality we really have come to believe that we are dealing with revelation and the content of our faith (relationship) in God. Not so.

Response to Fort Worth Canon Theologian’s Attack

Following my talks to the Via Media and Remain Episcopal groups in the Diocese of Fort Worth, the Canon Theologian wrote what I believe is a scurrilous and intentionally misleading attack on me and on the essays I wrote for The Episcopal Majority entitled "The Undermining of the Episcopal Church" (found elsewhere on this blog). This response is meant, initially, for members of the HoBD list serve as I promised one member of that group a copy of this response. I am not of a mind to republish Fr. Heidt's attack - you can find that on-line.

Dear Canon Heidt,
I welcome fair criticism of my work, but I must object to your mischaracterizations, misunderstandings and distortions of what I wrote in "The Undermining of the Episcopal Church."

That pamphlet was written for The Episcopal Majority, an organization formed not to declare "open warfare," as you state, but to counter the misrepresentations of traditional Anglicans perpetrated by those who claim to be "orthodox." I certainly have no wish to fight my "enemies to the death." All I want is for there to be honest dialogue with respect for the truth. If you knew anything at all about me you would know that I have a long and distinguished career built on building bridges within the church and between the Episcopal Church and those outside it.

Again, had you read Undermining with any care you would recognize me as fully Trinitarian, with no tolerance for what you charge me with – confusing or identifying the church's Trinitarian God with "the nature of all life."

No place do I or my cohorts assume "the world is in some sense divine," as you charge (reflective of your irresponsible and wrong comments about pagan origins). Likewise, I do not know where you find license to drag the red herring of "the spirit of the times" or the church as "subservient to the culture in which it finds itself," unless you are referring to your own theological underpinnings – they certainly are not mine and are not reflected in my work.

Again, nowhere do I state or assume that "all life is sacramental," in anything like the simplistic way you characterize that notion. Here, as elsewhere, you make broad generalities take the place of responsible citations or quotes of a work you are attacking. While your belief that the sacramental action and presence of God seems to be limited to the church's official sacraments, you must be aware that your limitations are not reflected in traditional Anglicanism or classical Christianity which holds that there are at least these seven sacraments. I do not understand your statement that "God alone makes the sacrament of unction along with the other sacraments."

Your notion that God comes into the world from outside and beyond this world is wildly heretical on several counts, among which is your making God an object as well as separating God from the Creation. Better not to use that notion in countering me or anyone else – just as with your earlier criticism of me for holding the Johannine doctrine of the love of God.

In (2) you note correctly that I report that the church has been constantly changing its beliefs and practices through history. That is not rocket science. We did not start out believing in a Trinitarian God. Our understanding of marriage has changed radically over the centuries. The same is true of our moral codes regarding procreation, slavery, the dignity and equality of women, and on and on and on. However, I never said we must not look to the past – why would you impute that to me? Why the misleading information?

You have not given any indication of my objections to the reintroduction of the 1662 Prayer Book as normative for our theology – or the context for those remarks. They are pretty important. Instead, you wave another generalization that has no relationship to what I argued. Do you, in fact, disagree with my analysis of the dangers of using 1662 as normative? That would be a discussion worth having.

Again, you have grossly mischaracterized my remarks about the current use of John 14:6 as a litmus test. I believe you will find that most Biblical scholars of the 20^th and 21^st century mirror my analysis. Even Roman Catholic doctrine contradicts the stand of those who now claim to be the "orthodox."

I do poke fun at those who parade around the notion of "the faith once delivered to the saints." The term, when first used, refers, of course, to the Hebrew Scriptures, not to authors of the New Testament. I stand by my clear exposition that those who use the phrase use it not to proclaim early doctrine, but their own peculiar (often very peculiar) notion of a Christianity as they would like it to be. Quite contrary to your statement that I fail to realize the diversity of faith within the whole, I quoted with great approval the work of David Rhodes to that effect.

When you charge me with being fast and loose with the facts, you do not quote me. You do charge me with saying that St. Paul is not part of our Bible – that is completely untrue. It is a scurrilous misrepresentation or lie. I nowhere say that St. John is irrelevant. That is another lie. When I say that "so-called conservatives" are throwing away centuries of biblical scholarship, I give specifics. You choose not to address those specifics: that is sloppy and irresponsible scholarship. I wrote you an email about the facts of the matter regarding property. That was made clear in Undermining – and the courts have consistently held that to be true – and that is very clear in the State of Texas, which is a deference State.

In (4) you throw around a lot of words and phrases that are not linked to anything I wrote or believe. You completely misrepresent my Prayer Book understanding of the ordained orders of the church and of Baptism. Why do you do that? What I wrote about the authority of the laity in the Episcopal Church is straight Prayer Book and Constitution and Canons. If you want to attack them, do so – but don't attack and misrepresent me for following them.

Do check out the ordination and consecration vows in the Prayer Book. It does specify obedience within the Episcopal Church. Period. Why would you think differently? I do chastise foreign bishops for invading our own church in the United States. That practice was first outlawed at the Council of Nicea – and has never been changed or altered. Check it out. The history and practice of the Episcopal Church in Europe is very clear. That is all above board and in compliance with Nicea and the rules and regulations of other groups where we are located.

I have no interest in casting out anyone, as I note clearly in Undermining. I have a great interest in combating misinformation and the practice of demonizing, which I find present in your article. I am happy, though, to kneel at the altar next to you.

Contrary to your claim, St. Paul clearly speaks his mind that people who have sex with members of their own gender shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Do you know something about Michelangelo and Sir John Gielgud that others don't? Under Paul's teaching, they and the millions upon millions of gay and lesbian people who have loved Jesus Christ and have served Him sacrificially have no place in heaven – no matter what Jesus said.

I pray that you will apologize publicly for your misunderstandings and misrepresentations – as well as for your libelous characterization of me as Unitarian and "new religionist." Throughout (5) you again throw out a bunch of accusations with nothing to support them – because there is nothing to support them. They are wrong. I believe your own descriptions of God are wrong – and wrong by all standards of traditional and classical Christian theology and philosophy.

I am grateful that you have, finally, in (6), actually referred to something that I did write. I have not lumped scripture, tradition and reason all together. Check it out. They exist in a dynamic relationship, as Hooker noted and established for Anglicanism. Your characterizations of my understanding of the Bible and the authority of the Bible all come from your own mind and musings. They are deliberate distortions of what I wrote in Undermining and what I clearly believe.

I was very clear about Christian morality. You have chosen to ignore that for another scurrilous attack built against a figment of your imagination.

In conclusion, I am very disappointed in what you have written. I am angry about your lies and misrepresentations. I am offended that such sloppy work has been disseminated in the church, especially under the title of "Canon Theologian." I believe what you have done is a poor job of Swift Boating me. I would be happy to engage with you in honest discussion or dialogue about any of the issues raised in Undermining. As for now, I remain convinced that it is those who claim the loudest to be "orthodox" who are undermining classical and traditional Christianity.

Tom Woodward

Response to Fr. Wooten’s Attack

Following my talks to the Via Media and Remain Episcopal groups in the Diocese of Fort Worth, Fr. Steve Wooten, a priest in that diocese, published a two part series attacking me and the essays I wrote for The Episcopal Majority entitled "The Undermining of the Episcopal Church" which can be found elsewhere on this blog. As promised to the HoBD list, I am posting my response to Fr. Wooten here:

Dear Fr. Wooten,

I have listened to the first of your two responses to the essays I wrote for The Episcopal Majority and have several concerns, especially as your responses have been widely circulated. I wish you had been able to attend my talk in Wichita Falls – had I more notice about that part of my schedule I would have invited you personally, as I had invited Christopher Cantrell and Dean Ryan Reed to my talk in Fort Worth.

I am not going to engage with you in debate here: however I feel it necessary to clarify some misinformation, mischaracterization and unnecessary confusion.

First, I did not come to Fort Worth from the national church. No one at the national church was consulted about my visit. I came by invitation from individuals who expressed the hope that another point of view could be articulated respectfully within the diocese. I asked Bishop Iker for an appointment before my talks to ask him if he had any concerns about my speaking in his diocese. He was very gracious in meeting with me and he told me of his concerns – which I share. It is my hope and prayer that I honored his concerns and that I mirrored my respect for him to those who attended the talks, including several of your parishioners.

You have my biographical history all wrong. You could have checked it on line at the Church Pension Fund site or in any Clerical Directory. I am a Harvard graduate, cum laude in philosophy, and was graduated from The General Theological Seminary. I have taught at the seminaries in Berkeley, California as well as at Nashotah House. Seabury Press has published two books I've written – one on theology and the other on an intergenerational approach to Christian Education. My work on the Parables of Jesus was published recently in the Sewanee Theological Review and has been under review by Fortress Press.

Your characterization of my work in the Diocese of the Rio Grande was completely wrong and foolish as well. After a disasterous Diocesan Convocation in which Network clergy and laity hurled nasty and scurrilous epithets at moderate and liberal members of the Convocation, Bishop Steenson assembled a group of leaders in the diocese to serve as a Task Force on Communion. They were to help guide the diocese towards a more loving and respectful community and Convocation. The level of venom in the original Task Force was so high that all the liberal members resigned, leaving only one moderate. Bishop Steenson, knowing of my reconciling work in the Diocese of El Camino Real, asked if I would serve on the Task Force. Being a tough old buzzard I agreed to serve. Despite being asked to resign three times by the chair of the Task Force for raising uncomfortable issues and concerns, I ended my service with profuse gratitude from Bishop Steenson and the diocese.

My stance has never been as you characterize it, "if you don't agree, get out." No one has worked harder in this very conservative diocese to hold people and congregations together, except for Bishop Steenson. I have spent over forty years working to build bridges within the Episcopal Church – and many of my closest friends in the church are among the most conservative. Check your General Convention materials: the Network endorsed my candidacy for Trustee of the Church Pension Fund at the last General Convention because their leadership knows me and trusts me, even as we disagree.

I believe there is room in the Episcopal Church for the full range of people in the Network. What I objected to in my booklet is the defamatory language often used by leaders of the Network which is present all the way through the DVD, "Choose This Day." I object in the strongest terms to the use of the slanderous and ugly language that I noted in my booklet. We may have deep disagreements about many things, but neither of us is "non- Christian" or "pagan." That kind of language has no place in your mouth or mine.

I object to your characterization of my understanding of the authority of Scripture and of the nature of revelation. You misquoted me in your talk as you have repeatedly done in your comments on Fr. Cantrell's blog. I believe your view of revelation as a sophisticated kind of divine dictation has not been honored in the history of Anglicanism, though it has its followers among Biblical literalists. My understanding of revelation as a response to the mighty acts of God in Hebrew Scripture and as the response to the life, ministry, teaching, incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ has been pretty standard for centuries. To characterize my understanding as that of God speaking to me through the beauty of a forest has got to be a deliberate and mean-spirited misunderstanding.

The tensions among Scripture, Tradition and Reason are far deeper than your fairly peculiar notion of Scriptura sola. I don't know of a single responsible Biblical scholar or historian who would would say, in your words, "Scripture trumps all." The Scriptural norm of polygamy, which I object to in the strongest terms, does not trump anything. Let us pray that it never will – and that is one of hundreds of examples. It was, as you know, the church which decided the Canon and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit which helps us to understand it.

I object in the strongest of terms to your use of various red herrings to defame the Episcopal Church. The Buddhist, Hindu and Wicca examples you used have all involved depositions or inhibitions by resident bishops. They represent an unacceptable expression of the church – we both know that. Your using them in the way you did would be the equivalent of my referring to the havoc wreaked by Don Armstrong as typical of people in the Network (Don has been a friend of mine, but I find his financial misbehavior terrible).

Your mischaracterization of my concerns about puritanism was unfortunate. Your statement that I and others have no regard for rules is laughable. My life in the Episcopal Church is full of upholding rules – and holding our church and others acccountable to Scriptural norms. Take a look at my piece on "Forty Years of Ordination" at http://turningthingsupsidedown.blogspot.com.

We do have much to talk about regarding the neo-Puritanism that I believe marks too much of the new "orthodoxy." My concern is that the rules and objectification in your rule dominated ethics and morality have undermined our traditional Anglican understanding of the sacramental nature of life, and thus of our understanding of Trinitarian faith. It is a serious argument and ignored at your peril. Your mischaracterization continued in your calling me a "Christian anarchist." The quotes about God as Love comes, of course, not from Augustine but from I John I. To characterize my discussion of Divine Love as having to do with an old geezer having sex with a 13 year old girl is way, way beneath you. I was happy to hear a parishioner cautioning you that you were confusing agape and eros.

You noted that "If God does not have codes and rules, why did Jesus have to die?" I believe if you look more closely at the Synoptics that you will find that it was largely Jesus' attack on the purity code and its grip on the People of God that led to his crucifixion – not his reiteration of the Ten Commandments. We had plenty of rules and regulations long before the Incarnation: what was lacking was Paul's notion of Grace and Law and Jesus' transformation of the Law into a new ethic. By the way, I do not know a liberal theologian or ethicist anywhere who says anything like what you tag me with, "Don't worry about anything, Grace will cover you." I read Bonheffer: where did you find that???

Again, your statement that I am advocating that the Holy is "found in human experience: just try everything once and you will find God" is gross distortion and has nothing at all to do with what I wrote or what I believe. I am pretty strictly Pauline on the matter of the revelation of the holy in human experience. Your literalism is what is bizarre.

When you begin talking about my discussion of Bedrock, you seem to align me with those advocating gay marriage. Please be careful: you are wrong. You accuse me of "throwing out tradition and discarding the Book of Common Prayer:" again, you are wrong! It would have been helpful for your parishioners to have heard about the traditions I did mention, such as the subjugation of women embedded in our prayer books for centuries.

You told your parishioners I called you a charlatan for accepting your paycheck. Wrong. I wrote of the conflict between being paid by an institution one is working actively to undermine or replace – and how similar that is to a husband who reaps the benefits of being married while plotting with a woman he is having an affair with about getting out of his marriage. I think the moral standard is that one works to preserve the marriage – and when that is impossible, then one leaves the marriage. Period. Bishop Steenson realized he had a deeper conflict with the Episcopal Church than he had previously thought, so politely he announced that he was renouncing his orders. He did that within weeks of his realization that he would be joining the Roman Catholic Church. He left with the good wishes of liberals and conservatives – certainly of my own. I believe that should be the norm – but that's me.

I certainly agree with you that the message of salvation can be "got" by all, despite the nuances of Scripture. Some of us hear that message differently from others. As I took great pains to note, there are different strains in the Gospels about the requirements for salvation. It is clear that you find the major strains of the Synoptics uncomfortable and so not part of the Biblical message. I said that what you are affirming is affirmed in the New Testament – and so is what I am affirming also affirmed there. There is no "winning" here.

I hope you are more respectful to our Presiding Bishop than your use of "Kate Schori" indicates. I know many of the clergy in your diocese disparage her regularly, but I want to remind you that her stance regarding John 14.6 reflects traditional Anglican understanding of salvation and is fully within the understanding of the Roman Catholic church of that scripture as well. Your slur reflects on you, not her. It is that kind of slur against women in authority that has led to a host of terrible consequences for women. You owe your parishioners better.

One last thing ( I know I have gone on too long): you accuse me of Marcionism, claiming that I "do not want your people to read Paul, John, Leviticus or most of the New Testament." On the contrary, I want nothing more than for your people to read those books. I want them to know the difference in quality between the Purity Code and the Holiness Code in Leviticus. I want them to read Galatians 5 and all of Romans. I want them to read of the expansive love of God in the Johaninne letters and in the Parables of Jesus which, over and over again, undercut the moralism which you seem to champion. Read the Parable of the Prodigal Son, The Leaven, The Mustard Seed and on and on. They represent a different picture than the one you draw. Note that I am not saying your picture is wrong: it is one among many. That concept is hard for a literalist, but easy for one reads the whole Bible.

If you want to have an open and honest discussion with me, I am up for that. From what I saw and heard in Wichita Falls, so are your people. They know that there is more than one respectable point of view on these important matters – I think they are tired of the others being so disparaged. Check with your bishop to see if such a discussion would be a possibility. Check with the leadership in the Network – John Liebler, Kendall Harmon, David Virtue, Bishop Little and others: they will tell you about my integrity and good faith. They will tell you that I make every effort to be fair and kind – and that when I step over the line I apologize honestly and profusely. I hope to be treateed with the same respect.

Tom Woodward

Stand Firm Dialogues

After pretty unsatisfactory attempts at clarification and dialogue at Stand Firm, I have invited people from that blog community to TTUD. I welcome your questions, challenges and everything else and will attempt to keep up with my end.
Tom

The Beatitudes Turned Upside Down

It does boggle the mind, with bishops in our church and others,
   absconding with funds given by ECUSA to their dioceses,
   tolerating priests sexually abusing parishioners,
  invading other dioceses,
   demonizing their own clergy,
   subjecting their own people to prison and death on the basis of their sexual orientation,
   inflicting their own mental illness on their dioceses,
   calling fellow bishops "apostate" and "imposters,"
   showing complete disrespect for our Presiding Bishop,
   involved in sexual misconduct, themselves,
   refusing to get help for serious addictions,
   involved in financial mismanagement of their dioceses
   and on and on . . . 

 Bishop Gene Robinson,
  who has served this church faithfully and without incident at home and abroad,
  a saving spiritual icon to thousands of Episcopalians and others in this country,
  elected by his own diocese who has known him for many years, etc., etc.
  is not invited to the ABC's gathering of bishops.

I do not understand how the moral weighting is done in Canterbury,
but it sure ain't by Biblical standards or by any of the recorded statements of Jesus.
This is sort of "The Beatitudes Turned Upside Down."

A DISCLAIMER:  Don't get me wrong -- I believe our bishops, as a whole, are the best.
They serve faithfully and courageously. So many are truly gifts from God to this church.

Does the United States Get a Free Pass on Immorality?

At times over the past few weeks it has felt unbearable listening to the smug attacks from both liberal and conservative news commentators on remarks made from a Christian pulpit, critical of the United States of America. The firestorm has centered on outtakes from a very few sermons by Barack Obama's UCC pastor, The Rev. Jeremiah Wright (who, incidentally has one of the most compassionate and most generous congregations in all of American Christendom).

Oddly (and tragically) the one remark by Pastor Wright that has proven most controversial seems to me fairly basic to a responsible understanding of the Christian faith. Stripped of the emotion and the phraseology, he is saying that the United States of America stands under God's judgment for our actions in just the same way that we believe other countries stand under God's judgment.

What could be more basic than that? Isn't that much of the heart of our Holy Scriptures, that Israel stands under the same judgment that other nations do? If I remember my prophets and historical books correctly, what we have been told as clearly as clear can be is that since we have been entrusted with the identity of the People of God, we will be judged even more harshly than "the nations."

The reality in this country is that we who really believe that we are that city built on a hill, the new Jerusalem will resist and in the process demonize anyone who reminds us that we stand under the judgment of God. How hypocritical! How counter to the revealed Word of God, spoken through the prophets and even by Jesus Christ, himself.

Surely we don't think we get a free pass on the torture we have inflicted in our current as well as past wars, the bombings of civilian targets, resorting to armed combat for economic reasons, our long years of practicing slavery, our condoning of marketing merchandise by images which degrade women, our deference to corporate power over the needs and the rights of the poor, and on and on.

We should all be seriously depressed at the depth of the civil religion practiced in this country that would exempt us from being held responsible for our national sins. We should be furious at those commentators who assume we can sever our prophetic roots from the Christian religion -- and who demonize one of the greatest pastors in our church for speaking the truth.

So what are the odds that Christian preachers have used this occasion to call our church back to its roots? Probably not very good. Why is that? Is that we really do prize being liked? Or is it that despite our words of reverence for the Bible, we have simply forgotten its words and message?

Don't you just love the way so many leaders of the "reasserters" claim to be the only ones in the Episcopal Church who care for the Bible and its authority while standing by as Pastor Wright is crucified by the left and the right? They are not "reasserting" anything: they are ignoring it. Those on the liberal side are not much better. We talk about the "unfortunate language" of the sermon excerpts, forgetting that we have not used ANY language in attacking our national sin. We, too, like the evangelicals are more comfortable in dealing with "personal" sins.

I had thought of including a few trenchant quotes from the prophets to sum up this short piece, but the only thing adequate would be to include the whole of the books of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Judges, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Hosea, and all the rest. Maybe, since this is Holy Week, words from Jesus as he neared his own death in Jerusalem might be appropriate:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! (Matthew 23:36-38)

We who claim the identity of Jerusalem for ourselves have a major task of repentance ahead of us.

Bright Sunday Sermon

I almost didn’t make it to the church this morning. I had a pastoral emergency that I just had to attend to. . .well, I might as well tell you, it was about Arnold. I’ve been trying to work with him about self-esteem issues and he called me really early this morning to say that he and Janet had had a big fight. So I asked him how the fight ended this time. “When it was over,” he said, “she came to me on her hands and knees.” “Really?,” I said. “That’s a switch. What did she say?” “She said, ‘Come out from underneath the bed, you sniveling coward!’”

And Arnold is not the only one who’s been under the gun. One of you was asking me a couple of weeks ago about when I’m going to retire. I told her I have no plans to retire anytime soon. But even so, her eyes started to tear up and she cried, “Oh, Father Tom, we are going to miss you so much!” Well, I tried to reassure her by telling her, “Look, the priest who takes my place will probably be even better than me.” “Yeah!” she said. “That’s what they said LAST time!”

And then, Bob Bonacci stopped my wife, Ann, outside of Star Market while Ann was struggling with a case of beer. Rather than helping her out, he called out to her, “Hey, Ann! Wacha get the case of beer for?” She said, "I got it for my husband.” "Oh!" he said, "Good trade."

This is Bright Sunday, a remnant of the Feast of Fools from the Middle Ages, a time during the year when the sermon is devoted, simply, to fun. And it is fun that needs no justification other than the knowledge that Jesus Christ has been raised from the dead – and that’s a time to celebrate in any and every way possible. So, today, some of the best and more of the worst from this past year. All the stories today are true in some sense -- especially the ones about parishioners and clergy

But, before we go any further, I want you to know that it is not always easy being a pastor. Last Sunday, for instance, when an unfamiliar couple was leaving the church Fr. Jaime said to them, “You need to join the Army of the Lord!” But one of them said, “We’re already in the Army of the Lord, Pastor.” So Father Jaime said, “Then how come the only time we see you is at Christmas and Easter?” The husband pulled Jaime aside and whispered in his ear: “We’re in the secret service."

But it’s easier here at St. Paul’s than it is over at First Presbyterian. You’ve seen those electric hand dryers in public bathrooms? Well, apparently somebody from their Board of Deacons at First Pres went into their bathrooms and pasted little messages on the electric hand dryers they have: The messages say: “Please press button for a brief recorded message from our pastor.”

Clergy are not the only ones to have problems with the people they serve. Dr. Denmark told me that last week he saw one of his elderly male patients walking along Main Street with a stunning young woman on his arm and a smile on his face. When the fellow came in for his appointment the next day, Steve said “You’re really going wild, aren’t you?” The guy said, “Hey, Doc, just doing what you told me to do: get a hot Mamma and be cheerful” “That’s not what I told you,” said Steve. “I didn’t tell you to get a hot Mamma and be cheerful. I said, ‘You’ve got a heart murmur. . . be careful.”

Ann has had similar problems as a therapist. Last week the receptionist walked into her office and said, "There's a young guy in the waiting room asking to see you. He claims he's invisible." “He claims he’s invisible?” said Ann, “tell him I can't see him."

When I was in the Midwest, the one thing we knew about California was the bad feeling between San Francisco and Los Angeles. What was it Mort Sahl used to say, “that in the event of a nuclear attack neither city would alert the other?” So Bill Schmalle told me my first week here, that if I wanted to be popular with the congregation, I should tell at least one joke a year about Los Angeles. The only thing I could think of was when I was flying to Los Angeles and the guy sitting across the aisle from me was a mess. . .he was pale, his hands were shaking . . in fact his whole body was shuddering and he was moaning in fear.

The fellow sitting next to him said, "Hey, pal, what's the matter?" “It’s awful,” said the first guy. "I've been transferred to Los Angeles: they've got race riots, drugs, the streets are filthy . .and they’ve got the highest crime rate in the world, I’m just scared to death.”

"Hold on," said the second guy. "I've been in Los Angeles all my life, and its not as bad as the media says. Find a nice home, go to work, mind your own business, enroll your kids in a good school and it's as safe as anywhere in the world." Well, the first guy really calmed down. “Oh, thank god,” he said, “I was worried to death, but if you live there and say it's OK, I'll take your word for it. By the way, what do you do for a living?” "Me?" said the second guy, "I'm a tail gunner on a Budweiser Beer Truck."

It’s probably time for a religious story: The way I heard it was that at a Giants game, a Buddhist monk walked up to a tofu hotdog stand and said to the vendor, "Make me one with everything." So the vendor gave him a hot dog with the works and the monk gave him a $20 bill. The vendor put the $20 in his pocket – and the monk asked, “Hey, what about my change?" The vendor paused for a couple of seconds and said, "Change comes from within."

Maybe I’ve got time to rescue things with a food story. A guy was standing out in front of one of the seafood restaurants on Fisherman's Wharf, when a waitress came out and told him about their special: "Our special tonight is Big Lobster Tales, $5 each." Amazed, he said:"$5 each for lobster tails. You’ve got to be kidding.” "Nope", she said, "It's our special just for today." "Well", he said, "they must be little lobster tails." "No," she replied, "It's the really big lobster." ‘Are you sure they aren't those green lobster tails - and a little bit tough?" "No", she said, "it's the really big red lobster." "Big red lobster tails, $5 each?" he said, amazed. “They must be old lobster tails!" "No,” she said, “they're definitely today's." "Today's big red lobster tails - $5 each?", he repeated, astounded. "Yes", she insisted.

"Well, here's my five dollars," he said, "I'll take one.” She took the money and led him to a table where she invited him to sit down. She then sat down next to him, put her hand on his shoulder, leaned over close to him and said, "Once upon a time there was a really big red lobster ..." (That probably would have done better as a Los Angeles story.)

But on a serious note, after experiencing some hearing loss, I began to look into buying a hearing aid; but I didn’t want to spend a lot of money, so I went up to this discount place in San Jose
and I asked the salesperson, "How much do they cost ?" "Well, that depends," he said. "They run anywhere from $4 to $4,000." I told him I would like to try the $4 model. .so he put this device around my neck and said "You just stick this button in your ear and run this little string down to your pocket." "So how does it work?" I asked. "For $4.00 it doesn't work," he said; "But when people see it on you, they'll talk louder!"

And it’s not just the hearing loss that’s been a problem. One of the issues with my ADHD is putting things down and then not remembering where I placed them. Well, a week ago I was cleaning out my closet and I found a ticket from the shoe repair shop over on Park Row. The date stamped on the ticket showed that it was over 9 years old. I said to Ann, "Do you think the shoes will still be there?" “I don’t think so,” she said.

Well, I thought it was worth a try, so I put the ticket in my pocket, hopped in the car and went to the shop. With a very straight face, I handed the ticket to the guy behind the counter. With a face just as straight, he said, "Just a minute. I'll have to look for these." (pause) Two minutes later, the man called out, "Here they are!" "No kidding?" I said, "That's terrific! Who would have thought they'd still be here after all this time." But the guy came back to the counter, empty-handed. He said, "They'll be ready Thursday."

We are close to the end. This next to last story is a true story that took place at our Vacation Bible School. The pre-schoolers were playing a "jack-in-the-box" game where one child hid in a decorated box while the other children stood in a circle and chanted. "Where is Jesus, Where is Jesus?" At the appropriate time, the child in the box would pop up and say "Jesus isn't here, he is risen!" All went along smoothly with each child getting a turn to be "Jack" until one of our children popped up from the box and said "Jesus isn't here, he's in prison!" (From such are saints made)

We’re almost there. . . .Again, a true story. . about the guy who went to a party and had too much to drink. His friends plead with him to let them take him home, but he said he lived only a mile away; but about five blocks from the party the police pulled him over for weaving and asked him to get out of his car and walk the line. But just as he starts, the police radio blares out a notice of a robbery taking place in a house just a block away. The police tell the party animal to stay put and they hop a fence and run down the street to the robbery.

The guy waits and waits and finally decides to drive home. When he gets home, he tells his wife he is going to bed and says, “If anyone asks, tell them I have the flu and that I’ve been in bed all day.” Sure enough, a few hours later the police knock on the door. They ask if Mr. X is there and his wife says yes. They ask to see him and she says that he is in bed with the flu and has been so all day. The police have his driver's license, so they ask to see his car. So she takes them to the garage and opens the door . .and there it is. . . .the police car, lights still flashing.

That’s really different from the night when a police officer was staking out a particularly rowdy bar for possible violations of the driving-under-the-influence laws. At closing time, he saw one guy stumble out of the bar, trip on the curb and try his keys on four different cars before he found his own. Then he sat in the front seat, fumbling around with his keys for about 5 minutes. In that time everyone else in the bar had left. . and driven off. Finally, the guy starts his engine and begins to pull away from the curb. The police officer was waiting for him. he stopped the driver, read him his rights and administered the Breath-alyzer test. But the results showed a reading of absolute zero. The cop was stunned. . and demanded how that could be. The driver replied, “Well, tonight I was chosen to be the designated decoy.”

And so it was with the Lord of Life. Hanging there on the cross, representing all who would follow him, he looked like a most appealing victim. So, the medieval theologians tell us, Satan swallowed him up, dragging him into the depths of hell. . . But the joke was on Satan and all the powers of evil because in three days, Christ had burst out of that prison, freeing not only himself, but all of humanity from the clutches of evil. .for a life of resurrection. While life still holds its struggles and pain, we live in eternity, loved and cherished by the God of Isaac, who is named “Laughter.”

Instructions/Reflections for Exploring the Nicene Creed

First, thanks to all of you who have written for more information about this use of the creed, noted in the article in Episcopal Life. I have “preached” this sermon at least once in every congregation I’ve served and always with some degree of success.

What does “success” mean here? One thing it means is that I have helped people unburden themselves of the mistaken notion that unless they believe it all and understand it all, they are sub-standard Christians. I believe that notion is a lot more prevalent than anyone of us would believe.

The other thing “success” means here is that the congregation will have a different understanding of itself as community. I think we do very well when we see ourselves tied to one another in mission and ministry. We worship together and we all participate in things like the food pantry and welcoming newcomers, but we don’t see ourselves as a community which together is the fullness only because we make up for the incompleteness in one another’s faith, understanding, gifts and service. That, for me, is the biggie with this sermon.

The Mechanics

You can announce in earlier bulletins or newsletters that you will be speaking about the Nicene Creed on X date because there seems to be confusion or concern about it in the congregation – or just do it.

As I mentioned in the article, I have people turn to the Nicene Creed in their Prayer Books. I then say that I would like everyone participate in something that will be fun as well as instructive. “I will go through the creed, phrase by phrase. Your task (and mine) will be to stand when the phrase is something you believe – and that makes a difference in your life. The second part of the task is that we will sit down when the phrase is something we don’t believe or understand – or it doesn’t make a difference in our lives. Got it? I will repeat it one more time.”

Have people stand for a practice. Stay standing if you believe the practice statements of belief – and sit it you don’t believe them. [All stand].
“Today is Tuesday.” [Make sure you are seen to sit]
“Today’s sermon will be just what I need.”

Go through the Nicene Creed, phrase by phrase, giving people the opportunity to stand or sit. You or a couple of confidants may have to prime the pump for creating movement. Begin with all standing:

“I believe in God. .” (most will stay standing)
“The Father almighty. . .” (the more you emphasize “father,” the more you will have sit).

Continue through the creed, using short phrases.

Ask for observations at the end. You can control this with the following questions:

“Were there any phrases for which no one was standing?”
“So there was someone standing at all times. Were they always the same people?”

“Did you feel under any pressure to stand for a phrase you don’t understand or believe?”
Do you know what that’s about?
One of the things many of us like about the Episcopal Church is that we are permitted to doubt – but here it may be hard for us.

“Did you notice if anyone was sitting all the way through?”
“Did you notice if anyone was standing all the way through?”
“How about the clergy and wardens?”

“Would it (does it) bother you that we weren’t standing all the way through?”

The Message:

One thing I hope we learned is that the Nicene Creed is the creed of the Church. It is what we, as the whole church, believe – even though we each hold on to a part of it. We each have our “specialty” – and all the specialties together make up the fullness of the church’s specialty. What is hard for me, is probably easy for some of you – and what you don’t get, I or some others really believe. Separately we are partial, together we have the whole.

I like to go on to draw some conclusions about other parts of our life together. Some of the congregation are wonderful with prayer – and if we really want someone to pray for us or for someone we love, we go to them. Does that mean that the rest of us are slouches? Of course not – it’s like with the creed, we each have part. The same is true of hospitality – some are specially blessed at welcoming and including, while many of us find that hard. Some are teachers, others evangelists. Remember those great passages from St. Paul about all the parts of the Body working together. We each have our part to play.

Another way of illustrating this is with a spring bouquet of flowers (a large variety of flowers). Wander through the congregation, asking for a show of hands for those who are healers or in the healing professions – pick a variety (say a rose) and give one or more healers the rose (that is their part in the bouquet). Then ask for teachers, those who take great joy in giving to the church or community, those who have a vocation to pray – and don’t shy away from simply identifying someone in a category when he or she doesn’t do it on their own. Each grouping gets a flower for that group (you don’t have to go through the whole set of varieties).

Then take time to talk about how beautiful the rose is by itself, as with the lilac or gladiola. Separately we are beautiful – but together, we are breathtaking. Nobody has to do everything – in fact, that is the way we are called to service in the church, with differing gifts and abilities.

This, of course, is also an entry-point for talking about the varieties of expression in the Episcopal Church – or in the church ecumenical. No one would want to go to the circus to watch 26 elephant acts in a row. No one would want to sit through an organ concert when there was only one kind of pipe – and so on. Individually, we are fine – as a spring bouquet, we are amazing.

I will post this on The Episcopal Majority site http://episcopalmajority.blogspot.com – that will be a great place to add your comments or experience. You can also post your comments here.

The Episcopal Majority Meets Bishop Iker

Upon receiving an invitation to speak to Via Media people in Fort Worth and in Wichita Falls January 18-20, I wrote to Bishop Jack Iker to request a meeting with him to hear whatever concerns he might have about a dissident coming into his diocese to challenge his consistent message to his flock.
I could not have been happier with his response. He would see me shortly before lunch on the day I arrived in Fort Worth. In preparation for the visit, I bought a six pack of Santa Fe Brewery Pale Ale and a couple of pounds of Hatch roasted green chilies as a love offering from me, though in spirit from the Diocese of the Rio Grande. I also was careful to inform Bishop Iker of the sorts of things I would be talking about, referring him to some of what I have written for The Episcopal Majority, including the booklet “The Undermining of the Episcopal Church.”
We spent the first part of our meeting exchanging pleasantries, and I expressed my regret that his experience in the Episcopal Church was such that he felt he must leave it. Then I asked if he had any concerns about my speaking to his people. He said that he did not mind debate and arguing about matters of theology and the Bible – but that he did not like the demonizing that often accompanied it. He then mentioned several of the phrases that were most hurtful to him. I assured him that I had not used any of that language about him – but have stepped over the line more than once with my rhetoric, but always grateful when others mentioned that so I could apologize and, hopefully, learn something. He noted that he, too, has stepped over the line from time to time.
I assured Bishop Iker that I intended no disrespect for him during my time in his diocese. We then shared stories of blessing and of hurt in our life in the church. At the end of our time I asked for his blessing. We stood and he put his hands on my shoulder and prayed a most beautiful prayer, asking God’s blessing on my son in his recovery, asking God’s blessing on my time in Fort Worth and on my talks to his people.
I carry several things away with me from that meeting. First, what a joy it is when two people, so opposed on so many critical issues and concerns, can spend time relating to the best in the other with the best of ourselves. That is not the whole truth, but it is part of the truth. Second, I do not discount the hurt and sometimes the humiliation my friends and others in Fort Worth have suffered when +Jack has stepped over the line, nor the havoc his beliefs and attitudes about women’s ordination and our “Anglican agonies” have wreaked. Third, at this point the two of us are in the same church and attempting to follow the same Lord. Fourth, there is certainly pain when we encounter the worst in each other, but the pain is worse when we encounter their best, for it is then that the deep ache sets in as we wait for a time when our several wounds are healed and our fears are stopped in such a way that our best is our consistent selves. We are obviously not there yet.
The talks did go well, both in Fort Worth and in Wichita Falls. They were followed by time with the Steering Committee of Via Media Dallas. While I had requested time with Bishop Stanton for an earlier trip that had to be canceled, there was no time for such a visit this time. I did, though, revel in my time with several of my heroes and heroines in the church, including Dixie Hutchinson, Katie Sherrod and Gayland Pool.
I will have more to say about the talks, themselves. One thing is probably worth mentioning here. I had done some thinking about what the faithful could do to sustain themselves and the thought about singing “We Shall Overcome” during communion at diocesan gatherings had stuck in my mind. However, reflecting upon all that is at stake in our struggles to remain in the fullness of the Episcopal Church, an even more appropriate song came to mind: “They Can’t Take That Away from Me.”

* This article appears on http://episcopalmajority.blogspot.com as well.

Audtion Script for "The Richest Man in Santa Fe"

This is the audition script from "The Richest Man in Santa Fe," a play I've written that will be produced in "Benchwarmers VII" at the Santa Fe Playhouse in Santa Fe on February 23 at 8 pm and February 24 at 2 pm. This play and "So, What's with Eliot?" are one act plays running about 15 minutes each.

THE RICHEST MAN IN SANTA FE

Cast of Characters
HARRY: a street person/bum, but not too shabbily dressed. He may or may not be God. He has refused to say “Thank you” to Stan who first put a dollar in his basket, then a twenty.
STAN: a man in his mid-thirties to mid-forties. Stan is headed for a mid-life crisis. Harry has cajoled twenty one dollars from him and refused to say “Thank you.” The reading begins with Stan waiting for Harry to thank him.

SETTING: HARRY sits on the bench with a blanket and a basket with paper money in it.

THE AUDITION READING:

STAN
I’m waiting.

HARRY
I see that.

STAN
So where’s the “thank you?”

HARRY looks all around for a “thank you,” as if it’s an object.

HARRY
I guess it’s not here.

STAN
Where’s the “thank you?!”

HARRY
You want a “thank you?” . . . How much cash have you got on you?

STAN
How much cash have I got on me? Who in hell do you think you are?

HARRY
I’m not sure you’re ready for that.

STAN
Ready for what?

HARRY
For me to tell you who the hell I am?

STAN
Try me.

HARRY
O.K. God.

STAN
God, what?

HARRY
God. . . .That’s all. . .I’m God.

STAN
I guess I forgot in the middle of all this that I am in Santa Fe.

HARRY
It doesn’t matter: Santa Fe, Nazareth, Bethlehem, Espanola. It’s the same everywhere.

STAN
Yeah, sure. Look, I don’t want to hurt your feelings, but you look nothing like George Burns.

Audition Script for "So, What's with Eliot?"

What follows is a cutting from one of the plays I wrote which will be produced in "Benchwarmers VII" at the Santa Fe Playhouse in late January through most of February. This cutting was used for auditions for the play.

SO, WHAT’S WITH ELIOT?

Cast of Characters

The Director: Male or female, has a seat in the front row center of the audience.
Phil: A young man dressed very Santa Fe. Phil is very New Age.
Ron: Older than Phil, dressed well, in a way that distances him from others.
Harry Somewhat shabbily dressed.
Ernest V-neck sweater over a white shirt. Slacks.
Eliot: Middle aged man, dressed simply. Has just learned that he has cancer.

SETTING: Phil is auditioning for an lib part with Eliot, who is about to reveal to Phil what is distressing him. After the first two scripted lines, they are on their own (only they follow THIS script).


ELIOT
I just got the news today.

PHIL
You just got the news today?

PHIL and ELIOT drop their scripts and appear to be on their own from here on.

ELIOT (Tentative)
Yeh, I’ve got. . . I’m. . . cancer.

PHIL
Oh, no! Really?

ELIOT
Yeh, really. Cancer.

PHIL
Bummer. Major Bummer.

ELIOT
You can say that again. . .

PHIL
Bummer. Major Bu. . .

ELIOT
That’s not what I meant.

PHIL
Hey, I’m sorry. I know something about what you mean. It’s hard. It’s got to be hard. That’s been one of the hardest things I, personally, have gone through.

ELIOT
You’ve been through this?

PHIL
Yeah! I’ve been through this. Big time. All my life I’ve been dealing with this. So I know what you’re going through. But with me, it wasn’t cancer: it was Capricorn.

ELIOT
Capricorn?

PHIL
Yeah. It’s this way: it’s like everything about me is Aquarius. I’m talking deeply Aquarius here. I should have been Aquarius, but I couldn’t move my December birthday. So all through my life there has been this awful conflict -- what you called “major bummer” -- between who I am as a person – definitely Aquarius – and who I am in the technical, surface sense – Capricorn. So when you tell me that you’re dealing with Cancer, I know just what you’re feeling. I’m with you, Buddy. 100%.

ELIOT
(feeling distressed, angry)
You don’t understand. . .

PHIL
I don’t understand?

ELIOT
You don’t understand. . . .I’ve got cancer in my body!
(Phil moves further away from Eliot)

My first 40 years as a priest

I was ordained in Topeka, Kansas forty years ago and today I want to share with you some of my reflections on my life as a priest. I am deeply grateful to God for the past 40 years of ordination. On the whole, they have been wonderful years (that is, full of wonder). There have been very few days out of the past 40 years of ordained ministry when I have wanted to do or to be anything other than Episcopal priest. For me, it has always been a real privilege and honor to be a priest -- and that has been true even when the times have been rough. And they have been rough at times.

Two years after being ordained as the most conservative and, probably, one of the more racist members of my seminary class, I spent an afternoon listening to the stories of several Black students who were holding a civil rights demonstration at the University of Kansas where I was chaplain back in 1965. The stories I heard had such power for me and they represented so much of the presence of God I had read about -- so I joined them and, with 103 Black students, was arrested and jailed..

The County Jail was overflowing, with the male students 4-6 to a cell on the second floor and the women on the first floor. The students asked if they could be released from their cells for just 5 minutes, so I, the minister and only non-student, could lead them in prayers. My life and my understanding of the church changed that day more than on any other. The pain in the arrest came three months later, when my bishop, who had urged his clergy to be involved, caved into some very vindictive people and, in effect, put me on half salary for the next year and a half. I lived through that with him and more; but three years later, it became a choice between leaving the work and the people I really loved. . .or becoming terribly cynical about the church as institution. Much the same thing happened ten years later, when someone else's fear resulted in my having to leave friends and colleagues I had loved ...and moving on.

There have been other kinds of heartbreak -- sitting up night after night with a young 16 year old boy as his mother died, leaving him absolutely alone, without other family. And in Madison, what seemed like almost weekly AIDS-related funerals at the church. So often the service was for someone who -- just weeks or months before -- had been in a pew mourning another friend's death. There have not been many months in the 40 years without some kind of heartbreak.

Most of my forty years have been in campus ministry and it has often been wild and woolly: as priest I was arrested and jailed twice, and then I went back to jail, only this time to coach an inmates chess team which then beat the University of Rochester faculty chess team five matches to two. In earlier years, I led encounter groups, hosted Allen Ginsburg at our Coffee House ministry in Kansas, wrote two books, learned fire eating and juggling, and through my service as trustee of one the largest public pension funds in the country I got to go head to head with Roger Smith and the full board of General Motors and other major corporations on moral and ethical issues. I couldn't dream of a more exciting or fulfilling life. But the best, the very best has been out of the limelight and with you and with the people at Christ Church, Warrensburg, Missouri, week by week building up the life of those church families. That has been the deep satisfaction.

Things have changed drastically since I was ordained 40 years ago. When I was ordained, women were not allowed to serve on Vestries, girls were not allowed even to acolyte, there were separate churches for Black and white Episcopalians. Mostly white Episcopalians did not know about Latin American, Asian or other kinds of Episcopalians. When I was ordained, it was like the congregation hired a priest to be its minister. Where the priest was, there was the church: it felt like the task of the lay people was to assist the priest in his ministry.

Things are so much healthier now, where my reason for being here is to support you in the real ministry of the church -- the living out of the Christian faith in our families, in our businesses, in our schools and hospitals and agencies, as we try to reflect the will of God in this Valley. My job is to feed, to nourish, to support, sometimes to inspire, but then to get out of the way -- because you are the ministers.

What I would like to do is four things, fairly briefly: I'd like to tell you something about what it means to me to be a priest; to tell you some of the things I am most proud of; to share a couple of secrets; and then to say thank you -- to you and to God.

What it is like to be a priest? to be a priest is to wrestle with an on-going contradiction of isolation and intimacy. On the one hand, there is a powerful intimacy with people. It is an intimacy of being with you as you struggle with the most personal details of your lives. It is the intimacy of being privileged with the deepest doubts and the most serious questionings and struggles of so many people. What many of us have with one or two or maybe three people in our lives, a priest may have with hundreds of people over the years.

But over against the intimacy, is the isolation. Often, when I walk into a room with my clericals on, a hush settles over the conversation. And invariably people apologize to me for their language, or for being angry or upset – as though I'm holy God or a non-person. The worst came 26 years ago when I announced to the congregation that my wife and I had just adopted a baby boy. One member of the congregation cornered Judy at the coffee hour and with a loud voice that rang through the hall, announced, "What a wonderful way for a minister to have a baby!" Apparently she knew something I had not known: there are three genders - male, female and clergy.

There is a certain, maybe necessary, distance in pastoral relationships. Some of that, I've found, I bring, myself, and much of it probably goes with the territory. I think sometimes my ill-conceived humor is an awkward way of protesting the isolation, the sense that there is something different.

The best things about the work of ordained ministry are the people and the enormous variety of challenges and tasks and demands of the work: teaching, preaching, organizing, nurturing, administration, counseling, studying, working with community organizations -- the list is endless. The worst part of all that is that no one can do all those things well. And there is so much that I have not done well: partly because of temperament, partly from the ADHD, partly because if you are fully committed to be a pastoral presence in the lives of your families, it’s hard to shift focus to the organizational/structural concerns -- just as if you are fully committed to structure, process and program, it’s hard to shift focus to the pastoral needs of your families. So, there is always a built-in frustration in a pastoral relationship.

I think the things for which I am most proud are also the things for which I am most grateful. Thirty-seven years ago, a fellow college chaplain, John Simmons, asked me to join him in trying to build bridges between the church and the homosexual community. From that moment on, that work has always been a part of my life. What I have learned is that it’s not about sex – it’s about what it means to be human and what it means to exclude those whom God includes. Our culture has made this very difficult. Over the years, I have heard such painful, tragic stories -- even of clergy children whose fathers would not let them receive communion in their churches. And I have experienced such wonderful lives and inspiring stories from both sides of the bridge -- and none more inspiring than in the life of this congregation. So it’s some pride. . . but much, much more gratitude.

The same has been true with the clowning. The clowning (the performance side) has been nourished by so many clergy and lay people, mostly, probably, by a young graduate student in North Carolina, Kenny Kaye, who had dropped out of school to juggle. He was so talented and so gracious and forgiving; but he was also shy. He could not even pass the hat. .so he was soon broke. So, with Kenny’s skill (he ended our act by juggling 3 ping pong balls out of his mouth) -- with his skill and my professional training in passing the hat, the two of us formed “Uncle Billy’s Pocket Circus” as a street show and performed all over the South, including the International Jugglers Convention Banquet Show. Kenny, a Jew, taught me to see the clowning and the juggling as an expression of my faith and of my ministry. It was through the clowning that I saw, more and more, the parables, the Beatitudes and so much of the life of Jesus as the ministry of the fool, the pied piper, enticing us into a deeper and more compelling vision of life. None of it would have happened without Kenny and a host of others, including David Fly (my spiritual mentor in clowning and foolery) and Pat Anderson, who inspired and challenged me to develop and organize “The Care Fools,” a clown troupe of fairly severely disabled clowns who worked miracles wherever they went – real miracles.

One part of the 40 years most of you don’t know about was that my church in Madison, Wisconsin, was, I believe, back in 1983 the first Episcopal Church in the country to provide public sanctuary for people fleeing for their lives from El Salvador and Guatemala, knowing that we would very likely be arrested and imprisoned for doing so. I know it was from that experience in Madison, that the work with San Pablo’s, our sister congregation we house, was so attractive to me. What we learned from the refugees, living with them day by day, was that they had much more to give and to teach us than we had for them. One family, in particular, were so kind and so gentle and so committed to their faith; but their bodies were covered with scars from being tortured by their own government. They had earned those scars, as Archbishop Romero had earned his death, by witnessing to their faith. It was another side of church that continues to touch me.

Following that experience, it has been such a joy to have spent 15 years working with the people of San Pablo. Again, we each have much to give, much to receive from one another. The bonds of love and respect between St. Paul’s and San Pablo are so important for them, and even more, for us. Our ministry with San Pablo is unique in our diocese and nearly so, in the whole of the Episcopal Church. We are so fortunate.

Of my forty years as priest, the last 15 years have probably been the best -- in my life with Ann, in my life with our children and most certainly in my life with you and the people of this diocese. You have opened your hearts and your lives to me so consistently, and you make such a difference in one another’s lives and in being a bright beacon for the people of this Valley who need you so much. Time after time, you have been willing to stretch, spiritually, and to risk your own comfort for the benefit of others -- for the homeless, for those who struggle daily for survival, for becoming a really inclusive church and for entering into such a wonderful relationship with the people of San Pablo. Thank you for your part in all that.

Briefly, three secrets. Shortly before applying for the position here at St. Paul's I was on the verge of leaving the active ministry and going on to something else. I went through a career evaluation center and the night before the end of the program, I could only see alternatives outside the church. Something happened that night I know not what -- but the next morning my vocation was never clearer and I have not had a moment's doubt since. It could only have happened with Ann's support and the grace of God -- both were critical.

Second secret: When I arrived here, I knew very, very little about running a church, being a rector (but that is not a secret or surprise to many of you). Now other clergy often turn to me for advice. Whenever that happens, I give thanks for your patience and your willingness, and Ann’s, to teach, to challenge, and most of all, to forgive me. I think the love we have had for one another has covered a multitude of mistakes and mis-steps. Mostly, when I have done things you have thought were especially good or wise, that’s usually because I had previously consulted Ann. You will never know how important Ann and her wisdom and her vision have been to us all these past 15 years.

The last secret, which is not really a secret but something maybe that I should have spent all my time on this morning. I think the real strength of any of us in ministry (lay or ordained) comes not from our natural strengths, but from our disabilities or our woundings. I know that is true for me. In retrospect, one of the gifts I received from my childhood has been a deep acquaintance with pain and with darkness. For me, lurking somewhere beneath the surface is a kind of melancholy or poignancy. It has to do with the fragility of life and sadness. I have never seen this as something that should be feared or avoided. There is a sadness to life, but it is never the last or the only word: more often than not, it is the gateway to our deepest spirituality. It's the other side of the red nose and it has been more than equally important.

So I think of the hundreds and hundreds of times I have been moved to tears by the heroism with which you and others have faced life and all it brings. I see it in the ways you and those who have gone before you have faced death or serious dislocations in your lives. I have seen you affirm the power of life and goodness in the midst of darkness and despair. I have seen you love and support strangers, the homeless, those who, at the beginning, seemed strange and threatening.

It has been a rich 40 years. Thank you for having me as your priest these past 15 years. Spiritually you have been a real Godsend to me. I have felt from the beginning here, that God has called me here, through you. I am really honored to be a part of your tradition of caring, your reaching out into the community, and your loving concern for all kinds of people. You have given me wonderful Vestries and the best Senior Wardens. You have surrounded me with support and love -- you have been willing to reach and to stretch in wonderful ways. You are wonderful partners in ministry. For that, I give thanks to God and to you.

A False Notion of the Unity of the Church

One of the threads in the discussions of the World Wide Anglican Communion over the past several years has focused on the priority of unity within the Body of Christ. In good part, I believe, that discussion has been fueled by the difficulty many are having with one of the central virtues of Anglicanism, comprehensiveness, which allows for differing viewpoints to co-exist within the same congregation, diocese, province and Communion. Against that sense of dis-ease, I note the following about our necessary unity:

First, it is most often that we find or discover our unity with one another in mission or in jointly resisting evil in the world. Councils and committees are important, but they rarely have the power of seeking justice and exercising compassion together in the world. The unity of the church, expressed in public documents comes in a poor second to the unity of the church in resisting evil or promoting the Kingdom of God.

In response to seek to replace comprehensiveness with uniformity, often referring to “the scandal of our divisions,” I fail to see how a wondrous array of perspectives and commitments being lived out through different denominations is scandalous. We are all united in the Risen Body of Christ -- what could be closer What I would consider as scandalous is what the Roman Catholics do and infer -- that is, saying that they are the authentic church of Jesus Christ while others represent different shades and expressions of inauthenticity and untruth.

This is what will be scandalous: It will be scandalous when the Quakers are not allowed or honored to be the very best Quakers they can be -- and the same for the Mennonites, the Baptists, Episcopalians and Orthodox. No one denomination, national or international church can represent the others. While there are strains of the Mennonites in certain enclaves of Roman Catholics, that witness will always be an aberration. In the same way, the discipline of the Assembly of God cannot be integrated within the Orthodox tradition without compromising what is special and unique there. Why compress everything into a shadow of its former self in the name of unity? Talk about your scandal!

The problem is not with our differing denominations -- it is with our lack of humility, charity and ability to see the fullness of Jesus Christ in ways we, ourselves, do not embody. I remember the words of a long dead bishop in the United Methodist Church, “Thank God we are not all United Methodists!” When Episcopalians can say that with convictions, we will be a much stronger and more faithful expression of the institutional life of Jesus Christ.

Bishop Richard Shimpfky preached an excellent sermon a few years ago about the diversity within the Trinity which co-exists with the unity. For Jesus to pray that the church may be one, even as he and the Father are one, does not presuppose a lack of diversity or difference. Diversity and difference are built in to the life of the Trinity.

Consider, too, the life of Jesus. Where in his band of disciples can one discern anything like "unity" within the followers of Jesus? Where could you ever discover such a thing -- even in the early church with its diversity of experience and beliefs? If you want to dispel the myth of “the faith once delivered to the saints” as having anything at all to do with a unified set of beliefs or ways of thinking about divine love, atonement, Baptism or any other core beliefs in the early centuries of the Christian church, read David Rhoads’ “The Challenge of Diversity: The Witness of Paul and the Gospels” (Fortress Press).

In the dialogue about unity in the church it is always fair to ask: Is there a way to the unity you are holding up that can come about by means other than strict enforcing of boundaries around theological and ethical formulations and concerns? I believe that the unity God provides the church is the unity which allows and encourages a variety of faithful responses through our varied faith in God.

Fear and Loathing in Fort Worth

On the House of Bishops/Deputies list serve, The Rev. Liz Zivanov writes:

"I don't think the rest of the church really understands the gravity of the situation in Ft. Worth or the other ACN dioceses. Will we (the leadership of TEC, and especially the bishops) continue to watch as this sort of emotional and spiritual violence continues?

First guns from the Stand Firm folks; now guns and tasers in the Diocese of Ft. Worth. And there's not even an effort to hide this violent activity."

My Response:
The subtext of much of the Convention speech by Bishop Iker this past weekend in Fort Worth was full of demonizing and intimidation, while on the surface complaining of intimidation from those threatening to hold him accountable for his leadership of the diocese.

Here is a sampling:
"Wherever Christians gather to take a stand for the Gospel,even in church conventions, the devil will be close at hand, seeking to beguile, divide, and mislead. Watch out!"

Comforting words for those who oppose his agenda!

"Counterfeit Christianity, man-made religion, and revisionist theology must be identified and rebuked for the sake of the unchanging Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Strong words as precursor for honest and open debate about the nature of the Gospel.

"Let us not lose our will to stand for conscience and truth, whatever the consequences or the cost."

The force of this statement is not to honor individual conscience, but the bishop's conscience -- and those who have a different conscience,formed through their own lives in the church and in our seminaries, know well the consequences and cost involved in voicing them.

Granted that near the end of the speech there are notes of graciousness and caring for those who oppose the bishop's agenda; but it is difficult to be caring for those who have just been characterized as on the other side of truth, counterfeit Christians deserving of public rebuke, agents of the devil.

We can all understand the pressures involved when one's world is under attack, as the bishop's world of traditional exclusion of women and homosexuals has been under attack, but Christlike response to such differences is usually couched in prayerful commitment and offers of dialogue,not demonizing and devaluing. The response from those in leadership at this Convention mirrors a different spirituality than that embodied in our Scripture and Book of Common Prayer. We must not demonize them, for they are our brothers and sisters in Christ, but we must not allow their words or actions to define the presence of Jesus Christ in the world or in the church -- for where they stand is not where he said he will stand.

Rant or Religion?

While listening to a series of audio tapes of notable closing arguments before the Supreme Court, one case in particular stood out. The case was Cooper v. Aaron (358 U.S. 1) 1958 concerning the intention of the school board of Little Rock, Arkansas to delay the desegregation of the their schools. Their case was composed of three arguments:

· the people of Little Rock had different beliefs about race relations than other parts of the country;
· the nation should not impose its beliefs on Little Rock;
· unless the Supreme Court allowed them to retain control of their schools and to operate under their own orthodoxy there would be a massive resistance, possibly including violence.

In speaking to the people of Little Rock, Justice Thurgood Marshall made it very clear there would be no sympathy for those who failed to show proper respect for the Supreme Court on this or any other issue: we all live in the United States and our citizenship is based on respect for Congress and the Supreme Court.
The more I listened to Thurgood Marshall, the more one thing in the life of our own Episcopal Church became very clear. The stance of the dioceses of Fort Worth, San Joaquin, Pittsburgh and others is really no different than that of Orval Faubus, George Wallace, Strom Thurmond and other champions of States’ Rights after desegregaton became the law of the land! Both groups oppose what they see as Innovation, whether racial integration or inclusivity. Both share the perceptions of a True Believer, convinced that they alone possess the real truth and morality – and that conviction, they believe gives them the right and the responsibility to resist and to oppose the dictates of General Convention or Congress, whether the moral issue is desegregation of the schools or full inclusion of gay and lesbian people in the church.

The central issue is remarkably the same: whether the authority of General Convention or of the Supreme Court overrides the assertions of a Bob Duncan, Jack Iker, John David Schofield or an Orval Faubus or George Wallace. The disrespect for legitimate authority in an Orval Faubus is mirrored in a like disrespect from Bishop Duncan, forbidding prayers for the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church.
These three dioceses, soon to be joined by one or two more, claim a truth and an orthodoxy for themselves that allows them to banish and to harass any in their midst who are seen to be “trouble-makers.” It allows them to raise, in effect, the ecclesiastical equivalent of the Confederate flag – a slap in the face to our spiritual ancestors who worked so hard to maintain the comprehensiveness that has marked our unique contribution to worldwide Christianity.

Bishop Duncan’s refusal to pray for our Presiding Bishop is clearly against both the letter and the Spirit of the New Testament. The question surely arises, “How do you fancy yourself as one of the chosen recipients of "the faith once delivered to the saints" while so brazenly scornful of the heart of the faith actually given to the saints?” This is not orthodoxy – it is a pale distortion of Biblical religion, actually more rant than religion.

How do we respond to this substitute for the faith most of us have known? The first thing we must do is to say that we don’t recognize this attitude as having anything to do with the Jesus Christ we know. It is a new religion. The second thing we can say is that, like the opposition to segregation, this new religion seems to be built around collective fears and dislikes rather than upon a faith received.

The third thing we must say or remember is that these bishops and the clergy and people who follow them are our brothers and sisters. We can and must wish them well as they move out of the Episcopal Church into some other faith and practice. We do them no favors, though, in allowing them, in leaving, to take the property which belongs to those for whom they have such little respect.

The Episcopal Majority: Who is Drifting from Biblical Truth

The Episcopal Majority: Who is Drifting from Biblical Truth

The Episcopal Majority: Undermining The Episcopal Church, Part 2

The Episcopal Majority: Undermining The Episcopal Church, Part 2

The Episcopal Majority: The Undermining of the Episcopal Church, Part 3

The Episcopal Majority: The Undermining of the Episcopal Church, Part 3

Give Me a Break!

One of the men who accompanied the Archbishop of Canterbury to our House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans was Archbishop Mouneer Anis of Jerusalem. Upon reading his speech (read, “scolding”) to the bishops, I felt it was important to respond (I would post the speech, but it is little more than what I note before, only with more flourishes).

Is it a fair reading of this speech to conclude that this is what he is saying, in plain English:

1. The Muslims with whom we live will dictate the terms of what is essential in our faith and we dare not deviate from their judgment.

2. The American Church no longer values the historic Creeds, the Bible, Jesus or much else central to the Christian faith. What is the evidence for that? We just told you that it is so.

3. The Lambeth Conference, which at no time previous to its last meeting was ever considered a legislative body, has legislated the one and only one interpretation of seven verses of the Bible. If you don't agree with those interpretations, it is likely that, as others have told me, you are not Christian.

4. The Anglican Communion values diversity -- but only within the confines of uniformity. Some of my best friends are different from me.

5. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, which enters into dialogue with complete openness to embracing our truths and discarding their own,the Americans have a real stake in the outcome of sitting around a table.

6. I am aware that I have hinted that you are a non-Christian religion and have been more than clear that you have no regard for standards or communion, but please forgive me if, by any means, I might have offended you.