ABRAKADABRA - It's Bishop Lawrence

Now you see him - now you don't.  That is correct, when Bishop Lawrence looks in the mirror the person looking back is none other than - tada! Bishop John David Schofield. How can I come to that conclusion?  Well read this:

The central purpose of his presentation to the Bishops was to convey his understanding that with the passage of Resolutions D002 and D019 (making all possible variations of “gender identity and gender expression” protected categories in the canons of the church), and the adoption of authorized provisional rites to bless same gender relationships, the doctrine, discipline and worship of this church have been profoundly changed.

He told the Bishops that the magnitude of these changes was such that he could no longer in good conscience continue in the business of the Convention. In fact, he was left with the grave question of whether he could continue as a bishop of an institution that had adopted such changes. It was with that question on the table that he took his leave from the House of Bishops.

Since that time, and in the gathering of the Diocesan Clergy, the Bishop stated that he believes the Episcopal Church has crossed a line he cannot personally cross. He also expressed to the clergy that though he might act one way if he were a priest in a diocese, as a Bishop he feels deeply his vow before God to faithfully lead and shepherd the Diocese of South Carolina. Both dimensions of this dilemma weigh upon him at this time.
 

This is a few paragraphs from the  letter to the diocese of South Carolina after Bishop Lawrence returned from convention. I have highlighted the parts of the letter that are almost identical to the words used by John David as he  was moving into his end-game.  "I didn't move PECUSA moved- The doctrine, discipline. etc. has changed.  The church crossed a line that I cannot cross."

 

He also has reworked the constitution and canons of the Diocese of San Joaquin South Carolina just as was done in San Joaquin. Bishop Lawrence is indeed not only the protege of John David but he continues to play the diocese of South Carolina in an almost identical fashion to that which was done by John David.

 

Am I without recommendations?  You all know me, I gots lots!  First, I am assuming that the National is looking at this and seeing the same things.  If they have not already sent an emissary to Lawrence they should.  Simply put, they should say, "Stay or go but do not pis* in my ear and tell me it's raining".   Then move on bringing him up on charges.

 

Next, they should send an emissary to the other protege who is currently messing with the Communion Partners and ask him the same question.  He can demonstrate that he intents to stay by renouncing the Communion Partners and that which they stand for -- an Episcopal/ACNA inside the Episcopal Church of the US. 

 

Really, how dumb do they think we are? Oops, please don't answer that!

He does not need facts -- he has a great story

I now have positive proof that the Republicans could care less about the facts -- the reality of the situation or the science behind making decisions.  We have heard this over and over again.  Most recently Tony Adkins decided that science was all wrong and women were just "asking for it".

I have no idea who the representative to the Republican Convention was, but here is his comment on National Public Radio.  The conversation turned to Governor Christie and the keynote address.  The Republican political pundit said this about the sum and substance of Christie's keynote address:  "who needs facts when he has story  to tell".  Who needs facts?  Well, there we go! How does one combat that?  I recently had a facebook person tell me that he has opinions and his opinions are as good as facts.  Just what in the world is going on?  How have the citizens of the most advanced country on earth suddenly decided to discard the very essence of what got us where we are.  Don't need facts?  How did we defeat Hitler?  Don't need facts?  How did we create the most powerful military in the world?  Don't need facts?  How did we put a man on the moon?  Don't need facts?  Cured AIDs.  Don't need facts?  How did our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution come into existence?

Now we don't need facts.  We need white guys telling us we don't need facts.  We don't need facts since we have all our women barefoot and pregnant all the time? We need white guys who want to control everything in our bedroom and while we are distracted -steal us blind and leave  us in the poorhouse-- and laughing! Don't need facts?  Surely everyone understands that once a child is born into poverty there is no help for the mom or the child for food, shelter, education or any other of the necessities.  No we don't need facts, we just need hedge fund managers that can waste billions of dollars and then the Federal Government comes to their aid.

Why confuse me with the facts -- George Bush inherits a huge surplus and puts us into a deficit and then it must be President Obama's fault.  Let's spin a story without any truth.  Let's just not use facts. Let's just spin a good story.

Flax, Fax or Facts

I have come to notice something that is a strong strand between the Grand Old Party members and the members of the Anglican Church in North America.  This revelation is actually based on those members of both that write, talk, or broadcast.  Big time Bishops or regular folks in the pews and voting booths.  My guess is that most cross lines between each because of the unique approach to "facts" but none the less both observable groups suffer from the same affliction.  The rallying cry for both parties is "Do not confuse me with the facts. I am entitled to my own opinion." 

Once upon a time, in the world of facebook I joined a group and took on a few "friends" from that group.  Shortly thereafter I began receiving some of the most "bizarre" writings from one individual.  I generally ignored the diatribes until one day I could do so no longer.  The posting was so confused and so out of touch with research that I had to post back, and in a nice way, merely asked on what research did he base is post?  I was immediately attacked by about 5 of that persons friends (comments section) criticizing me for being a liberal communist.  Being as obstinate as I am I tried once again and merely asked for the author to clarify his writings by citing the necessary research to support his arguments.  At this point he wrote back and in slightly longer posting said that these were his opinions and he was entitled to his own opinions.  (It was not as mean as this may sound).  At that point I found a way in which to end our facebook friendship.

Drinking from the same bucket we hear the leaders of the ACNA movement (and indeed the leaders of GAFCON) espousing the same sort of thing.  ACNA says "We are the Anglican representative in the United States." ignoring the facts.  "Don't confuse me with the facts, I am entitled to my own opinion."

Why is this problem not self-evident?  Sure, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  My concern is that these silly people are spewing their opinions as if they were facts and then they and their followers are acting on their own opinions.  Facts be damned.

I will end with this story.  Years ago I was working in a school district that had negotitated a deal with a cellular company to place a cell tower on a campus.  This was creating much needed revenue for a district that was in huge trouble financially.  The parents went crazy over the "rays" that were affecting their children.  We scheduled a meeting and flew in the world's foremost expert (Harvard in this case) on cellular towers and the effects on the human body.  We met, and I introduced the expert.  The expert began his explanation for the effects (i.e., none to speak of) of cell towers on children.  A parent stood up and asked, "Who paid you to come out here?"   Of course he responded with the district paid his way. The parent then went on to explain to the parents that whatever this person said was bogus because he was paid by the district. this was, at that time, the foremost expert and one of the few in the world at that time.  The long and the short of it was this:  After the parents sat back down and negotiated a portion of the revenue to come to the PTA funds of that elementary school suddenly all the magnetic rays and evil things emanating from the tower was no longer pertinent.  They exchanged money for their children's safety.
 

Is It In The Water?

By now we are all aware of the Romney/Ryan/Akin/IRD/Koch Brothers/etc. and the movement towards an oligarchy in this country.  The idea that the best thing for second class citizens is to be mothers, housewives and barefoot and pregnant.  The "hard decisions" that cut support for the poor, the underprivileged, babies, children and folks who need a hand up, students, and unions.   While I will continue to write against all this crap, vote against the fools that work against democracy and try to not revert to 1962 there is still a burning question that I have not heard a very satisfactory answer. 

Why does middle and working class America feel/believe that the world can only be saved by people like Romney and Bush and Reagan and Wall Street and Hedge fund presidents?  Why is the appeal to achieve tons of money so popular to them when everything the right-wing nuts do contradicts everything that they say?  Why do common folks, those who have achieved what they have by way of union activism now rip at the very seams of the fabric they are wearing?  And how is it that so many of the middle and working class believe that capitalizing social security, doing away with medicare, eliminating universal health care   are all good things?  Why is it that we believe that the  "hard decisions" are cutting food stamps and not depletion allowances? And why is it that the grand old party leaders can say whatever they want (ala Akin) regardless of what the science says and have everyone believe it is true? 

I can honestly say that while I worked in management almost all of my career and I openly negotiated at times against CTA and CSEA for contract rights I have always respected who and what they are if for no other reason that I recognize my parents successes as well as my successes s well as my children's successes are all built on what unions past and present have delivered.  I recognize that affordable housing -- actually an opportunity to own a home comes not willingly from the rich but from those in Congress who believed that to own a home was worthy of legislation.  To provide equality across the country was a God given right. That mistakes are made and forgiveness and mercy are more important than justice and punishment. But, alas, I appear to be in the minority.

I am open to anyone explaining this phenomenon to me.  Right now -- I cannot see it and I do not understand it.

IDs? IDs!

IDs?  IDs! We don't need  no stinkin' IDs!

We have talked about this over the blogs and most recently at Friends of Jake.  Well, I just got one more reason to really dislike the climate we are currently living in. 

My son, is a Petty Officer and a nine year veteran of the Navy.  He was recently selected to go to Naval  Officer Candidate School in Newport, Rhode Island.  While the rest of his family are registered Democrats and have been most of their lives, my son is a registered Republican (what would you expect from a Navy type?), not really the crazy type, but a staunch Republican.  He has been to the California Republican caucus and has "rubbed elbows" with the Firestone family, an aggressively conservative group.  My son is overall, an old style republican, fiscal conservative and a liberal when it cvomes to most social programs.  He believes in many principles currently ascribed to the democrats, but alas, I just cannot seem to get him to our side.

At any rate, he is headed to the OCS school in Rhode Island and is driving.  For some reasons unbeknown to his mother and father he left late and is covering about 1,000 or so miles a day.  Hard but doable.

So, in Illinois, he is stopped by a law enforcement officer (do not know if sheriff, police, highway patrol or what have you) and my first thought was well, 1,000 miles a day, must have been stopped for speeding.  Guess what?  That was the furthest thing from the truth.  He was pulled over under suspicion of drug running!  First, if they ran wants and warrants they should find him as a member of the armed forces.  His car, a Chevy Blazer, has all the required military stickers.  My son is 6'9" tall, certainly someone who can "hideout" in a crowd.  The officer said he was stopped for at least two reasons.  First, his license plate, the state of registration, is Washington.  Apparently the officer believes that a huge drug ring  is operating out of Washington state and they suspected my son was among the bad guys because he had a Washington plate.  But hold on, that is not all, the officer said "you were not driving on I-80 and so you were suspected of drug smuggling for not being on a major interstate.  What?  My son had decided to take a scenic route just for fun and that made him a suspect in a drug operation?

This is a George Bush nightmare!  One cannot drive on a scenic byway with the state of Washington license plates without being suspected of drug smuggling?  Where in the world did this all come from?  Back in 09/11/01 the then President (GWB) decided that fear was the operative word so that he and his cohorts could bomb the heck out of Iraq trying to find Osama Bin Laden.  He then sent troops to Afghanistan to find Osama Bin Laden.  Now apparently, Osama Bin Laden may be riding in a Chevy blazer having Washington license plates.

My son has been deployed in the Gulf during the current disagreement.  He loves his country more than most everything and thinks freedom is a good reason to fight. His dad agrees with him -- maybe he learned it from me -- I hope so.  But what he cannot do, I can. 

I am outraged by what happened to my son.  I am so angry I am beside myself.  How can we, a free country and a free people, allow the police to just stop any old person they want to, search their car, and then make up some cock and bull story about drug runners in Washington taking back roads to mule their stuff?  That officer ought to be ashamed of himself -- in fact that officer should have, at the end of his shift, turned in his gun and badge and any other property of the state and resigned.  He would be free, of course to choose to join the skinhead group of his choice -- courtesy of my son.

Hard Decisions

I was listening to Capitol Public Radio (NPR) this morning when the NPR reporter interviewed a politician from, well it makes no never mind because it is all the same.  They (the politicians) had to make some hard decisions in order to balance the budget -- so they closed a hospice for the elderly.  Now, just how is that a hard decision? The vast majority of people living in a hospice cannot vote.  Those childre3n who will be affected by reductions in free and reduced lunch, aid to families with dependent children, MIC, mental health programs, recreation centers and more -- they are all children and cannot vote.  How about the "hard decision" to cut education?  Realize that by the numbers there are only about 24% of parents who might vote -- no big deal, a politician can still weather those numbers and be re-elected.  That is, especially if they do not want to make "the easy" cuts -- like tax incentives for corporations, tax breaks for the very, very wealthy.  Those folks thank you/ask you by way of millions of dollars to campaign funds.  So, why would the politicians want to make those cuts?  What makes matters all that much worse is so many middle class and working poor actually believe it.  After all, why would they lose a tax break or some services simply because the rich are not to be touched?  Certainly these are hard decisions -- no one would intentionally want to hurt me, right:?

ACNA and Marx: The Relationship

Is it possible that the Anglican Communion in America is somehow connected to Karl Marx? Well, let me show you some things that might give you pause.  ACNA  was formed out of several diocese and a conglomeration of bishops and laity that, down deep, does not appreciate the democratic nature of the Episcopal Church.  They reject logic and reason and require a significant adherence to their beliefs, however arcane or bizarre.  The laity has little or no say in how the ACNA is run nor do they seem to want to.  So, how does that relate to Marxism? 

Here is the quote directly from Karl himself: "Religion is the opiate of the people".  If you do not believe this quote then please analyze the events fomented by John David and his cronies.  They allow for no real news from any source, no real congregations of the faithful that would serve as a communication device; and no real discussion of any issues unless the puppets in the audience are part of the drama.

For my money, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for enough good men (and women) to do nothing". - Edmund Burke

Romneyhood

President Obama, yesterday referred to his political rival as Romneyhood.  A spin-off of the legendary character in England during the time of Prince John, pretender to the throne.  It turns out I am old enough to remember the original TV series. Well, I could not resist the temptation to take the president's reference just a wee bit further:

Romneyhood, Romneyhood
Riding through the glen.
Romneyhood, Romneyhood
With his band of men.
Feared by the good, loved by the bad.
Romneyhood, Romneyhood, Romneyhood.

He called the fat cats  to a tavern on the green.
They vowed to help the people of the king.
They handled all the poor that are on the welfare scene,
And still found plenty of time to fling.

Romneyhood, Romneyhood,
Riding through the Hamptons.
Romneyhood, Romneyhood
With his band of fat men.
Feared by the good, loved by the rich.
Romneyhood, Romneyhoo, Romneyhood.

 If there was any doubt let the truth ring  out, Romney and his fat cats want to have the poor go away and the middle class become poor.  (Got it?)  And, remember, the Romneyhood antics that he would put in place are the same antics GWB used during his two terms.  We went from a trillion dollar surplus to a trillion dollar deficit.  We went from a very good economy to discovering the manipulations of the wall street financiers, the bailout of banks that had already set up the great American failure and they new wing-nut republicans that do not understand the meaning of the word politic.

Can We Talk?

Once again a legislature is returning from "vacation" and has targeted, guess who?  I  brought the paper inthis morning and found this headline: Pension reform the top priority.  The tickler was a quote from Darrell Steinberg the DEMOCRATIC president pro tem of the California senate "I remain confident that we will have comprehensive pension reform before the end of this session".  Just so no reader is confused, this comes from the San Francisco Chronicle. You can look it up.

Just what do you suppose the double speak means?  Well, lets look at the past first, the United Pilots got screwed when UA went into bankruptcy and their pensions were turned over to the pension guaranty fund (government run and far less than what they were receiving).  Then the nationwide case of Wisconsin and it's public services.  These are but two of the many pensions that were once promised, once delivered and forever taken away.

In the instant case, here is how I translate the quote: "For years we have cut taxes, provided tax and other incentives for the rich, allowed the rich to incredibly influence the political process thereby placing our legistatures in a moral delimma and with much frequency deciding against the right thing to do.  We have paid our political contributors off with high positions with high salaries and little work to do but sit around.  We have granted ourselves pay raises and benefits that few others have, we just came back from a month's paid vacation and now we can do nothing to create a just and fair system of revenue to support the most basic of social contract issues, safety (police, fire, nurses, etc) so we have to make the middle class, the government worker, and the bargaining units of this state pay for all our ineptitudes.

This from a democrat that lives in the state that HAD the 7th largest economy in the world.  That HAD the premier college and university system that many states tried to model but could not. That HAD  K-12 school system that was in the top ten in the nation.  That had a reputation for paying a just and fair wage.  That HAD and served mercy for our children and their parents in desperate need.

I can only say thank you Ronald Reagan; thank you Pete Wilson; thank you Arnold the terminator; and thanks to all the legislators who over the years decided to make this state the most lowly, humble, and humilitated state in the union.  Thanks for balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and middle class because you all do not have the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing.

Oliver Wendell Holmes said (and this is cast in stone above the IRS building in D.C) "Taxes is the price we pay for living in a civilized society".  Apparently you and the rich simply wish to return us to the state that Thomas Hobbes classifed as "short, nasty and brutish".

BACK TO THE FUTURE

Well, time to return to the not-off-topic stuff, at least for the moment.First, it appears that GAFCOON, of which ACNA is a part, believes that we should all go backwards until we reach the future.

GAFCON held a conference in of all places, London, England!  The chairperson of GAFCON delivered and incredibly self-serving, self-aggrandizing, self-interpretive speech/testament for GAFCON to proceed.

Here is the scripture upon which the testament is build:

In Micah 6:8 we read:

He has showed you, O man, what is good.

And what does the LORD require of you?

To act justly and to love mercy

And to walk humbly with your God.

 

He, Archbishop Eliud Wabukala , then proceeded to speak over the rest of the testament explaining what this scripture meant to those of us poor, slow, dumb laity that could not understand a very simple Godly statement as, "To act justly and love mercy and to walk humbly with your God".  Now, I like interpretation as much as the next person but GAFCON has made their name on the basis of solo scripturas.  But, just what in the imagination of Archbishop Eliud Wabukala do we not understand about this particular passage?  How is it more complicated than say, "love your neighbor as yourself."?  But, in order for Archbishop Eliud Wabukala to get where he wanted to go he needed to "interrpret" scripture for us. (I guess we no longer need Bibles, we just need the Bishops of GAFCON.

 

Here is a direct quote form the Archbishop, " It is little surprise then that we find scripture can be bent into all sorts of convenient shapes and that so called ‘gospel’ truths can contradict the plain meaning of scriptures. "   Well, what do you know?  Do you suppose he is talking about him and his friends?

 

And then, buried within the golden voice and "conciliatory speech comes this little gem:

 

Our communion has come of age and it is now time that its leadership should be focused not on one person or one church, however hallowed its history, but on the one historic faith we confess. There is added urgency to these concerns and need for creative thinking so that a pattern of global governance that is no longer fit for this context is not perpetuated by default.

So, here is the issue:  Either the Crown selects one of  them or they take their marbles and go home. 

The Lord requires that we act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God.  I like Micah better than I like Archbishop Eliud Wabukala. 

 

 

Companion Post

This is a companion piece to that which was just recently posted. Perhaps an example of what I find unjust. And perhaps a bit of explanation of the last piece posted.

Does anyone remember this person? Abbie Hoffman and guess what he is wearing? Yep, that is indeed an American Flag. He was tried for wearing the American Flag but not before some police officers tore it off his body.


Now, here is another image:

This picture is from not too long ago.  First, I hope no one rips the flag of her body - that could be embarrassing.  Second, to the best of my knowledge she was never tried for un-American activities and certainly was not brutalized by the Chicago police.

Justice"?  Well, time wounds all heals but let's face facts, people wear the American Flag all over -- just look at those at the Olympics?  Am I upset about people wearing the American flag?  No.  I am upset by the injustice of it all.  It seems we have a double standard. 

Sound familiar? Sound like it is happening all over again?

By the way, the day that Hoffman was arrested for wearing the American flag Jerry Rubin was there also wearing a flag and absolutely nothing happened to him.  Of course the flag was the flag of the North Vietnam.  Wowsers! Three in a row!

Point of Personal Privilege

Most of the readers may not know "some" of my background.  My father was a United States Marine. I am a United States Marine.  Once a Marine always a Marine.  I also understand many readers abhor violence of any kind.  Well, this is one of those quirks in my life - I guess, I believe there are certain principles that one needs to abide by and when threatened, one choses one's own course -- I choose freedom -- not just one sided but freedom for all -  I firmly believe that each and every person in this country gets to speak their mind without fear or retaliation - I am willing to protect that freedom.  Sorry - this is not meant to be an apology (in the definitive meaning), just an explanation for what is about to follow.  Marine Corps commercials still send a chill up my back, here is one of the latest.





Thank you for your indulgence.

Let's Get One Thing Straight

Out of the convention comes more rhetoric by his Eminence Mark Lawrence, "high who ha" of the diocese of South Carolina.  Can we get at least one thing straight:  Mark Lawrence and Daniel Martins were tutored by John David Schofield.  They are following JDS' plot/plan. When JDS was approved by the House of Bishops he assured everyone that certain sensitive issues (such as female ordination) would not separate him from his beloved Episcopal Church.  Then for nearly 40 years he tried every trick in the book to reverse his "statements" finally just doing what he had intended to do all along, form his own version of Anglicanism.  Mark Lawrence comes along and during the ratification process promises to never leave the Episcopal Church.  Well, it appears, and right on cue, that while he and his diocese are not leaving the Episcopal Church the Episcopal Church is leaving him.  What a tired and worn out argument but true to his mentor's form (and the Chapman Memo) he is on his way out.  The House of Bishops ratifies Daniel Martins as grand poo bah of Indiana as Mr. martins promises to never leave the Episcopal Church.  His rhetoric is about 18 months behind Mark Lawrence but it is growing in it's adversarial nature.Just how long is it going to go on?  Hey, let's ratify all the "good Anglicans" to be bishops and allow the Episcopal Church to fall apart one diocese at a time?  What a great strategy!  We already have had it proven that the leadership of the Episcopal Church is dealing with the Gordian knot by trying to untie it -- rather than pulling the sword out of the scabbard and cutting the knot.

Death, slow or fast, an inch at a time or all at once is still death.  As I have said before, when good guys and bad guys fight, good guys usually lose.  Why? Because the good guys play by the rules and the bad guys have no rules.  It certainly will not be pretty and it obviously will not be easy but "fighting" for even a principle, is worth it, win or lose, it is worth it.  The ACNA believes and relies on the Episcopal Church as the compromise, let's take it slow and easy, lets keep as many folks in as we can, let's out last the "bad guys".  The "bad guys" are following the scorched earth policy.

Let us allow the Who to finish this post. 

Wont Get Fooled Again

by the Who

We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgment of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
No, no!

I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
Though I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?

There's nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Are now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again

A Drop of Water in the Pacific Ocean

I know that everyone is coming back from convention and most are overjoyed by the happenings and some are not.  Everyone is now discussing those things but I want to call your attention to a "drop in the ocean".  Yep, the goings on of the Anglican/Orthodox Diocese od San Joaquin.  As you all must know Mr. Schofield has retired (this time for real; and collects a pension from TEC pension fund).  Now, the new guy is Mr. Eric Menees.  His "first convention" is coming up and here is a portion of what he is looking forward to:

"The convention will focus on the themes of development that I would like to see for the coming year: Congregational Development, Clergy Development and Development of Youth Ministries. Over the next few months as we lead up to the convention I will be focusing on one aspect of these themes of development and this month I would like to discuss the development of Youth Ministries.

As I visit churches each week I hear over and over the desire to reach out and minister to the youth of the congregation and the youth of the community. These are words that warm my heart and stir my spirit. "

Several years ago this diocese, specifically Mr. Schofield had two respected senior wardens that tried to get an explanation of what happended and both were rebuffed by JDS and the "henchmen". No one was every allowed to comment or challenge the budget. (After that year  the budget was passed on a Friday night to avoid those nasty little interruptions.)

Since that time the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin has poured thousands of dollars into the Southern Cone including the rebuilding of the then archbishop's home.

Now, Mr. Menees is intent on youth services?   Once again the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin is going to try and slip everyone a "mickey".  Too bad for the youth.

Letters - We Get Letters

Who besides John David Schofield has an incredible command of the English language.  Permit me to show you.  Remember for years JDS was leaving the church and not leaving the church and then the name PECUSA was absconded with, and then JDS told all of use no one was going anywhere and then finally, the Episcopal Church "made him" become a member of the Anglican whatever.  Compare all that with this, I make no comment other than draw your own conclusions.  Look closely at the signatories.  (Seems John Hancock is missing.)

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS

6 July 2012

The Most Reverend Katharine Jefforts Schori

Presiding Bishop

The Episcopal Church

815 Second Avenue

New York, NY 10017

Dear Presiding Bishop:

We write to address allegations that have been made against us—both those made by Bishops

Ohl and Buchanan in their letter of yesterday and unknown others made in Title IV disciplinary
complaints that we have not seen. Bishops Ohl and Buchanan have asked that the record be set
straight. That is our intention in this letter.

No charge is more serious to us than the one that we have acted against our own Church—in
other words, that we have been disloyal. We assure each of you that we have acted out of a
profound loyalty to this Church we love. We knew our decision to file an

amicus brief in Texas and affidavits in Illinois authenticating our earlier statement on Church polity would be controversial. We took these actions, however, precisely because we thought it our duty to do so in order to uphold the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church as we all have

pledged to do. We hope that if you agree with us about nothing else, you will recognize that
upholding the constitutional polity of the Church as we understand it is not disloyalty.
Because our views have been mischaracterized, we welcome this opportunity to clarify what we
believe and what we have said in our legal submissions. Our primary concern is that the polity
that has defined this Church for two centuries is being transformed due to momentary legal
objectives in the secular courts. We do not question these objectives. We only believe that the
constitutional polity of the Church—the discipline we pledge to uphold—should not be
sacrificed in pursuit of these goals.

We can summarize what we were taught years ago and still believe about our governance as

follows:
•

The Episcopal Church is a hierarchical church and the hierarchical authority for matters

within a diocese is the Ecclesiastical Authority of the diocese, which according to our
Constitution is the diocesan bishop. Ours is not a metropolitical church, but a churchwith a dispersed hierarchy. We did not invent this understanding of our governance. It

has a long and venerable pedigree. For example, in “The Church’s Teaching” series

volume on polity, Canon Powel Mills Dawley of General Seminary (working with a committee of church leaders under the auspices of the Church Center) concluded that:

“the dioceses possess an independence far greater than that characteristic of most

other Churches with episcopal polity….Diocesan participation in any national

program or effort, for example, must be voluntarily given; it cannot be forced.

Again, while the bishop’s exercise of independent power within the diocese is

restricted by the share in church government possessed by the Diocesan

Convention or the Standing Committee, his independence in respect to the rest of

the Church is almost complete.”

•

As noted, we are not a metropolitical church. Our Constitution has no “Supremacy Clause”; it specifies no office or body with supremacy or hierarchical authority over the Ecclesiastical Authority of the diocese for matters within a diocese. And as bishops, we take no vow of obedience to any other office or body. Priests and deacons pledge conformity to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Church and obedience to the diocesan bishop. Bishops only give the Declaration of Conformity. This was a matter of extreme importance to our founders. Church of England bishops give an oath of “Due

Obedience” in which they “profess and promise all due reverence and obedience to the

Archbishop and to the Metropolitical Church of Canterbury [York] and to their Successors.” Our founders very intentionally rejected such an oath for The Episcopal Church. We pledge obedience neither to an archbishop nor to a metropolitical church.

We pledge to uphold the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Church, but each diocesan bishop is the Ecclesiastical Authority in the diocese.

Under the First Amendment, secular courts may not make extensive and searching inquiries into, and thereby interfere with, church doctrine or polity in order to decide secular legal cases. This is standard Supreme Court jurisprudence. If you do not immediately agree with all these points, we invite you to read our Bishops’ Statement on the Polity of The Episcopal Church, which we published in April 2009. It is a comprehensive examination of these issues.

This puts succinctly what we have said in our court submissions. We made these submissions,

however, only after we became concerned that the courts were misinterpreting—and thereby

forever changing—our constitutional polity based on what we believed was erroneous information about our history and governance.

We began this letter by reiterating, however briefly, what we did

say because most of the objections seem to be directed at things we did not say. Turning now to the specific charges made by Bishops Ohl and Buchanan, we can only say that none of them accurately describes what we actually said in our submissions.

1. We do not represent or argue that “dioceses can unilaterally leave.” We stated explicitly

on the first page of ourAmicus brief that “the amici oppose the decision by the Appellants
(“Diocese of Fort Worth”) to leave The Episcopal Church, but in its ruling against them
the court has misunderstood, and thereby damaged, the constitutional structure of The
Episcopal Church.” We do not address in the brief whether withdrawal is permitted
under the Constitution. Indeed, some in our number have at great cost ruled such
proposals out of order in their own dioceses. Our legal submissions are concerned only
with the nature of authority in our Church; we do not address the exercise of that
authority by Bishop Iker or any other bishop.

2. We do not “deny the Dennis Canon.” In fact, we do not address property issues at all.

The Dennis Canon and property trusts are not even mentioned in our

amicus brief. The Episcopal Church parties in the Texas litigation have presented extensive argumentation to the Texas Supreme Court that they are entitled to the disputed property even under

neutral principles of law. We do not address this issue at all, but our legal analysis that
secular courts must use neutral principles of law if they cannot readily identify the nature
of a church’s hierarchical authority can hardly be prejudicial to the Episcopal Church
parties when they argue themselves that they win under such a standard.

3. We neither deny that this Church can “recognize its own bishops” nor claim that Bishop

Iker is still the bishop of the diocese recognized by our Church. In fact, we explicitly
state in theAmicus brief that “The Episcopal Church clearly has the constitutional right to
select a new bishop.” We recognize Bishops Ohl and Buchanan as the bishops of the
TEC-recognized dioceses. Indeed, one of our number participated in the installation of
Bishop Ohl’s predecessor. We acknowledge that Bishop Iker was the Ecclesiastical
Authority of the diocese until the vote to withdraw, which is the crucial time period in
this dispute, but that is undeniable. We conclude that if the court applies a deference to
hierarchy standard—an issue on which we explicitly take no position—the Ecclesiastical
Authority at the time of the vote to withdraw was Bishop Iker. We consider that
conclusion inescapable given our polity. To the extent that this is a question of
nomenclature, the Texas Court has previously ruled that Bishop Ohl and his diocese are
not yet entitled to claim the name of “The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth” pending the
final result of this litigation. Thus, Bishop Iker and his diocese continue to use this name.
This ruling, however, plays no role in our analysis. It is not our concern.

4. Strangest of all is the claim that we have violated episcopal jurisdiction. We have

performed no episcopal acts in another diocese. All we have done is exercise our civic—
not ecclesiastical—rights to petition the government. To our knowledge, no one has ever
before suggested that petitioning the legislatures or courts in Washington or state
capitols—our brief was filed in Austin, not Fort Worth—requires the consent of the local
bishop. To the extent that the claim really is that our submission might have an effect in
another diocese, we would reply that we are simply responding to submissions by others
that will themselves have what we believe to be very profound and harmful effects on all
our dioceses, not only in Texas but across the Church. And we note that we are not the
first bishops of our Church to file an amicus brief this year with the Texas Supreme Court. Others filed a brief in another property dispute involving Bishop Ohl’s former diocese. Clearly, it is the views we express, not the act of filing a brief, to which objection is taken.

This brings us back to where we started. We are convinced that the venerable polity of our

Church is under threat due to the temporary exigencies of secular litigation. However much we
may understand and sympathize with these objectives, we consider it our greater duty to uphold
our constitutional polity. Whether or not you agree with our interpretation—and we all must
acknowledge that our polity is in some ways obscure—we hope you will recognize that we are
doing our duty to uphold the good order of the Church as we perceive it and that it is no small
part of the burden of that duty to know that others take offense from our actions.

Faihfully,

The Rt. Rev. Peter H. Beckwith

The Rt. Rev. John W. Howe

The Rt. Rev. Paul E. Lambert

The Rt. Rev. William H. Love

The Rt. Rev. D. Bruce MacPherson

The Rt. Rev. Daniel H. Martins

The Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon

The Rt. Rev. James M. Stanton

I apologize for the break up of the letter but here it is.  Enjoy your reading.

Remember Jefferson?

Food for thought --

"Dear Sir,

My last to you was of the 16th of December; since which, I have received yours of November 25 and December 4, which afforded me, as your letters always do, a treat on matters public, individual, and economical. I am impatient to learn your sentiments on the late troubles in the Eastern states. So far as I have yet seen, they do not appear to threaten serious consequences. Those states have suffered by the stoppage of the channels of their commerce, which have not yet found other issues. This must render money scarce and make the people uneasy. This uneasiness has produced acts absolutely unjustifiable; but I hope they will provoke no severities from their governments. A consciousness of those in power that their administration of the public affairs has been honest may, perhaps, produce too great a degree of indignation; and those characters, wherein fear predominates over hope, may apprehend too much from these instances of irregularity. They may conclude too hastily that nature has formed man insusceptible of any other government than that of force, a conclusion not founded in truth or experience.
Societies exist under three forms, sufficiently distinguishable: (1) without government, as among our Indians; (2) under governments, wherein the will of everyone has a just influence, as is the case in England, in a slight degree, and in our states, in a great one; (3) under governments of force, as is the case in all other monarchies, and in most of the other republics.

To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the first condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has its evils, too, the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs.
I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.
If these transactions give me no uneasiness, I feel very differently at another piece of intelligence, to wit, the possibility that the navigation of the Mississippi may be abandoned to Spain. I never had any interest westward of the Allegheny; and I will never have any. But I have had great opportunities of knowing the character of the people who inhabit that country; and I will venture to say that the act which abandons the navigation of the Mississippi is an act of separation between the Eastern and Western country. It is a relinquishment of five parts out of eight of the territory of the United States; an abandonment of the fairest subject for the payment of our public debts, and the chaining those debts on our own necks, in perpetuum.
I have the utmost confidence in the honest intentions of those who concur in this measure; but I lament their want of acquaintance with the character and physical advantages of the people, who, right or wrong, will suppose their interests sacrificed on this occasion to the contrary interests of that part of the confederacy in possession of present power. If they declare themselves a separate people, we are incapable of a single effort to retain them. Our citizens can never be induced, either as militia or as soldiers, to go there to cut the throats of their own brothers and sons, or rather, to be themselves the subjects instead of the perpetrators of the parricide.
Nor would that country quit the cost of being retained against the will of its inhabitants, could it be done. But it cannot be done. They are able already to rescue the navigation of the Mississippi out of the hands of Spain, and to add New Orleans to their own territory. They will be joined by the inhabitants of Louisiana. This will bring on a war between them and Spain; and that will produce the question with us, whether it will not be worth our while to become parties with them in the war in order to reunite them with us and thus correct our error. And were I to permit my forebodings to go one step further, I should predict that the inhabitants of the United States would force their rulers to take the affirmative of that question. I wish I may be mistaken in all these opinions.
Yours affectionately,
Th. Jefferson"

Jefferson liked to borrow from the likes of John Locke and I know John Boehner has tried to cite this as his reason for doing some of the most atrocious things to the middle class on down, but this brand of Republican is scared - that's why they do what they do.  They are in effect scared to death of change.  Progrssives/liberals can only be pushed so far- particularly those who marched in the 60's (wink wink nod nod).

Are We Tired?

I am tired of all the "grab-ass". We have lost our vision and with it I fear the high ground.  Where is the love?

FOR THE LOVE OF IT ALL Noel Paul Stookey- ©1991 Neworld Media Music Publishers, ASCAP In the beginning, as life became form, The oceans heaved, the mountains were cleaved, The firmament stormed. At the center of being, immensely small Was the master of now, don't ask me how The Love of it all And the seasons were many. Creation was new. And there on a tree (deceptively free) A forbidden fruit Upon leaving the garden, after the fall, One thing was clear; we chose not to hear The Love of it all But for the Love of it all I would go anywhere. To the ends of the earth, What is it worth if Love would be there? Walking the thin line between fear and the call One learns to bend and finally depend On the Love of it all "Irresistible targets" I heard someone say. They were speaking of angels Who are so courageous day after day Gunned down on a highway (as we often recall) I hear a scream; I have a dream The Love of it all Still the world is in labor, She groans in travail. She cries with the eagle, the dolphin, She sighs in the song of the whale. While the heart of her people Prays at the wall. A spirit inside is preparing a bride For the Love of it all For the Love of it all, Like the stars and the sun, We are hearts on the rise, Separate eyes with the vision of one. No valley too deep, no mountain too tall, We can turn back the night with merely the light From the Love of it all. And so we are marching to 'to give peace a chance' Brother and sister as one in this mystery dance. Long ago on a hilltop where now the curious crawl A man on a cross paid the ultimate cost For the Love of it all For the Love of it all We are gathered by grace We have followed our hearts To take up our parts In this time and place. Hands for the harvest, Hear the centuries call: It is still not too late to come celebrate The Love of it all "Eli, eli, lemana shabakthani" The Love of it all VIDEOS:LifeLines Live Guitar Chords  l