My Mom Was Right!

Years ago my mother and I would engage in some "hellacious" arguments. I was 14 or 15 and wanted to do something that all my friends were doing. Usually that "something" was dangerous or worse. I would go to my mom and ask her for permission to go with Jim and Tran and whoever and do this "thing". I had to ask because in the town I grew up in people knew my family (read that my mom) that I never knew, knew my mom. That relationship got me into big time trouble on more than one occasion. Before I got home my mom would receive a telephone call (we did have phones back then) and I would catch "it" (we all know what IT is) as I walked through the door. Suffice it to say I always asked for permission and rarely for forgiveness. Anyway, I would ask to do this deed or go on this trip and my mom would say, "Just because everyone else is doing it does not make it right! Mom, but everyone is doing it, why can't I? I would whine. Mom would say, "If the whole world was jumping off a cliff 3,000 feet high (not real sure why 3,000 feet but that seemed like a silly question and certainly non-productive at the time) would you jump off that cliff as well?" Well, I am not stupid so I would say, "of course not!" and promptly lose the argument, the request and the trip, case closed.

The argument the Prop 8 backers used in the court case settled yesterday seems to be a lot like that argument, "But judge, everyone wants this and you cannot deny us that opportunity to jump off that 3,000 foot cliff!" Except the judge did -- but unfortunately the case is not closed. We will see this thing fought all the way to mom the Supreme Court. But for the moment, enjoy the victory, you/we have all earned it. We are most happy for several people we know including IT and BP as they are about to celebrate their second anniversary and we here at Off Topic wish them a most happy anniversary! Yes, the struggle is still ahead but take a moment and savor what freedom feels and tastes like you have earned it!

Don't fry my green tomatoes

I've left the wild wilderness of Virginia, and find myself in an urban oasis about five miles from my home church and...home.

This place won't be home for long, because the kitchen is terrible. Well, perhaps not so terrible: I can look out to my sunny balcony, where grows a "kitchen garden." I have put in some wonderful balcony gardens, but this one is special. Three tomato plants, nine herbs, a pot of parsley, and yes - some flowers.

The women in my family have the proverbial green thumb, and I've grown some magnificent shade gardens in the shadow of high-rise buildings. But look: tomatoes! No one thought it made sense to grow full-size tomato plants in pots on a balcony, except my mother. She told me to put in enough plants to supply my brother, sister-in-law and a few nice neighbors. Putting in a garden makes a place home; when you move in late spring, it's probably more important than unpacking boxes. Some might disagree, but my new home will have flowers and tomatoes that can't be purchased with MasterCard. The last of the boxes can be unpacked when the days grow short and the basil has died.

I'm home. In about three weeks, we'll be crackin' jimmies, and eating sweet corn and vine-ripened tomatoes. My home church has grown on its vine, with a larger (and lovely) physical plant, and a diverse congregation that loves the liturgy and serves the least of us.

Perhaps this kitchen isn't too small. Perhaps my life was too small, and the kitchen too large. Let's ripen those tomatoes on the vine. I have the sweet basil, who's bringing the fresh mozz?

The Archbishop of Canterbury Will Be elected Inside of A Month: UPDATE UPDATE

Based on ++Rowan Williams utter inability to provide for even the election of a regular bishop this article has reappeared by popular demand. It is odd, but I would have thought that the Archbishop of Canterbury would have a little finesse in he political arena. It my language, "bummer dude!".


The Guardian is reporting that the new Archbishop of Canterbury will be appointed inside of 30 days.

In a stunning turn of events ++Rowan Williams resigned last week from his position as the Archbishop of Canterbury and the titular head of the Anglican Communion, such as it is. It seems that Archbishop Williams was summoned to Windsor Palace to meet with Queen Elizabeth, the Prime Minister and the Head of the House of Commons and the head of the House of Lords. This all occurred after the leading primates of the Southern Cone, recently renamed GAFCON, withdrew from the Anglican Communion and named Archbishop Luke Orombi as the new Archbishop of the Anglican Communion.

In related news it it was learned that about 3 months ago the Episcopal Church of the United States, the Church of Canada and several other provinces within what was the last vestige of the British Empire, the worldwide Anglican Communion, rejected resoundingly the document referred to as the Anglican Covenant. Apparently this rejection by a large minority of the churches making up the Anglican Communion set the wheels in motion for the organization known as GAFCON to invoke the Jerusalem Declaration and elect a new Archbishop of the real Anglican Communion. It took three votes. The first vote rejected Peter Akinola as the new archbishop and the second vote rejected Greg Venables. It was then determined by a small committee made up of lessor bishops that put forth a candidate with little real world experience and Henri Luke Orombi was elected the new Archbishop. We are told that the committee consisted of the likes of mostly American bishops including Robert Duncan, Jack Iker, John David Schofield and John Guernsey. At a press conference the newly consecrated Archbishop Orombi stated, "We told the Archbishop of Canterbury he really wasn't necessary but I guess we had to prove it."

In a related press conference, the press secretary for Queen Elizabeth said the Queen was sorely disappointed in the way that Mr. Rowan Williams had slowly ground the last remnants of the British Empire into dust. The Prime Minister stated that he had not seen such a debacle since Lord Chamberlain "gave the world away in the mid 20th century." The Queen's press secretary stated that a new Archbishop of Canterbury will be appointed and will have much less to worry about than the former Archbishop of Canterbury. There was no comment forthcoming from the Queen on the 14 different alternative oversight bishops that are currently operating inside of England from such far away paces as Uganda, Rwanda, Brazil and Australia. Clearly there was a great deal of dissatisfaction with the method and manner that Rowan Williams has handled this whole sordid mess but none greater than when Greg Venables, agreed to provide alternative oversight to the Westminster Abbey group that, in a stunning move, rejected Rowan Williams as their primary bishop.

A rising star for the appointment to the Archbishop of Canterbury is the most Reverend Rose Hudson-Wilkin. A known insider commented that while her name is being bandied about in a real sense the Queen has indicated that if she should be forced to appoint a woman to the Archbishop's role the Queen would seek alternative primatial oversight from Archbishop Mounieer Anis.

The retiring Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said through a spokesman, he was deeply disappointed and distraught that the British Empire could be brought down by a few odd and disaffected people from across the pond.


(just kidding).

Too Many Bishops with Too Much Time On Their Hands

"The Church was to make a formal declaration of its preference for the epsicopacy, and of its intention of obtaining it as soon as possible, but in the meantime White felt that the necessity of the case would fully justify the resort to the presbyterial ordination, and he cited expressions from Cranmer, Hooker, Usher, and other leading divines to support his view."

This was a quote from Mandrake's book on the Episcopal Church in the United States of America. White (despite or in spite of the fact he ultimately was consecrated a bishop) believed we (TEC) could get along just fine without bishops. Of course that is all history. Nowadays, at least in the United States, we believe in the "up or out" theory of work. What I mean by that is best expressed with a military analogy. A member of the military must routinely be promoted otherwise, the member is asked to leave the service all together. This mindset, permeates American culture. We as a work force believe that it is our "God-given right" to a promotion. If one works hard, studies hard and does a good job, we are entitled to a promotion. Few believe, and fewer practice, the idea that there is inherent value in a position, a lifetime work.

This becomes far more complicated in religious field and in the Episcopal Church in particular. Specifically, the priesthood seems to be a mere stepping stone to the episcopate. It would be interesting to run a survey among the various seminaries and see where each seminarian would believe they will be in 15 years. My seat of the pants guess would say that 40 to 60% of those would suggest they will be a bishop somewhere.

Now, before everyone goes ballistic let's think about this for just a moment. How many diocese are there and how many priests do we ordain in one year? Better, more to the point perhaps, how many priests get paid a living wage? How many priests, when faced with a career as a priest can honestly say their salary will be higher (substantially higher?) at the end of their career versus the beginning of their career? So, it is our (the laity) problem, maybe even more so.

So what has happened? Well, we have created a group of clergy that are avaricious, social climbers that are never satisfied with where they are and always seeking the next promotion. My next survey would poll all the priests over 15 years of service and ask them to select three episcopates where they think they would do a better job than the current bishop. None of the above would be a viable answer, one that very few would choose, at least I believe that.

What does all of this have to do with the current state of affairs in the Episcopal Church? If you review all the "current bishops" in the ACNA or similar non-TEC bishops I believe that many who have been bishop for some time would tell us they wanted to be or could do a better job at being the Presiding Bishop and certainly could do a way-better job than some woman! Many of those who went "extra-legal" to be consecrated would say that they have paid their dues, and could be as good if not better than their (used to be) current bishop. I believe all of them would say that this is the next logical rung on the promotion ladder, that they paid their dues and that in their mind, it was time to be promoted.

If this did not lead directly to the current state of affairs in our church it certainly was/is a significant contributing factor. Ask them, if they are honest you will get answers that resemble this post. Of course, honesty is not necessarily these folks long suit. And, history is history and that is that.

What can we do now? We need to change the culture beginning in seminary, if not before. One does not need to be a brilliant theologian to be a good pastor, and after all is that not all we as laity are after? So, seminary needs to begin the process of creating value in and of the position of vicar/rector. We as laity need to begin to value our pastors for the work they do, not the work that they have done. What does that look like? Well, lets start with paying for experience. Let us, as laity, create value in longevity. Rectors/Vicars should be paid for their service to the parish, now. A living wage is all well and good but it does not engender holding on to current priests. Diocese throughout the country need to create pay schedules that reflect real experience. Laity will also have to change our way of thinking in that we need to "not look for the next best thing since sliced bread". We need to continue to challenge our rectors/vicars. We need to provide vacations, sabbaticals, additional work like starting up the regular and routine home visits of parishioners.

We need to de-emphasize the idea that bishops are the end all and be all of clergy. One idea would be to create an administrative position in each diocese that does all the administrative work and relegate a bishop to pastor of the flock. This might very well involve devolution of the House of Bishops. Revolution in the House of Deputies.

What do you all think?

Truth or Fiction?

what is more damaging, truth or fiction? In the Episcopal Church we meet, we discuss, sometimes we yell, sometimes we even act out a bit, but we never fabricate the truth. One may not always like what we as Episcopalians do, but we do it in front of everyone and we generally say what we mean and mean what we say. That seems to be our downfall.

Take for example the members of ACNA, in fact let's talk about the now deposed Bishop of San Joaquin, John David Schofield. For years he was asked, "Are you taking the diocese of San Joaquin out of the Episcopal Church?" For years, he responded with a resounding NO! In fact, there are at least two pastoral letters from Mr. Schofield that clearly stated he had no such intention. Then, like a "bolt from on high, he does just that! Yes, in December of 2007 he pulls the diocese into a half-baked (maybe full baked) province from South America led by a renegade from who knows where. (In a related story, Archbishop Venables is now so broke he cannot pay attention and is need, once again, of the North Americans to come to his financial rescue). Now, Mr. Schofield will vehemently deny he did anything, after all, it was his convention delegates that did all the work, but read his statement to convention of that year, he certainly did not tell the truth.

Now, three years later, the Episcopal Church meets and passes two significant resolutions on inclusion. The Archbishop of Canterbury was there, he spoke. We discussed, debated and then passed the resolution. Then, we simply did what we said we were going to do. Everyone in the worldwide Anglican Communion gets their knickers in a twist and then we, The Episcopal Church, get thrown off committees and bounced from sub-groups. The GAFCON archbishops come together and agree to exercise "gracious restraint" and it turns out that it is neither gracious nor restrained. Nothing happens. The Communion Partners, which Archbishop Williams is particularly enamored with, attends the last GAFCON conference complete with voice at the convention yet they say, "Oh, we just want to be good Episcopalians, we do not want to tear down the Episcopal Church, we want to build it up." Hooey!

So the Episcopal Church says what it means and does what it says and gets blasted. The GAFCON/ACNA/CANA/AMiA folks create fiction, borrow property indefinitely, violate territorial rights, continue to practice holy orders after being duly deposed and generally reek mayhem on the Anglican Communion and they get -- the run of the show! Well, I am glad we got that straightened out!

Will The REAL Chaplain to the Commons Please Stand Up

Well, if we needed further proof that the Church of England has somehow slipped back into the 19th Century, we now get this wonderful donnybrook:

Clash over historic promotion for female cleric

Westminster Abbey is so far out of touch with reality that they are now fighting over an appointment of a woman to the position of Chaplain to the Commons.

The Speaker of the House was apparently tired of old, middle-aged white guys that were predictable in out look.

Speaker John Bercow and wife Sally: Sources say he objected to appointing 'another predictable middle-aged white man'

The Reverend Rose Hudson-Wilkin primary offense seems to be that she is a woman, followed by the fact she is black, followed by the fact that she is slated to be one of the first consecrated women bishops in the Church of England.

The Dean of Westminster Abbey wants to have 46-year-old Andrew Tremlett, currently a Canon at Bristol Cathedral appointed. Tremlett's current duties are as follows:

The Canon for Development is responsible for the pastoral care and growth of the congregations of the Cathedral; using the historic buildings to serve today's needs; and informing the Chapter's strategic planning, so that the Cathedral becomes an effective centre of Mission.

I translate this into "takes care of the rich folks."

He is, quite typically, Westminster Abbey "material", especially based on the stuff that has been emanating from there of late.

The Reverend Hudson-Wilkin has worked long and hard in areas where diversity is the rule and the need for pastoral care was significant. here is one attendee's comment: "Rev. Rose Hudson-Wilkinson who lead worship with grace, preached well, and was approachable and encouraging." She raised up one congregation from a handful to over 200 attendees on Sundays.

So, what is the knock on the Reverend Rose Hudson-Wilkin? Well, appears she is "too liberal".

A controversial figure, she led calls for the Church of England to apologise for its role in slavery and has lambasted racism in the clergy. A friend said her views were ‘radical, Left of centre’.

So, the real story beginning to come out on the Church of England is one that is not very pretty. They clearly do not like women, well unless they are barefoot and pregnant. They seem to be building a case against any diversity but especially LGBT members and they are leaning toward a new Archbishop/Pope. Not a pretty picture my friends.

Sidebar: When I was reading the amendment presented to the House of Bishops by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York I thought of the Wilberforce speech during the debate in the House on abolishing slavery.

Once again a HatTip to Simon Sarmiento.

Over at Thinking Anglicans we find this little slice of heaven:

That document includes the following (paragraph 6):
On the Anglican Communion Covenant, the House agreed
(a) to commend it for adoption by the Church of England;
(b) to invite the Business Committee to schedule the beginning of the adoption process for the inaugural Synod in November 2010, with a view to final approval in February 2012;
(c) not to propose special majorities for its adoption; and
(d) to authorise the House’s Standing Committee to oversee the production of necessary material for the Synod.

Of course, this is from the Church of England's House of Bishops,who else?!

Since this "disagreement" began at least 10 years ago and probably more like 20 or thirty years ago, it has been (predominantly) about clergy, and more specifically in and between bishops. While we argue about sex: full inclusion of LGBT and full inclusion of women and prayer books, and who has the greatest God and who has the right Scriptures and who has the lovingest God the real issue has been prestige and power and control. Yep, we have so many priests that want to be bishop and so many bishops that want to be archbishops and so many archbishops that want to be pope that it just ain't funny no more! Way back when William White (see my picture) was writing and organizing for the Protestant Episcopal Church In America there was a strong feeling that we did not need bishops. Then, when Connecticut some how talked the folks into adding bishops they were originally just part of the overall single cameral house. Somehow, some silly person decided to have a bicameral arrangement that then set up the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies. Boy, sure would like to have that one back! John Guernsey and Martyn Minns and Robert Duncan and all the rest just wanted to get to whatever mitre level they could wear. Conversely, they do not want LGBT to be priests and women to be priest or bishops because - - - he**, I am not sure but it must be because they would have equal say in matters and that irks them.

The best I can understand, we the laity, only count for counting purposes. See, ACNA is a real province because it has laity in the thousands. Ya'll don't get any say in anything (check out your Constitution and Canons), ya just get be raw numbers. TEC counters with you don't have as many laity as we got so there! Then, of course Archbishop Akinola has said that they have over 35 million Anglicans in the GAFCON so they are right and we (and everyone else is wrong) because of the numbers. Laity is good for one thing, being counted, understand we don't count for anything except being counted. Don't we all like to be "patted on the head" and told we are "good boys and girls" now go outside and play while the grown-ups (clergy) figure this out.

So why shouldn't the House of Bishops vote in favor of the "Covenant", it gives them more power and prestige.

Maybe we need a shift in paradigm. Maybe we need to eliminate the House of Bishops and make bishops pastoral only. Maybe the "Presiding Bishop" for The Episcopal Church needs to be a presiding layperson. A bishop could be chaplain to the Episcopal Church. Maybe we need to strip bishops and archbishops and wannbe popes to a mere pastoral level and let all the decisions on prayerbooks and rituals and Constitutions and Canons be done by the laity. Maybe we could convince the world wide Anglican Communion to do the same. Certainly worth thinking about.


Hat Tip To Simon Sarmiento