And the fun begins. . .
Well, so much for the talking and listening that Bishop Mathes called for in his February diocesan address. The Diocese of San Diego has filed lawsuits agains three Anglican churches who left ECUSA and stayed in their buildings:
St. Anne's Anglican (Oceanside)
St. John's Anglican (Fallbrook)
Holy Trinity (San Diego)
Check out more info on TitusOneNine, Stand Firm, and SanDiegoAnglicans (h/ts to all, since there is nothing yet on the diocesan web site).
Also, interviews that I did with three of the clergy from those three churches are posted on AnglicanTV:
Fr. Joe Rees (St. Anne's)
Fr. Don Kroeger (St. John's)
Fr. Larry Bausch (Holy Trinity)
Posts
4 comments:
Ann:
Thanks for putting all of this information together.
My impression of Bishop Mathes is that he doesn't really have the stomach for what is now clearly the legal carpet bombing strategy of TEC/usa. This leads me to believe that most of what is going on is based on orders from episcopal HQ at 815. I think Bishop Mathes might be open to some kind of arbitrated settlement if we would thoughtfully try to demonstrate how this "take no prisoners" attitude runs counter to not only clear biblical mandates and the traditions of the church catholic, but is most certainly a violation of his own liberal principles.
I am concerned that the orthodox parishes (such as ours, St. Michael's) that remain in the diocese are not speaking out more strongly against these hardline tactics, especially when it involves the suing of individual vestry members.
Hi Joe -
Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that the orthodox churches have not necessarily spoken out forcefully enough, for a variety of reasons. I've written Bishop Mathes personally about the lawsuits. I have to think you are being generous in thinking that a reasonable explanation would change his mind, for two reasons: (1) southern California real estate is too precious to give up, and (2) I've seen him listen to orthodox arguments, nodding all the while, and then do as the revisionists want.
Ann:
Well, I guess I would hope that I am being at least a bit generous, even to those who have continually and, at times, arrogantly abused the way of generous orthodoxy (not theological minimalism!) that is one of the hallmarks of the Anglican tradition. But please don't confuse my intention to thoughtfully confront Bishop Mathes as trying to be "reasonable". The goal is much more along the lines of trying to intellectually corner, and in a public way, those who violate their own first principles any time they feel that their power is threatened.
The purpose is to elicit guilt rather than any thing that even approaches nuanced and well-balanced thought. That may sound harsh, but the cat is long out of the bag. The completely tactical approach of the other side has already taken a tremendous toll, not only in its distortion and diminishment of orthodox doctrine, but mostly in the spiritual cost - many now see the Church as something that they form and mold to their own ideologies and preconceptions, rather that the great and mysterious channel by which the life of the Holy Trinity first shapes, re-forms, humbles and transforms us before we have any right to expect that we should have any influence at all. The loss of a truly Christian attitude is already in evidence among those who will be the next generation of church leaders. This ridiculous and completely inconsistent Americanizing of Hegelian ideas has long been shown to be folly. But it is hard for those who see themselves as having been raised to a higher level of consciousness than the rest of us to give up their grand ideas. And so what doesn't work in the real world, but must work somewhere, somehow, is fed to a comfortable, complacent denomination under the guise of justice and a new, more relevant spirituality.
So much for generosity, but the games must end. And I'm beginning to believe that to support these episcoprogressivist religious and canonical games in any way is to fail to do the work of Christ.
I think you're right, Joe. Any support is then used against those regarding Scripture as the Church as held it for 2000 years.
I liked your phrasing here: "[M]any now see the Church as something that they form and mold to their own ideologies and preconceptions, rather that the great and mysterious channel by which the life of the Holy Trinity first shapes, re-forms, humbles and transforms us before we have any right to expect that we should have any influence at all." And that is so right--some now see the Church as something they can manipulate.
Post a Comment