Why I left ECUSA, Part 3: The deluge

The third in a series outlining why my family and I believe it is time for us to leave the Episcopal Church (read Why I left ECUSA, Part 1: A brief history and Why I left ECUSA, Part 2: A crack appears)

Every church is made up of sinners, including me. You don’t leave your church—that was how I was brought up. Ministers may come and go, you may like some and not like others, but the important thing is to be consistent and faithful. You are born an Episcopalian, you should die one, too.

All in all, not a bad strategy. Otherwise, you can spend your life “church shopping”—looking for the “perfect” church and always being dissatisfied. This side of heaven, it does not exist.

Okay, so Frank Griswold lied to the Primates in October of 2003 and my eyes were opened that the church wasn’t perfect (hey, I’m a slow learner). Just as the one act of consecrating +Gene Robinson as a bishop should not determine an entire church, so one person of an untrustworthy character should not either. After all, look at some of the popes in the Middle Ages and some of the Protestant preachers who have crashed and burned.

But these events made me consider what else might ECUSA be involved in. I had seen some of this in the news coverage of the General Convention in 2003 where I saw a bishop saying that the Bible was “just a book.” At the time, I thought it was an aberration and the media were just picking the most salacious comments, but now I began to wonder.

So, for the first time, I took a look at some of the contentious issues in the church.

First, the history of women’s ordination. I knew that was a divisive issue but I didn’t really know why—I had always figured it was just part of the whole turmoil around women’s rights in the ‘60s and ‘70s. But discovering that the first women ordained were ordained against the canons in an “illegal” ceremony only bolstered my concern that those who were called to uphold the faith and the rules of the church were institutionally uninterested in doing so.

I also found it pretty telling that the church had come to this new “understanding” of the role of women in ordained ministry just as the entire country was rethinking the role of women in the workplace. Not exactly being “prophetic”—rather being “of the world” and trying to be trendy. And the fact that it was presented as a fait accompli at the next General Convention and so voted in made me very suspicious.

My doubts about the direction of the Episcopal Church were growing. But in 2004 they became more than doubts, they started becoming real concerns. And because I was, for the first time, really paying attention to what the church nationally was doing, I saw this:


This is the official banner of the Episcopal Church in the 2004 March for Women’s Lives in Washington, D.C.

March for Women’s Lives—that sounds good, doesn’t it? Not when you realize that they specifically picked the name to sound like the annual March for Life but that this rally is pro-abortion. The Episcopal News Service reported on the march at the time [boldface mine]:

Episcopalians joined more than one million people, representing 100 religious and religiously-affiliated organizations and congregations, to march on Washington, D.C., April 25 in support of women’s reproductive rights at home and abroad. The march recorded the largest ever crowd count for women's rights in the nation's capital.

The "March for Women's Lives" was co-sponsored by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), an alliance of national organizations from major faith groups, local affiliates, the national Clergy for Choice Network, Spiritual Youth for Reproductive Freedom, and the Black Church Initiative. According to its mission statement, RCRC supports the constitutional right to abortion and solutions to problems such as the spread of HIV/AIDS, inadequate health care and health insurance, and the "severe reduction" in reproductive health care services. The Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Women's Caucus are both members of RCRC.

The Rev. Katherine Ragsdale, a member of RCRC's Council of Governors, welcomed the gathering with assurances that the religious community is behind them. "You can't sustain a movement on outrage," she said. "We are here to support the providers, politicians, women and activists, and let them know that we respect them for their work and their commitment.". . .

Also marching behind the Episcopal Church banner were the Rev. Margaret Rose, director of the Episcopal Church Office of Women’s Ministries; Executive Council members Louie Crew and John Vanderstar; long-time women's rights activist and General Convention deputy Marge Christie; and Maureen Shea, director of the Government Relations Office.

Before the march, the RCRC also held a "Prayerfully Pro-Choice Interfaith Worship Service.". . .

“General Convention resolutions have expressed unequivocal opposition to any legislation abridging a woman’s right to make an informed decision about the termination of pregnancy, as well as the pain and possible support that may be needed for those making difficult life decisions,” Rose said, adding that participating in the march shows that supporting women's rights is “essential to our call for justice.”

“By publicizing this march and other events through our network, we are able to enlist and inform Episcopalians about important events,” explained Mary Getz, director of the Episcopal Public Policy Network (EPPN). “This is one of the ways we are continuing to build our grassroots advocacy network.”. . .

After seeing this, I had two questions: how could we as a church be participating in something that advocated and supported the taking of innocent life, and what in the world was the “Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice”?

The answer to the first was that ECUSA seemed to be concentrating completely on what they defined as “justice” issues, although why the rights of the unborn are not seen as a justice issue is beyond me.

The answer to the second was that the RCRC is a group, using religion as a front, that advocates for abortion, up to and including partial birth abortion. One of their position papers calls abortion “self-defense” by a woman. I have come to realize in looking through their literature and their website, that while they try to make the issue palatable, they truly see the unborn child, the fetus, as the enemy, as an organism that somehow has invaded the mother’s body and must be eliminated. And the Episcopal Church Women’s Ministries group was affiliated with the RCRC.

Okay, now we were moving past individual sin and poor judgment to corporate sin. The support for abortion was not just one individual, it was a decision made at the national level of the Episcopal Church and there was no compunction about displaying the church’s banner for all to see at this event.

We were, I was, supporting abortion. I had no idea.

I knew then that there was something deeply wrong and resistantly evil about this and about the workings of the Episcopal Church. As a church, we should be working for the most innocent and vulnerable among us, and that is definitely the unborn. We should be helping girls and women who find themselves with unexpected pregnancies, scared, alone, and without resources, so they don’t have to compound their problems by making their situation worse, thinking abortion is their only option. Research of post-abortive women shows increased drug and alcohol problems, more depression, etc. Abortion is not an easy answer—it is a lifelong sentence.

Then, in January 2006, the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church voted to officially affiliate the entire Episcopal Church with the RCRC. No longer could we say, well, only the Women’s Ministries group is associated with this and the church as a whole is not. No, a small group of people had just committed the entire church to the advocacy of infanticide. At the February San Diego diocesan convention, we passed a resolution asking that General Convention that summer bring this membership up for a vote so that all clergy and deputies to the GC could vote and come to a mind of the church on this. Other dioceses passed similar resolutions. All resolutions dealing with membership in the RCRC or with abortion were killed in committee, with the exception of one that made it to the House of Bishops for a vote, but not to the House of Deputies.

By the end of General Convention 2006, the Episcopal Church could not bring itself to vote on a resolution confirming Jesus as the only way to salvation or on a resolution condemning abortion (or even resigning from the RCRC).

This was no longer a church, this was a political organization.

And this was my (growing) list of issues/concerns/events in the order I became aware of them:

• Disrespectful comments on the Bible by bishops of the church (General Convention 2003)


• Breaking the trust of the Primates by Presiding Bishop Griswold through dishonest actions (October 2003)


• Consecration of a non-celibate, divorced bishop (November 2003)


• Illegal “prophetic” ordination of women (1974)


• Participation on the March for Women’s Lives (pro-abortion) (April 2004)


• Official affiliation of the Episcopal Church through the Executive Council with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (January 2006)


• Refusal to pass resolutions on fundamental Christian faith (General Convention 2006)


• Refusal to allow vote on membership in the RCRC by the entire church (General Convention 2006)

The flood waters were rising.

Coming: Part 4: The end

Schori: "You're Fired"; Schofield: "I Already Quit"

From David Trimble's blog, Still on Patrol, thoughts on the accelerating downward trajectory of the Episcopal Church [boldface mine]:

. . . The inexorable desire of PB Schori to exert her perceived ecclesiastical "power" has become little more than a parody of itself, albeit an expensive one, while she at the same time presides over the accelerating decline of TCGC. She has single-handedly derailed semi-peaceful negotiations in Virginia for the departure of eleven parishes and turned that into a multi-million dollar piece of litigation that already has DioVA taking on debt load it cannot handle in light of declining pledge income, and that shows little promise of being resolved for many years to come. She has directed similar litigation to be filed in other states and forums. She and many of her Bishop-allies have thrown about inhibitions and other ecclesiastical charges with an abandon and purposelessness that is decidedly beyond the pale of administration of a supposedly Christian institution. The truly sad upshot of this high-level maneuvering is that it continues to disgust and drive away the rank-and-file membership of TCGC, and no one at 815 or in Diocesan headquarters around the nation even seems to care.

I do not claim to know how history will look back upon these times. I suppose, as with most history, the story will be written by those who are ultimately perceived to have "won" although in this situation we have all lost something dear regardless of the outcome. What I do believe history will see, however, is that no matter whether one believes the decline of TCGC started with the rise of Spong, et al., or with the 1979 Prayer Book or women's ordination, or with the consecration of Gene Robinson, the election and consecration of Katherine Jefferts Schori as presiding bishop will be seen as truly that point where any hope of reconciliation and recovery within the Episcopal Church was brutally executed. I cannot say whether any of her competitors would have been better or worse in the position - we will never know. But it seems remarkably clear to me that PB Schori, by her disingenuous and sometimes openly dishonest politics, by her many statements inconsistent with basic Christian tenets, and by her power grabs and contentious nature, has accelerated and consolidated the orthodox movement in ways no conservative leader had yet been able to do.

Read it all.

Life after deposition

From the Joyful Anglican, a repost first published in 2006, but very relevant still [boldface mine]:

On November 13, 2005 the people of South Riding Church voted to end their affiliation with ECUSA and to transfer to the Anglican Church of Uganda, Diocese of Ruwenzori.

On November 14, 2005, I submitted my letter of resignation to the Bishops of Virginia as missioner of South Riding Church, and submitted the faxed letter from the Bishop of Ruwenzori, the Right Rev. Benezeri Kisembo, dated November 13, 2005, receiving me into the Diocese of Ruwenzori.

As a courtesy to the Bishops of Virginia, I appeared at their request before the Standing Committee, and presented my case, for the record, on why the congregation and I found it necessary to leave ECUSA at that time.

The Standing Committee asked no questions whatsoever.

On December 20, 2005, the Bishop of ECUSA in Virginia notified me that he had received my letter of resignation as a voluntary renunciation of ministry under ECUSA Canon III.13. The Declaration of Removal stated, in the face of my reaffirmation of calling to the priesthood and my refusal to sign the statement of renunciation required by Canon III.13, that I was “released from the obligations of the ministerial office, deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority of a Minister of the Episcopal Church conferred in ordination, and is removed from the ordained ministry of the Episcopal Church.” The Declaration, of course, was published to all the authorities—including the Recorder of Ordinations and the Church pension Fund, pursuant to the Canon.

As I read the anguish of my brothers and sisters still in ECUSA, seeking to be “enduring ECUSA”, and truly enduring the persecution of “innovating ECUSA”, I feel their pain. The facts I have just recited are a cold reminder of the fate that likely awaits many who can no longer endure the innovations; a fate which one “enduring” Bishop has characterized as the ecclesiastical equivalent of capital punishment.

More than that, if you have grown up all your life in the Episcopal Church as I had, it is the equivalent of what happens when in some cultures a person converts to Christianity. They are permanently banished from the family. A funeral is held. Their names are removed from the family records and they are never spoken of again.

It hurts.

With almost 100 years of uninterrupted service to ECUSA over three generations, my decision to leave was not taken unadvisedly or lightly, but deliberately, prayerfully, and casting my future—and the future of my family and my church—upon the mercy and grace of God.

I’m on the other side of the Red Sea now, and I want to write all of my brothers and sisters in Christ who are facing the same crossing I had to face almost a year ago... I want to say to you right now there is life beyond deposition! There is life, direction, purpose, a refining of our ability to put our whole trust in Christ, and a pillar of cloud and a fire by night to lead you on this side of the Red Sea! True, there are no leeks and onions. You will be at the mercy of God in terms of the resources you need. But isn’t his manna healthier for you and me than all the leeks and onions ECUSA could offer?

I am both grieved, and thankful, for the crystal clarity of GC2006 in regards to ECUSA’s determination to walk apart from the faith once delivered, and the majority of the Anglican Communion. While I believe that clarity was present in the aftermath of GC2003, now is not the time to cannibalize each other with differences over timing. Now is the time to grasp hands and help each other across the Red Sea by whatever means to the Promised Land God has for us. To that end, let me suggest three principles that ought to guide our discussions and our prayers as we help each other to the Promised Land . . .

Read it all.

The Bishop of Rochester speaks further on the Lambeth Conference

From Anglican Mainstream:
During his fourth Chavasse Lecture at Wycliffe Hall on Monday October 8th, on Lord of all, Christ, Culture and Context, the Bishop of Rochester responded to a number of questions about a number of matters, including the interview published in the Daily Telegraph.

“Boycott is not a word that I used. The problem is that the Lambeth conference has been for 150 years where Bishops gather together to teach. That is the main reason for it - to exercise their office as teachers of the faith for the worldwide communion.

We have been told this time that this is not what it will do. So the question arises what is it for and will it be worthwhile since it is a hugely costly exercise. I am very happy to talk with people at any time that is mutually convenient. The Lambeth Conference is not just such an occasion. It is a meeting of bishops for particular purposes. There are churches and bishops who were requested, there were pleas to them by everyone from every quarter, not to do what the whole communion had said was contrary to God’s purpose. They went ahead and did it. Now the intention is to have those bishops at the Lambeth Conference and the person consecrated also. Under such circumstances, and as matters stand, I could not go. I do not want to single out Gene Robinson.

I ordain people. If I ordain someone who should not be ordained I am more responsible than the person ordained for what has been done. I was present at General Convention 2003 where approval was given for Gene Robinson’s consecration. The next day, I had been worshipping with people, I felt I could not go to the convention eucharist. I made my way to the Forward in Faith eucharist in a Methodist Church, and when I got there I discovered 100s of people had made the same decision, women, men evangelicals, catholics - to such an extent people were standing three deep outside on the pavement. That was a consensus fidelium that such a decision was wrong.

We live in a fallen world and I do not expect perfection in the church. We help people where they are in the way that’s the best possible for them. That is very different from systematically teaching something different. . .

Read it all.
H/t to TitusOneNine.

A tragedy in the making

Well, it’s almost a month since the delegates to the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ECUSA) General Convention 2006 (GC06) finished their work, and the fallout continues. (Excuse me, they now request that we call them TEC—The Episcopal Church—since I suppose they are trying to sound all global and everything—although why we are following their lead, I have no idea, so I shall continue to call them ECUSA.)

Several dioceses have requested alternative primatial oversight (APO) from the Archbishop of Canterbury in response to actions taken at GC06 since they see themselves unable to remain under the leadership of the new presiding bishop. I have never understood why so many call someone so brilliant when her theology appears from her sermons and interviews to be non-existent and superficial, but then again, she was elected presiding bishop and I wasn’t. My bishop (James Mathes) and diocese here in San Diego have jumped on board, but my parish has not (thank the Lord, and I really mean that).

We (my family and I) are trying to figure out our next move. We love our parish and our priest, who is a classical Anglican and absolutely believes in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, but the writing is on the wall as far as the diocese goes and we don’t want to be any part of it. It truly feels unchristian, actually more than that—it feels dark and dire. Three parishes have removed themselves from the Diocese of San Diego—one (Christ the King) has joined a continuing church and the other two (St. Anne's Oceanside and St. John's Fallbrook) are under other Anglican bishops (more info here and here at Titus One Nine). I’m sure the fights over property and priest inhibition are coming.

We are becoming increasingly paranoid about even talking about events because of Bishop Mathes's April letter and our concern that our words (not actions, but listen carefully, our words!) will be used against our clergy. His letter puts the onus on parishioners and vestry members to watch their language or our clergy will bear the punishment. And who would want to be responsible for getting their clergy in trouble? And maybe causing them to lose their current livelihood, especially when they have families or are close to retirement? And then you start looking suspiciously at other church members, wondering who might be a mole from the bishop's office, just waiting for a slip to report back. Is this a national church that any Christian would want to be a part of?

It is a very weird time here. . .

ECUSA General Convention

As a Christian whose family has found a home for many generations in the Episcopal Church (American division of the greater Anglican Communion), the past few years (or decades) have been a bit rocky, to borrow from our English background of understatement. (Although, as an Episcopalian by way of French Huguenot ancestry, I don't subscribe to the full British treatment of "stiff upper lip.")

These next few weeks as ECUSA has its General Convention, held every three years, will probably be tumultuous, frustrating, exciting, and I hope revealing of God's Will for our direction and purpose.

Some sites where you can go for all of the news:

• TitusOneNine (one of my personal favorites)
• Live from Columbus: General Convention 2006 (unofficial and recommended by the CaNN Web elves--what else do you need to know?)
• American Anglican Council (AAC) General Convention Live
• CaNN
• ECUSA General Convention 2006 (very official, and therefore to be taken with a bushel of salt)
• Drell's Descants (a deputy's eye view of the proceedings)