Ackerman and Beckwith pontificate

As many of you probably know, on 30 August 2008, there was a join meeting of the Diocese of Springfield and Diocese of Quincy presided over by Bishops Ackerman and Beckwith.

The purpose of the meeting was a “forum for assessment rather than a decision making body.” However, it was a mandatory “joint meeting of the clergy and lay leadership” from both dioceses.

The meeting began with both bishops praising GAFCON and denouncing Lambeth. Both bishops are outspoken critics of TEC, so there is nothing new in their propaganda.

One of the interesting comments was made by +Beckwith who complained that the Episcopal Church (and the average Episcopalian) is “really congregationalist.”

This is news to me – I thought our name was the Episcopal Church, not the Congregational Church. We have bishops, Congregationalists do not, and each parish is answerable to the diocese and bishop, both things not present in the Congregational church.

I suspect what the bishop means is, “the polity of The Episcopal Church, does not grant me enough power to do and act as a prince.”

The reporter, whose name was not given, but was one of the participants, said

Strong evangelical Protestant themes reverberated throughout the roughly four hour session. "Turn it all over to Jesus", "Prayer and discernment of the guidance of the Holy Spirit' etc.

The reporter noticed an interesting contrast between the two bishops. While Bishop Ackerman's tone was pastoral, Bishop Beckwith's was confrontational. An example of that confrontational nature is the following from Beckwith:

"TEC and the Anglican communion are in crisis." Lambeth's statements tried to state where the communion is presently at. The Indaba groups while in some ways helpful - were clearly worthless - if listening meant listening to liberals.

GAFCON however, with over 1,000 invited participants and 325 bishops was wonderful to both bishops.

So, listening to the opposite views is “clearly worthless.” Now, how about that; the Windsor report recommends that we listen to one another and the fundamentalists refuse to listen to anything but their own bleating.

Beckwith kept up the vitriolic attack:

[What is the] Heterodoxy of the Episcopal Church - no Virgin Birth of Christ, no Physical Resurrection, Any way, Any truth, Any life. TEC and its leadership are obsessed with a New Age self-centeredness and exclusively preoccupied with Social Justices issues. TEC preaches an "experimental (or was it experiential) Jesus'. Truth is what you think it is, and we're invited to make God in OUR own images.

Bishop Beckwith concluded that he is growing less optimistic that the Anglican Communion will survive.

I wonder where Beckwith worships? Perhaps in his diocese the church does not believe in the virgin birth or the physical resurrection, but I can tell him that in El Camino Real that is taught and believed. There are some individuals and even pockets where these beliefs are doubted, but in TEC our catechism plainly states what we believe. And, each Sunday (at least Sundays) we all affirm that belief in the Apostles’ or Nicene Creeds.

I haven’t observed anyone in any congregation with which I’ve worshipped holding a hand behind their body, fingers crossed as they say the creed. Beckwith is just spouting the party line propaganda of the fundamentalists.

As for obsession, the “liberals” seem to be obsessed with listening to the Holy Spirit while the fundamentals are obsessed with sex – or rather, one particular form of sex. When was the last time you heard a liberal going on at length to describe what heterosexuals do in the privacy of their home?

During a general forum, several interesting questions were asked. Fr. Desmond Francis, Christ the King in Normal, IL, made four suggestions:

1. 'Stop reacting to the perceived enemy. Proact, and discern the leading of the Holy Spirit'.

2. 'Why don't we take the Risk of inviting Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori - who is banned from stepping foot in these dioceses - here, [ to this diocese] to speak. We would ask of her, what is her intention and mind for the Episcopal Church?; i.e. have a conversation with her’.

3. 'Take the following 60 - 90 days for prayer and spiritual discernment following that meeting with her'.

4. 'Then decide either to remain in the Episcopal Church or go under another province of the Anglican communion'.

The sound of crickets chirping was the answer as both bishops had no response whatsoever. They do not want “that woman” in their respective dioceses.

A layman asked about the possibility that both dioceses would be merged into one. Bishops Beckwith and Ackerman categorically stated that there would be no consolidation. Period. Bishop Beckwith predicted that there would be more dioceses that would merge, notably in the states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Kansas.

Now pay attention to this bit:

Bishop Beckwith further stated that 'we are really Anglicans, and only Episcopalians because we live here [in the U.S.] He elaborated at length about issues of Ecclesiology - 'What is the Church?" 'What is the role of Scripture?'

I must disagree with the bishop: we are Episcopalians because we belong to the Episcopal Church. We are not Anglicans. We do follow the Anglican tradition, though.

Following his logic, I am really British, I just happen to live in the U.S. and have U.S. citizenship by virtue of birth. Because I follow many British customs, I'm British. The reality is that I’m an American Anglophile. There is a huge difference.

Beckwith’s sympathies do not reside with Anglicanism. The sect which he extols is a fundamentalist sect. Fundamentalistism was rejected by Anglicans in the 1500s.

After stating that, Beckwith stated categorically that he will not leave TEC and remain canonically resident in TEC and the House of Bishops. That’s good; but his next statement was even better:

+Beckwith also stated that a Bishop of a diocese does not have the authority to take a diocese out of the Episcopal Church.

The reporter commented that Bishop Ackerman “uttered some agreement, not very loudly, and may have nodded his head.”

I believe the Rev. James Fackler, a retired Lutheran supply clergy in the Diocese of Springfield, asked the best question.

I have not once heard the word 'love' in the previous 3 hours' of talk. Where is love for the homosexual?

The answer came in “deafening silence.

Fackler continued by emphasizing the “enormous on-going damage that schism had caused in his own church, referring to it as having a 'killing effect' on both sides.”

Now, pay close attention to the answer given:

The episcopal response was that while God is love; that love is conditional; subject to repentance.

Did you get that? God does not love everyone. Apparently the bishops do not belive the bible. It plainly says God loves everyone without qulification. This means that the bishops are picking and chosing what parts of the bible are still valid. Oh, wait, isn't that what they accuse the liberals of doing?

A laywoman from a parish near St. Louis reiterated the call for an invitation to the Presiding Bishop, adding 'so I can hear her for myself' [the Presiding Bishop's views]. Once again, there was no response from the bishops.

So there you have it; no women, no gays, and God does not love everyone. That pretty much sums up all the GAFCON/FOCA theology.

Meanwhile, in Duncanland plans are moving ahead for the vote. The Pittsburg Tribune-Review has an article about the coming vote. You'll find that article here.

Feast of Blessed Theresa of Calcutta

Today is the feast day of Blessed Theresa of Calcutta. There are no words to say about her -- her life speaks for itself.


I find Mother Theresa's life to be a relief because she said that for fifty years God had been silent in her life. However, she went on doing what he had called her to do. When I wonder why God doesn't answer me, I think of Mother Theresa.


I had the honour to met Mother Theresa on three occasions. TO be in her presence was beyond words to describe. She called me "my friend" (but she called everyone that). She stood about two feet tall but when she looked at me it was as if she were looking into my very soul. It is amazing to think I have met and been embraced by a Blessed. Of course she was blessed and a saint when I met her, but now she is a real Blessed. When the day comes that she is canonized, I plan to be in St. Peter's Square to see "my friend" declared a holy example for the world and a special wittiness of Christ.

O Almighty God, who has compassed us about
with so great a cloud of witnesses:
Grant that we, encouraged by the
good example of thy servant Theresa,
may persevere in running the race that is set before us,
until at length, though they mercy,
we may with her attain to thine eternal joy;
though Jesus Christ, the author and perfecter of our faith,
who liveth and reigneth with thee
and the Holy Ghost, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

This is probably my favourite John Rutter composition. It's a fitting prayer for Mother Theresa.

Rowan's Waterloo

For several months, I have been thinking about this post. I wanted to say all of this back when our friend, mentor and teacher, Fr. Jake, was still up and running. The time didn’t’ seem right and there were so many other interesting things to say. Now with a recent development in the United Kingdom, I believe the time for this post has arrived.

I must admit that I truly feel sorry for the Most Rev’d. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of All England, and pater Communio Anglicana.

When he accepted the historic see, he took the role seriously. So seriously that he put aside his personal convictions about many things and picked up the party line of the backbenchers in the Church of England. When he did so, I’m certain that he never saw the fundamentalist reformation that was looming on the horizon like a hurricane just waiting for a good excuse to come ashore.

First there was the Jeffrey Johns fiasco in 2003. Jeffrey was a friend and mentor of Rowan who was appointed Bishop of Reading in the Diocese of Oxford. A few backbenchers raised unholy hell and Rowan bowed to the pressure and asked Jeffrey to stand down, which he did.

Steven Bates of the Guardian puts it this way:

When five years ago, John was proposed as bishop of Reading, his appointment was endorsed – twice – by his old friend Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, announced by Downing Street and confirmed by the Queen, only to be challenged so vociferously by a coordinated international campaign of conservatives and evangelicals that Williams got cold feet and forced John unwillingly to stand down.

John's sin, of course, was honesty: he was discreet about his homosexuality and had certainly not flaunted it, but had argued, quietly and academically, for a more Christian understanding of gays. Evangelicals who assiduously sought evidence of promiscuity and sinfulness could not find it, even though they trawled the electoral register to see if he was living with his partner.

So they demanded repentance instead. But he would not ostentatiously renounce of his orientation, apologise for his views, or spurn his long-term partnership as they demanded. Of course, even had he done so, they would not have been satisfied: a motley collection of bishops said that if John asserted he was celibate, they would rejoice; but when he did so, it made no difference to them (nor did they disown or condemn those African archbishops who claimed homosexuals were the devil's work and worse than beasts). A vicar at whose vicarage bishops of Reading customarily parked their cars told John he would not be welcome to do so ("After all," his wife told me, "That's not the sort of person one wants to meet in one's drive in the morning, is it? It was nothing personal ..."). Welcome to the Church of England in the first decade of the 21st century.

If only John had kept quiet, if there had been no evidence in his writings to hold against him, he would have been a bishop already then. After all, at least two current bishops in the Church of England are widely understood to be gay, and there are almost certainly more.

I do not agree with the practice of “outing” but, perhaps that is what needs to happen for all the “quite” gay bishops.

Less than a month later came the canonical election of Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire. The fundamentalists went into the biggest celebration since the Nazi’s surrendered in August of 1945. Why, you ask? Because they now had the perfect cover to launch their putsch.

Events escalated from “bad” to worse as the Communion headed into Lambeth Conference. How could he keep “Peace in our Day.” So, he did the wrong thing and didn’t invite the Rt. Rev’d. Gene Robinson. But that wasn’t enough. The fundamentalists, focusing on the Episcopal Church in the United States, demanded TEC be expelled from the Communion. If that did not happen, they fundamentalists would boycot the conference. They would have their own conference. They would form their own communion.

They did have their own conference where they issued their Donatist manifesto. And then came Lambeth Conference itself, and all seemed to be well, or at least as well as could possibly be expected.

Then came the post Lambeth fundamentalist conference at the conclusion of which they released a “communiqué” which one fundamentalist blog said sent “chills” though Lambeth Palace and the Anglican Communion office. They announced that their ship has sailed, goodbye Rowan, Anglican Communion and apostate religion. They are off to “puritan-land.”

And now, there is a new headache for the Archbishop – it comes in the form of his friend and mentor, Jeffery Johns. Yes, the same Jeffrey Johns.

The Rev’d. Mr. Johns may be nominated for the see of Bangor in North Wales. And, he has the backing of all the senior bishops and clerics in the Church of Wales. The senior bishops of the Church of Wales have said they will consecrate a gay man, if that man is qualified for the role of bishop. Sexuality is not a bar to ordination/consecration as far as they and the Welsh church is concerned.

In the Welsh Church, the process of nominating a bishop is as secretive as the papal conclaves. No name is placed in nomination until the Welsh committee is sequestered and when it is over, they are not allowed to release details of the nominations or debate.

If he is elected, and from all indications, he well could (most likely will) be, Then Rowan cannot keep his head in the sand.

This will mean the churches in Canada, The United States, Scotland and Wales, and Ireland are or have been willing to challenge the “gays aren’t welcome” recommendation. Rowan will have to make one of two choices. He can accept the consecrations and anger the fundamentalist who are still in the Communion, or he can expel the four provinces. He is doomed whichever choice he makes.

What I find interesting is that, given the secrecy that the Welsh church places on the nominations, why and how was John’s possible nomination made public? Obviously people talk about possible candidates before the conclave. The delegates can’t arrive with no candidates in mind.

You’ll never guess who “broke” the story. The Rev’d. David Anderson. Yes, THE David Anderson who is one of the American conservatives who led the fight against the consents for Gene Robinson. The very same Anderson who ran around like a chicken with its head cut off, spreading assiduous lies about Robinson and never offered an apology.

You might ask what the appointment of the bishop of Bangor has to do with someone living in Atlanta, Georgia, especially given the church's supposed agreement not to trespass on events in other provinces, but of course, Anderson is part of an international coalition ever vigilant against gay clergy. One of Anderson's close associates is Canon Chris Sugden of Oxford, one of the campaigners against John in 2003 and now an organiser of the conservative coalition known as Gafcon whose member bishops boycotted Archbishop Williams's recent Lambeth conference. And, funnily enough, Sugden's daughter, Joanna, is employed as deputy to the Times' religion correspondent who broke the story. Of course, this may all be a coincidence.

Andersons “intervention” is a not so subtle attempt to invigorate fundamentalists once again to oppose Johns nomination/appointment and to give legitimacy to the fundamentalist's un-Christian actions.

Johns, who is currently Dean of St. Alban's, says “one should not judge God by his church.” Sometimes it is hard not to do so. When one examines the fundamentalist communion, it’s nearly impossible not to do so because the fruits are not of God.

Rowan’s handling of the appointment of Johns as bishop of Reading was William’s Waterloo. When he capitulated to the fundamentalists, he lost everything – it was the ‘time of death’ for the communion. The fundamentalists knew they "had" Williams and that they could do anything they wanted to do, and Williams would not stand up to them. Had he stood up for his own conviction and against injustice, we would not be where we are now. But he didn’t and everything that has happened since that moment has been just quibbling over the will.

My thanks to David Allen for pointing out that my Spell check confused Reading, England, with Redding, California.

The ship of fools sets sail

I was given a wonderful laugh this evening when I received an “alert” about a new GAFCON posting. You will find it over on one of the hate sites. I will probably get into trouble for posting a portion, but I suppose it is worth it.

Make sure you ready the third paragraph very slowly.

Do not have any liquid in your mouth, or any open containers of liquid close.

Please move all the furniture with sharp edges so that when you fallout of your chair laughing, you will not injure yourself and litigate with me.

When the GAFCON primates met in London to decide how they would respond to the Lambeth Conference, they made their position abundantly clear - there will be no going back on what was accomplished in Jerusalem. The new ship of Anglican [fundamentalistism] has set sail. It will not turn back.

In a single breath, they rejected any overture by the Archbishop of Canterbury that would require them to compromise on the faith once for all delivered to the saints. They will have no truck with sexual behavior outside of heterosexual marriage between a man and a woman.

The finality in their communiqué must have sent chills around Lambeth Palace and across town at the Anglican Communion Office run by Canon Kenneth Kearon and his liberal staff.

I laughed until I had tears in my eyes. Talk about ego. Any road, sorry for another post today, but this one was too good not to tell you about.

The word in italics replaced a certain word I will not allow used about the fundamentalists. Read the rules for posting and you will know what word I replaced.

And notice that we are still hearing that “faith once delivered” nonsense. There was no faith delivered. It was developed and voted upon and changed repeatedly throughout the past two thousand years. They just refuse to recognise the truth when they see it.

Type the first few words of this post into a search engine and you’ll find the article. It really is worth a read. Once you have read it, please come back and tell me your reaction/opinion, please.