25 October 2008

Of Rattlesnakes and Henry VIII

As everyone probably knows by now, our Executive Council met in Montana this week; in Helena to be exact. I know very little about Montana, but I did have a mental connection to the state and the capital. Many years ago (in the 1980s) I read the book Fancy Dancer about a Roman priest in Montana who, though a confession he hears, begins to realize he is gay. The book deals with his journey coming out and his relationship with the man, an Indian, who is he guide, as it were. The book was complete fiction of course because there was a happy ending for the priest. That doesn’t happen in the real world of the Roman church. Just ask Fr. Geoff Farrow.

The Executive Council considered many things including the expected “covenant.” The Most Rev’d Katharine Jefferts Schori stated that she will urge the General Convention not to consider the so-called covenant at the 2009 Triennial. That, of course, set the fundamentalists on ear and they immediately reviled her. What is new about that – they already believe she is the Anti-Christ and meets weekly with Satan plot the demise of the fundamentalists and their organization and branding 666 on the foreheads of all Episcopalians.


The presiding bishop’s reason is sound: the “covenant” will not be released until May 2009, GC is July 2009 and therefore, there will not be enough time for TEC to adequately study and pray about the “covenant.” I completely agree.


According to the fundamentalists, ++Katharine should know that everyone knows what will be in this roundhead document – it will be a rehash of the St. Andrew’s document, with a means to censure dissenting provinces added, while praising the fundamentalists. That’s why she doesn’t want GC09 to consider the document. She is trembling in her high-heals.


I do admit that it doesn’t take a genius to conclude that the Aryan Nation would not produce a document favourable to black folks. The same can be safely said about the committee “drafting” the roundhead covenant.


The Rev’d Dan Martins put his feeling on the subject this way:


And it is manifestly clear to any sentient observer that nothing even remotely resembling the St Andrew's Draft would have the proverbial snowball's change in you-know-where of being concurrently approved by both houses of General Convention. Just not gonna happen.


What I can say is: nothing short of tossing TEC and the ACoC out would have the proverbial snowball’s chance in you-know-where of being accepted by the fundamentalists. Just not gonna happen.


And there is the impasse. So, why should GC waste time debating a document that is its own death certificate? I can’t think of a single reason. The fundamentalists want complete capitulation and total control. They want a document that states how wicked TEC is and how horrible it is for persecuting these poor, innocent fundamentalists who were doing nothing but minding their own business until TEC started assaulting then over theology and how Satanic they are for accepting women and homosexuals.


Another part of the Helene meeting was to authorize some type of dialogue with the so called Common Cause partners. I’m sorry, but that makes as much sense as a mouse attempting to dialogue with a rattlesnake. There is nothing about which to dialogue. The fundamentalists plan is to steal the whole “franchise” and they are going to have it any way they can get it. I cannot understand why the leaders of TEC continue to disbelieve this fact and keep saying “come, brothers, let us reason together.”


The fact is, TEC has been “reasoning together” with the fundamentalists since the 1970s. Well, actually since 1929 and that radical, unacceptable prayer book that is now beloved by the same fundamentalists who reviled it in 1929. All the reasoning has been on the part of TEC. There has been no dialogue from the fundamentalists. Pit vipers don’t reason; they bit and inflict deadly venom.


I have said this before, but here it comes again: where is Henry VIII when we need him.


On a completely different subject, Sydney has approved deacons presiding and administering all things pertaining to the Holy Eucharist.


Since this is completely unlike any other province is doing, and since it is in total opposition with 2000 years of church history, and cannot be supported by Scripture, I wonder, how soon will Sydney seek the approval of the whole AC before it implements this unscriptural innovation. Certainly Jensen would never unilaterally do anything that could cause grief to any other part of the communion. Don't you agree?




24 October 2008

Mormons and morality police

Last night I saw a news report about Proposition 8 and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (The Mormons). The report was critical of the LDS organization, of course, and in my opinion, rightly so.


I do not enter the political realm in this blog, but, the CJCLDS has satted they are not in politics, that Proposition 8 is a matter of morality. So, I’m going to speak to the morality of the Mormon organization.


The report stated that many members of the LDS church object to the organization’s deep involvement in politics. They had presented “church leaders” with petitions in a televised media event. A very well dressed and well spoken woman received the petitions.

Now on the surface that sounds and looks really nice; The LDS leaders are listening to their members.


Wrong.


First, the person who received the protesters was a woman. Women have no place in the organizational structure of the CJCLDS. They do not hold priesthood authority and, therefore, are not and cannot be “spokesmen” or official representatives of the Church. So the “church leaders” did not accept the petitions as stated. This was “the leaders’” way of appearing to listen and to avoid any possible embarrassing situation by sending a priesthood holder to deal with the malcontents.


Sadly, those members who “went public” in their opposition to the

church position will shortly receive a summons to their respective bishop’s office. The CJCLDS does not tolerate any opinion other than that of “the Brethren” – period. (“The Brethren” is what the leaders in SLC are called.)


A member has some freedom to believe whatever s/he wishes, but may not state personal beliefs in any public forum (including church meetings) or even to one’s own family in private when those beliefs do not conform to church policy.


We are dealing with a “morality” that does not allow women to hold priesthood or any other authority except over other women, and even then there must be a priesthood holder consulted in all decisions. The women cannot even schedule a potluck lunch without a male approving the event.


Womens roles are those of mother and homemaker. Women who must work are not quite acceptable and if married, their husbands are looked down upon for not being able to provide for his wife who should be pregnant with the fifth or sixth child.


On the day of resurrection women will remain in the grave unless their husbands call them forth from the grave. Polygamy is still the law of the church although it is no officially practiced. But, it is still on the books. In fact, a man may not enter the highest heaven (meaning be saved) unless he has more than one wife.


Joseph Smith Jr. translated the Book of Mormon from ancient "reformed Egyptian" script found on golden plates hidden a hill near his home in New York State. That book, declared and belived by LDS people to ber "the most correct book ever written" and much more correct than the bible, explicitly forbis polygamy. But, Joseph Smith, Jr. will be busy on Resurrection morning because he had thirty-three wives -- all at the same time. In fact, he received a revelation telling him to force another member to divorce his wife so he (Joseph) could marry her (they did, he did.). Talk about traditional marriage being between one man and one woman! The founder of the LDS church himself disregarded a principle teaching of the founding document (Book of Mormon), and yet it is not possible to cut gay people some slack because the bible, a corrupted book, can be interpreted to outlaw same-gender marriage. (Where did it say taht?)


Remind your LDS friends about the "non traditional marriages" their founders practiced until 1908 when the Book of Mormon forbidden practice of polygmany was officially suspended in the "Manifesto." And remind them that the prophet who gave that "manifesto" and said under oath that he was not sleeping with any of his plural wives, had, in the succeeding five years, thirteen children by various wives he was not sleeping with.


In the 1970s, several women were excommunicated for publicly campaigning for the equal rights amendment which The Brethren opposed. They were first called in and told to shut up. When they did not follow that council, they were seen as combative and “unrepentant” and disfellowshipped (could not take the sacrament, teach, speak in any public meeting or pray), and when that didn’t stop the women, they were excommunicated. For LDS people, that’s much, much worse than for it is for Roman Catholics. Excommunication is the ultimate tool of intimidation. It affects you, your ancestors, and your descendants into the eternities of eternities. That is what awaits those who have gone public in opposition to the LDS leaders being too political.


Additionally, it was not until 1978 that the church leaders finally ate their words and allowed black males to hold priesthood authority. That was twenty years after the Civil Rights Act, folks. And even then, it was only when world pressure had escalated that the leaders had to capitulate because they wanted to be accepted by the rest of the Christian world.


This is the “morality” of the church that is trying to force their morality on the State of California though political means. The ultimate goal of the CJCLDS is a total theocracy in the United States first, and then throughout the world. Members are expected to pledge their lives and their total resources at the disposal of the church to accomplish that goal. And they have -- California Mormons (less than two percent of the population) have given over seventeen million dollars to remove constitutionally guarenteed rights from aproximately ten percent (or more) of the citizens of California.

23 October 2008

Schism comes to Diocese of Rio Grande

According to the web, the vestry of the Episcopal Church of St. Francis on the Hill, voted to remove themselves (as opposed to removing the entire parish and property) from the Episcopal Church. Well, that’s not how they are spinning it, but that’s all they did.

The vestry apparently believes that by vote they can remove their parish from the diocese and the National Church. They “immediately filed a motion for summary judgment in the District Court of El Paso seeking a decision on the title to the property." The vestry feels they own the property located in Northwest El Paso.

Isn't it interesting that they "immediately" filed legal papers. That is so Christian, you know. It certainly is part of the Chapman plot which is not Christian.

Now, guess who one of their their priests is and where he is from? The Rev’d Dr. Felix Orji, a Nigerian native. He has a history of schism. He was a priest at St. John’s in the diocese of New Westminster where the rector, David Short was deposed for his schismatic activities. Orji was his right-hand man.

According to the Diocese of Rio Grande web site, the rector is the Rev'd Jeffrey Humpf with Orji associate priest. The church web page lists Orji as rector. It's also interesting that the church web site makes no mention of the recent vestry actions.

We should note that Orji was present at the "Pittsburgh Meeting" in August 2006 where Bob Duncan, David Anderson, David Short, Kendall Harmon, Keith Ackerman, and
David Schofield Schofield plotted further machinations.

At that meeting, David Short said
“We may achieve every goal of a thoroughly [fundamentalist], conservative, theologically correct church with all the right oversight in place but if our lives do not demonstrate the humility of Christ, it will be a wasted effort and it will not please him. A theologically correct church by itself will never shake the world with transforming power. What will threaten our culture is not just right doctrine but lives with heavenly Christ-like humility in the service of right doctrine.”
While that above statement is true, they have failed miserably. I don't recall any martyrs telling the world how persecuted they were. Conversely, this bunch loves to remind the world of their respective a collective humility suffering the flings and arrows of outrageous actions at the hands of TEC.

According to Orji, the vestry’s vote came after two years during which they waited for TEC to repent and for the Diocese of the Rio Grande to flee the evil Episcopal Church. He said that it was clear to them that the Diocese of the Rio Grande is not going to leave. So, the they left the diocese – or so they think.

Orji said something that gobsmacked me: he said that "the ongoing persecution of [fundamentalist] Christians by TEC is reprehensible."

This statement is from a man who respects and extols the virtues of bishops who advocate jailing, physically abusing, and killing homosexuals. Orji is is an embarrassment to the name of God.

22 October 2008

A wee prayer request

I would like to ask you to offer a prayer or two for my acquaintance Cathy. I met her and her husband, John, when I spent the summer in the United Kingdom two years ago. John was a member of the RAF and flew in the Battle of Britain. They were married for fifty-five years.

I just received an email telling me that John died three weeks ago. It gets worse. The morning of John's funeral, Neil, their only grandchild was jogging with his dog and dropped dead of a heart attack.

Please remember John and his grandson in your prayers and especially Cathy whose entire world has crashed.