I know I have an active fantasy life. But answer me this: What could anyone do if an Episcopal bishop said to his dissenting clergy "Go with God. You may not leave the diocese with debt, and if there are any in your congregations that wish to remain Episcopalian you must make provision for them. If the diocese has helped you financially, you must repay us. But except for these things, you may leave. If ever you change your mind, we will welcome you back."
What could anyone do to such a bishop? Now some dioceses are on life support from 815, and they are vulnerable. But if the diocese is self-sustaining, what then?
So why don't more bishops behave as above? Is it wounded pride? Fear of the Presiding Bishop or of censure from their peers?
The litigation posture of my church bothers me far more than the ordination of Gene Robinson. The latter was the ordination of an unworthy fellow. That has happened before and will happen again. That it offended the majority of the Anglicans the world around is bad and needs to be addressed, but it was a one time event (so far). The lawsuits represent the Episcopal Church turning on its own members. And they represent an ongoing gross breach of the conduct required of us as Christians as well as a monumental lapse of grace and charity on our part.
The Episcopal Church is dying. Even if the numbers improve, it will continue to die so long as we not only sue our own, but think it appropriate. We need a lot less of Bishops Mathes, Bruno, Lamb, Schori and Lee and a lot more of Bishop Howe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
What threat caused Bishop Lee to litigate after agreeing to negotiate? Also with Rev. Matt Kennedy, what caused his bishop to suddenly turn hard?
I think we would all like to know that.
Post a Comment