Very interesting piece.  Thanks for posting, Dr. Harmon.

I ditto my thanks Kendall for posting this.
I find it fascinating that this piece comes both from a “liberal” and in one of the most “liberal” newspapers in England at the time when the General Synod is about to debate ACNA and its possible recognition.  The writer gives cogent argument for recognizing ACNA in the face of this political juggernaut that is the TEC establishment.  The writer would clearly seem me/us as malcontents - whose dissent has been voiced and will continue to be in the face of crushing measures to silence us. 

I was delighted to read this morning Philip Turner’s piece from ACI where we are called to ecclesial disobedience.  He describes the incoherence of TEC’s policy re the Covenant and the AC on the one hand and its opposite policy towards those inside TEC who want the very freedoms etc, that TEC wants in the AC.  The two pieces make sense of each other.

Fun article.

RE: “the remarkable thing about the sexuality debate was that, for all the studies, “teachings” and therapies, no one changed their mind. . . .”

But wait!  NO NO NO.  We haven’t yet engaged the listening process here in TEC.  We’re supposed to all listen to one another and then dialogue and then the conservatives will change their minds.  She’s saying that happened back in the 80s.  How can this be?  ; > )

Seriously, that’s what people tell me as well.  They attended a session, recognized that the libs were in charge of the “dialogue” and didn’t return.  The libs continued “dialoguing” and confirmed one another’s beliefs and left feeling well-satisfied.

RE: “Church politics in ECUSA mimics secular US politics at its dirtiest, in a virulent, concentrated form. There is lobbying and logrolling, clergy are bullied, laypeople are manipulated and in the end the policy-makers, iron fist in velvet glove, get their way.”

Agreed.

In the end, there’s only one thing a layperson can do.  Cease funding the machine and get his and her friends to cease funding the machine.  815 is already in financial straits—having to lay off the union cleaning team, for instance.  If parishioners continue to pull way way back on their funds to their parishes, and if dioceses continue to have to cut their budgets for funding the machine, things will improve by sheer force.  For instance, the erstwhile evangelism guy—he of Father Jake virulence and raving revisionism—got axed due to budget issues.  It’s great not to have the likes of him “evangelizing” on parishioners’ moneys.

Actually it’s not really a democracy at any level.  At best it is elective oligarchy.  Almost never are important decisions ever put to an open vote of the parish.  Most often select people are nominated to be on a, say discernment committee.  That committee will them make the final selection that will then go to the vestry for approval.  Quite often the Rector controls the appointment, nomination etc process.

If you are ever elected to diocesan convention you are reminded that you are a delegate, not a representative, and parishes that rotate convention delegates (so that everyone gets a chance) make sure that the laity never gets the necessary experience to influence what the clergy (who go year after year and know how the game is played).

Even in orthodox parishes there is only the lightest form of carefully controlled “democracy”.

It ain’t just TEC.  AMiA runs this way, too!  The priest and the bishop call all the shots, just giving the illusion that the laity has any input.

I know that clergy hate to hear this, but the only real check that the laity has is over the salary.  It’s a hold over from the colonial period where the vestries used their power to not pay clergy as a way to control crown appointed clergy.

4.  Ummm, Brother Michael:  We don’t have a “discernment committee” at our mission.  We do have a policy of asking people to come to the Bishop’s Committee with suggestions or requests, however, and they are in fact encouraged to let us know of their concerns.  In fact, we want them to attend our meetings.  Are we unusual in that regard?  I sure hope not!

Wow. This reminds me of a question I often see on Chris Johnson’s blog. “Why bother to get up on Sunday morning?”. There is absolutely nothing transcendent in this post. Not a hint of asking “What does God want?”. It is only “I couldn’t see why the leisure-time activities of clergy or fellow churchgoers should matter to anyone since, unlike liturgical revision, they made no difference to anyone’s church experience.”

Church is not a concert or a show. Its true that I don’t care about the love lives of the musicians when I go to a concert. But when I go to church, I want to be led by and enjoy the fellowship of people who are trying to become the people that God wants them to be.

Personally I don’t think the church’s faux-democracy is worth it. I’d prefer a pope, whom we could all cheerfully ignore.

This comment doesn’t make sense to me. She wants a different kind of leadership that would be no leadership at all if he were ignored.

I admit, I admire Professor Baber for her sharp eye. 

“The church’s policies, rammed through by dirty politicking, manipulation and bullying are inconsequential. Gay men have always been well-represented among clergy. Very few gay couples care to have their unions blessed by the Episcopal Church. No one takes the church’s teachings on sexuality or anything else seriously: the remarkable thing about the sexuality debate was that, for all the studies, “teachings” and therapies, no one changed their mind.”

It’s very true.  Most families don’t come to their clergy for advice about sexual ethics.  Up here in the Northeast there’s a sense that the church doesn’t have much to say that’s relevant.

“Those who were sympathetic to the church’s new stance on sexuality and the great mass of the thoroughly indifferent stayed; malcontents left.”

#9:  I think you’ll find many Roman Catholics who are quite liberal personally.  They’re ecumenical in their personal belief, and practical in their daily life.  They see no need to be consistent.  Better to have a rule against which to sin and repent, than no rule at all.  There’s a lot of wisdom to this.  But would they leave their family?  No.

Sorry to disillusion my good Brother Michael but my study of the Church of England clergy who served in British America before 1785 indicates that very few were crown appointments; almost all were chosen by the lay vestries. The problem came with the 5 to 10 per cent who offended the lay leadership and were hard to get rid of. The role of the bishop in the contemporary church is to get rid of difficult clergy.

#11. TomRightmyer,

The role of the bishop in the contemporary church is to get rid of difficult clergy.

Would you care to unpack the word “difficult”?

11, if you don’t like crown, then read English.  In particular the Virginia Vestries resorted to several different ways to control their clergy and that often involved stopping their compensation.

never understood objections to the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals or the blessing of same-sex unions. I could never see what was morally objectionable about any consensual sexual activity. More to the point, I couldn’t see why the leisure-time activities of clergy or fellow churchgoers should matter to anyone since, unlike liturgical revision, they made no difference to anyone’s church experience.

Gaaaah! :bangs head against desk:  I agree with what Tamsf worte: then why bother with church at all if breaking one of the main commandments (and one of the greatest blessings God gave us, marital sexuality) is reduced to ‘leisure-time activities’!  She just doesn’t get it and won’t until she has a conversion of heart and mind to the living God in Jesus Christ through the Spirit, and sees these things as He sees them.

Jim Elliott <><
Florida

“the remarkable thing about the sexuality debate was that, for all the studies, “teachings” and therapies, no one changed their mind”

Sounds like an admission of dismay and defeat from the liberal Ms Baber; good. Now we still have to fight the main battle, of taking back our church from people like her.

Hopefully in the process she and her colleagues will lose even the hidden influence that they once had, so that they look back and say: “Why did we ever try and take over openly like that?! We lost more than we gained in the long run”.

“Now we still have to fight the main battle, of taking back our church from people like her.”

People like her.

Why not share the church and try to live in Christian charity?

John Wilkins,

“Why not share the church and try to live in Christian charity?”

Because christian charity has never involved sharing the church with those who deny its teachings. If Hariet wants to renounce the teaching that it is permissible to ordain practicing homosexuals to the ministry, then sure, no problem.

“the remarkable thing about the sexuality debate was that, for all the studies, “teachings” and therapies, no one changed their mind”
Sounds like an admission of dismay and defeat from the liberal Ms Baber; good. Now we still have to fight the main battle, of taking back our church from people like her.

Hi there. “Ms.” Baber here. In point of fact, I’ve never had any interest in changing people’s minds about these questions of sexual conduct and regarded the Episcopal Church’s campaign to convert people to liberal views on this matter as pointless and self-destructive. Reasonable, informed people can disagree about these matters and I don’t believe that it’s the Church’s business to bully people into toeing the party line.

Try reading more carefully.

#17 I suppose you are right.  Which is why, perhaps, Christians are often disparaged for not being very much like Jesus. 

Anyway, I don’t think its useful to try to change people’s minds.  It may be useful in that we an still learn to have conversations conducted in a matter befitting Christians.  I may not consider other people a Christian, who do call themselves such.  As I consider myself a follower of Jesus, a Christian, it is my responsibility to love them as part of the body.  I trust God will show mercy upon reasserting Christians, and that their faith is justified.  If I cannot bless you, I’m a poor follower of Him.  I’ve moved from a point of incomprehensibility to one of respect for some reasserters.

Hi logicguru at #18,
Since I’ve never accused you of being interested in changing people’s minds, we obviously don’t have a problem!

John W at #19,
I’ve got no problem with having respect for liberals, or getting on quite well with them on a personal level (which is my own experience). My point was that I want to see leaders who teach that it is permissible to ordain practicing homosexuals to the ministry removed from the church.

#20 hm, well I’m personally an agnostic about it.  I think we’ll know by the fruits of their ministries.  Until then, it’s a risk upon hich I hope God will show mercy.  I admit, a merciful God isn’t very popular, even if it is also biblical.

But I admit that I find it a peculiar litmus test.  I believe that the more crucial indicator of correct belief is, for example, the Nicene Creed.  I don’t think sexuality has much to do with that.  It’s also another point to teach that the church has often ordained homosexuals, although its usually merely looked the other way.

I admit I find “removed from church” is fairly strong language.  How would they be removed?  Force?  Is this the main determining indicator of untruth?  Less so than someone who said that loving one’s neighbor was optional?  What’s the taxonomy of removable offenses?  These are important, and practical, questions.