Tip of the telescope to Gizmodo.

The ministers say that if future legislation fails to provide adequately for them, then they would have to encourage new potential ordinands to consider training for ministry outside the Church of England and to help them financially to do that. Churches would also need to consider establishing charitable trusts to finance their own ministries in the longer term. These costs would inevitably put a “severe strain” on their continuing ability to contribute to the Church of England. (emphasis added)

In other words, “we will not send our people to Church of England theological schools if you don’t see things our way. And we’ll stop paying our contributions to the dioceses in which we serve.” This is exactly how secessionists started in the US — they stopped paying their contributions to dioceses. Then the next step was to say they couldn’t possibly be accountable to “ungodly” bishops, that is, any bishop who had anything to do with the institution whose choices they didn’t like.

Reform is already laying the ground for this step. Here’s a quote from their media release:

Our congregations will inevitably start asking questions about their own place within the Church of England if they see us encouraging people into training for alternative ministries. This will come into sharp focus when the issue of succession to an incumbency arises. Since we cannot take an oath of canonical obedience to a female bishop, we are unlikely to be appointed to future incumbencies. We see nothing but difficulty facing us. In these circumstances we will have to discuss with our congregations how to foster and protect the ministry they wish to receive. This is likely to generate a need for the creation of new independent charitable trusts whose purpose will be to finance our future ministries, when the need arises.

These twin developments will need to be financed from current congregational giving. This will inevitably put a severe strain on our ability to continue to contribute financially to Diocesan funds. Where we are unable to contribute as before some will see this as a form of retaliation. However, that could not be further from the truth. We long to contribute to the well being of the Church of England. Over the last ten years we have encouraged more than 180 young men into the ordained ministry, over 50% of whom were under the age of 30. We have together contributed a gross figure of more than £22 million to Diocesan funds.

Got that? Already they are saying, “we cannot take an oath of canonical obedience to a female bishop.” Next they will add, “we cannot take an oath of canonical obedience to a bishop who has taken part in the consecration of a female bishop.” And soon after that it will be, “we cannot recognize episcopal orders in a Church which has admitted heresy in its Synod.”

Already, they plan to withhold their money, all the while denying that this is retaliation. This is doubtless to avoid ecclesiastical discipline. However, withholding money is just the beginning. About the same time they are unable to recognize C of E bishops, they’ll seek “alternative oversight” from Nigeria or the Southern Cone. And they will not want to vacate their buildings.

The sad game has started. I hope the C of E will have learned from the Episcopal Church. This is best dealt with right up front. Clarity is the solution. Ambiguity only increases anxiety and leaves room for grandstanding. I am not saying that “clarity equals liberal choices.” For example, the C of E might choose to move ahead with women bishops, and it should not expel those who cannot recognize the sacramental validity of women — while making graceful accommodation for those for whom this change is difficult.

Diocesan bishops, however, should be able to count on the financial support of the parishes in their dioceses, and they should expect to retain temporal authority and control of the disciplinary process for any parish in their dioceses. This can be done (as it is in a couple of cases in the diocese where I serve, where priests recognize the bishop as an administrative, but not sacramental, leader).

Also, I wonder if someone can help me out on a technical point. Reform claims the 50 signatories have contributed “more than £22 million to Diocesan funds.” My understanding is that parishes pay money into the diocese and then their clergy are paid by the diocese. So that £22 million could less impressive than it seems, given that much of that sum will have been paid back to them as stipends. Is that right, or have I gotten it horribly wrong?

If you are a church geek, dogs with their loyalty and trust make a nice diversion from the antics of some church folk. I like this photo especially: the human is towing the dog. Maybe there’s a lesson in this photo about present church conflicts.

Here’s the pithy description from Gizmodo:

This map by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre examines the travel times from any spot on the globe to the nearest city of 50,000 or more inhabitants by land or water. The surprise? As NewScientist observes, less than 10% of the world is more than two days away from a major city using ground-based travel. That stat only jumps to 20% when scaled to the Amazon, where river and expanding road networks have made even jungle terrain semi-assessable.

I think this is a nifty graphic and some interesting data.

This meant that after more than six months work we had rejected all the options which would have involved conferring some measure of jurisdiction on someone other than the diocesan bishop.  The legislation that the Revision Committee sends back to the Synod will, therefore, be on the basis that any arrangements that are made for parishes with conscientious difficulties about women’s ordination will be by way of delegation from the diocesan bishops.(emphasis added)

If you haven’t been following this, you may miss the significance. There were various schemes proposed which would have prevented very conservative parishes from being tainted by girl cooties. One scheme would have organized all the macho parishes into non-geographic dioceses with suitably male bishops. Another scheme would have allowed parishes to be peculiars of a suitably conservative and definitely male diocese. This one’s different, and it looks final. One hopes.

Now conservatives will have to recognize their diocesan bishop, whether it’s a she or a he. Then, the idea is that the diocesan bishop and the parish could work out a suitable episcopal visitor so that confirmations and visits would be done by a pants-wearing bishop. However, matters such as discipline and appointments would presumably go through the diocesan bishop’s office.

This is exactly the way it should be. Everyone wins in this scenario. The catholic order of the church is maintained, in that there are no second-class bishops of limited authority. Women are able to exercise the full apostolic ministry of bishop. At the same time, there is room for grace-filled approaches for those parishes who prefer to receive episcopal ministry from a male bishop.

Conservative critics will object that this arrangement does not “protect” them. They are already in a church with women bishops, in that the Lambeth Conference and Primates Meeting have shown full acceptance of women bishops. If they cannot manage to be so close to girl cooties, then the Pope’s offer to convert en masse (I never get tired of that pun) might be appealing.

A few on the far left will say this is inadequate because the diocesan bishop should be able to visit every parish in her or his diocese. I agree that the diocesan should have authority, but that need not be paired with pastoral care. Take, for example, the parish I serve. There are two priests. If someone does not wish to confide in me, to have me officiate at their wedding, or for me to make pastoral visits, they can contact my colleague. And vice versa. My authority as rector is not undermined if someone prefers to deal with my colleague. In my diocese, there are a couple of parishes who have trouble receiving the ministry of my bishop, who is a woman. Her authority is not undermined when she invites an outside bishop in.

This not need a “code of practice” beyond good manners and Christian charity. If there are bishops (male or female) who behave badly, their behavior needs to come to light. If necessary, the metropolitan can step in and mediate. We do not want to live in a world in which good behavior must be legislated. Surely, in the church, we can practice good manners, Christian charity, and — perhaps most important — mutual trust.

I pray that General Synod and the Church of England will receive welcome the ministry of women bishops. They will add much to the life of the church and the proclamation of God’s realm.

Now at this point, all of my English readers are smiling knowingly and muttering something like, “Cheerio, old yank! This can’t happen here in merry olde England. That’s not how it’s done, guv.” Of course, it’s not how we did things in the US before the radical right began to seek the takeover of our national political, cultural, and religious life. (Reminder — the C of E does have at least one living schism.)

This is actually part of the problem in the debate over Ms. Ashworth’s motion to recognnize and grant full communion to ACNA. By denying that anything like this could happen in England, Synod falls into the narrative that this is all somehow the fault of the Episcopal Church. But I remind you that these secessionists have already branded both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lambeth Conference as “lost.”

Tobias Haller does a nice job of putting the shoe on the other foot.

What would be done in the Church of England if the clergy and parish council of a parish in, shall we say, Dibley, announced that it was no longer part of the Church of England, but considered itself now to be a congregation of the Church of the Province of the Sudan, altered all of their signage and other public information to reflect this change, purporting now to be part of “The Anglican Church in England” and invited bishops from the Sudan to function in the parish, refusing to have anything more to do with their C. of E. diocese or its leadership?

This will happen, as Tobias writes. Do not doubt this will be going on in a few months or perhaps a few years.

The only chance to stop it is to look at the whole narrative and act accordingly. Did the Episcopal Church throw anyone out just for having the wrong theology? No. Did General Convention go out of its way to leave space for everyone in the proverbial big tent? Yes. Did ACNA and other radical people get frustrated and decide they wanted to form their own new church? Yes. And did they attempt to walk off with the silver? Yes.

Like dealing with a child who is throwing a tantrum, you cannot reward bad behavior. Recognizing secessionists in America ensures they’ll be in England sooner rather than later. Making it clear that they will not be recognized by the Anglican Communion because they chose to walk apart will at least slow them down.

When the Anglican Fellowship of Convening Global Christians (Southern Cone in England) sets up shop in your town, remember you heard it here first. General Synod should at least slow this down by giving ACNA a “time out” and not a treat.

So perhaps Bishop O’Neill is one of a rare breed in the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops: a moderate. I don’t know him well enough to say if he tilts left or right. I do know that he does not permit same-sex blessing services in his diocese, at least not if they resemble weddings in any way or if they contain anything resembling a nuptial blessing.

So suppose you are a conservative rector in this environment. You ought to be pretty happy, right? No one’s forcing you to use Wiccan Eucharistic prayers or to ordain lesbians with their concubines. Donald Armstrong (formerly “the Rev’d”) was not content to worry about his own congregation. Armstrong has been battling with authorities (legal and ecclesiastical) since 2006, at least. Like much of the rest of the secessionist saga, it turns out that it’s not all about doctrine.

Back in the happy days of 2006, Armstrong was the “Executive Director” of the Anglican Communion Institute. At the time, this group could have been described as “six guys with a website”, but since then it was dwindled to “four guys with a website”. In any case, Armstrong used this position and his rector’s position to siphon off hundreds of thousands of dollars for his own personal use, without reporting any of that as income — or so it is alleged. The ACI dropped him like an embarrassing hot potato, but his parish doesn’t seem to have minded. (Guess they were content to give their rector illegal bonuses instead of keeping up their property.)

The Diocese investigated Armstrong, and they determined he had misbehaved by improperly using church funds. (This is all very confusing, so if you want more, you can read it here.) He was inhibited from ministry and ordered to leave his church. Then, several months later, just before the charges against Armstrong were to become public, he persuaded his congregation to vote itself out of the Episcopal Church and into CANA. Apparently, the standards for financial conduct are different there. Eventually, Armstrong was deposed by the Episcopal Church.

Got it? The rector swipes money, and gets caught. The Episcopal Church tosses him out of office, pending a full-fledged investigation and forensic audit. Meanwhile, when all of this is about to hit the light of day, the sacked rector gets his church to claim it is part of CANA. That way, you see, he doesn’t have to deal with any meddlesome church discipline or, apparently, fiduciary responsibility.

Since then, Armstrong has been claiming he’s innocent while attempting to shift blame for all of this away from himself and onto the supposed liberal agenda of his diocese and the Episcopal Church. The police, who are not known for their interest in doctrine, see things O’Neill’s way. In May 2009, Armstrong was indicted for 20 counts of felony theft by a grand jury. Days later, he was arrested for failing to make a court appearance, later claiming that it was due to a calendar mixup. I’m surprised he didn’t try to blame it on Gene Robinson.

Over these last couple of years, the Episcopal Church has been battling with a few of the members from Armstrong’s CANA congregation over control of the building. Like most of the other court cases working their way through the system, this one has been going in favor of the diocese and of the Episcopal Church. For almost everyone, it is clear that church buildings are held in trust for the diocese and for the Episcopal Church. It is only a few people, eager to rewrite history, church law, and civil court precedent, who pretend otherwise.

And let us be clear about the main point here: Armstrong claims this is about doctrine, but it cannot be so. He says inflammatory things such as, “I can no longer be under this ungodly authority”, speaking of his former bishop. The reality is that Bishop O’Neill is a godly bishop who makes space for conservatives and who has not embraced all of the so-called liberal agenda that incites such rage in a few conservatives. The reality is that Donald Armstrong appears to have used doctrine as an excuse in his attempt to evade church and civil discipline.

This is a recurring theme in ACNA-Land. The noise is about doctrine and innovation. Peer a little closer, and you discover that much of this is about power, or getting a purple shirt, or about money. (One priest once said to me, “Once we get out of TEC, we don’t have to pay a diocesan apportionment. Won’t that be nice?”)

Liberals should take no pleasure in the case of Donald Armstrong. It’s sad. It’s sad for Armstrong, that his greed appears to have overtaken his obvious gifts as a pastor. It’s sad that CANA would take in someone who was known to have violated the trust he was given as a priest in the Church of God. It’s sad that the resources of a diocese, of those who occupied the church, and of those who departed were all consumed on a needless squabble over property.

Pray for Mr. Armstrong. Pray for all those touched by this long drama. Pray for swift justice — whatever that may be — when Armstrong’s criminal case comes to trial. Pray that this sad chapter may come to an end and that the work of the church may continue.

Before he got fitted for a purple shirt, David Anderson was interviewed by Larry King on CNN. Asked why he was staying in the Episcopal Church, Anderson said, “Well, I like a good fight.” He must be happy now. The more church property his colleagues attempt to purloin, the more fights he gets!

Speaking about the Episcopal Church and ACNA’s conflict, Bishop Robert Duncan said this, “We’ll leave and they can take the stuff with them to hell, because that is where they will take it. This is Good Friday and we have to face it.” Got that? Duncan is quite sure the Episcopal Church and everyone in it is going to hell. (Jesus had some things to say about those who would judge, but I guess that bit isn’t in Duncan’s bible?) Also note how Duncan equates his struggle with Our Lord on Good Friday. Of course, the only people getting killed now are gay people in Africa while Duncan’s Anglican friends cheer. Duncan’s worst inconvenience is likely to be an economy class airline seat or perhaps a mitre that’s not very shiny.

Of course, this mentality really takes hold on every secessionist’s favorite website. Here they express their opinions of our Presiding Bishop. (Conversation transcribed by Fr. Jake, who writes about “Who is worth killing?”)

Greg Griffith: I’m already reaching for my pistol…

Anthony: Threatening in a blog to shoot people is serious. Just sayin’.

Greg Griffith: Anthony, Agreed. However, “reachin’ for my pistol” is an old expression I use around here. No threat is being made.

Charles Nightingale: Alisdair+: Perhaps it’s time for the “Small band of former paratroopers” to mobilize and deploy!

Virg: “they don’t realize most of us have guns, know how to use them and nobody’s gonna mess with our bishops!…”
At last… a perfect solution to all this bickering going on in the church. We’ll just kill the sobs. God help any dissenters on Fr. Maxwell’s vestry.

the snarkster: “I’m already reaching for my pistol…”
Hey, what gives with this? The Commenatrix (Blessed be her name) got on my case for saying a lot less than that.

It should be quite evident to all by now that our Presiding Marine Biologist and all the 815 gang are not liken to a school of angelfish. They are sharks, pure and simple.

Frances Scott: Frankly, Fr. Maxwell, I wouldn’t waste a bullet on her.

Greg Griffith: Of course, no one is threatening anyone with anything here. I’ll caution anyone pondering a real threat to read our comment policy, but I’ll also remind those who think we’re under orders to keep everything here cupcakes and bunny rabbits not to fall for the caricature of Jesus that our Worthy Opponents have tried to sell us… how was it put the other day? – A sort of zoned-out hippie pacifist, wandering from town to town, spouting Zen koans and harmless parables?

Let’s not forget that the people in these churches have in many cases put their life’s work into them; that their parents and grandparents are buried in the graveyard; it’s where their children were baptized, confirmed and married; and that the people we’re up against are nasty – there’s no other way to say it – and they’re playing for keeps.

I won’t criticize those who think the best course is to play the pacifist, but they shouldn’t find fault with those who want to pick up their sword along with their trowel (emphasis added by Fr. Jake).

So make no mistake. These people are out for blood. I wish I could say in confidence that this is just a figure of speech.

The Living Church reports Duncan’s remarks made in 2007.

“Never, ever has he spoken publicly in defense of the orthodox in the United States,” Bishop Duncan said of the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, adding that “the cost is his office.” “To lose that historic office is a cost of such magnitude that God must be doing a new thing,” he said. “The fact is that the Archbishop of Canterbury has not led in a way that might have saved his office and might have saved Lambeth,” Bishop Duncan said. “In this crisis, we’ve had no leader to lead,” he said. Asked if he thought that being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury was essential to being Anglican, Bishop Duncan said that being obedient to scripture is of greater importance than being recognized by Canterbury.

So if the Archbishop of Canterbury isn’t suitable, one wonders why ACNA seeks recognition from the Church of England. One wonders why the Church of England would even contemplate recognizing these secessionists? At this rate, Bishop Duncan will soon be in communion with only one bishop: himself.

Duncan’s judgment of Canterbury provoked Ephraim Radner to resign from the Anglican Communion Network. Radner, no liberal, had this to say:

I have come to the conclusion that unity among conservatives has not in fact been a goal for many, and that to pretend otherwise is confusing matters gravely; it should be, of course, but until there is greater honesty, it will not be. The unity of the Communion is under such serious threat, and is of such a value, that allowing words, actions, and strategies that are undermining our future go unquestioned, immediately and forcefully, is a dereliction of Christian responsibility.

The schismatic power-driven agenda is clear. That’s why it is important that no one fuel their agenda. Instead, we can stand ready with open arms to welcome home those who left the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. Jesus prayed for the unity of the church, and we should do the same.

This is the Archbishop of Canterbury at the final press conference of the Primates Meeting in Dar es Salaam in February 2007. Media from around the world came to hear the archbishop (just before midnight, I might add) share the final statement from the meeting.

This is newly minted Bishop Martyn Minns immediately after the real press conference, standing in the same room (paid for by the Anglican Communion Office). As you can see, he is holding a press conference to refute what the Archbishop has just said. Though they would have been within their rights to send him packing, ACO officials let him stand there and attack the Anglican Communion.

What’s really funny — or tragic — is that this was all done in feigned innocence. As the press conference was breaking up, one of the reporters thanked Minns for holding the presser. Minns said something like, “Oh? Is that what this was? I had no idea.” I should note that this is the only time the whole week he wore clerical garb. I’m guessing he polished his pectoral cross, because, you know, he was going to be interviewed by Reuters and all. And pretend it was unplanned.

This is from the press conference immediately after Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori was elected at General Convention in 2006.

Immediately after the PB-elect left the room, David Anderson stood in the back of the room (this one paid for by the Episcopal Church) and held a briefing in which he attacked the Episcopal Church. He gained access to this event by using press credentials, though reporters don’t typically call other reporters over to make statements.

These events display a callous hyprocricy. They will use resources paid for by the institutions they seek to destroy. Their schemes are presented as unplanned coincidences. It’s unmannerly to stand in someone else’s space and attack them. But they had no choice. The camera trucks were parked there, so that’s where they had to be in order to get attention for their secessionist goals.

When they pretend things are “just happening” don’t believe it for a second.

If you want to see more photos, you can have a look at my General Convention 2006 or Primates Meeting 2007 sets on flickr.

Quincy had always been an Anglo-Catholic diocese of a conservative bent. Under Bishop Keith Ackerman, the diocese went from conservative to tragically militant. Though no one was forcing them to accept women as priests in their diocese, they developed a siege mentality. Finally, Bishop Ackerman and a bunch of clergy he imported from across the country (many of whom never lived in Quincy, but they were a handy voting bloc) voted themselves over to the Province of the Southern Cone.

Things have not gone well since. Ackerman and his cronies have decamped Quincy. Congregations have been torn apart and needlessly splintered. I’d like to post a few excerpts from a letter to the editor of the Peoria Journal-Star. The author is Canon John Blossom, who chose to remain in the Episcopal Church, though he is no progressive and not a particularly big fan of the liberal drift of the Episcopal Church. Here are a few snippets from the letter with my comments below.

…local leadership remaining in the Episcopal Church discovered that the breakaway group transferred $100,000 to a law firm as a prepaid legal fee from endowment funds given by donors to the Diocese of Quincy for mission and ministry.

The breakaway group has demonstrated its willingness to spend $100,000 from the Diocese’s endowment fund for a law firm retainer, yet [the Rev'd John] Spencer is quick to criticize the Episcopal Church for spending “millions of dollars in the last few years suing churches.” The only money spent here will now be in defense of the suit his group has filed.

Yes, that’s right. Only moments before they purported to vote themselves out of the Episcopal Church, the duly elected Council of the diocese transferred $100,000 into an account to pay for the defense of the inevitable lawsuits when the Anglican diocese was sued for doing things like misappropriating funds. Kind of undercuts they whole “you shouldn’t spend lots of money on lawsuits” argument, not to mention the “we were shocked — shocked! — to get sued” faux innocence.

One of the remarkable injustices of this ordeal occurred when the membership of one large church of the Diocese voted by a substantial majority to remain, with the breakaway group asserting that a majority vote is not adequate. Again the breakaway leadership is attempting to bend the truth to support its goals.

This is a good one. Ackerman and company required congregations to vote if they wanted to stay in the Episcopal Church. Get that? The Bishop foisted schism on his parishes and insisted that they vote against this scheme or be swept along for the ride — right out of the Anglican Communion. So one congregation’s membership, in a duly convened meeting, voted 62% in favor of remaining in the Episcopal Church. Ackerman said that wasn’t good enough, claiming they needed 67% to stay. The breakaway diocese menaced those loyal to the Episcopal Church, so they abandoned their building to start a new congregation in a new building. That one undercuts the whole “it’s not all about the property” argument and “respect the will of the people” line of thinking.

For whatever reason, these people have manipulated the facts and pursued a relentless legal strategy to take possession of things that were never theirs. Though no one forced them to leave — or even to embrace progressive ideas — they claim to be expelled. Christ’s Body is certainly bruised and battered in the Diocese of Quincy. Thankfully, there are some good lay and clergy leaders there now, and most of the secessionist leaders went on to do their work elsewhere. Perhaps the diocese will continue to know God’s healing presence. Pray for them. Kyrie eleison.

The Church Times blog reports that Sara Batts has been researching the online presence of church congregations. It seems that over 50% of congregations in England have no website, based on preliminary research. Can you imagine? She didn’t research the US, and I would guess that percentage to be lower, but maybe not by much. Just today I was chatting with a friend who is considering a cure in a surprisingly large congregation — with no website whatsoever.

Batts makes the case for why a church needs a website, and she makes it well:

If it didn’t have a website it might as well not exist – how do they expect newcomers to the town to find out that they’re there, what they do, why I might want to join them? I don’t think churches can expect people to turn up on their doorsteps to ask for information.

I can tell you that a pretty huge percentage of our first-time guests at Christ Church have visited our website before they come through our lovely red doors. That’s how they decided to visit us in the first place. A few years ago, at another parish, I was standing outside greeting worshipers on a Sunday morning. A very elderly woman (in her 80s?) walked up to the entrance, and I knew I hadn’t seen her before. Putting out my hand, I said, “Good morning and welcome! I’m Scott.” She replied, not missing a beat, “I know who you are — I saw your picture on your website!” She had checked us out online before she came for her first visit. Having a website isn’t part of a strategy to attract the mythical younger family. A website is essential to attract people, period.

If you are reading this blog, it’s likely that you are pretty web savvy. I hope your church has a website, and a good one at that. If it doesn’t, start bugging your priest and vestry. Tell them I sent you. The mission of the church depends on you having a website, because the mission of the church depends on you sharing the Good News. To share the Good News in 2010, you simply must have an excellent website.

Photo by flickr user rightee.

Now Thinking Anglicans has published a paper which refutes many of the errant claims made by Ashworth. Though it’s written to brief Synod members, I hope you’ll read this short paper. Simon Sarmiento did most of the writing, but several people are credited with assisting in background research, including me. There’s also a paper about Canada.

I am grateful to Simon for taking this on. His paper helps set the record straight. These days lots of people like to play the victim card. It’s especially popular now among secessionists, because the “I am an innocent victim” plays better than “We don’t like how things are going, so we’re going to take our toys and leave”. Now that court cases are mostly going against them, the ACNA folks are seeking some kind of official recognition from the Church of England. General Synod is being asked to endorse the secessionist agenda. This is both a temporal matter and a spiritual matter. Yes, Synod is at least in part being used as a pawn to bolster the ACNA legal strategy. While this may not be the prime motivation for everyone who is behind the effort to seek recognition, this outcome cannot be far from the minds of some supporters of this motion. There’s a lot at stake here for AAC, ACNA, CANA, and the rest. That’s why Bishop David Anderson is headed over to England next week to press the case.

Over the next few days, I’ll be writing more about ACNA and its tactics. People need to know the full story. Sure, the Episcopal Church has treated some folks badly. The Episcopal Church and its leaders have made some bad decisions. The church is led by humans, and we live in a fallen world. Mistakes (or, to put it more clearly, sinful mistakes) are inevitable. But there is much fiction in the narrative offered by ACNA and the rest of the alphabet soup.

Make no mistake about any of this. The conservatives are trying another tactic to expel the Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion and to enforce their puritan agenda for everyone else. It was not possible for them to manipulate the Lambeth Conference, so many of the conservatives skipped it. They have not been able to manipulate the Anglican Consultative Council, so they have tried to grant radical new powers to the Primates’ Meeting. Even the Primates’ Meeting and the Standing Committee have not done everything they’d like, so they are starting to abandon the rest of the Communion’s structures too.

This motion in Synod is a new tactic to undermine the Anglican Communion, by attempting to gain entrance through the back door. Members of Synod should make this decision with their eyes open, fully aware of what’s at stake for ANCA, for the Church of England, for the Episcopal Church, and for the Anglican Communion. Not to mention the whole Body of Christ.

Stay tuned to this blog and others. Pray for General Synod, as they have many important decisions with which to grapple.

NOTE: This is probably best thought of as rated PG-13.

Bonus points to anyone who can connect this to ministry or to the church.

The family of Pfc. Jason Scheuerman did not receive a note after he committed suicide. When his family inquired, they got a surprising answer. The New York Times reports, “That policy, government officials have said, is based on concerns among senior military leaders that presidential letters of condolence might appear to condone or even encourage suicide.”

Mr. Scheuerman wrote again saying the policy was misguided. The Times writes, “The White House did not respond to Mr. Scheuerman’s second letter. But in late 2005, the son of the Indianapolis Colts’ coach Tony Dungy committed suicide, and President George W. Bush sent him a letter of condolence.”

Mr. Scheuerman fired off a hand-written note to the White House asking why the son of a military family should be treated differently from the son of a professional football coach… A few weeks later, in March 2006, a letter from the White House arrived at the Scheuerman home in Sanford, N.C., near Fort Bragg, where Mr. Scheuerman worked at the time. “Laura and I are saddened by the loss of your son, Jason,” the letter, signed by President Bush, said. “We know this has been a difficult time for you, and we send our heartfelt sympathy.”

So at least one family finally received a note. I hope the Obama administration will fix this wrong-headed and cruel policy. No people suffering from depression are going to refrain from committing suicide, if their diseases progresses that far, because their family would not get a note. And I cannot imagine someone of sound mind would end his or her life so that a family could get mail from the White House.

Suicide is a tragedy of immense proportion. That tragedy should not be magnified by an outdated and misguided understanding of suicide. Writing these notes is a duty the President should not shirk. When someone has given the ultimate sacrifice for her or his country, the least our nation can do is acknowledge their death, express our sorrow, and thank them for their service.

Call me naive, but I wonder about the human beings caught up in all this. I wonder about the dehumanising abuse we heap on those we can blame for whatever it is we don’t like about our lives or the world we live in. We can project our nastiness onto those we know cannot hit back.

I look back with horror on the cringy things I have said and done throughout my life. And that is only the things I do remember – there is probably much I have forgotten. But I thank God for those who let me make mistakes and forgave me, knowing that you have to take a long-term view and allow people the freedom – the space – to grow up and change and re-shape… and not be nailed to a reputation that belongs to the past.

I think it was Jesus who said that we can only expect forgiveness if we first forgive. And I guess we can only expect kindness and generosity if first we practise the discipline of being kind, generous and spacious to those we know to be failing. If we want a humane society, shouldn’t we first be prepared to live humanely?

Couldn’t agree more. The same principal applies, by the way, to that struggling couple who sits across from you in church, to that co-worker who has something going on, or to your neighbors. Sure, maybe you should offer help, if you know folks well enough. Generosity with people is always a good idea. But idle gossip, speculation, or sensational talk? There’s no place for it.

Our 175th Annual Meeting. That’s me standing up in a cassock prattling on about something or other.

We are sharing a 175th anniversary year with the other Christ Church in Rhode Island, down in Westerly. Their choir (over 40 of them!) came to offer a full choral mass one Sunday and their rector was our guest preacher. We’ll go down there in Eastertide.

We celebrate the Feast of the Epiphany with Holy Eucharist, the Solemn Proclamation of Epiphany, and the Blessing of Chalk on January 6. That service also includes our annual pageant. The three magi were terrific!

Mr. Renken’s ministry is one of a small but growing number of evangelical churches that have embraced mixed martial arts — a sport with a reputation for violence and blood that combines kickboxing, wrestling and other fighting styles — to reach and convert young men, whose church attendance has been persistently low. Mixed martial arts events have drawn millions of television viewers, and one was the top pay-per-view event in 2009.

Recruitment efforts at the churches, which are predominantly white, involve fight night television viewing parties and lecture series that use ultimate fighting to explain how Christ fought for what he believed in. Other ministers go further, hosting or participating in live events.

I’m not sure what to make of this. As a near-pacifist, I have trouble seeing this as a appropriately tied to the Christian message. On the other hand, especially after reading the quotes from some people in the programs, it’s hard to deny that it works. Let’s face it: for much of the world, the choice not to fight is an unattainable luxury.

My first introduction to this world was last week, when “Fighting Father Dave”, who ministers in Australia, linked to my blog. If you want a glimpse into a fascinating and singular ministry, go check out his website. Be warned that you’ll get a popup when you try to leave. I guess that’s taking the “magnetic church” to a new level for the web.

I understand the argument that boxing isn’t really fighting, but rather a sport. I’m not sure I buy it, but to the extent that point is stipulated, there is little objectionable here. Martial arts, while they may be used by fighters, are not inherently about violent attacks. And, as the article says, many churches make use of yoga and other “non-Christian” activities in their programs and evangelism.

What I’m saying, I suppose, is that while my first reaction was “how dare you!”, I quickly moved to seeing that this is a group of people doing just what St. Paul suggested –they are being all things to all people. As far as I can see, they are faithful to Christ’s message. They are simply acknowledging through actions what most people already know: this life is a constant struggle, sometimes a literal fight between good and evil. They are harnessing fighting to fight the good fight. While I’ve never wanted to attend a boxing match, I’d love to see one of these pastors and their flocks in action.

A couple of Sundays ago, I wore my cassock to preside at the annual meeting of the parish I serve. A little girl said to me, pointing to my cincture with its black fringe, “That’s a funny belt!” She added, “It looks like a karate belt.” Everyone around laughed, and I cracked a joke about being a “black belt priest — don’t mess with me.” Maybe we should start a karate ministry…

If you don’t fancy this lovely Hungarian music, here is a more traditional setting.

Today is one of my favorite feast days.