The Anger of a Friend

Dan Martins, whose blog Confessions of a Carioca I check in on often, is angry, angry in the best sense of the word. On Sunday he posted "Getting in Touch with My Feelings" and we - particularly those of us who think ourselves progressive - ought to read it. As always Dan writes with considerable force and deeply expressed faithfulness. That is the reason to read what he writes.

I think Dan is sometimes wrong, but he is wrong in the right way...if that makes sense. He has a fined tuned sense of justice left undone and sinfulness and stupidity done. That sensibility, rather than his conclusions, is what makes his posting on getting in touch with his feelings a powerful thing.

I think his read on such matters as the events in San Joaquin is mixed, but he leaves no one untouched by his passion to see a better way forward: He slams Bishop Schofield, the Presiding Bishop, the House of Bishops and everyone else in sight.

Since I am meeting in Quito, Ecuador, as part of the Executive Council, I was particularly struck by his slam on Executive Council:

"I am angry with the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church, the members of which are already en route to to Quito, Ecuador--first, for wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars in diocesan contribution to 815's program budget by meeting in South America for the sake of political correctness, , but mostly for what I suspect they will do: Affirm the Presiding Bishop's declaration of non-recognition of the duly-elected Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. The sad fact is, politics and due process do not mix. Executive Council is about as political a body as one can imagine. Their members are elected, but the committee itself controls the nominating process, so they are effectively self-perpetuating. Between meetings of the General Convention, the Executive Council speaks with the voice of the convention. Their interpretation of the Constitution and Canons does not have to be rational and coherent in order to carry the weight of ecclesiastical authority. It need only be their interpretation, and it becomes binding on the conscience of the faithful. We may say we're a church under the rule of law, but we deceive ourselves. We are a church governed by a majoritarian tyranny that has the power to declare the color of the sky on a clear day to be green if the advocates for that position can get enough votes."

Dan is right: Executive Council is a political body. So might I add is every vestry, Diocesan Convention and Standing Committee, not to mention the gate keepers in the ordination process, the trustees of the several dioceses and on and on. The body politic that the Executive Council is part of is
the Episcopal Church, by way of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society and the General Convention. Whether or not it does a good job in reflecting the concerns of the Episcopal Church is always an important question.

But Dan is also wrong: The nominations and election of members of Council do not result in a self-perpetuating group. As many readers will remember some members elected by General Convention who are nominated for that position. Sometimes persons not nominated by the nominating committee are elected. And, lest we forget 18 members are elected by their Provinces and the nominating committees of those provinces and not the nominating committee of a majoritarian tyranny. I was elected in Province III by a narrow margin. The nearest contending candidate was a priest from the diocese of Pittsburgh,
The Rev. Dr. James Simons, St Michael’s, Ligonier, who I greatly respect. Had he been elected we would have been well served. The idea that Executive Council is a body put together in a smoke filled room of old hack politicos is just plain wrong.

As to meeting in Quito, Ecuador: It has been a long standing custom and hope that the Executive Council that meets nine times over the course of the three years between General Conventions meets once in every Province including Province IX. Additionally there are good reasons for having the meeting in the Diocese of Ecuador Central. This Diocese has just been through a difficult period following the deposition of its former bishop. It is undergoing a quite remarkable transformation and the presence of the governing board of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society is meant to offer encouragement and provide the Executive Council with renewed energy for the missionary tasks to which the Episcopal Church is called. It is quite out of line to consider this meeting a matter of "political correctness."

Dan began his blog post with an affirmation that, actually, he is blessed, and indeed he is. His rather elegant anger rants come with more sound and fury, and sometimes less information, than we or he deserves. I presume the same can be said of my writing as well (although elegant may be a bit of a reach.)


  1. I'm not impressed, sorry. Nobody ever cared what happened to gay people - and believe me, lots of very good people were ruined because of the Church's hatred of homosexuals, just like millions of Jews were ruined because of the Church's hatred of Jews, also allegedly "Scriptural.

    Anyway, practically nobody ever heard of "the Anglican Communion" until about 20 years ago. All this wailing and weeping for that? Please. Too bad for the so-called "orthodox," the Church is getting exactly what it deserves.

    In any case, it's still quite remarkable to me that so-called "orthodox" apparently just couldn't care less about people's actual lives. They are more interested in the survival of an institution that once declared women "unfit matter" for ordination (and that didn't even allow women to be delegates to GC until the 70s).

    Blah blah blah. That's how it all sounds to me - and to a lot of other people, too. Take a look around and notice with what contempt the Church is held in today. There's a reason for that. (I agree with him, however, that this isn't a signal that we need to, right now, toss out the baby with the bathwater. The faith is still quite viable, and beautiful thing; fortunately - although the so-called "orthodox" apparently aren't aware of this - there's nothing in the Creeds about homosexuality. The Church, on the other hand, is a complete mess. As usual.)

  2. bls - those who wrote the creeds and the Son of Man who inspired them never ever sanctioned the new morality you obviously would have the church accept.......

    The creeds do not mention we should not look at perverse internet sites....by your argument, we should therefore feel free to browse at will?

    You know what the bible says about who is fit to be a church leader? It says not everyone is....it ain't a human right to be ordained.

    The strange thing is that so many people in TEC want to stay in the AC despite Windor, Dromantine and Tanzania....and now are bending over backwards to accept a Covenant (even if they intend to keep to nothing which does not suit them with that special "integrity" we have seen from TEC people in the last couple of decades......you know, the sort of integrity that says yes to AC agreements but at the same time feels free to ignore them completely. )

    TEC should be leading a new, "progressive" church rather than wasting its time with ADvent Letters and Covenants written by conservatives.

    The last 5 years should not have been wasted in AC committees with half promises and oblique statements being made (and compromises like BO33)

    Real integrity in 2003/4 would have led TEC to say, "Sorry AC, we believe what we have done is right and we will not bow to compromises and edicts to make our beliefs acceptable to others."

    Don't blame Akinola.....look at your own people and the compromises they make.

  3. But Londoner. Isn't it revealing who has chosen to leave?

    The reason for the boycott is obvious. They cannot win at Lambeth, therefore they avoid the place.


OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, but with some cautions and one rule:
Cautions: Calling people fools, idiots, etc, will be reason to bounce your comment. Keeping in mind that in the struggles it is difficult enough to try to respect opponents, we should at least try.