Emily Kline sent a letter recently (see here, note that I have removed her phone number) urging members of the pre-split congregation at Grace and St. Stephens Episcopal Church to vote for association with CANA. Some things to remember:
Emily is no longer a vestry person according to the Diocese of Colorado.
The vote is regarded as illegal and of no consequence by our vestry, our attorney and the Diocese of Colorado.
We will be looking for a show of support in our attendance on Sunday May 20 at First Christian Church. Please show your support that way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
We received a letter yesterday from a "Grace Church & St. Stephens vestry member" urging us to vote with her to go under the oversight of CANA. The writer named two issues which forced her decision: a set-up of Father Armstrong by parishioners and a Bishop who disagreed with him and heresy and apostasy of the Episcopal Church as evinced by the plot against the rector. The writer says that a vote for CANA will allow the matter to be examined in a fair and objective manner.
Earlier this week, Father Armstrong told us "the division in the church is not about gays, but scriptural authority, counciliar decision making, and membership in a world wide Communion." Yet a month ago he sent us a little booklet published by Truro Church which says that the ordination of a practicing homosexual is the most fundamental crisis faced by the Episcopal church, that a church which ceases to treat homosexual activity as a departure from the Biblical norm ceases to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. In August 2006, Father Armstrong predicted that the Episcopal Church and its newly elected Presiding Bishop would divide the ancient church by rejecting the teaching and practice of the world wide Communion on human sexuality.
So the CANA vestry tells us we should affiliate with CANA to foil a plot against Father Armstrong, and the Father Armstrong and Truro Church (CANA) tell us to seek membership in the world wide Communion that respects scriptural authority and counciliar decision making, but does not tolerate homosexual activity. Father Armstrong said in a recent Email published on the internet that he will never go back to his "tortured and life robbing existence" in the Episcopal church, an understandably human response to disciplinary actions taken against him. Where, however, are the communications from the CANA priests and vestry that explain why CANA is the best alternative Anglican affiliation for parishioners who believe that it is no longer feasible to remain affiliated with the TEC? There are other alternative Anglican affiliations.
Will parishioners be provided with any testament to CANA as the best Anglican alternative to the Episcopal Church before May 20, other than Father Armstrong's E-mail testament that being in the Episcopal church "was like having one of those late term abortion vacuums attached to your soul sucking the life out you—going to CANA is like having that machine turned off and being filled with God's presence and love," and that he, a '28 prayer book guy, swayed to the Africa beats and spirituals at Bishop Minns installation?
AMia is more Evangelic-Protestant with a curch planting mission and CANA is more Ango-Catholic, but they work together. All nine groups will probably unite in some way in the near future after TEC is removed from the Communion...which is comming very soon.
nns mentioned on his visit here has anything to do with the selection?...I have no doubt about what at least one person in Colorado Springs thinks about that.
CANA and AMiA coming together?...let me see, Nigeria and Rwanda cooperating on this doesn't sound likely any time soon, so you can hold your breath, but I'm not holding mine ("America has become a vast mission field, itself" and "mission driven with an emphasis on evangelism, discipleship, church planting"...sounds like there is too much opportunity yet to cooperate.)
Dear Emily:
I received your letter yesterday, thank you much for your testimonial on your decision and on-going faith. I'm very happy for you that your religious life is so vibrant.
I do, however, take exception to your decision because of the severe and negative impact it had on the religious lives of several hundred other people. These people were your friends, fellow choristers, co-communicants, etc. But don't worry, Emily, you've got your "happy place".
This has nothing to do with what Fr Armstrong did or did not do with the church finances, this is about the people in the pews. I tried to get one of my acolytes, a high school senior and 5-year server, to come to the Bacalaureatte service at either church next week. He absolutely refused and said he is done with church. But no big deal, Emily, you've got your "happy place".
This has nothing to do with the politics and theology of either TEC or CANA, this has to do with the people in the pews. I ran into some people downtown this morning, a family that I always considered close friends. We acknowledged each other and made nice gestures, but it was all wrong. We go to different churches now. But don't fret, Emily, you've got your "happy place".
Your decision has sundered families and friends and enriches only the Roman Catholics and the lawyers. But its ok, Emily, "happy place" again.
I won't be joining you to vote this week, Emily. I got a letter a month ago from the CANA parish stating that the vote will be held to affirm the vestry position or "walk apart". Fine choice- join you or go away. I find it incomprehensible that the "duly elected" representatives of the congregation would agree on something that was so painful to so many. But I suppose that the lure of the "happy place" is pretty strong.
sincerely
James Duell
Thank you, James for saying so well what I have been thinking. I do take a little exception, however, with one point: I actually prefer our temporary home with the wonderful people we have for fellowship than the coldness and lecturing from the pulpit that we got so used to at Tejon.
We will be stronger for having to examine ourselves more closely, and even that senior will benefit from having to make a choice, whatever choice he makes. Standing for something positive is better than accepting authoritarian dictates blindly. So I believe.
Emily, I attended a Grace Concerns meeting and listened to you say "I am keeping an eye on these guys" when you and 3 other vestry members met with us in February or March. What were you watching them do? Apparently you watched and helped them march us right out of our own church, even though you were sitting in a room full of people who made it abunduntly clear that isn't what we wanted.
In the T19 post you called the evidence presented by Bishop O'Neill 'glop'. In this country we still presume innocent until proven guilty, but we don't allow a few people to interfere with an investigation as you and the vestry attempted to do in this one. The process will continue and Don Armstrong will be vindicated or will be found guilty of the charges. In the meantime hundreds of lives have been turned upside down in your attempt to save your priest.
Emily:
This quote if from Jim Naughton's Episcopal Cafe in the "Virginia Split Goes to Court" posting on May 21, 2007:
In the January 18, 2007, letter to the Diocese, Bishop James L. Lee wrote “In the structure of the Episcopal Church, individuals may come and go but parishes continue.” He stated that the votes in the eleven churches “left remaining (the) Episcopal congregations in those places without vestries, without clergy and without their churches, whether the remaining congregations numbered one or 100 souls. The spiritual abandonment of their Episcopal brothers and sisters of the past, the present and the future, is perhaps the greatest offense for which there is no redress under our tradition.”
I suggest that you vestry members did not consider this effect enough when you joined Don in his flight to CANA (perhaps the notion is too Episcopalian for you). I agree with Mr. Duell's appraisal that your ability to achieve a "happy place" has come at the expense of some measure of grief for hundreds of others.
In light of a church court conviction, civil authorities investigating, I wonder if Emily is rethinking her "most important religious decision". I see that the Gazette blogs are calling the vestry "bobbleheads". Perhaps a truly important decision would have been to stand up and take a stand, something Don's vestry-packing obviously precluded. What are these people thinking now?
Post a Comment