Ft. Worth, Sowing, and Reaping UPDATED

Yes, I have been rather quiet as I warned I might.  But having followed the travails of the Diocese of Ft. Worth for most of the life of this long lived blog, I should say something about the property dispute finally being resolved with the U. S. Supreme Court declining to hear an appeal of the Texas Supreme Court decision in favor of the ACNA Diocese of Ft. Worth.

There were a few congregations once in the diocese that aligned with The Episcopal Church in the dispute.  After the case was resolved, they had to vacate the church buildings.  Living Church, as they often do, has one of the better accounts of that.

All Saints, as usual, was among the worst actors, stripping the church before they left.  But St. Stephens Wichita Falls (Yes, I guess even Wichita Falls has a handful of libchurchers) tried to out do them by even taking the pews.  It was breathtaking.

I say “was” for a judge has since said they can’t do that and at least some of the stolen property has been returned.

I do have to restrain myself in opining on this for I am well aware that All Saints, perennial libchurch spokeswoman Katie Sherrod and company have been bad actors for decades.

But I will say this.  The departing libchurchers merit no sympathy no matter how many crocodile tears they shed.  If there had been a good faith negotiation, I am confident Bishop Iker and the diocese would have been glad to let St. Stephen’s, All Saints, and the like leave with the parish properties.  But no, The Episcopal Church under the Lady of Perpetual Litigation Katharine Jefferts Schori did not have “good faith negotiation” in their vocabulary.  They went scorched earth and tried to take all the property.  And All Saints, Sherrod and other libchurchers supported that policy.  Further they had over a decade to pull back and settle instead.  (I suspect that the courts were slow in part to provide opportunity to settle, but that is speculation on my part.)  But no.

So they get to have it their way.  Now what they tried to do to the orthodox majority of the Diocese of Ft. Worth is happening to them.  It sounds downright Biblical.  To be more Biblical, they would have to pay fourfold.  Reaping what one sows can be a . . . difficult experience.

Meanwhile, I am thanking God that He is just.  And I am trying not to engage in ungodly gloating.  I really am.

----

Photo courtesy of ACNA and Living Church

----

UPDATE: I have been reminded just how much All Saints, St. Stephen’s and ilk have only themselves to blame.  The orthodox Diocese of Ft. Worth on their own accord offered parishes that wanted to do so to stay with The Episcopal Church with their properties.  That even though TEC was showing no quarter.

This from the Standing Committee of the orthodox Diocese of Ft. Worth back in 2009:

On April 14, 2009, the newly formed diocese of Fort Worth, along with representatives of The Episcopal Church (TEC), filed a lawsuit in a Tarrant Count, Texas, court. The suit names Bishop Iker and the five-person Board of Trustees for the Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth as defendants.

As you might remember, at our 2007 diocesan convention we passed a revised canon outlining a process that could be used if a parish disagreed with the course of the diocese. At the end of the process, if reconciliation were not possible, the canon provided that the church property would be released to the congregation. Even after our 2008 convention, where we ratified our decision to separate from TEC by an 80 percent majority, none of the congregations wishing to remain loyal to The Episcopal Church asked for that procedure to be used.

However, the facts allowed the Bishop and the Standing Committee to investigate, and at the end of our investigation, the properties of Trinity Church, Fort Worth, and St. Martin in the Fields, Keller, were deeded to their respective congregations. At the same time, two other parishes - St. Christopher's in Fort Worth, and St. Luke's in Stephenville - were contacted. They had outstanding building loans which were made in the name of the Diocese. The Diocese offered to release their properties to them if they would renegotiate the loans and remove the Diocese from their notes. St. Luke's renegotiated their note and had their property deeded to them. As soon as we hear from St. Christopher's, we will do the same for them.

We've done everything we can think to do to make a settlement with any congregation that wants to stay with TEC. Bishop Iker and the Standing Committee have no wish to take property from those churches that do not wish to remain with us.

Which begs the question why did St. Stephens and All Saints and company not take the offers even while other parishes did?  I am told it was because they wished to assist The Episcopal Church in their lawsuit in taking it all.  They were in a better position to so assist in that predatory lawsuit if they stayed in the diocese.  But whatever their motives, they have only themselves to blame for what has befallen them.  The Diocese of Ft. Worth bent over backwards to accommodate them graciously.  St. Stephens and All Saints spurned that grace and trampled it under foot.  

They had best learn from their just defeat under secular judges and prepare for the final Judge.  But I am not holding my breath for those fools so to do.

“20 Theses on Justice” Countered

Just a note that I very much appreciate Jady and Liza Koch’s patient response to the “20 Theses on Justice” from Esau McCaulley and Jonathan Warren.  I will not summarize the response here. (So go read it over at Stand Firm.) But I especially appreciate two things they do.

First, they nicely but firmly debunk the Woke Church’s specious conflation of “justice” with Leftist political agendas:

…Nobody is a “critic of the advocacy for justice,” until “justice” is defined in non-biblical ways, which is precisely what is happening in much of the conversation both within the church and in the wider culture. It should be noted that these terms are used and assumed throughout these theses over against their “opponents” and “critics,” as if there are those involved in this conversation who are legitimately opposed to “justice” and, by extension, somehow “pro-oppression.” If one examines the arguments of these so-called ” critics of justice,” what is clearly evident is a sincere belief that there is great danger in appropriating non-Christian worldviews and concepts to diagnose and cure the human problem. Acknowledging the Marxist and postmodern theories undergirding the discussion surrounding much of what passes for “justice” is a necessary part of defining fully the terms at play. Read Marx, Marcuse, Alinski, Gramsci, Foucault, Baudrillard, etc., and show how their ideas can be baptized, rooted as they are in the fundamental convictions that 1) there is no God, 2) truth is relative, 3) morality is culturally bound, and 4) every relationship in life is a zero-sum power struggle. Until that work is done, the (so-called) “critics of the advocacy for justice” will continue to ignore the unfounded (and frankly slanderous) repeated assertion that anyone who disagrees with this new understanding of “justice” (and by extension, racism, oppression, equality, etc.) is indifferent to the biblical demand for justice.

Second, they refuse to play the Woke game that disagreeing with approved “oppressed voices” is not listening to “oppressed voices” or to “Black voices” etc. and is harming them.  May more and more firmly tell the Woke Church cabal that we shall not play that race-baiting victim-playing game.  The Kochs nicely blow up one tactic of that game when they write:

The influence of radical European and Marxist philosophy into the modern discourse around modern theories of “justice” is well-documented, and, simply stating that the theology of ethnic minorities sprung up entirely apart from those influences does not prove it so. What is more, the African-American Christian tradition, insofar as people like James Cone are illustrative of at least one stream, was and is deeply influenced by (so-called) liberation theology and other theological schools explicitly indebted to Marxist influence.

Yes, the “Black voices” we must listen to, lest we be racist, always seem to be Leftist voices.  Listening to Voddie Baucham or Virgil Walker doesn’t count.

I also appreciate the Kochs addressing “the discouragement of many ethnic minorities and their departure” from conservative denominations such as the Southern Baptists [Emphasis mine]:

It’s true that some high-profile people have left various churches, but people are free to determine what is most important to them in any given denomination. There is a global theological conversation about race, gender, sexuality, etc. that has caused and is causing a disruption in every denomination that affects all people, not just ethnic minorities. In this particular case, there may be some churches that are legitimately “opponents of justice,” but it’s also just as possible that some of those who left were/are the ones elevating race and various other “identities” to an idolatrous level. It makes sense that those who disagree with what’s being taught, when they try to “dialogue” and don’t make any headway, would give up and leave. That by no means proves their mistreatment.

Timely words.  I would go further and say if at least some Woke Church people are not leaving/avoiding a denomination, there is probably something wrong with that denomination.  

But then I am meaner than Jady and Liza Koch.  So go read them instead of me.

ACNA’s C4SO Brings Back Soong-Chan Rah

Remember Soong-Chan Rah?  I sure do.  Back in 2017, I noticed he was going to keynote a Matthew 25 Gathering in my Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).  Curious, I did a little research on him, and the rest is history. I exposed some of his background.  Others found more and protested, and eventually he was quietly removed from the program.  Here are my posts about the matter back then.

One would think that less than four years later, ACNA’s dioceses would exercise enough wisdom not to have him as a focus of any program.  Especially since he has continued his woke act, including lovely quotes like this:

“The United States of America does not hold a morally exceptional position greater than Nazi Germany. We are not more just. Our sense of equality is not any superior. Our nation has never been Christian. We have just won our wars. And therefore, for centuries, we wrote our own history. And that has proven to be incredibly dangerous.” (Unsettling Truths: The Ongoing, Dehumanizing Legacy of the Doctrine of Discovery)

Oh, that’s right.  One of the dioceses in ACNA is the Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others (C4SO), not exactly a font of wisdom.

C4SO not only has a congregation giving up Whiteness for Lent, one of the diocese’s programs is reading Rah for Lent with the apparent blessing of C4SO itself.

 

Now perhaps the diocese is so clueless about Rah, even after 2017, that this is only an honest mistake, a lapse of judgement.

But I doubt it.  And frankly I am so angry I do not trust myself to say more at the moment. 

ACNA Update: Increasing Identity Conflict and the “Dear Gay Anglicans” Letter

Conflict over Critical Theory and related identity issues is escalating in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).

On the one hand, the woke cabal in ACNA has gotten more bold.  One prominent example is the Anglican Multi-Ethnic Network (AMEN) naming Johana-Marie Williams as Interim Director.  She happens to be the Southern Gothic Womanist blogger.  The goal of her blog is two-fold:

1. To show how who Jesus is answers womanist, posthumanist, and afro-pessimist ontological concerns.

2. To show how a deeper commitment to Jesus Christ, the Bible, and the Church can (and should) legitimately lead to a deeper commitment to fighting the capitalist-imperialist-racist-hetero-patriarchy.

Got it.  Now it should be said it is unclear what relationship AMEN retains with ACNA.  I believe AMEN was once a provincial initiative, but that may no longer be the case.  Nonetheless, this appointment has gotten some attention in ACNA as Kevin and George note in their latest Anglican Unscripted (648, about 9 minutes in).

Not getting quite as much attention, but it should, is that The Table Indy, a C4SO (Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others) congregation of course, is giving up Whiteness for Lent.  Their “Lent focus on Racism and Repentance” began with an online Workshop on “Re-imagining Life Together Beyond Whiteness.”

The discussion at the Facebook announcement was interesting, including this:

Whiteness? Why does the color of my skin assume I have some supremacy or that I have wronged others. Sound like a rather blanket racist comment.

To which one of The Table’s Priests, Matt Tebbe, replied:

You misunderstand whiteness... It’s racist to refuse to acknowledge or learn about whiteness. 

You are free to learn by watching the workshop if you wish.

But by far the biggest battle lately is over “Gay Anglicans,” namely whether it is appropriate for Christians with same-sex desires or temptations to identify as Gay Christians.  And that battle sure got interesting the past two days (to the point where I had to rewrite this).

Earlier the ACNA College of Bishops put forth an excellent and sensitive pastoral statement even if it seems written by a college of bishops.  But it did not take long for there to be pushback.  Bishop Todd Hunter of C4SO, of course, issued guidance that some took as undermining the College of Bishops.  And then came a “Dear Gay Anglicans” open letter, which most definitely does undermine the College of Bishops’ statement. (Anglican Unscripted 648 also discusses this while the matter was still ongoing about 19 minutes in.)

The response was swift. I know of at least two ACNA bishops who told their clergy not to sign the DGA letter.  Stand Firm issued a good open letter in response. I was aware of more efforts in the works as well.

But swift actions by two bishops put a quick end to the DGA letter. Archbishop Foley Beach issued a remarkably frank letter:

While [the DGA letter] says they are not undermining our Pastoral Statement, they actually are. Replacing “gay Christian” with “gay Anglican” is pretty much in your face. My immediate reaction to the letter was that it was pretty benign and wasn’t going to change anything about what we teach. 

However, it has already had international ramifications. I have had to deal with two provinces already (actually now three as of a few minutes ago) — and this is just the first day…. 

In the province, the expected hard rhetoric is coming from both sides in reaction to this. I find our lack of charity in the province a serious blind spot we need to address. Many of our bishops, and rightly so, feel this is an attempt to undermine our roles as guardians of the Faith and teachers of the doctrine of the Church. Some individuals have expressed that we are now TEC 2.0. Some think this is going to break the ACNA apart — one quote I received tonight: “If I had to guess what might fracture the ACNA I would’ve said women’s ordination. I never would have thought it would be homosexuality. We gave up everything to take a clear stand on this. It is disheartening to have it being taken away.”  I could go on, but you get the point. 

This is serious enough, however, that I am writing this at 1:15 am.

I don’t think he was happy.  Do read the rest.

Then the Interim Bishop of Pittsburgh Martyn Minns asked the DGA ringleader Pieter Valk to take the Dear Gay Anglicans letter down, which he did.  A few are very unhappy about that.  But more, including me, rejoice that we in ACNA actually do have bishops who have spines and know how to use them. 

So this episode had a somewhat happy ending.  But it suffices to say that conflict over Critical Theory, identity, and related issues continues and is increasing in ACNA.  And frankly it needs to increase. The routine of the woke cabal pushing and pushing while the rest of us are “collegial” will no longer do.  That is a road to becoming The Episcopal Church.  As St. Paul wrote:

For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. (I Cor. 11: 18, 19)

We need our bishops and other leaders to come down every bit as hard on Critical Theory and its progeny as they just did on the “Dear Gay Anglicans Letter.”  But I may say more about that another time.

A Helpful Reminder

I wish to follow the good example of Dr. Esau McCaulley . . .

Like him, I, too, wish to give a helpful cheerful reminder.

I just want to remind everyone that race baiting is not a recognized Christian ministry in any orthodox denomination that I am aware of. Happy Candlemas!

You’re welcome.

Pay Attention to Psalms 7 . . . and 9 and . . .

Well, my commendation of Psalm 37 in October sure proved timely, did it not?  I suspect it still is timely due to much righteous anger that could too easily morph into foolishness.  Anger is not always wrong, but it is almost always difficult to handle and direct aright.

Allow me also to direct you to Psalm 7, particularly verses 14-16:

Behold, the wicked man conceives evil

              and is pregnant with mischief

              and gives birth to lies.

He makes a pit, digging it out,

              and falls into the hole that he has made.

His mischief returns upon his own head,

              and on his own skull his violence descends.

Note two traits of the wicked we need to be aware of especially now.  First, he creates traps, often described as pits or nets in Scripture, in order to trap good people.  We need to be aware of them and watch out.  

One such trap the Left and allies like to pull is to exaggerate, distort, and often outright invent violence from political opponents.  I’ve seen this time and again.  Mark Levin and I think the likelihood of such traps around those who may protest the Inauguration of Biden is so high, that we advise staying away from it and from state capitols next week.

Second, the wicked have a propensity to fall into the traps that they themselves have made.  I think we may be seeing that before our eyes.  I have hope that Democrat attacks on free speech and their second sham impeachment will backfire greatly on them politically.

So let them fall into their traps.  You be alert and wise and avoid them.

I think the Lord really wants us to get this.  For the theme of the wicked setting traps and falling into them occurs often in Scripture.  The whole book of Esther is one example.  And we see this repeatedly in the Psalms: 7, 9, 35, 57, 141, and I may have missed one or two.  It’s important to get this, now and always.

I will not pray for a “President” Biden.

After two months of prayer and deliberation, I have decided I will not pray for a “President” Biden, especially in the context of public worship.  Yes, I can pray for those in authority.  I can pray for enemies as in the Litany.  But I will not be praying for “the President of the United States” as such after January 20^th for four years.

Among the consequences of stealing an election through fraud and other illegality should be that the thief should be regarded as illegitimate by significant numbers and in significant contexts.  That goes double if the thief was aware of the election fraud.  And what appears to be the biggest Freudian Slip in history indicates that Biden knew.  Biden knew, in his own words, about "most extensive & inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."

So I cannot conscientiously in private or public worship lend legitimacy to a “President” Biden by praying for him as President.  I can certainly pray for those in authority, e. g. for “all Christian Rulers and Magistrates.”  I, of course, can pray for our country.  But I will not join the pretence that Biden will be a legitimate President of the United States by praying for him as such.

Yes, a case can be made for praying for him as POTUS anyway, and I have no problem with those who do (although I will not join them).  An obvious argument is that St. Paul urged praying for the Emperor even when he was a rather nasty man.  The difference here is that the highest secular authority in the United States is not a man, as in the Roman Empire of Paul’s time, but the Constitution.   And the Constitution was run over roughshod to steal the election.  Bypassing state legislatures to tear up election laws to steal the election is a prominent example of that.

The Founding Fathers wisely set up this country to be under the Rule of Law, not the rule of emperors or kings or tyrants.  And as long as the Constitution remains, even if only theoretically, there is no obligation under God to treat an illegitimate President as legitimate.  (Whether it is wise to do as a practical matter is another question.)

So although I respect those who respectfully disagree, I have made my decision.  

Now for those wondering about the rubrics, if I read them accurately, there is no requirement in my jurisdiction to use any prayer that specifically mentions the President of the United States.  There is one exception that I am aware of: the Litany includes a prayer for God “so to rule the heart of thy servant, the President of the United States, that he may above all things seek thine honour and glory.”

So if I make a “mistake” while praying the Litany, let the reader understand.

And after the events of yesterday, I will add that refusing to recognize the legitimacy of a “President” Biden should be non-violent.  The violence perpetrated by some of the protesters yesterday was not only wrong, it was stupid.  With Trump’s speech and with numerous objectors to the Electoral College in Congress, yesterday was well on the way to spotlighting the election fraudsters as the bad guys.  But because of the violent foolishness, the day ended up making Trump and his supporters look like the bad guys and completely distracted from the villainy of the stolen election.  Thus it was not only wrong and harmful, it was stupid and self-defeating as political violence generally is.

And numerous and manifold non-violent ways to oppose the coming fraudulent Biden regime remain.  My refusal to recognize him as President in public and private worship is only one modest example.