Episcopalians Today

I have not written much about what is going on in the wonderful world of Anglicanism. Part of it is due to inertia. Long posts require thought, which is too much like work. Part of it is apathy. But mostly it's because I think I've already said what I wanted to say. The problems of the modern Episcopal Church are intrinsic to the organisation itself. They are pretty obvious. And there does not seem to be the will to reform the church in such a way as to assure its continued existence.

In short, the Episcopal Church has lost its collective will to live. If Timmy refuses to grab the rope, then Lassie can not pull him from the well.

Random Thought

I've been turning over the idea that there is saturated religion, unsaturated religion and trans religion. It's the latter that's lethal, of course.

Are Kangaroos Christians?

They hold courts and they apparently go to church. Some of them even run dioceses. But are they Christians?

Once you abandon due process for expediency, then you have abandoned any claim to represent justice, much less mercy. I commend Matthew 7:3 to my church's leadership the next time they presume to raise the subject of justice.

A Symptom of Trouble

Healthy organizations rarely have difficulty with getting support. Generally all that is needed is to state what the needs are and ask people to help. Governments resort to taxation because the needs are typically more than people would voluntarily contribute and to eliminate the problem of free-loading.

There is a proposal floating around that would tie General Convention participation by dioceses to their contribution of canonical expenses. It is being floated as the "Ananias Proposal". On the surface, that seems fair. "You have to pay to play", after all. And the major non-contributors are the diocese that are likely leaving.

However, one diocese that would be denied representation is that poster child for all that is wrong with the Episcopal Church, the diocese of Navaholand. If they have two cents to spare, I would be surprised. This proposal would deny them any representation.

Secondly, since when is our church run on capitalist principles? This proposal is quite similar to the old system o box or pew rent which was used until this past century to fund the churches. Pew rent resulted in the bulk of the congregation being crammed into the back couple of pews while the front pews remained paid for, but vacant.

More troublesome still is this language from the proposal: "Diocese X earned $100,000 in the triennium for which payments to the budget are calculated. The canonical portion of the budget in that triennium is 19%. Dioceses are asked to contribute 21% of their earnings for the triennium ($21,000). The deputies of the diocese would not be allowed to vote if the diocese did not pay at least 19% of the asking, $3,990.

If the proposal really were about a diocese's earnings, I would not have any difficulty with it at all. Most diocese's have general endowments, and tying participation to a contribution based upon the diocese's actual earnings from its endowment is quite fair. It would not impact poor duiocese at all and would hit the wealthiest ones in the passive income, which is most equitable.
However, the earlier language in the passage makes it clear that all monies acquired by a diocese are considered earned. This includes contributions. Counting gifts as earned bothers me. If I give my church money, I'df like to think that I do it not out of necessity but out of charity. For the church then to count it as earned means that the church requires me to do it. It no longer is a gift, but an exchange for services.

I'm a service professional. I charge for my time. Is the church supposed to be the same? If so, whom does it serve, a God who loved the sinners so much that He gave up his life as a free gift or Mammon in the marketplace?

Bertie and the Anglican Crisis.

Jack White is channeling P G Wodehouse. Hilarity is ensuing and all that.

Where Once There Was Only One

There are apparently two Standing Committees in the Diocese of San Joaquin. Assuming the Rev. Dan Martins is correct, of course. Of course all of this begs the question of what, exactly, is going on in San Joaquin?