No one theme for reflection this week, but two comments on unrelated issues.

1. Some of you may have read media accounts about the departure of many in the Diocese of Pittsburgh from the Episcopal Church. This is the second chapter in what may be a longer tale of portions of Episcopal dioceses "realigning" themselves with provinces in South America or Africa over disagreement with General Convention. It is expected that at least two other dioceses will follow suit with parts of Quincy and Fort Worth joining with Pittsburgh and San Joaquin.

Some reality checks are in order, since the journalists don't often get it right: a) a diocese cannot leave the Episcopal Church, just like a parish cannot leave a diocese. In this case something like 50-60% (the dust has not yet settled) voted to join with another province even though such an action is in violation of civil and church law going back to the 4th century; b) the remaining Episcopalians are in the process of forming a new standing committee and eventually will have an appointed provisional bishop until they are ready to elect a new one (Bishop Robert Duncan, deposed last month from the Episcopal Church, will lead those departing), and c) Yes, there will be long and costly legal battles over the property owned by the diocese.

Concerning that last point, an angry parishioner recently said to me, "I don't like to see my pledge money going towards legal costs!" Please be reassured that in our Diocese, not one dime of parish assessments has gone towards ANY legal costs. In the case of the national church, those costs are paid from reserve funds. You can be assured that none of your donations are used on these legal matters. That being said, it is still a sad day when ANY resources of time and money have to be diverted from the Gospel mission.

2. You may have noticed in the recent issue of Arizona Life that I have started a new practice called "Lunch with the Bishop." I will take any of you (up to four at a time) to lunch (my treat) to talk about any subject you want. The upcoming dates are: Oct. 30, Nov. 18, Dec. 4, Jan. 15, Feb. 13, March 10, April 23, and May 22. After January, I will also have dates set aside for those of you in Tucson and the southern part of the state. This is one time it is socially acceptable to invite yourself!

 

---

A Final Thought

I've written about some political topics recently, and I do feel that religious leaders have an obligation to respond to moral and ethical debates in the public sector. Still, here are some comments that put such efforts in perspective. The article was prompted by the open defiance of some conservative pastors against the IRS prohibition endorsing political candidates. Thanks once again to Episcopal Café for this link.

+Kirk

"Mark Galli responds in Christianity Today to the effort by some pastors to challenge the IRS rules that bar the use of the church for political purposes:

"This yearning to tell congregations how to vote arises out of a godly desire to teach how to live daily the Christian life, in political season and out. Politics is nothing if it is not about daily life. Whether it's the place of creationism in the local high-school curriculum, or how many immigrants to welcome into the country, or how much to spend on defense versus welfare - all political decisions affect our Day-Timers or our Form 1040. They influence things like how much our investments earn or what values our children imbibe in the public square.

"Pastors are driven by a righteous desire to shape not just church members but also their communities according to biblical standards of justice and mercy.

"But these same pastors often hanker to be relevant - and this is nothing but the Devil's third temptation of Jesus. When chatter about candidates and platforms fills the airwaves, when everyone pontificates about the last debate or recent TV appearance, you can seem out of touch with reality or too timid if you don't join in the national conversation and take a public stand. Who wants to go to a church led by an irrelevant coward?

"These pastors - and congregations that are egging them on - don't realize that in endorsing political candidates or platforms, they are selling their inheritance for a mess of pottage. Two examples should suffice: the late Jerry Falwell, and the current Jim Wallis - both Christian ministers. When all is said and done, what are they both known for? Falwell was considered a champion of political what most call ‘the Religious Right,' and Wallis is usually identified as a ‘(politically) liberal evangelical.'

"Both have said - sincerely, I believe - that their highest priority is serving and proclaiming the truth of Jesus Christ. But given the insidious nature of politics (it aims to co-opt everything and everyone into its service), ministers' Christian identity gets swallowed up by their political views. They were ordained to be heralds of the Great King. Instead they end up, like it or not, being seen as marketers for a partisan agenda. What a waste of an ordination."

. . .

"Pastors are right about this much: The election season is a unique moment in a church's life, but not because the pastor has the chance to lobby for his candidate. No, the Christian preacher has the unparalleled opportunity to act as the only sane person in a nation mad for power, the only voice in an ephemeral season filled with lies and half-lies to speak abiding truths - that elections (even ‘the most important in a generation') come and go, that princes (even ‘the most gifted in a lifetime') appear and pass away, that nations (even ‘the greatest in history') rise and fall.

"And that something greater remains after the first Tuesday in November."