I am so incredibly grateful for a voice of reason in what feels often like a flailing and misguided focus of our church-- which has so much potential if we were to focus on the Gospel and not on specific issues that are making news. A church that becomes a twittering group of people parroting ideas available elsewhere should in fact die. But a church focused on the Gospel and the love of Jesus is desperately needed in our world. Thank you for your commentary. Perhaps those at the GC will take heed.
I'm on the Commission for Ministry in my diocese, and we have spent a lot of time discussing this very issue of formation and discipleship, and how vital it is, which I am glad to say seems to be also the opinion of our diocesan leadership. And one of our concerns in these discussions is this exact matter, that we (TEC in general) have this sort of assumption that we are finished products and the Church has been around for a long time so we need not pay attention to development or theology or ideas, but it is the very reason we are in decline, a lack of discipleship and the development of Christian formation, especially for lay people. I share your frustration.
I completely agree. I'm new to the Episcopal Church and this is my first year even semi-following what happens at GC. The level of pointlessness is truly disturbing. I try to just focus on my parish and I'll try to gain more experience and be involved at things like GC but man, it is hard to not feel like I'm on a ship that is actively sinking and sailing further and further away from shore.
I don't think you meant it this way, but your dismissal of Israel/Palestine resolutions comes across as callous to the extreme. I lose sleep every night because of what I witnessed living and working with Palestinian Christians. I know that in a matter of days the community I worked with and love could be wiped off the map. I know too many people whose loved ones have been killed, imprisoned, humiliated at check points, and forced our of their homes. And in large part my tax dollars are providing the weapons that are making it all happen. I have seen first hand how Palestinian Christians have been a witness to Christ's love in an impossible situation. Our Anglican institutions in both the West Bank and Gaza are being raided, bombed, shot at and chocked day by day (an expressions used by a parishioner in Ramallah). Please understand this is not rhetoric; I can give you specific examples of this and it would take me pages and pages of writing. There is a point where there are so many anecdotes it can no longer be called anecdotal! Palestinian Christians are asking that our church take a stand. Let me repeat that. The vast majority of Palestinian Christians, and virtually all Palestinian Anglicans that I know believe these resolutions are important and are asking us, as their siblings in Christ and in the name of humanity to pass them. They know that we have the privilege to take a stand, to say something, a privilege that they often do not have. It is not "re-arranging deck chairs on the titanic" to debate and attempt to pass these resolutions any more than it would have been doing so against Apartheid in South Africa or any major atrocity in history. No, we can't dictate policies of other nations, but come on, we live in a political context and are supposed to be a moral voice in that context; the US government has an immense and outsized role in what is going on in Israel/Palestine. No, our resolutions alone won't change that but they do make a difference. Our siblings in Palestine are part of the body of Christ, worthy of care and consideration, not theoretical opressed people in some far off land who have no bonds with us. Focusing on the local is important, but not if it cuts us off from the world that Christ came to redeem. It is unfair of you to have cited the BDS resolution alone and not engaged with the other ones relating to Israel/Palestine, dismissing them out of hand all empty statements. Not all the Israel/Palestine resolutions are the same. But, to focus on the BDS resolution; I agree with you that a statement saying BDS is legitimate is not going too far and it would be better to actually attempt some sort of BDS policy in the church's economics. But first of all, we have to start somewhere. And second of all, look at the context. BDS is a movement that has been demonized and downright censored by political power in some states. The church recognizing it as a legitimate means of protest is not simply virtue signaling; it is taking a moral stand in support of something that powerful interests in this country have done everything in their power to delegitimize. It is unfortunte that it has gotten to this point, but for an institution such as the Epsicopal Church simply to acknowledge BDS as a legitimate form of protest is an important step. Let's set aside the influence of Christian Zionism for the moment and focus on the mix of understandable but ultimarely wrongheaded post-Holocaust theology with old fashioned post 9/11 anti-arab racism and islamaphobia that have deeply influenced mainline Protestant thinking in America. Those narratives have caused direct harm to Palestinians and it is our Church's responsability to show some real leadership and start changing the narrative. Changing the public sentiment in the most powerful nation on earth might not do much tomorrow, but in the long run it could save countless lives.
Thanks for this, Max. I want to begin by apologizing: you are right that my language was more casual than it should have been, and it makes sense that it conveyed a tone of dismissal or unconcern about the horrors going on in Gaza and the West Bank, even though that wasn't my intent. I am sorry for that. It is also good to know that church bodies in Palestine are calling for us to pass these resolutions; that does change my calculus somewhat and I wish that this would have been mentioned in the resolution explanations. Also, if it needs to be said, I deeply deplore the horrors committed by the Israeli government and military since, well, the Nakba and especially over the last months (and, obviously, the evils committed by Hamas too -- although my government is only supporting one of these two with my tax dollars). And I'm thankful for your deep commitment to Palestinian liberation and to justice in the Holy Land.
We might just disagree about this, but I'm still just not entirely sure that the resolutions we are considering will do anything. The reason that I highlighted the BDS resolution is because when I first saw the title, I thought that it actually might. I've read through all of them, and unless I'm missing something they all either condemn something or endorse something or direct the government to do something, and involve no actual action on the part of things GC controls (beyond telling our office of government/public affairs to inform the US government of our position). I am open to being convinced otherwise, but I just don't have a theory of change for how the Episcopal Church issuing a resolution saying something is good or bad (even if that resolution is correct) actually leads to that thing happening or not. You said that you think that our resolutions may not change US government policy overall but do make a difference. Genuinely, can you tell me how this is so? Because I cannot think of a case of this happening, certainly not within my lifetime. The days when our declarations on things got NYT coverage are long over. I don't mean to discount the urgency of the issue or the justice of the cause, but rather the means. I feel similarly about the resolutions about peace in Ukraine or closing Guantanamo Bay or commending safe gun storage or prohibiting assault weapons. It's not that I disagree with their substantive political content. It's that I don't think that they accomplish much of anything. Passing resolutions to deplore or celebrate things (with no other concrete action involved) feels to me more like patting ourselves on the back than anything else. And that's why I'm frustrated at the number of resolutions that do this.
I will say that you have convicted me that a fight *is* perhaps worth having on a more substantive resolution about Israel/Palestine (say, directing CPG to divest). And, as I've said, I do regret the overly casual language and think I will edit this piece or link to this reply or something to reflect that; this may not have been the best example to make the point I wanted. Happy to discuss this further here or in another venue.
Thank you for acknowledging the overly casual language, which is what really moved me to comment (I so rarely do in online forums!) That was my real issue with the piece and I am glad that was clear from my comment. To be sure, I was not saying that I expected you to put in some political statement staking your "position" on Israel Palestine, though I do appreciate your clarity around those issues in the above comment. The issue however is the assumption that those of us who are actively writing, advocating for and supporting these resolutions are doing so as a form of shallow social justice posturing and not acknowledging how deep in mourning, grief and trauma we are feeling. We will agree to disagree about the resolutions. I am glad you say you may support something more substantive. I still think we could have a debate about what each resolution does and does not do, though for the most part you are not wrong that they tend toward the declarative. Unfortunately, these resolutions are up against so much opposition that something more programmatic would surely fail. I see these mostly as a first step and a means of changing the conversation; they may not move the needle enough, but they are something, at least a start we can build on. I respect your differing opinion on that point, and yes would be happy to discuss further in some other context. And finally, I agree with you 100% that 60 % of our budget going to admin is obscene, and also that our church as an institution should show a deeper focus on and commitment to evangelism and formation.
I wrote an article in much the same vein (link below) and a colleague directed me to yours, Ben. The bottomline in both reflections is ontological: What is the church and what are the charisms that the Anglican and Episcopal Church embodies? Those concerns are missing far too often from the formative work that the local parish does and they are (at best) a distant backdrop to what happens at the national level. If we do not engage those questions, the denomination will continue to fail, because the perennial themes of inclusion and justice beg the answers to those questions: Included in what? What kind of justice? My suspicion is that these questions don't register on our radar as Episcopalians. For all the derision we heap on fundamentalists who believe in Christian nationalism, the fact of the matter is that progressives make the same mistake, homogenizing a progressive ecclesial agenda and the progressive national-political agenda. The fact that the rhetoric is not quite the same does not mean that these are not substantively the same project with (albeit) different goals. If we continue down this road, the future will be slow, grim decline - masked by Conventions at which we continue to celebrate our importance, congratulate ourselves on the perfection of our vision, and demonstrate that our theology is simply a pale word game for the politics of the early twenty-first century. General Convention should not be surprised that many of us will focus closer to home on life in the body of Christ and celebrate the transformation of every kind that flows from faithful attention to the question that was once stuck to the pulpit at Washington National Cathedral: "Sir, we would like to see Jesus." (Jn 12:21). Here is the article: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/whatgodwantsforyourlife/2024/06/let-the-earth-keep-silent-general-convention-is-coming/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=share_bar&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3_5XvE56Eohtu1HAJ3CamayZrkAuJeTJZT-VDe6JlAtrFv46AqPfQv5uY_aem_AY22tTs7HDQNIW8yml_EV8d-s-IW6lq18SVtw5Q7LKLQgrH_DCrBOcHrlQnzREjaWWEuvjTREEXDCf39cX5r388r
I particularly appreciate this point: "And in a widely religious and politicized culture, there are already ample alternatives for nurturing diversity and progressive political views." I've put it similarly in conversations myself:
Q- "want to go to church?"
A- "well, I would, but if it's indistinguishable from politics in dress-up, then not really"
The mainline, I think, often makes the mistake that generically progressive politics are what's missing. Those on the outside who are not zealously progressive (meaning, moderate-ish, there's obviously plenty of fare out there for right-wing religion) often look at, say, TEC, with alternating admiration and exhaustion occasionally veering into mild contempt.
I do believe there may -emphasis may- be reasons to be a Christian, at least what I, in my head, call a "center left modernity-engaged protestant" but looking at the internecine politics of General Convention doesn't help...
In a spirit of focusing on the positive, I'd be interested in a post highlighting some ministries that are effectively doing the work of evangelism/planting new churches. I wish the institutional church would turn its focus, but in the absence of that shift I'd like to do what I can to support those working the harvest field.
I responded in part to a thoughtful comment below, borrowing from some of their piece, but I'll wade in here too:
1. Not a call for people to abandon their politics, but a recognition that if churches are reducible to policy positions they're also eliminable by that same logic. Leaving aside the deep roots of our culture, I don't need Jesus to tell me that rampant poverty is bad or whatever. <- this is a touch of devils advocate on my part, by the way. Or maybe SBNR's advocate.
2. Following from the above, an observation. That observation: can the mainline survive if it is just the church of the current thing(TM)? Not exactly a withering commentary, I know, but one gets a sinking feeling that that's what it is and will be until it's gone.
What I mean is, TEC, and much of the mainline in general, seems poised to continually fracture over these policy positions as they desperately and often ineptly, tbh, try to comment and position on the "current thing (TM)". Just today on substack a post promoted to me was by a former TEC priest playing a very self-pitying tune about their polyamorous marriage and disciplinary canons. I would be in over my head to get into specifics here but my first thought was how exhausting it would be to watch a church one was interested in being part of start down that path... I unfortunately get a similar sense with commentary on the middle east. While positions on israel and gaza tend to inevitably degenerate into unhelpful caricature and I dont want to do that here, I (respectfully) worry that commentary from theologians on this issue will all to easily resemble commentary on economics from theologians, which is to say often way too far out over their skis (playing on a helpful point made by Katherine Tanner in her Gifford lectures, while she discussed options or futures trading I believe).
3. On a final and hopefully more positive note, it is good to see your train of thought here! This kind of thing is the glimmer of hope. There are those of us who aren't right-wingers but also want a religious committment and community, but one that doesn't just pivot to "Jesus meek and mild" as the proveribal mouthpiece for whatever the more progressive stream of society is already saying. Progressives aren't necessarily wrong... but if they’re always leading and the church is always following, does it stand for anything? A full-stop conservatism can be clearly pointed out to be at odds with the gospel but does political progressivism always fare better? A look at history, (positions on eugenics and social darwinism, a hobbyhorse of mine, enthusiastically championed by many mainline progressives of the early 20th century, suggests not)
N.B. Given some other comments I've made here recently, you can probably tell I write as a frustrated outsider and I apologize if that manifests in tone.
In fairness Ben its a message we've heard before. The Episcopal ship isn't sailing into an iceberg; the ship is broken in half, all the rich people are on lifeboats and you're floating on a door. Unlike you, I find scrolling through the points on the agenda hilarious. Especially the part about raising the requirement age to 75 because "we don't want to lose out on the wisdom" of the management team that drove their denomination into the ground. The only bishop worth his salt was John Shelby Spong because he saw what a con the whole national church was. The most organized of organized religions. Maybe I had a different bible but Im pretty sure Jesus would have flipped some tables if he ever went into the Episcopal HQ on 2nd avenue or saw the Mayo house.
As you mentioned in your piece Zero Episcopalians the church has virtually no one under the age of 70. The church is in the same position as the monarchy trying to justify its reason for existence and damned if I've heard a good one yet. The dirty secret is the church does have money, billions in trust not to mention the real estate its acquired in the last 300 years.
The only way to save the church is to end the national branch. That will never happen obviously. The people that had no vision for the church in their 50's are not going to develop a plan at 75. You could save god knows how much money. When they are closing churches left and right why does the Episcopal church need a political outreach director? Imagine if you turned your church camps into alternatives for juveniles and used your buildings to do as much good as possible for the community around. Dont spread the gospel, spread love.
Oh well, I have no sympathy for the worlds most pointless country club. Phoenix could very easily be the last convention ever. I couldn't choose a more appropriate location. A city that is rapidly draining an ancient aquifer that's going to have to be evacuated in 10 years. What a slap in the face after doing next to nothing to acknowledge their role in the cultural genocide of the native tribes while doing even less to fix it. Just going to grab some popcorn and enjoy the show while the church burns itself to the ground or let the tribes do it.
In light of these very sound and wise concerns, I'm very pleased that my Diocese, Toronto in the ACC, has prioritized a two year process called Season of Spiritual Renewal, which will focus on catechesis, discipleship, spiritual life, and evangelism. It rose out of a Diocesan wide visioning process that very quickly identified these areas as badly needing attention in our life as a church. https://www.toronto.anglican.ca/diocesan-life/season-of-spiritual-renewal/
Ha, I have no idea why they think anyone cares whether the church is pro or anti apartheid? With that language what do you think is going to happen. Episcopal new services Definitely sends mixed messages. from strongly supporting Israel when protestors hung a banner on their fence. Then they try and double dip and say they want peace. Lets go tell the IDF and Hamas that rich white liberals in America are officially against apartheid now. That will fix the middle east. Jesus himself couldn't do any better.
It reminds me of when the church sent representatives to the UN's international women's conference who did they send?
Was it a haitain woman? Was it a 19 year old woman who had walked 1800 miles with two kids to cross the border and has no where to go? How about platform one of the women from Iran that is doing more to topple a regime than the US military has after spending trillions of dollars? Nope lets hear from rich white women about the oppression they feel living in NYC, LA and DC. Spare me the social justice nonsense. Its such a joke the church of King Henry VIII thinks its going to lead the SJW charge.
I am so incredibly grateful for a voice of reason in what feels often like a flailing and misguided focus of our church-- which has so much potential if we were to focus on the Gospel and not on specific issues that are making news. A church that becomes a twittering group of people parroting ideas available elsewhere should in fact die. But a church focused on the Gospel and the love of Jesus is desperately needed in our world. Thank you for your commentary. Perhaps those at the GC will take heed.
I'm on the Commission for Ministry in my diocese, and we have spent a lot of time discussing this very issue of formation and discipleship, and how vital it is, which I am glad to say seems to be also the opinion of our diocesan leadership. And one of our concerns in these discussions is this exact matter, that we (TEC in general) have this sort of assumption that we are finished products and the Church has been around for a long time so we need not pay attention to development or theology or ideas, but it is the very reason we are in decline, a lack of discipleship and the development of Christian formation, especially for lay people. I share your frustration.
I completely agree. I'm new to the Episcopal Church and this is my first year even semi-following what happens at GC. The level of pointlessness is truly disturbing. I try to just focus on my parish and I'll try to gain more experience and be involved at things like GC but man, it is hard to not feel like I'm on a ship that is actively sinking and sailing further and further away from shore.
🙌🙌🙌
I don't think you meant it this way, but your dismissal of Israel/Palestine resolutions comes across as callous to the extreme. I lose sleep every night because of what I witnessed living and working with Palestinian Christians. I know that in a matter of days the community I worked with and love could be wiped off the map. I know too many people whose loved ones have been killed, imprisoned, humiliated at check points, and forced our of their homes. And in large part my tax dollars are providing the weapons that are making it all happen. I have seen first hand how Palestinian Christians have been a witness to Christ's love in an impossible situation. Our Anglican institutions in both the West Bank and Gaza are being raided, bombed, shot at and chocked day by day (an expressions used by a parishioner in Ramallah). Please understand this is not rhetoric; I can give you specific examples of this and it would take me pages and pages of writing. There is a point where there are so many anecdotes it can no longer be called anecdotal! Palestinian Christians are asking that our church take a stand. Let me repeat that. The vast majority of Palestinian Christians, and virtually all Palestinian Anglicans that I know believe these resolutions are important and are asking us, as their siblings in Christ and in the name of humanity to pass them. They know that we have the privilege to take a stand, to say something, a privilege that they often do not have. It is not "re-arranging deck chairs on the titanic" to debate and attempt to pass these resolutions any more than it would have been doing so against Apartheid in South Africa or any major atrocity in history. No, we can't dictate policies of other nations, but come on, we live in a political context and are supposed to be a moral voice in that context; the US government has an immense and outsized role in what is going on in Israel/Palestine. No, our resolutions alone won't change that but they do make a difference. Our siblings in Palestine are part of the body of Christ, worthy of care and consideration, not theoretical opressed people in some far off land who have no bonds with us. Focusing on the local is important, but not if it cuts us off from the world that Christ came to redeem. It is unfair of you to have cited the BDS resolution alone and not engaged with the other ones relating to Israel/Palestine, dismissing them out of hand all empty statements. Not all the Israel/Palestine resolutions are the same. But, to focus on the BDS resolution; I agree with you that a statement saying BDS is legitimate is not going too far and it would be better to actually attempt some sort of BDS policy in the church's economics. But first of all, we have to start somewhere. And second of all, look at the context. BDS is a movement that has been demonized and downright censored by political power in some states. The church recognizing it as a legitimate means of protest is not simply virtue signaling; it is taking a moral stand in support of something that powerful interests in this country have done everything in their power to delegitimize. It is unfortunte that it has gotten to this point, but for an institution such as the Epsicopal Church simply to acknowledge BDS as a legitimate form of protest is an important step. Let's set aside the influence of Christian Zionism for the moment and focus on the mix of understandable but ultimarely wrongheaded post-Holocaust theology with old fashioned post 9/11 anti-arab racism and islamaphobia that have deeply influenced mainline Protestant thinking in America. Those narratives have caused direct harm to Palestinians and it is our Church's responsability to show some real leadership and start changing the narrative. Changing the public sentiment in the most powerful nation on earth might not do much tomorrow, but in the long run it could save countless lives.
Thanks for this, Max. I want to begin by apologizing: you are right that my language was more casual than it should have been, and it makes sense that it conveyed a tone of dismissal or unconcern about the horrors going on in Gaza and the West Bank, even though that wasn't my intent. I am sorry for that. It is also good to know that church bodies in Palestine are calling for us to pass these resolutions; that does change my calculus somewhat and I wish that this would have been mentioned in the resolution explanations. Also, if it needs to be said, I deeply deplore the horrors committed by the Israeli government and military since, well, the Nakba and especially over the last months (and, obviously, the evils committed by Hamas too -- although my government is only supporting one of these two with my tax dollars). And I'm thankful for your deep commitment to Palestinian liberation and to justice in the Holy Land.
We might just disagree about this, but I'm still just not entirely sure that the resolutions we are considering will do anything. The reason that I highlighted the BDS resolution is because when I first saw the title, I thought that it actually might. I've read through all of them, and unless I'm missing something they all either condemn something or endorse something or direct the government to do something, and involve no actual action on the part of things GC controls (beyond telling our office of government/public affairs to inform the US government of our position). I am open to being convinced otherwise, but I just don't have a theory of change for how the Episcopal Church issuing a resolution saying something is good or bad (even if that resolution is correct) actually leads to that thing happening or not. You said that you think that our resolutions may not change US government policy overall but do make a difference. Genuinely, can you tell me how this is so? Because I cannot think of a case of this happening, certainly not within my lifetime. The days when our declarations on things got NYT coverage are long over. I don't mean to discount the urgency of the issue or the justice of the cause, but rather the means. I feel similarly about the resolutions about peace in Ukraine or closing Guantanamo Bay or commending safe gun storage or prohibiting assault weapons. It's not that I disagree with their substantive political content. It's that I don't think that they accomplish much of anything. Passing resolutions to deplore or celebrate things (with no other concrete action involved) feels to me more like patting ourselves on the back than anything else. And that's why I'm frustrated at the number of resolutions that do this.
I will say that you have convicted me that a fight *is* perhaps worth having on a more substantive resolution about Israel/Palestine (say, directing CPG to divest). And, as I've said, I do regret the overly casual language and think I will edit this piece or link to this reply or something to reflect that; this may not have been the best example to make the point I wanted. Happy to discuss this further here or in another venue.
Thank you for acknowledging the overly casual language, which is what really moved me to comment (I so rarely do in online forums!) That was my real issue with the piece and I am glad that was clear from my comment. To be sure, I was not saying that I expected you to put in some political statement staking your "position" on Israel Palestine, though I do appreciate your clarity around those issues in the above comment. The issue however is the assumption that those of us who are actively writing, advocating for and supporting these resolutions are doing so as a form of shallow social justice posturing and not acknowledging how deep in mourning, grief and trauma we are feeling. We will agree to disagree about the resolutions. I am glad you say you may support something more substantive. I still think we could have a debate about what each resolution does and does not do, though for the most part you are not wrong that they tend toward the declarative. Unfortunately, these resolutions are up against so much opposition that something more programmatic would surely fail. I see these mostly as a first step and a means of changing the conversation; they may not move the needle enough, but they are something, at least a start we can build on. I respect your differing opinion on that point, and yes would be happy to discuss further in some other context. And finally, I agree with you 100% that 60 % of our budget going to admin is obscene, and also that our church as an institution should show a deeper focus on and commitment to evangelism and formation.
I wrote an article in much the same vein (link below) and a colleague directed me to yours, Ben. The bottomline in both reflections is ontological: What is the church and what are the charisms that the Anglican and Episcopal Church embodies? Those concerns are missing far too often from the formative work that the local parish does and they are (at best) a distant backdrop to what happens at the national level. If we do not engage those questions, the denomination will continue to fail, because the perennial themes of inclusion and justice beg the answers to those questions: Included in what? What kind of justice? My suspicion is that these questions don't register on our radar as Episcopalians. For all the derision we heap on fundamentalists who believe in Christian nationalism, the fact of the matter is that progressives make the same mistake, homogenizing a progressive ecclesial agenda and the progressive national-political agenda. The fact that the rhetoric is not quite the same does not mean that these are not substantively the same project with (albeit) different goals. If we continue down this road, the future will be slow, grim decline - masked by Conventions at which we continue to celebrate our importance, congratulate ourselves on the perfection of our vision, and demonstrate that our theology is simply a pale word game for the politics of the early twenty-first century. General Convention should not be surprised that many of us will focus closer to home on life in the body of Christ and celebrate the transformation of every kind that flows from faithful attention to the question that was once stuck to the pulpit at Washington National Cathedral: "Sir, we would like to see Jesus." (Jn 12:21). Here is the article: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/whatgodwantsforyourlife/2024/06/let-the-earth-keep-silent-general-convention-is-coming/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=share_bar&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3_5XvE56Eohtu1HAJ3CamayZrkAuJeTJZT-VDe6JlAtrFv46AqPfQv5uY_aem_AY22tTs7HDQNIW8yml_EV8d-s-IW6lq18SVtw5Q7LKLQgrH_DCrBOcHrlQnzREjaWWEuvjTREEXDCf39cX5r388r
I particularly appreciate this point: "And in a widely religious and politicized culture, there are already ample alternatives for nurturing diversity and progressive political views." I've put it similarly in conversations myself:
Q- "want to go to church?"
A- "well, I would, but if it's indistinguishable from politics in dress-up, then not really"
The mainline, I think, often makes the mistake that generically progressive politics are what's missing. Those on the outside who are not zealously progressive (meaning, moderate-ish, there's obviously plenty of fare out there for right-wing religion) often look at, say, TEC, with alternating admiration and exhaustion occasionally veering into mild contempt.
I do believe there may -emphasis may- be reasons to be a Christian, at least what I, in my head, call a "center left modernity-engaged protestant" but looking at the internecine politics of General Convention doesn't help...
I think these resolutions being discussed go well beyond critiquing Israel, and dive into delegitimizing Israel as a Jewish state. This is honestly kind of scary. https://www.vbinder.net/resolutions?committee_id=594&house=HD&lang=en
In a spirit of focusing on the positive, I'd be interested in a post highlighting some ministries that are effectively doing the work of evangelism/planting new churches. I wish the institutional church would turn its focus, but in the absence of that shift I'd like to do what I can to support those working the harvest field.
I responded in part to a thoughtful comment below, borrowing from some of their piece, but I'll wade in here too:
1. Not a call for people to abandon their politics, but a recognition that if churches are reducible to policy positions they're also eliminable by that same logic. Leaving aside the deep roots of our culture, I don't need Jesus to tell me that rampant poverty is bad or whatever. <- this is a touch of devils advocate on my part, by the way. Or maybe SBNR's advocate.
2. Following from the above, an observation. That observation: can the mainline survive if it is just the church of the current thing(TM)? Not exactly a withering commentary, I know, but one gets a sinking feeling that that's what it is and will be until it's gone.
What I mean is, TEC, and much of the mainline in general, seems poised to continually fracture over these policy positions as they desperately and often ineptly, tbh, try to comment and position on the "current thing (TM)". Just today on substack a post promoted to me was by a former TEC priest playing a very self-pitying tune about their polyamorous marriage and disciplinary canons. I would be in over my head to get into specifics here but my first thought was how exhausting it would be to watch a church one was interested in being part of start down that path... I unfortunately get a similar sense with commentary on the middle east. While positions on israel and gaza tend to inevitably degenerate into unhelpful caricature and I dont want to do that here, I (respectfully) worry that commentary from theologians on this issue will all to easily resemble commentary on economics from theologians, which is to say often way too far out over their skis (playing on a helpful point made by Katherine Tanner in her Gifford lectures, while she discussed options or futures trading I believe).
3. On a final and hopefully more positive note, it is good to see your train of thought here! This kind of thing is the glimmer of hope. There are those of us who aren't right-wingers but also want a religious committment and community, but one that doesn't just pivot to "Jesus meek and mild" as the proveribal mouthpiece for whatever the more progressive stream of society is already saying. Progressives aren't necessarily wrong... but if they’re always leading and the church is always following, does it stand for anything? A full-stop conservatism can be clearly pointed out to be at odds with the gospel but does political progressivism always fare better? A look at history, (positions on eugenics and social darwinism, a hobbyhorse of mine, enthusiastically championed by many mainline progressives of the early 20th century, suggests not)
N.B. Given some other comments I've made here recently, you can probably tell I write as a frustrated outsider and I apologize if that manifests in tone.
In fairness Ben its a message we've heard before. The Episcopal ship isn't sailing into an iceberg; the ship is broken in half, all the rich people are on lifeboats and you're floating on a door. Unlike you, I find scrolling through the points on the agenda hilarious. Especially the part about raising the requirement age to 75 because "we don't want to lose out on the wisdom" of the management team that drove their denomination into the ground. The only bishop worth his salt was John Shelby Spong because he saw what a con the whole national church was. The most organized of organized religions. Maybe I had a different bible but Im pretty sure Jesus would have flipped some tables if he ever went into the Episcopal HQ on 2nd avenue or saw the Mayo house.
As you mentioned in your piece Zero Episcopalians the church has virtually no one under the age of 70. The church is in the same position as the monarchy trying to justify its reason for existence and damned if I've heard a good one yet. The dirty secret is the church does have money, billions in trust not to mention the real estate its acquired in the last 300 years.
The only way to save the church is to end the national branch. That will never happen obviously. The people that had no vision for the church in their 50's are not going to develop a plan at 75. You could save god knows how much money. When they are closing churches left and right why does the Episcopal church need a political outreach director? Imagine if you turned your church camps into alternatives for juveniles and used your buildings to do as much good as possible for the community around. Dont spread the gospel, spread love.
Oh well, I have no sympathy for the worlds most pointless country club. Phoenix could very easily be the last convention ever. I couldn't choose a more appropriate location. A city that is rapidly draining an ancient aquifer that's going to have to be evacuated in 10 years. What a slap in the face after doing next to nothing to acknowledge their role in the cultural genocide of the native tribes while doing even less to fix it. Just going to grab some popcorn and enjoy the show while the church burns itself to the ground or let the tribes do it.
In light of these very sound and wise concerns, I'm very pleased that my Diocese, Toronto in the ACC, has prioritized a two year process called Season of Spiritual Renewal, which will focus on catechesis, discipleship, spiritual life, and evangelism. It rose out of a Diocesan wide visioning process that very quickly identified these areas as badly needing attention in our life as a church. https://www.toronto.anglican.ca/diocesan-life/season-of-spiritual-renewal/
I think these resolutions being discussed go well beyond critiquing Israel, and dive into delegitimizing Israel as a Jewish state. This is honestly kind of scary. https://www.vbinder.net/resolutions?committee_id=594&house=HD&lang=en
Ha, I have no idea why they think anyone cares whether the church is pro or anti apartheid? With that language what do you think is going to happen. Episcopal new services Definitely sends mixed messages. from strongly supporting Israel when protestors hung a banner on their fence. Then they try and double dip and say they want peace. Lets go tell the IDF and Hamas that rich white liberals in America are officially against apartheid now. That will fix the middle east. Jesus himself couldn't do any better.
It reminds me of when the church sent representatives to the UN's international women's conference who did they send?
Was it a haitain woman? Was it a 19 year old woman who had walked 1800 miles with two kids to cross the border and has no where to go? How about platform one of the women from Iran that is doing more to topple a regime than the US military has after spending trillions of dollars? Nope lets hear from rich white women about the oppression they feel living in NYC, LA and DC. Spare me the social justice nonsense. Its such a joke the church of King Henry VIII thinks its going to lead the SJW charge.