When I arrived at Shrine Mont last weekend, I was so excited to be back to a place I've been going to for over twenty years. As I came over the hill, knowing that Shrine Mont was just over the next bend in the road I burst into tears. I felt the sense of loss I've felt so many times over the course of this sorrow-filled journey. We have our first hearing regarding the Virginia lawsuits on Monday and the knowledge of that, as I drove closer to Shrine Mont grieved me even more. There must be some better way through this - for more than twenty years of building friendships, only to find that they were built in sand.
4 comments:
Well, it is a test of what is most important to you.
In a majority of the AMiA parishes, they left without a fight and moved on. Now last October you raised the issue of SC where they fought for the parish with some contempt of the action.
It's a hard choice between 'stewardship' and friendship. There are opposing views of what is proper. I can see the risk of loosing both but I do not see how to gain both.
Each side can put forth a valid argument but they are mutually exclusive, made even worse by the last communique. The choices are yours to make.
There is a better way. Give up the property, shake the dust off your feet, and move on.
It's just bricks and mortar. The Hebrews gave up their bricks and mortar and left for the Promised Land. Why is it so hard for us to do the same?
We followed the Diocese of Virginia Protocol that outlined the steps to take when there has been a division. We had elected members of the Bishop of Virginia's Property Committee as he directed us to do. Then just days after those members were elected, David Booth Beers showed up in the Diocese and read them the riot act and the next thing we know, Bishop Lee has disbanded his Property Committee and went to court and sued 200 lay volunteers.
The bricks and mortar were given in support of the Gospel mission - of which the Episcopal Church continues to walk apart from. The property is not TEC's or the Diocese of Virginia (their names are not on the deeds), but even more so, the buildings are dedicated to proclaiming the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is a question of good stewardship of the church to do all that we can - with good and sound judgement - so that the church can continue in it's God-given mission, so that the Truro Preschool can remain open and the children are not thrown into the street. The Diocese of Virginia has made it clear that they want to evict Truro members from the Church and then set up their own progressive version.
The day may come that we will shake the dust off and move on - but we must do what we can with good and sound judgement to be good stewards of the church and so that we can continue to share the Good News of Jesus Christ in the heart of Fairfax City.
I supposed the members of the French Resistance could have shaken the dust off their feet and fled war-torn France - but they did not. Sometimes it is good to move along, and sometimes it is better to defend what is the Lord's.
And yes, the Hebrews gave up their bricks and mortor of Egpyt, but they were not so inclined to be run off of the land we call Israel (though there were times!). They stood firm for the faith and the witness of that faith in the land today called Israel.
What is important though is that we have sound judgement and wise counsel - that is the prayer. We are called to be good stewards and through prayer we learn what that means.
As for me personally, I keep thinking of Ed Prichard and how he devoted his life to the community of Truro. How can I abandon the investment he put into Truro and just give the keys to the Bishop of Virginia?
I supposed they could drive us to the ground, but in that case I hope to be on my knees and asking the Lord, where shall we go? In the meantime, I pray that He will fight for us and as He does, we will keep our own eyes fixed on Jesus. The property is His.
bb
BB,
Situation did change, that's regrettable. One day +Lee is one way, then a new sheriff in town and as you say, it's a new day.
That was the reality in one path, now this is a reality of another.
As I said, each side can put forth a valid argument but they are mutually exclusive, made even worse by the last communique (it's schizophrenic, don't alienate but also allow access).
Now objectively arguments set forth are similar to SC opinion. Subjectively DioSC is more orthodox. Either a retraction on one would be necessary else violates law of non-contradiction.
Then again the logic of the DioSC also works and objectively it could be applied to CANA as it was AMiA.
Now when one of those "200 lay volunteers" forgot his fiduciary calling as a leader & little bit about greater must be servant and something about love, I concluded the more Christlike course was to keep the peace, find a new home and let the Lord deal with the selfishness. That was mine. In that case I kind of gave up both. I did have a choice to be subjugated and keep friendships that way. I opted not.
I do think it's going to be one or the other, going back to your original post. The AMiA & DioSC issue probably highlights all the arguments -- both valid but mutually exclusive. Actions have consequences and costs associated with them. I do not see a path that has both desires in the current reality of today.
The choices are yours to make.
Post a Comment