SUBJECT: RELIGION!!!

Recently, I had the opportunity to hear a presentation given by the Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D. who is the Director of Education for the National Catholic Bioethics Center. In addition to being a priest, Fr. Tad (as he is most commonly known) is a neuroscientist of some note. The subject of the presentation was "Stem Cell Research in light of Humanae Vitae". In a roughly 75 minute presentation, Fr. Tad clearly and succintly explained the science involved, current research (and successful medical application) with regard to adult stem cells, and cut through the political "spin" so loudly promulgated by the media.

If you ever get the chance to hear Fr. Tad speak, by all means, do so!

Papa Z

SUBJECT: RELIGION!!!

Some thoughts . . .

The WorldWideWeb is buzzing again with the news of the latest charges and counter-charges with respect to the current controversy in the CEC. I wish to make an observation here, with respect to those who are, in good conscience, still trying to sort things out and pray things get better. I have nothing against these persons -- and I do believe in miracles.

But most engaged in these most recent discussions (both on this blog, CEC Healing, and various internet forums) are missing the point.

The point is this:

The situation cannot -- CANNOT -- be fixed with the current leadership in place. (I'm referring to the leadership in the United States. Overseas, the situation might be different -- I just don't know.) The system is broken, and cannot be fixed by re-arranging the same broken pieces. The remaining bishops in the CEC were ALL complicit in the disaster of last year; many have been complicit in various issues since Manila in 2004. Even today, the truth has not been told in many places, and people continue to be hurt and misled. Those bishops which tried, in whatever way, to effect change or to demand accountability were marginalized, attacked, denounced, threatened, and forced out.

The laity can "demand" accountability; they can "demand" participation; they can "demand" anything they like -- but until the bishops admit that they are broken; that they have failed in their charge; that they have not been the good shepherds God called them to me -- nothing can or will change. A sick person cannot begin to get better until he acknowledges the sickness. And that's what this is -- a deeply-rooted sickness. "Retiring" Adler won't heal the sickness. Blaming blogs and forums won't heal the sickness either. It's often been said that sometimes, healing cannot begin until the parties involved hit "rock bottom". One would think that lessons should have been learned last year -- but apparently the remaining bishops have not yet hit "rock bottom".

For the sake of the souls still left in the CEC, I pray that the remaining bishops do hit "rock-bottom"; do come to terms with their own sickness; and earnestly and truly repent.

Papa Z

SUBJECT: RELIGION!!!

So maybe this is not quite the end.

A recent post on this blog indicated that I was through participating in CEC discussion and controversy. Since that time, however, more garbage has come to light (and I have also discovered an excellent blog -- CEC Healing, which I strongly recommend.)

http://cechealing.wordpress.com/

For the sake of the victims involved in this latest series of scandals, I will be extremely cautious. More people have been hurt -- and I, for one, do not choose to be the one to unnecessarily exacerbate that hurt. Suffice it to say, however, that the spin out of San Clemente continues, and that the leadership has shown an astonishing talent for shifting blame away from those most in sin to those whose participation has been at best ancillary. Classic example: the recent "confession" of a former high-ranking CEC clergyman of adultery. Guess what, folks, it's not a "confession" if you get caught! And the facts of the matter being what they are -- "adultery" is a pretty disingenuous term. "Sexual/Spiritual Abuse" seems to me to be a far more accurate description of what occurred.

Another writer, commenting on another blog, has expressed doubt as to whether the CEC can recover, and become the body God wanted it to be in the first place. I believe in miracles, and affirm that God can do whatever He wants (and frequently does) but I have my doubts.

I do believe that the CEC was originally raised up by God for the purpose of reconciling many Protestants (especially Charismatics and Pentecostals) with the Catholic Church. I don't believe that the CEC was particularly unique -- merely a vehicle God used in the 20th century to try to effect healing. In my study of Church History, I can point out other examples, since the Reformation, where God has attempted to effect such reconciliation -- and all failed, due to the disobedience of men.

In the 17th Century, the Caroline Divines (Lancelot Andrewes, and company) tried to restore a strongly sacramental presence to the Church of England.

In the 18th Century, John Wesley and his Methodist movement tried to restore the importance of Communion to the Evangelical wing of the Church of England.

In the 19th Century, the Oxford Movement provided possibly the greatest attempt at real reconciliation between church bodies since the grief of the Reformation.

And in the 20th Century, the CEC was brought forth to bridge the gap which had grown between Pentecostalism and the independent churches to that Faith Once Delivered To The Saints.

All four attempts failed. Why? Not because of the faithlessness of God, but rather of the faithlessness of man.

In the 17th Century, it was a monstrosity of Puritanism (in the worst sense of the word) which ended in civil war, regicide and terror.

In the 18th century, Wesley's followers, not content to "wait on the Lord" (or on Wesley!) broke from the Church of England (and lost whatever shreds of Apostolic authority the C of E still could claim.)

In the 19th Century, there were those who followed Cardinal Newman into the Catholic Church, but there were many others who chose to try to re-create an "English Catholicism" -- a church which had never truly existed, at least, not in the way that Keble, Pusey, and Gore desperately longed for.

And in the 20th/21st century, the move of God known as the CEC was derailed, not just by the human frailty of the leadership, but also (and most importantly) by the division and non-definition of doctrine and dogma. By men who claimed to believe one thing on paper -- but preached and taught the opposite. By men who didn't believe; who didn't want to believe the original vision of the church; who drove honest believers out, and lied about their departures; and, in some cases, by men whom, I believe, were and are active tools of the enemy.

Yes, healing is possible. Restoration is possible. But there must be a return to the original vision; a laying-aside of personal agenda; and honest contrition for wrongs done.

Elsewise, God will try again. In another place. In another time. In another way. And the CEC will be consigned to the rubbish-heap of failed religious movements.

Papa Z

SUBJECT: RELIGION!!!

The End!!!

This will be my last post regarding the Charismatic Episcopal Church. The amount of venom by some -- CERTAINLY not all -- members of that body toward their brothers and sisters who have, for whatever reason, moved in different directions still continues. The "spin" and (at best) misleading information coming out of San Clemente still continues. The tragedy continues.

I have tried, to the best of my ability -- and sometimes have failed -- to provide information and communication which was accurate, and as dispassionately as I could. Many will say that I have failed miserably, while many, many more have thanked me for providing a needed service. Sadly, some personal attacks have come from fellow Catholics who seem to feel that once one swims the Tiber, one should be automatically immune to criticisism. This is unfortunate.

Regardless, I am backing out of further CEC discussion and controversy. I will continue to provide support for those who contact me privately. I continue to pray for healing wherever necessary.

Comments will no longer be supported on this blog with regard to any CEC entry.

Papa Z

SUBJECT: BASEBALL!!!

*Barry Bonds* hit home run number *756* last night. What a shame. What a shame to the many fans of this, the greatest game of all. What a shame to the many fans of the home run ball. What a shame to all those great athletes who work hard for the love of the game.

Some thoughts on this *event*:

1) I wholeheartedly approve of the comments Commissioner of Baseball Bud Selig made upon the event of #*755*: "Congratulations to Barry Bonds as he ties major league baseball's home run record," it said. "No matter what anybody thinks of the controversy surrounding this event, Mr. Bonds' achievement is noteworthy and remarkable.

"As I said previously, out of respect for the tradition of the game, the magnitude of the record and the fact that all citizens in this country are innocent until proven guilty, either I or a representative of my office will attend the next few games and make every attempt to observe the breaking of the all-time home run record."

So much was not said here! No handshake. No applause. No conversation. No nothing. And do you know where the Commissioner was yesterday? (Hint: NOT at the game in DC!) He was being deposed by former Senator Mitchell, who is heading up baseball's investigation on steroid abuse. Don't you just love it?

2) In my view, the Commissioner could have gone further. In his role, he has the right (some might say, even the responsibility) to act IN THE BEST INTEREST OF BASEBALL!!! This means he has an enormous level of discretion -- and that his decisions are most difficult to appeal or overturn. Look at the example of the "Black Sox" scandal, where 8 members of the Chicago White Sox were permanently banned from baseball due to their associations with gamblers -- associations which led to the "throwing" of the 1919 World Series. There are a couple of interesting things to note here: 1) The players were found NOT GUILTY in a court of law. 2) Of the 8 players allegedly involved, solid cases for illegal play can only be made for 4 of the 8. Nevertheless, the Commissioner at the time, banned them ALL for life acting IN THE BEST INTEREST OF BASEBALL!!! None of the 8 were ever reinstated, although 2 (Joe Jackson and Buck Weaver) continued to defend their innocence and tried to clear their names for the rest of their lives. Later suspensions (which were lifted) were levied by Commissioners against Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle for their legal (but controversial) affiliation with casino gambling. And then we have the Pete Rose fiasco -- which I will not dignify further in this post. My point? Commissioner Selig, although I appreciated his remarks at #*755*, could have prevented this debacle from ever reaching this point.

3) Hank Aaron is a class act. His video tribute to *Bonds* was the epitome of gentlemanly behavior -- behavior that *Bonds* does not now -- and never has exhibited.

4) Willie Mays -- one of the greatest of all times -- has lowered himself dramatically in my view. Yes, I know that *Bonds* is his godson -- but a proper godfather would have taken *Bonds* to task long ago.

5) If someone suggests that there is a racial component to the hostility toward *Bonds* one more time, I'm liable to become physically ill. People don't oppose *Bonds* because he's black. Amongst the top 10 home run hitters of all time, 5 are black, and 2 are Hispanic. Baseball may not be free of racial tension -- but this is not the game it was 30, 40, 50, or 60 years ago. People show hostility toward *Bonds* strictly because of his behavior. No other reason.

At the end of the day, *Bonds* is not, and never will, be Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron. Not as a ballplayer, and not as a person.

Papa Z

SUBJECT: LIFE!!!

Girard's Law

Joe Girard was a salesman. Indeed, he was a dynamite salesman. He is a 12-time "Salesperson of the Year" award winner and is listed in the Guiness Book of Records. Over the years both in sales and in motivational speaking, he developed a communications concept now known as "Girard's Law". He learned that most people typically know about 250 other people fairly well -- well enough to take/give advice on purchases, dining experiences (and to show up at funerals). He then took this idea a step further. He reasoned that if he provided outstanding service to one person, before long up to 250 people would know that Girard provided outstanding service. And those 250 people (who also know 250 people) would continue to spread the word. He also realized that the reverse was also true. If he cheated a customer, or treated one poorly, pretty soon there would be a stadium-sized crowd that would not buy from Girard.

It makes a great deal of sense once you think about it. Now, with the absolute explosion of internet use and the number of persons who read and/or write blogs, forums, and the like, my guess is (and I don't have solid figures here) that the number of contacts one could have would be exponentially greater than 250. (Although this is not intended to be a post on the CEC, the events in that denomination over the past 18 months -- and the reporting of those events, both positively and negatively on blogs and forums tends to prove my point.)

Because of how Girard's Law operates, there are probably 250 persons whom I didn't know previously, who would love to have a meal with me. (The reverse is also true!!!!!!! There are probably 250 persons who would love to see my goose get cooked!!!!!!!)

Let me give an example. I am aware of a small Christian elementary/high school on the East Coast which has recently experienced a bit of a difficulty with a student and a couple of parent/ guardians. The issues involved were relatively minor, and in a perfect world, could have been cleared up by a brief meeting with the parties involved. Unfortunately, two members of the administration of this school have decided to stonewall and have utterly refused to meet with one of the parent/guardians involved.

Now, Girard's Law comes into play.

You have one concerned family (currently paying three tuition bills); you have a second concerned family cutting off financial support and refusing to send their children to the school; you have several other concerned families asking what is going on -- and now, you are reading this account on a blog some 800 miles away. I'm in the education business myself, and I know how small Christian schools operate on shoestring budgets. The loss of several students and potential students over a single misunderstanding will be a terrible financial "hit". I'm sure many of my readers know the sacrifices parents make when they choose private schools for their children -- and parents paying thousands of dollars per student per year do have the right to expect certain minimal courtesies! This is not rocket science!

But pride is a terrible thing . . . and Girard's Law has no pity.

Papa Z

SUBJECT: RELIGION!!!

Apparently, the leadership of the CEC has not learned much from the events of the past 12-18 months. I just received -- unsolicited -- an e-mail from a long-time CEC priest in the Southeast who yesterday announced that he and his congregation were moving from the CEC to the newly formed Communion of Christ the Redeemer (CCR).

Within hours -- literally within hours -- the CEC leader in his state demanded the return of his ordination certificates, denounced him as a vow-breaker, and has already begun efforts to seize his church's property. And this against a man who has served as a priest for more than a decade.

For crying out loud, people, WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED???

WHEN WILL THIS NONSENSE STOP???

What is to be gained by this continued persecution?

When will the current leadership in the CEC realize that they bear enormous responsibility for the events of the last 18 months?

You know, I've heard a lot of talk about "healing" and "moving forward" and even admission of "communication breakdowns", etc. But I don't see the actions suiting the words.

Papa Z

SUBJECT: RELIGION!!!!

Further Thoughts on the CEC

It's been awhile since I've posted on this blog. Much of my time has been spent moderating several sections of the Ancient-Future Catholic forum, owned by fellow blogger David Bennett. Some months ago, we decided mutually that the time had come to shut down discussions of the CEC on that forum, and overall, I believe that this has been a wise move. Some CEC discussion has continued on the On Our Way Home forum, but at a much slower, and less frenetic pace than before.

Now that the dust has cleared somewhat, we can perhaps have a better picture as to what has actually happened, and what is still going on.

Total Episcopal Departures from the CEC since May 2006:

Bishop Philip Zampino, formerly Bishop of the Mid-Atlantic Diocese and Abbot General; now Prelate of the Communion of Corpus Christi.

Bishop Fred Fick, formerly Bishop of the Great Lakes Diocese; now a bishop in the Communion of Christ the Redeemer.

Bishop Don Miles, formerly assistant Bishop of the Great Lakes Diocese; now a bishop in the Communion of Christ the Redeemer.

Bishop Rich Lipka, formerly Bishop of Delmarva Diocese; now the President of the Communion of Christ the Redeemer.

Bishop Phil Weeks, formerly Missionary Bishop for the CEC; now a bishop in the Communion of Christ the Redeemer.

Bishop Ken Myers, formerly Bishop of the South-Central Diocese; now Vice-President of the Communion of Christ the Redeemer.

Bishop Rick Painter, formerly Bishop in Arizona; now the Secretary-Treasurer of the Communion of Christ the Redeemer.

Archbishop Randy Sly, formerly Archbishop of the Eastern Province; now a layman in the Roman Catholic Church.

In addition, there have been dozens, if not hundreds of priests and deacons who have left for other bodies, dozens of churches who have left for other bodies, and thousands of laity which have left for other bodies.

The "Exodus" continues, but has been slowed to a trickle. I do expect more losses, but not nearly at the rate we've seen over the last 9 months or so.

Is, then, my earlier post on the demise of the CEC incorrect? To paraphrase Mark Twain: "Are the rumors of the death of the CEC greatly exaggerated?"

No, I don't think so. It may still be possible for the CEC to survive as a meaningful entity -- but I would not bet the rent on it.

What has happened positively:

There have been some positives.

1) The CEC is finally being honest about its own numbers here in the United States. For many years, those in the CEC (including those in ministry) were treated to enormous exaggerations as to churches and parishoners. In the United States, the CEC is now admitting to about 4,000 souls.

2) The CEC is finally taking a stand on doctrinal issues (like the Canon of Scripture). Lack of clarity on fundamental points of doctrine has always been a shortcoming of the denomination. It appears that this is beginning to change.

3) The CEC is finally taking a stand on a unified liturgy. This has also been a shortcoming, as not only styles of worship would vary around the country, but so also would fundamental and theological aspects of the liturgy. It is difficult to have a unified doctrine if there is no uniform liturgical worship. The CEC is finally coming to grips with this.

4) The CEC seems to be making at least a minimal attempt to regularize its reporting, both with regard to parish records and with regard to financial accountability. This may be "too little, too late" -- but, nevertheless a start is being made.

HOWEVER -- the NEGATIVES certainly outweigh the positives:

1) Honesty about numbers is a good thing. The numbers themselves look very bad -- and when analyzed, look much worse. 4,000 persons -- 90 churches. That adds up to about 45 persons per church. Not very viable. But there's more. 6 of those congregations are cathedral parishes, which tend to be much larger than the typical CEC congregation. If we assume an average membership of 150 for those six congregations (which is conservative indeed) we're left with about 3,100 persons in 84 parishes/missions. That adds up to about to about 37 members per congregation. But it gets worse than that. Among those 4,000 people, are between 300 and 350 clergy! For 90 churches! Most members of the CEC clergy have families, and many of those families are quite large. Just assuming an average of 4.5 members per clergy family (which again is conservative indeed) and we see between 1,800 and 2,000 members of CEC churches who are either clergy, or families of clergy. That number approaches 50%. This is not viable denominational growth!

2) Taking a stand on doctrine and on liturgy is also a good thing. However, in the case of the CEC, the stand taken is essentially "We have decided that we are a Protestant denomination". If that is truly what they want to be, that's fine and dandy. But that is not the song which was being sung EVEN ONE YEAR AGO, much less from the beginning of the denomination. Yet the current leadership is pretending that this is not the case. One immediately thinks of the "doublespeak" talked about in 1984. Those of us who remember how it was at the beginning cannot be fooled.

3) The beginnings of accountability are not enough. The current leadership of the CEC has still not "come clean" about the events of the past year (and honestly, much further back than that!) Clergy and laity who still ask questions are being insulted by bishops. The cries of the literally thousands who have asked for information, and yes, for justice, have been mocked and ridiculed. Attacks have been made against forums and blogs (including this one) yet certain leaders have no hesitancy in printing their own views and opinions. Lies have been told, and continue to be told. Reputations have been tarnished, and continue to be tarnished. Relationships have been broken, and continue to be broken.

In other words, in spite of the loss of 8 bishops, dozens to hundreds of clergy, and (depending on which set of figures you read) up to 75% percent of the laity in the United States, a certain cadre within the remaining leadership is still continuing "business as usual".

I pray for those left in the CEC. I pray for healing and for reconciliation. But I also pray that "the truth will out".

Papa Z

SUBJECT: RELIGION & HISTORY!!!

Some thoughts on the Council of Trent -- and possible lessons for the CEC.

On this blog and on others, many thoughts concerning the current crises in the CEC have been expressed. Some of these thoughts and concerns have to do with actions of particular persons in the CEC -- and those comments are beyond the scope of this posting. What I do want to express are some thoughts about the Reformation and the Council of Trent which may be of value to those in the CEC who earnestly desire reform in that body.

Many historians and theologians will argue (including many Lutherans) that the original causes of the Reformation were not doctrinal in nature, but rather disciplinary. Many of the criticisms made by Luther were valid -- and were eventually taken up by the Catholic Reformers at the Council of Trent.

It occurs to me that, following the old dictum that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, those persons of good will remaining in the CEC -- and there are many -- might take note at some of the specific disciplinary questions raised by the Reformers and addressed at the Council of Trent.

1) Seminary Training: It has been a major complaint by many in the CEC that the training, education, and spiritual formation of the clergy has been lacking. (From my own experience over 11 years, I have to say that I agree.) The Catholic Church in the Late Middle Ages experienced the same problem. In BOTH cases -- the CEC AND the late medieval Church -- this has not always been due to deliberate neglect.

The CEC has received many good and godly men from other religious entities -- some already with churches -- but with widely varying levels of education, training, and spiritual formation. This has led to confusion as to what the CEC actually does and does not teach and believe -- and to wide disparities between dioceses.

The late medieval Church, reeling from the Black Death, in which a significant percentage of the population of Europe died, faced an extreme shortage of clergy (due to the fact that since the clergy and religious were attending the sick and dying, their own mortality rate was exceptionally high). As a result, to fill the gaps, many people were rushed through the ordination process with only a fraction of the necessary formation needed to be good priests and religious.

(I must say that in both the CEC and in the late medieval Church, there have also been cases of gross neglect and corruption -- but that is not the topic of this post.)

The Council of Trent recognized that the Reformers had a valid point with regard to issues like the proper training of clergy. Thus, the Council mandated that seminaries be erected in the various dioceses of the Church to correct this fault. If the CEC truly wishes reform in this area, they need to follow suit with strong programs of academic, pastoral, and spiritual formation. All three are necessary.

2) Regular visitations by bishops: This was a major problem in the medieval Catholic Church. Visitations by bishops were, in many places very rare (especially among the smaller, poorer, and more rural churches.) As a result, the faithful were neglected by their spiritual shephards -- and corrupt priests were not held to proper account.

The CEC has had -- in some dioceses -- similar breakdowns. I know of one CEC parish which, in four years, never received a single visitation, while a larger, wealthier parish in the same state was visited several times a year. I know of another CEC church (in a different diocese) who had not received a visitation in at least that long -- and whenever there were candidates for confirmation, the candidates had to travel hours to the cathedral. I know of another CEC priest in yet another diocese, who had not received an official communication from his bishop -- in a decade. No wonder that many in the CEC feel isolated -- and that, in certain cases, corruption has been allowed to continue.

The Council of Trent mandated regular visitations by bishops -- and this was in a day and age where travel was not as easy as it is today! This would be a reform that the CEC could easily -- and should immediately -- implement.

3) Nepotism: Nepotism was a serious problem in the medieval Church. Church offices were routinely given out to close relatives of bishops and other senior Church officials. (Some of these also involved sins against chastity -- but that is not the topic of this post.) Favors were granted to, how shall we say, friends who had friends, etc.

WHETHER REAL OR NOT, the PERCEPTION of nepotism has been rife in some parts of the CEC. This has been an issue, frankly, from Day One. It has not been an issue everywhere -- but the accusations have been made -- and at least some of those accusations give the appearance of having merit.

FULL DISCLOSURE!!! I was a priest in the CEC; my father was a bishop in the CEC. I entered the CEC 9 months prior to my father; I was ordained deacon prior to my father's consecration as bishop. We never served in the same diocese together. By specific permission, my father was given the authority to ordain me priest, by my own bishop at the time, Bp. Ken Myers -- permission for which we were both grateful. But I never served in my father's diocese and can count on one hand the number of times I was invited to preach or concelebrate in his cathedral.

I make this statement so that no one can say that I am trying to talk out of both sides of my mouth!

The Council of Trent strongly condemned nepotism. While such was never completely eliminated, the extent of the problem was greatly curtailed.

This, too, would be a relatively easy reform for the CEC to make -- and one which, I believe, should be made. Reasonable provisions (re: Bp. Myers' generosity to myself and my father) should be permitted, but regulated by Canon. "Automatic" inheritance of office or authority should be strongly discouraged.

4) Uniformity of Liturgy: One of the biggest problems in the late medieval Church was a lack of uniformity in liturgy. This lack of uniformity existed not just from country to country, but frequently between city to city as well. The upshot was that it became difficult to discern what the Prayer of the Church; the Work of the People; actually was.

This has been a significant problem in the CEC from Day One. The preferred text was the 1979 Episcopal Book of Common Prayer -- with several other texts which "could" be authorized by bishops. This was problematic for those (like myself) who honestly believed that the 1979 BCP (and almost ANY Anglican formulary) was insufficient at best (and quite possibly invalid) AND for those who found themselves worshiping in different CEC churches in different parts of the country. In many cases, there is not even a uniformity within the CEC as it concerns the Nicene Creed.

The Council of Trent mandated a unified liturgy for the Church. (Minor exceptions were allowed for certain religious orders -- but that is beyond the scope of this post.) This proved to be an incredible unifying factor for the Catholic Church.

Frankly, after more than 14 years of existence, the CEC needs to do the same. If they choose to use the 1979 BCP -- they need to realize that they will lose people -- not only over doctrinal issues, but also over any apparent connection (real or imagined) with the Episcopal Church. Frankly, the same would be true of any other existing rite. What the CEC needs to do is to draft its own Communion-wide (or at least, North American-wide) liturgy, using the best resources from the best scholarship the CEC can muster, to come up with an authentic liturgy which represents the best of Three-Streams worship -- AND the best of the available theological acumen. The model liturgy prepared by the Eastern Province would be a good starting point.

Anyhow, these are just a few suggestions; a few areas in which those in the CEC who wish to learn from history might propose.

Papa Z

SUBJECT: RELIGION!!!

Some thoughts on leaving a church . . .

Let me begin by saying that this is not intended to be a "personal testimony" nor an apologia for my own ecclesial choices. That is not the point of this particular post.

What I DO want to talk about are what seem to this observer to be very typical reactions to those like myself who have left the CEC for another Christian body (regardless of what that body happens to be. Contrary to the opinion of many within the CEC all those who leave do NOT go to Rome -- but that is a possible subject for another post.)

The three comments I am most likely to hear, go something like this:

"You left us because you were never one of us in the first place"

or

"You never understood the mission of the CEC in the first place"

or

"Okay, you've left us. Now go away and leave us alone; how dare you make any commentary at all."

All three of these statements are ones I'm personally very familiar with -- and all are fallicies. None stand up to honest critique and debate.

To suggest that "one left because one was never 'one of us' in the first place" first is just not logical. Does this mean that although Newman left the Church of England for Rome "he was never truly an Anglican"? Historically, that just won't wash! Or that Richard John Neuhaus was never a Lutheran, because he became a Catholic? Or that Father "X" was never a Baptist, because he felt called to the CEC? The list could go on and on -- and never make any more sense than these examples give. Unless, of course, the one making the statement uses "one of us" in a gnostic sense -- as in, "you never really had the true insight" or "you never spoke in tongues enough, so you weren't real" or (with apologies to Groucho Marx) "you never said the secret word"! If THIS is what is meant -- then the theological dissentions within the CEC are worse than I thought.

To suggest that "one left because one never understood the true mission of the CEC" is a similar, but not identical argument. On the one hand it suggests that the "true mission" was, again, some sort of secret to which only a few were privy. I honestly don't believe that the leadership -- past or present -- of the CEC would truly wish to go down that road. On the other hand, such a statement has been used -- both in my hearing, and to me personally -- as a deliberately deragotory remark, as in "you never did get it right -- let me fix you".

This suggestion also ignores two potential realities. 1) That many of the people who have recently left the CEC are NOT "Johnny-come-latelies" but rather have served in the CEC for a decade or more. (Considering the denomination has only a 14 year history, this point is rather telling). 2) That perhaps the VISION of the CEC HAS changed -- and what is being expressed now is NOT what many of us originally "signed on to" way back when. This suggestion takes any responsibility for the turmoil currently being experienced in the denomination away from denominational leadership -- and blames the poor bishop, priest, or deacon who actually did believe in the ORIGINAL VISION.

Finally, the "okay, now you've left us; go away and leave us alone, and don't you dare even comment etc.," sounds, I must admit, extremely petulant. There are two potential problems here. 1) When this type of statement has been used (at least against a former member of the clergy) it has been used to try to silence that clergyman -- while behind him, and against him, the rumor mill can spin. I have first-hand experience with this. When I left, I kept my mouth closed for many months -- only to find out that there were some who were deliberately using my silence (which I had promised to give) against me. 2) Frequently, from a managerial standpoint, the reason why a person has left an organization is considered important! Perhaps the person actually had valid points! Perhaps the organization needs to take stock and figure out where the problem really lies. (The Scripture passage: "Faithful are the wounds of a friend" comes to mind.)

I know that I speak for many when I say that I truly hope and pray that the CEC can solve its own internal difficulties -- difficulties which, in my experience, are largely of its own making. I know that I speak for many when I say that I honestly wish no one in the CEC harm. But as I said in my 2006 paper (and in a previous post)

The Convergence Movement as a whole, and especially the emerging denominations, must end the hostility -- and I say end, because the hostility is already there -- toward those who have found the movement to be a bridge and not an end in and of itself. Libel and slander, open shunning of church members who have been called elsewhere, degregations and depositions of clergy without due process etc., are abominations which must cease at once. Such actions destroy lives, scandalize the faithful, and are unworthy of those who bear the Name of Christ.

Papa Z

SUBJECT: RELIGION!!!

A Few Words on Vows.

'Take the hilt,' said Gandalf, 'and speak after the Lord, if you are resolved on this.' "I am," said Pippin.

The old man laid the sword along his lap, and Pippin put his hand to the hilt, and said slowly after Denethor:

'Here do I swear fealty and service to Gondor, and to the Lord and Steward of the realm, to speak and to be silent, to do and to let be, to come and to go, in need or plenty, in peace or war, in living or dying, from this hour henceforth, until my lord release me, or death take me, or the world end. So say I, Peregrin son of Paladin of the Shire of the Haflings.'

'And this do I hear, Denethor son of Ecthelion, Lord of Gondor, Steward of the High King, and I will not forget it, nor fail to reward that which is given: fealty with love, valour with honour, oathbreaking with vengeance.' Then Pippin received back his sword and put it in its sheath.

From "The Return of the King" -- Book 5, Chapter 1 "Minas Tirith", by J. R. R. Tolkien


Recently, a CEC priest in another part of the country wrote two articles for his local newspaper on the subject of vows -- and the breaking of vows. (In the interest of full disclosure: I have never met this man, and over the last 10 years or so, have E-mailed him all of two or three times. I have no brief with him and wish him the best in his ministry.) At this time, when members of the clergy are leaving the CEC in spades, the entire question of fidelity to one's ordination vows does become a crucial -- even central issue. It seemed obvious to me that the author of the aforementioned articles was making a rather direct criticism of those in the CEC who HAVE left (and that he had one or two particular circumstances in mind!)

The author gave three reasons as to why he felt that some members of the clergy break their vows. They were as follows: (The following are direct quotes)

1 Disappointment. A minister may become disillusioned about his/her congregation or the denominational structure or hierarchy. Bishops and other denominational officials are imperfect and those who are not prepared to accept the flaws are likely to lose heart.

2 Ambition. A certain amount of ambition is a good thing. Jesus did not discourage people who wanted to be “great.” He did, however, teach that this was achieved by becoming a “servant of all.” Selfish ambition, however, is a diabolical motivation that drives people to do things that benefit themselves without thought or care of the harm done to others.

3 Pressure. Sometimes the pressure is from family or friends who feel that better treatment will be received elsewhere. “They just don’t appreciate you and your talents,” they may say. The temptation is to seek greener fields.

The author goes on to say that these are reasons, but not excuses.

My readers may wonder why I opened this post with a lengthy quote from "The Lord of the Rings". It is to demonstrate, in very clear terms, that the keeping of vows -- AND the breaking of vows -- works in two directions.

Let me point out that I do not disagree with the author's three reasons. I have known persons and circumstances who have fallen into all three categories.

THIS BEING SAID . . .

There is a good deal more that could be AND should be said. I can identify two other reasons which might cause a clergyman to leave his church.

1 The vow of obedience a priest makes to his bishop ALSO presupposes a promise made BY THAT BISHOP to that priest -- a promise to be a faithful bishop and pastor to that priest, and to remain true to the authentic teaching of the faith. A bishop who is not faithful to his clergy violates that vow. This was the position in which many members of the CEC who were once in the Episcopal Church, USA found themselves. Their bishops were no longer being faithful to the teachings of the Church. Were those priests wrong to leave the Episcopal Church under those circumstances? Apparently, the CEC didn't think so, because many former Episcopal priests have joined the CEC.

By the same token, if a CEC bishop openly violates the canons of the church or teaches a different gospel than that the CEC has received, has not that bishop broken his own vow?

It is true that some in the CEC have left that body for the wrong reasons and in such a way as to cause scandal to the faithful. However, it is also true that some in the CEC have left that body for precisely the reason stated above. When a bishop ignores the canons, or openly teaches doctrine contrary to what the church has received, are his priests yet bound to him?

And what of those CEC bishops who are openly courting disaffected Roman Catholic priests? Are not those bishops encouraging others to break their vows? Is this right?

2 Finally, there are circumstances in which for honest theological reasons, someone might choose to leave one body for another. Is this not what John Henry Newman did? Or in the 20th century, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus? Or Thomas Oden? Or Thomas Howard? Or even, I might add, the author of the articles upon which I am now commenting?

Again, there is a proper way -- and an improper way -- for a clergyman to leave one body for another (and I have known instances of both). But when one goes through the proper channels, and asks to be released, can this honestly be considered a broken vow?

I don't pretend to have all the answers -- and I certainly appreciate the time and thought which went into the original two articles. But I do think that the original analysis was incomplete.

I would greatly value comments.

Papa Z

SUBJECT: RELIGION!!!

The collapse of the Charismatic Episcopal Church.

For all intents and purposes, the Charismatic Episcopal Church is dead.

This is a difficult post for me to write, as I was a member of that body for more than 11 years, having first become acquainted with the denomination in 1992, just a few short months after the founding. I was formally received in July of 1993, was ordained deacon in August of 1995, was ordained priest in October of 1998, was created "Canon Theologian" in November of 2002, and resigned in July of 2004 -- although my resignation was not accepted until December of that year (an issue for another post). I was formally received into the Catholic Church in February of 2005.

The experiment which was "Three-Streams Christianity" or "The Convergence Movement" has come to a painful, if not unexpected, conclusion. The Great Lakes diocese is in utter disarray, having lost 10 or 11 churches, one of its 2 bishops, and most of its clergy. The Diocese of Maryland has lost its bishop (full disclosure: Bp. Philip Zampino is my father) half of its churches and the majority of its clergy. The South Central diocese gives every evidence of being about to implode. Serious and credible charges concerning moral behavior and financial mismanagement are flying thick and fast at the very highest levels. And, sadly, the denominational "spin doctors" are working overtime. All of this grieves me more than I can express.

But I'm not surprised.

More than 5 years ago, I presented a paper at the annual meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies entitled "The Emgergence of Convergence" detailing the history of the Convergence Movement and the Charismatic Episcopal Church. A re-birth of authentic Catholic thinking and practice among Evangelical and Charismatic Protestant Christians seemed to be a distinct possibility. Authentic avenues for greater unity in the Body of Christ were being explored.

What changes the last 5 years have seen!

This past March, I presented another paper at the annual meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies entitled "The End of Convergence?" in which I detailed the development of the movement as a whole (and the CEC in particular) since the original paper was presented. I raised several serious concerns which have already begun to prove frighteningly accurate.

I based my 2001 paper on the structure of the "Chicago Call" -- an evangelical statement, or manifesto, signed in 1977 by several dozen key evangelical leaders. The "Call" called for 8 things to happen:

1. Historic Roots and Continuity -- A Recovery of "Full" Christian Heritage

2. Biblical Fidelity -- A respect for the "Historic Understanding of the Church" in Biblical Interpretation

3. Creedal Identity -- A Need for a "Confessing" Church

4. Holistic Salvation -- A Need for Full Participation in God's Saving Activity

5. Sacramental Integrity -- A Need to "Awaken the Sacramental Implications of Creation and Incarnation"

6. Spirituality -- A Need to "Rediscover" the Devotional Resources of the Whole Church

7. Church Authority -- A Rejection of Autonomy, Individualism, and Competitiveness and a Need to Rediscover Biblical Models.

8. Church Unity -- A Rejection of Ahistorical Sectarianism and the Need to Recognize the Desire of Christ.

I based my 2006 paper on how well the Convergence Movement in general and the CEC in particular have followed through on these commitments.

The results have not been, in most cases, encouraging.

I concluded my paper with four suggestions as to how the Convergence Movement could move forward from its place of stagnation and more fully participate in the Greater Church. These were:

1. The Convergence Movement as a whole, and especially the emerging denominations, must determine whether it is a means to an end, in and of itself (i.e., the permenant creation of new denominational structures, etc.) or a bridge to greater unity within the Body of Christ (i.e., being a conduit to more traditionally historic Christianity like Orthodoxy or Rome). In other words, the movement must understand its own identity. Ecumenical dialogue should be taken in a spirit of humility and genuine desire for Christian unity.

2. The Convergence Movement as a whole, and especially the emerging denominations, must end the hostility -- and I say end, because the hostility is already there -- toward those who have found the movement to be a bridge and not an end in and of itself. Libel and slander, open shunning of church members who have been called elsewhere, degregations and depositions of clergy without due process etc., are abominations which must cease at once. Such actions destroy lives, scandalize the faithful, and are unworthy of those who bear the Name of Christ.

3. The Convergence Movement as a whole, and especially the emerging denominations, must realize (as many Pentecostal groups have had to address) that adopting an episcopal model of ministry does not excuse those in ministry from oversight and from accountability. Such accountability needs to occur not only in moral and financial matters, but also in the discernment, education and mentoring of candidates for public ministry. When the accountability does not begin with such discernment, unfit persons are often raised up, creating situations which can and do cause scandal in the Body of Christ.

4. Finally, if the various parts of the Convergence Movement, especially the emerging denominations, determine that they are an end, in and of themselves, requiring their own permanent denominational structures, etc., doctrinal and disciplinary consistency are an absolute necessity. Confusion about what is to be believed, what is to be taught, and what standards of behavior are considered normative are unacceptable and will ultimately wreak havoc and destruction within the movement.

I don't hate the CEC -- I hate what I see happening. I have many friends still in the denomination, and I wish them nothing but the best. But I do not see the denomination -- as it is currently known and understood -- surviving as anything more than a shadow of its former self for more than a few months longer.

If anyone is interested in the full text of my 2006 paper, please let me know.

Papa Z

SUBJECT: BASEBALL!!!

I hate to break it to the world -- but *Barry Bonds* is no Babe Ruth.

Yes, Bond just hit #*715*. But in the grand scheme of things, this is irrevelant.

The Babe played a good five seasons as a pitcher, including two seasons in which he pitched over 300 innings. (Nowadays, a pitcher who manages 225 is considered hard-working!)

What would The Babe's home run total have looked like if he had been playing every day for those seasons? On this point alone, we would not be having this discussion.

The Babe enjoys a lifetime batting average 43 points higher than Bonds (.342 to .299). He hit better than .300 on 17 occasions, including seasons of .376, .378, .393, .378, .372, and .373. SIX SEASONS hitting better than .370!

*Bonds*? 11 seasons of better than .300 hitting, only two of which were better than .350 (.370 and .362). Bonds is a good hitter -- even a very good hitter. The Babe was one of the greatest ever.

The Babe has 70 more runs, 101 more hits, 59 more triples, 340 mor RBI's, 152 more total bases and has a higher on-base percentage and a much higher slugging percentage. And The Babe did it in 859 fewer at-bats.

These are all statistics. Now, let's look at the intangibles.

Face it. Rightly or wrongly; for good or for ill; *Bonds* is one of the more hated players in the game -- and has caused many (most?) of his own problems. The Babe, on the other hand, was arguably the most popular baseball figure for decades. Can you honestly see tens of thousands of people standing in line for hours to see *Barry Bonds* lie in state? That's what they did for The Babe!

Are *Bonds'* numbers honest? Deep suspicion reigns. Will he be indicted? The possibility is likely. Did he commit perjury to a Federal Grand Jury? Let's say that much remains unanswered -- and frankly, difficult to believe. The seemingly ironclad accusations made in"Game of Shadows" must be answered. (Yes, The Babe abused certain substances as well -- but no one has ever suggested that hot dogs, beer, and cigars were "performance enhancing"!)

The Babe gave to the game. *Bonds* has done nothing but take from it.

So *Mr. Bonds*, enjoy #715. You may (possibly) have earned it. But in the hearts of those who love the game, you will never replace The Babe.

Papa Z