R - E - S - P - E - C - T. Last Friday, I was interviewed briefly by Reuters reporter Sarah Tippit -- it was an engaging conversation.
![Rev. Goff](http://www.saintchristophers.net/rector/rector_files/image001.jpg)
(I confess that it was a little distracting to hear her typing whenever I started blithering...) What I think I really appreciated was the sense that she was trying to understand what I was saying, even thought I'm not very articulate. This was what I sensed was missing from the "community meetings" held by Bishop Lee and the Delegates. They gave their statements, then turned it over to a limited number of people to make a very abbreviated statement and then the Bishops and Delegates again had an opportunity to make a statement. At the sixth meeting, in McLean, the Rev. Susan Goff, was asked by Bishop Lee to respond to the questions posed by those attending. She stood up and immediately dismissed all the questions posed as being "rhetorical" then blathered on about nothing for at least five minutes.
There were excellent questions posed and, given the time constraints, questions were sometimes tightly packed with a rhetorical element (see the questions I would've posed, below, for examples), yet all were worthy of answering and not merely dismissing.
One of the questions asked, but not answered, was why did you not hold these meetings before taking such divisive action. No answer was provided, but we all know it is easier to get forgiveness than permission.
At the VTS meeting, one of the commenters expressed her frustration with the the structure of the meetings, in part, as being designed to give a limited number of people a chance to blow off steam, but really more an exercise in "groupthink." This must have touched a nerve because before Bishop Jones started the Compline, Bishop Gray seized the microphone to say that he disagreed and thought the meetings were a way to have a conversation within the Diocese.
Bishop Gray was wrong. I really don't think there was any attempt to really discuss the actions by the Episcopal Church establishment. This has always been a
fait accompli and there has never been a desire to see what the denomination as a whole thinks (not to mention those little things like, oh, Scripture, reason, experience, the wider Anglican communion, the universal Church).
Am I really naive/simplistic/stupid enough to think that Bishop Lee needed to talk to every member of the Diocese about this? Yes, actually I am. I think instead of putting in a couple of hours in at a parish on one Sunday doing confirmations, he should have gone to every parish and made an attempt to meet with the parishoners in small groups and discussed these decisions
prior to making them. Christian charity? Respect? Humility? Any of those things would be welcome, Bishop Lee.
Moreover, the proponents of making such a radical change as this in the life of the Church bear the burden of demonstrating that such a change is consistent with Scripture, reason and tradition. Such a demonstration has not been made. Nor has it been attempted. The two votes at General Convention were nothing more than the exercise of raw political power. The "community meetings" are nothing more than smoke (dare I call it "smells and bells?") designed to cover the unlawful decisions of the convention.
Bishop Lee said this is not a church where we "pay, pray, and obey." No, it's one where we "sit mute and give up the loot." Prayer and obedience are not part of the Episcopal Church.