Sunday, October 07, 2007


I was at Diocesan Convention all weekend over in Butte.

The Good News: We all participated in community service projects on Saturday morning; probably collected close to $1500 for our diocesan camp; we worshiped together; confessions were heard; several good sermons were preached; nobody killed anyone; dinner was fabulous.

The Bad News: Directions were lacking; microphones were testy; politics were played; and . . . well . . . let's just say that we really need a liturgical point person for diocesan functions (fyi -- you don't mix Rite I and Rite II in the same service, and it's generally a good idea to recite the General Confession).

If I get around to it, I'll post the sermon I wrote for my MP officiant to deliver in my absence.


Jane Ellen+ | 10:16 PM, October 08, 2007  

I'm betting the camp fund went higher than that; there were a boatload of coins up there; and, with the Dillon priest's illness, not all of them had been brought that morning.

I'm looking forward to hearing the final total. (^_^)

Reverend Ref + | 8:53 AM, October 09, 2007  

I probably tend to estimate low . . . that way I'm always pleasantly surprised.

Anonymous | 6:28 PM, October 10, 2007

Did he really say that?

Reverend Ref + | 8:05 PM, October 10, 2007  

Except for this: The meeting had an unpleasant, sneering tone - both from Bishop Brookhart and the clergy and laity who did choose to ask him questions.

Basically yes, the Bishop did say those things. However, they have been taken out of context, or rather, reported on without context; much like certain verses are pulled from Scripture with no context and used to justify whatever position the reader wants justified.

There was no sneering tone at this informal meeting. Questions were asked and questions were answered. Although I suppose that if one disagrees with a certain position, sneering tones can be heard everywhere. There was much less sneering at that meeting than there is in the comments at the linked website of your question.

Rather than engage in backroom rumors and speculation about the tone of the meeting and what was said or not said, I suggest you e-mail Bishop Brookhart with any questions you may have. His e-mail can be found on the diocesan web page.

And finally, any future anonymous postings will be ignored.

Jane Ellen+ | 10:05 PM, October 10, 2007  
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jane Ellen+ | 10:14 PM, October 10, 2007  

I probably shouldn't do this, as I have very little patience with anyone who has so little strength of character or conviction that s/he cannot identify themselves. But it's the end of the day, and I'm inclined to err. So...

1. I was present at this meeting, and was in fact one of the questioners. My point in this was to get information, both for myself and on behalf of my parishioners, who had previously asked questions of me. There was neither sneering nor anything other than a civil tone in any of the questions asked-- mine or anyone else's -- nor was any questioner treated with anything less than respect. I resent the implication, and I consider it as inappropriate spin placed by one who simply did not care for the answers.

2. Unless you are able to read minds, you have no idea if "conservatives" "moderates" or "liberals" asked many of the questions. One example: "Would you please tell us about the Episcopal Visitors plan, since you were named as one by the Presiding Bishop? What impact do you think this role might have on your work and ministry?" If you can hear a political slant in that, you are more intuitive than I.

3. Yes, Bp. Brookhart said some of those words; but some of the so-called quotes are flatly twisted, while others are taken out of context. I could quote holy scripture (Luke 14:26) to say that Jesus wants me to hate people, too; but that doesn't make it a truthful understanding of the Gospel.

4. I think it speaks volumes that Bp. Brookhart chose to speak in an open forum (perhaps half the clergy and delegates were present), while the poster of those bullet points chooses to hide in anonymity while s/he posted his/her slanted screed in such a way as to set up the bishop for poisonous potshots. This smacks of cowardice, and is wholly unnecessary, as Bp. Brookhart is both honest and aboveboard in his dealings, even with those who disagree with him (which, for the record, I have done on more than one occasion).

5. For pete's sake, why take off after a bishop who in fact would not have supported Bp. Robinson's consecration, who opposed same sex blessings, and who still holds to those positions in his cure today? That summary is nothing more than a cheap shot, and unworthy of anyone who purports to be Christian; the only thing worse is the "sneering tone" of the mean-spirited comments which follow it (a fine example of why I so rarely visit that blog, and would never link to it).

First time comments will be moderated.