Letters
We're open for business.
Please send letters to the editor, avm40487 at gmail.com
Letters from wherever....
(Note: Last letters received are on top, so if you want to read them in chronological order, read bottom to top.)
Jan. 7,2010
To the Editor,
Two recent letters mention some legislation that has been proposed in Uganda. As Canon Brown notes, the Ugandan anti-gay legislation is draconian; the provision of the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality" is flagrantly inhumane.
It has not been as widely discussed, but the proposed bill also requires anyone in authority ("a person who exercises religious. political, economic or social authority") who becomes "aware of the commission of any offence under this Act" to report that knowledge within 24 hours, or face a fine or imprisonment up to three years. In other words, the bill would require a Priest to violate the Seal of Confession if the priest heard a confession of any of the offenses against this Act. I cannot imagine that any member of any Church that practices sacramental confession and absolution could or would support any bill, regarding any offense, that included such a provision.
I have seen recent reports that indicate the President of Uganda has assured the US State Department that he will veto this bill, should it reach his desk. I hope these reports are accurate.
Allison de Kanel
Jan. 7, 2010
Let's agree that the anti-gay laws proposed in Uganda are awe fully extreme. But, why is no one pointing out that among all these sex laws there is one we should applaud. It is also being proposed that female circumcision be outlawed. Shouldn't we be in favor of this propsal??
Grace and Peace,
Father Michael Waverly-ShankJan. 6, 2010
To the Editor:
In my letter of 4 December, I recommended a Convention address by our Presiding Bishop as “a very good step toward healing” our divided diocese. I neither said, nor do I believe, that her appearance would magically “heal Albany's divisions.” However, It would make Convention attractive to those moderates and progressives who resent a steady diet of conservative-evangelical speakers and who therefore vote with their feet. It might even persuade some conservative attendees that the Presiding Bishop's “reckless theological statements” (Fr. Brown's words) deserve thoughtful discussion, not dismissal out of hand.
Fr. Brown claims that our Presiding Bishop has become “an increasingly polarizing figure.” If that's so, it owes much to the spin that others put on her words. Brown's immoderate reaction to her 4 December statement on the noxious Ugandan legislation is a case in point. She said:
“We note that much of the current climate of fear, rejection, and antagonism toward gay and lesbian persons in African nations has been stirred by members and former members of our own Church.”
Fr. Brown's reaction to this sentence — “I find Katherine Schori's implication that various orthodox Episcopalians are behind these laws to be so slanderous and outrageous” — misses her point. She does not accuse any Episcopal group of being “behind” the Ugandan laws in the sense of creating or promoting them. Rather, she indicts those who contribute, by thought, word, deed, or money, to the social and religious environments in which such laws arise.
Given the chance, the Presiding Bishop might well widen her indictment to include those Episcopal and Anglican leaders who know full well what is afoot in Uganda but avert their eyes and say nothing. Silence implies consent.
Robert T. Dodd
Jan. 4, 2010
Has Bishop Love spoken out against the Ugandan anti-gay legislation linked to the presence of US Evangelicals in that country? If not, why not?
(The Rev.) Glen Michaels
Plattsburgh, NY
Dec. 9, 2009
I don't know a single (Anglican/Episcopal) theological conservative who supports the -- yes -- draconian Ugandan anti-gay legislation. The provision of death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality" is flagrantly inhumane and even the Anglican Archbishop of Uganda opposes it. Beyond that, it was certainly right that various American laws against "sodomy" were (fairly recently) repealed. For such practices to be incompatible with the call to holy living does mean they should be criminalized.
So I am not a supporter of the Ugandan law. Which is all the more reason why I find Katherine Schori's implication that various orthodox Episcopalians are behind these laws to be so slanderous and outrageous. And yes, I know about "The Family," but so far as I know, those people are from an entirely different (mainly Baptist) crew.
As the Presiding Bishop, Katherine Schori should (and would) certainly be welcome in the diocese. But to suggest that her presence would "heal Albany's divisions" is sheer fantasy. She has, unfortunately become an increasingly polarizing figure, and while theological "progressives" would find her presence encouraging, many others would disagree strongly with the sorts of reckless theological statements she so often comes out with in public. Still, one would hope that she would be received graciously.
Christopher Brown+
Dec. 4, 2009
I urge all Albany Episcopalians to read and ponder the Presiding Bishop's statement on the draconian anti-gay laws under consideration in Uganda. It is clear, bold, and refreshing, not least because it acknowledges the influence of some present and former Episcopalians in encouraging Ugandas' basest instincts.
If our Bishop really wants to heal Albany's divisions, a very good step would be to invite Bp. Katharine to address our diocesan convention. Her voice should be heard here, and, as her recent appearance in Central New York demonstrates, she travels!
Robert T. Dodd
Nov. 26, 2009
Dear Editor:
I am puzzled by Fr. Shank's recent note referring to the supposed lack of references to Prayer by AVM supporters. Prayer, in my mind, is something that we do as Christians and as Episcopalians we engage in corporate and private prayer on many occasions. Do we have to announce that to everyone on a blog? In my parish we pray together as a gathered community every Sunday and every Tuesday night during Eucharist and Intercessory Prayer. In addition we pray at every committee meeting, Vestry and even our Choir prays Compline following their rehearsals. We pray for many needs both in our parish as well as Diocesan ( including Fr Nigel!!). Does that mean we should announce that on this website? Isn't that somewhat like the Pharisees announcing how holy they were on the street corners? Something Jesus had something to say about!
Richard Angelo
Albany NY
Nov. 25, 2009
Editor:
I'm mystified by the recent exchange about prayer. Of course I pray. I've been praying for Fr. Nigel, and rejoice at the beginning of his recovery. I will continue to pray for him.
Fr. Michael, in my experience some web sites have prayer lists and prayer requests; some don't. Personally, I wouldn't expect a web site like AVM, which is basically a news site, to request prayers. On the other hand, my parish web site (St, Stephen's in Schenectady) does. I hope everyone reading this thread will check it out and add their prayers for the people listed in our prayer chain.
At the same time, I understand Mrs. Dodd's response. I have seen far too many prayer requests that seem to lecture the reader, or presume to instruct God, or both. These prayers read something like this (THIS IS A PARODY):
"Dear Lord, you know that there are many wicked things happening in the world, and in our nation, and in our church, and we ask that you would transform the hearts of the President, the Governor, the Mayor, and all those who need to depart from their evil ways and turn to follow you, and that you would enlighten the vestry and wardens of this parish so that they will support the Godly and prophetic requests of the Rector and oppose the divisive requests of the Altar Guild and, dear Lord, preserve the sacristy roof from leakng and drive out our belfry bats, and inspire the members of this congregation, Father, to double their pledges every year, in accordance with Your most Holy will....."
(THIS WAS A PARODY.)
I am reminded of a defense of using prayers from the Prayer Book. (I think it is from C.S. Lewis, but I can't find the reference.) If someone else is praying extemporaneously, and I am praying along, expecting to add my own "Amen" at the end, I will inevitably be judging, or editing, what I hear. Can I pray for X with my whole heart, or must I finish with "Amen, except for the part about the belfry bats...."?
So, here is my request for prayers for the day, to all who read this letter:
Please pray for safe travel for all this holiday weekend, and joyful family reunions.
Please pray that God will grant healing to Mary, and Audrey, and Gannon, and Fr. Nigel.
Please pray for good humor and common sense for all in situations of conflict at work, or at home, or in the church.
Please pray for food for the hungry, shelter for the cold, safety for those in danger.
Please pray that in all these matters, God's will may be done.
And please, my brothers and sisters, pray for me and for all in the Diocese of Albany, that we may have and show love for one another and for all whom we encounter.
Allison de Kanel, laywoman, St. Stephen's Episcopal Church, Schenectady
Nov. 24, 2009
(In reference to the letter directly below)
Dear Father Michael,
Why do you doubt that the members of Via Media believe in prayer? I cannot imagine what would put such a doubt in your head. At St. John in the Wilderness Father Mumford is prayed for and is on our Intercession List. We love our new rector and hold him in prayer all the time. During his two surgeries, both very serious, our parish gathered in the church and prayed for him until we heard he had come through well. People who know us, "Via Media Folk", know that we are passionate about our commitment to our faith and to the Episcopal Church. However, we do not presume to tell other people how to pray or for whom to pray.
Marya Dodd
Nov. 24, 2009
Dear VIA Media Folks,
Just wondered — after reading all your politics in your publications — do you also believe in prayer?
At this time one of the Rectors of a church you ‘claim’ St John's in the Wildernes, Copake Falls is recovering from serious heart surgery. Maybe I missed it but you never asked for prayers for Father John Thompson. This seems like a serious omission to me.
And at the same time Father Nigel Mumford, Director of the Diocesan Healing Center at Christ the King, is recovery from a more than 40 day bout with atypical pneumonia. Again no request for prayers on his behalf either! How come!?
Grace and Peace,
Father Michael Waverly-Shank, St. Margaret's, Margaretville and St. Mary's, DownsvilleNov. 21, 2009
Editor:
At his recent deanery meetings and in his General Convention reflections in The Albany Episcopalian, Bishop Love expressed appropriate concern over the impact of decreased revenue on personnel and programs of The Episcopal Church. Yet even now, Albany's Parish Choice form is making its way through vestries, inviting parishes to divert funds from the national Church to diocesan interests.
It has never been more important for Episcopalians to support the Church, financially as well as spiritually. Please urge your Vestry to strike out the “10%” for TEC that is pre-printed on the Choice form and insert “21%,” the appropriate amount. And consider making a small, separate donation to Episcopal Relief and Development (ERD) to help those whose needs are greater than ever in these grim economic times.
Robert Dodd
Oct. 27, 2009
Editor:
I pray that Bishop Love and our General Convention delegates, who felt themselves a marginalized and excluded minority in Anaheim will take to heart that feeling and imagine what it must be like for moderates and liberals such as myself and many others whom Bishop of Albany actively attempts to marginalize, silence, and suppress.
May they hold up Scripture as a "mirror" rather than a sword and look at how they treat the sizeble minority of your own diocese who are not permitted a voice in Diocesan publications or a booth at Diocesan Convention. Friends, I would say, "Take the 'log' out of your eye, please, before criticizing TEC for the 'speck' regarding its treatment of minorities."
(The Rev.) Glen Michaels
Plattsburgh, NY
Oct. 21, 2009
Robert Dodd misread my point about missing liberal clergy at the clergy conference. I wanted them there to hear two holy, traditional bishops — Bill Love and Mark Lawrence — teach the historic tradtional Christian Faith. It would have done them good!
Grace and Peace,
Michael+ Waverly-Shank
Oct. 19, 2009
Editor:
Mr Dodd's point is well taken. It is continually distressing to know that people from more progressive and moderate parishes do not find it comfortable to be a part of the Diocese of Albany at its Conventions and other gatherings. And yet, the Diocese seems to have no problem with welcoming Bishops and Clergy who have left the Episcopal Church to its Spiritual Life Center to plan and develop a fellowshop of ex-Episcopalians.. Seems rather odd to me!!! and a slap in the face to all of us who remain faithful to the Episcopal Church.
Richard Angelo
Oct. 19, 2009
Editor:
Fr. Michael's distress (see letter below) that liberal clergy skipped the recent Clergy Conference does him credit. Evidently, he recognizes that left, right, and middle parts of our Church need each other to be whole. That's the beginning of wisdom.
The next step would be for him to ask why liberals and moderates avoid such events and why moderate parishes like mine find it a struggle to recruit lay deputies for Albany's Convention. It is very hard for faithful Episcopalians to feel at home in a maverick diocese that hosts CANA at its Spiritual Life Center but denies Albany Via Media meeting space at the Cathedral.
Robert T. Dodd
Sept. 27, 2009
Editor:
In answer to Robert Dodd's question we did not discuss how to leave TEC! WE had a very Biblical and spiritual conference. Bishop Lawrence and his wife never mentioned what you might call schism, and, no, very few if any liberal clergy were there! I for one missed them.
Grace and Peace,
The Rev'd Michael Waverly-ShankVicar of St. Margaret's, Margaretville and St. Mary's, Downsville
September 20, 2009
Dear Editor:
This is a follow-up to Dave Hunn's good letter.
I agree that the Clergy Retreat, which starts tomorrow, will be telling. Given the presence of +Mark Lawrence, you can bet that one topic will be how to achieve a schism-less schism. I'd love to be the fly on the wall for that discussion! I hope there will be moderate or liberal priests at the Retreat and ask that they let the rest of us know what went on there.
As to the meeting of "The Seven" with +++Rowan, it's obvious from the lack of crowing that he said nothing to support the view that dioceses can sign onto the hoped for covenant one by one. Having said one thing too many to +John Howe about that, the ABC seems have become Sphinx-like -- a welcome change!
Robert T. Dodd
September 15, 2009
Editor:
First, to offer a possible to Bob's question, "What's the Rush Bill?" The rush is to get parishes - or people - to sign before a thorough and thoughtful discussion.
My question is this. What is the ultimate objective of the seven bishop's covenant campaign? To vent? To build a faction within TEC that could exert some kind of power? Certainly they cannot undermine the governance and polity of TEC. It is doubtful that Lambeth will support them for any political upheaval within TEC.
Does anyone have any ideas? Meanwhile, it appears that the Bishop's efforts are at the "lobbying" level. Has he done any real arm twisting? Or is he testing the wind. I think the Clergy retreat will reveal a lot.
Dave Hunn
September 9, 2009
Dear Editor:
Frank Turner's essay, "The imagined community of the Anglican Communion," on Daily Episcopalian (http://www.episcopalcafe.com/) is a must read for thoughtful Episcopalians. It traces the history of the Communion and shows, clearly and in few words, that the proposed Anglican Covenant seeks to impose a level of unity of thought and practice that has never existed among Anglicans and can be bought only at the expense of freedom.
Parishes and dioceses might well use Turner's excellent piece as a springboard for a thorough discussion of the covenant and its implications. Best to have that discussion now, though. Bishop Love and his Communion Partners are pushing us to sign the document now, though it is not yet finished and General Convention cannot deal with it until 2012.
Why the rush, +Bill?
Bob Dodd
September 1, 2009
Editor:
I thought I would weigh in on a few issues spawned by Resolution 4.
My first reaction to the bastardization of Resolution #4 was outrage at the tactics used to completely reverse the intent. Regardless of parliamentarian protocol, I thought it underhanded at best.
Then I read Chris Brown's analysis and realized what a political hot potato the diocese was handed. Chris analyzed this well, not as an apologist, but as a pragmatic expositor of the situation. Like it or not, this is politics and we all know that politics has always played a major role in religion. Did Paul and James see eye to eye?. Was the Council of Nicea a friendly repartee?
Apparently, submitting Resolution #4 was a good faith effort to generate open discussion. I think after this many years it is time that AVM realizes that this diocese has no intention of having open discussions about the questions AVM holds dear. Any efforts will be ignored or rebuffed. This was aptly and publicly demonstrated at the visit of Bonnie Anderson; a travesty of questions put to the Bishop irrelevant to the occasion and answered by Love filibusters. It is also true in my own parish. Vertboten.
Since open discussion of issues has not proved to be a viable outcome for AVM, what then? By the Bishop's own reckoning in a recent PDU, as much of one-third the diocese is not in line with orthodox thinking. Of this silent but not inconsequential number, how many even know of AVM's existence or worse, what the “right” really stands for? Perhaps thought should be given on how to proactively spread our message.
Dave Hunn
Aug. 22, 2009
After a few days in my beloved Adirondacks, I think it's time to respond to Fr. Brown's 13 August letter (below).
Those who put forward the resolutions hoped, rather against expectation, to spark meaningful discussion of important issues. That the diocesan leadership chose not to engage sends a message. Even the time and place of Convention, though at the Bishop's discretion in recent years, should be open for discussion by those whom his decisions affect.
Robert T. Dodd
August 13, 2009
To suggest that my interpretation of the convention debate on Resolution #4 was a "whitewash" is to suggest that I am covering something up, which is most assuredly not the case.
I don't know about anyone else, I was just one person on the floor, but what I wrote was precisely my thinking through the whole event. Why make it more complicated than it was?
The reason not just to vote Resolution #4 down as presented was simple: it put the Diocese of Albany in the position of explicitly refusing to express its loyalty to the national church. That would both have been a misrespresentation of the truth, and it would have put the Diocese in a very tenuous position in relation to the national church.
To have tabled the resolution would not have been as strong a statement of disloyalty, but would still have implied the same thing.
I can't help but wonder if those who originally presented the resolution were hoping that it would be voted down, since it would have exposed the seeming extremism of the diocese, discredited diocesan leadership as ideological hotheads, and strengthened AVM's case for being the voice of moderation and institutional loyalty to TEC.
The resulting resolution expressed loyality to the national church, but with an implied critique at the same time. It was a statement of loyal opposition, which appears to be the honest point of view of a majority within the diocese.
It way well be of value to continue discussion of some of the underlying issues -- and I personally would be open to that. But frustrating as it may be have been for the authors of resolution #4 to see it undergo the transformation it did, it all looked pretty above board to me, and par for the course in a legislative setting.
So far as Dennis' resolution about moving the convention is concerned, I saw Dennis sit down as the Bishop ruled it out of order, and he looked as if he had been slapped in the face. I felt bad for him. But given the comments from the floor just minutes before, it was quite obvious to me that there was little sentiment for moving the convention back to the Cathedral, and that if put up to a vote, the resolution would easily have been defeated. On top of that, Bishop Love's rationale for ruling on the resolution seemed entirely reasonable -- that the location of the convention is the bishop's decision and not something to be put up to a vote.
Christopher Brown+
Aug. 13, 2009
Dear Editor:
Obviously Drs. Brown and Dodd differ. Good: That's Anglican, and Episcopalian!
Robert T. Dodd
Aug. 13, 2009
To the Editor:
I hope others who attended Convention will weigh in on Fr. Brown's 12 August comment. It seems like whitewash to me and a very thin coat at that.
Alternatives to the bizarre procedure applied to Resolution #4 include moving to table it and simply voting it down after discussion. Amending it to reverse its meaning simply demonstrated a desire to avoid the important discussion that the resolution hoped to stimulate. In 2005, the same desire led then Bp. Herzog to have the audience mikes removed at the pre-Con meetings and to reject a resolution to dissociate from the Network. ("Too controversial" was the lame excuse.)
If Bp. Love continues to tolerate the sorts of abuse that moderates, liberals, and even some conservatives have experienced at recent Conventions, he has no one to thank but himself for the persistence of an angry, motivated minority. Conversations at the level of clergy and laity are desirable, but true healing of this divided diocese must start at the top.
Robert T. Dodd
August 12, 2009
To Editor,
Since we are continuing to rehash the debate over Resolution #4 and its transformation into the something that could be -- and was -- affirmed by the majority of the convention, I would make the following points.
1. While I understand, and to some extent even sympathize, with the dissappointment and frustration of those who put forward Resolution #4 in its original form, there is nothing sinister or backhanded about how the whole drama played out. Nor was there in any sense a lack of "fair play." It was simply that the original resolution as put forward was not something that most could support -- and yet rather than vote it down as presented, those who opposed it offered amendments that made it acceptable to the majority.
2. For those who opposed the ammendment in the first place (and I was one), it initially seemed worded in such a fashion that a vote against would appear as a vote of disloyality to the Episcopal Church, whereas a vote in favor seemed an unqualified statement of approval that many were not prepared to make. It seemed not a little manipulative. Did its proponents really think it would pass? Or was its purpose to smoke out disloyalty to the Episcopal Church, and expose for all to see the extremes to which conservatives in the Albany Dioceses were willing to go? Ammendments by Canon Haskell and Fr. Brad Jones reshaped the resolution into something we could support: something less than an unqualified endorsement of national church and its policies, but not an outright rejection either.
Fr. Christopher Brown
Aug. 11, 2009
More than most Westerners, Americans believe — deeply, madly, truly — in the sanctity of marriage. But we also have some of the most liberal divorce laws in the developed world, and one of the highest divorce rates. We sentimentalize the family, but boast one of the highest rates of unwed births. We're more pro-life than Europeans, but we tolerate a much more permissive abortion regime than countries like Germany or France. We wring our hands over stem cell research, but our fertility clinics are among the least regulated in the world. .... In other words, we're conservative right up until the moment that it costs us.
Ross Douthat, NYTimes Op-Ed, August 10, 2009
Reviewing Judd Apatow's Movie, “Funny People”
Until the moment it costs ... I guess that's why I'm so suspicious of clerics who profess a literalist reading of Scripture or a narrow tradition (e.g., against homosexuality) only when it does not cost them.
On the other hand, Scriptures which might inflict even a minimal cost (e.g., Matthew 23:8-10, which condemns laudatory titles such as “Father”), are conveniently distinguished as no longer applicable.
Social conservatism gets preached in Jesus' name only when upholding “Biblical principles” costs someone else, condemns someone else's lifestyle, not one's own.
I will listen much more attentively when an Episcopal cleric preaches on Matthew 19:21-24 (or Mark 10:17-24 or most any part of the Gospel of Luke) and argues that one who owns a house or car or bank account or retirement plan (which most of the world's population does not) is not suitable for ordination in the Church.
God grant me the grace to impose the difficult commands of the Gospel on myself before even thinking of imposing them on others
(The Rev.) Glen Michaels
Plattsburgh, NY
Aug. 8, 2009
(The following note refers to the letter from Clair R. Touby, which is posted below.)
It is gracious of Toby Touby to shoulder blame for the legislative train wreck at this summer's Convention, but I think he takes too much responsibility for it. The fault lies with a polity in which a majority, however slender, gets to call the shots on decisions that bring Albany into conflict with the national Church.
In a recent post on John White's blog, Fr. Christopher Brown calls for a spirit of fair play in the diocese as a first step toward dialogue. Sounds good to me. I'd like to hear from Bp. Love on this point, for it's his airplane.
Bob Dodd
July 26, 2009
Preface:
The 2009 convention of the Diocese of Albany ended seven weeks ago. I feel remiss in not posting the following article, but the situation required personal soul searching. The Episcopal General Convention is now completed. The subsequent statements and interviews that have been posted have shown no new ray of hope and conciliation. I must, in faith, proceed with this statement.
Mea Culpa
The Diocese of Albany Convention this year caused me embarrassment and guilt.
Bishop Love's Friday evening address made it clear that he was unhappy with Resolution #4, and it's reference to the Bishop's Statement on the Polity of the Episcopal Church.
Immediately following the evening recess, I apologized to the Bishop; the resolution was not presented as a criticism of the Bishop's actions. I told him that I was going to amend the resolution: removing the phrases “including, but not limited to declining to support the so-called Bishops' Statement on the Polity of The Episcopal Church promulgated by the Anglican Communion Institute.”
When the Chair announced Resolution #4, I moved to amend the resolution to remove the offending phrases. Immediately, an amendment was made to reverse the third “Resolve” of the resolution. An extended parliamentary discussion and debate led to a vote to quash my amendment. An amendment was made to replace the third “Resolve” with wording that supports the Bishop's signing of the Polity Statement; Amendments were then approved that redefined the first two “Resolves” of the resolution. Finally, the amendments were all approved.
As Albany Via Media president, I initiated the actions that got the resolution submitted. Unfortunately, I had forgotten that Bishop Love had already signed the Polity Statement.
I apologize to the entire convention for my faulty memory.
I also apologize to Dr. Paula A. Sippel and The Rev. Mary White for enabling their embarrassment over the original resolution they sponsored. The manipulator who engineered this coup and rewrote Resolution 4 to fit the Diocesan criteria was Canon Robert Haskell.
In Christ.
Clair R. Touby
June 15, 2009
Editor:
On the June 12 edition of his Albany Intercessor, Torre Bissell wrote, "Lord, we are sending our deputies to the General Convention -- to a hostile environment; do not let the flood waters overwhelm them."
We can only hope that our representatives will not go to Anaheim with the cramped view expressed by "a hostile environment" and Mr. Bissell's metaphor of overwhelming flood waters. If they go with closed minds, they will see and hear only what they expect. They will have wasted their time and Albany's money.
Robert Dodd
June 6, 2009
Hello Editors; We received your snail mail newsletter and would like to update your records so we can get it electronically. Please use this address for both of us. Please also know that we read your reports faithfully and are very grateful for all of your work in our Diocese on behalf of those who share your love for the whole Church. Keep the faith and the good works coming!
Tracy and Neal Allen
St. John's, Richfield Springs
May 29, 2009
Bob and Marya Dodd
To the Editor:
Many of you know Claire and George Stahler, Albany Episcopalians of very long standing and founding members of AVM. Both served on the Board, and Claire was our Secretary. Marya and I were sad when the Stahlers relocated to Marana, a suburb of Tucson, but delighted to see them during a recent visit to Arizona. Their lovely new home in the Tortelita Mountains is very Southwest but with many reminders of their cherished Adirondacks.
In six years, AVM has formed a large and growing "diaspora." It's fun to reconnect with folks who have moved on. If you've had similar good encounters, please share the news with us.
Bob and Marya Dodd
May, 2009
For 22 years my family has been part of the Episcopalian family. It is our spiritual home, where we raised our beautiful daughter.
Barbara and I are stronger in our faith because of the St. Luke's/Episcopal family. Differences of opinion do not divide us; we do not injure our relationships with other Christians to prove we are right. We agree to disagree, work out differences, compromise, and then continue to work together in God's Church. That is family.
The Diocese of Albany is our family, also. The structure of governance in the Diocese makes the annual Convention the final authority in the Diocese. Those that take issue with some of the recent actions within the DoA must keep our faith. Our Christian family choice must be to support our faith, beliefs, and community. We cannot secede. To have that strong voice, we must have delegates at Convention. We cannot excluded our bothers and sisters that vote against us
A faith in Jesus Christ, demands that we care for all God's people. Albany Via Media was founded to keep the Episcopal Church together in the Diocese of Albany. That goal protects our family, and keeps it together; we are inclusive.
Being embarrassed that we lose resolution votes is trivial. Excluding sisters and brothers will be the downfall of our faith. His word teaches that there is only one judge. Faith requires that we “stand up for the least of these”; exclusion is not the way.
Become a Convention Delegate.
C. R. Touby