From Heidelblog:

I was asked by one C of S person, angry about my criticism of the petition, what I would suggest as the way forward. Well, just for starters, before launching any public campaign, I would have looked at the history of those churches and institutions that have turned themselves around to see what actually works as opposed to what merely seems like a good idea at the time — say, the Missouri Synod Lutherans, the Southern Baptist Convention, Southern Seminary, and even my own small place, Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia). The changes in those places had a number of things in common: the reformers organized and prepared for every eventuality, putting into place safety nets and multiple `Plan Bs’, they identified the places where influence could be wielded, mastered procedure, fought like the blazes when they had to, stood strong and immovable in the face of violent opposition, and outmanoeuvred their opponents by continual attention to meeting agendas, points of order, procedural matters, and long-term coordinated strategy. They did not waste time and energy on irrelevant sideshows like rhetorical petitions that merely provided the material for public relations disasters. And guess what? In each case it actually worked. In fact, this way of approach sounds very like the strategy which frankly outflanked and then crushed the ill-prepared evangelical assault at last week’s C of S GA. It would seem that angry but sincere petitioners generally lose, while sincere but canny parliamentarians generally win.

View the full post.

Awesome, you read Hiedelblog!

What you say is very true. Conservatives’ achilles heel is really our naivity with respect to real politik. I recall reading the back and forth political struggles that raged in Universities like Cambridge during the late 16th century between conformists and non-conformists.  Not disimiliar.

I think this same critique could be leveled at conservatives within the Episcopal Church.  Another difference between our situation in TEC and, say the Southern Baptist Convention, is that the conservative SBC folks actually went out and convinced unaffiliated Baptist churches to come into the fold, adding to their overall number of messengers (the rough equivalent to deputies at GC).  In contrast conservatives within TEC have determined at various points that the better path is to leave.  It has often struck me that, percentage wise, it really wouldn’t take a large number of people to alter the direction of the Episcopal Church in any given direction (as our current situation will attest), simply because of our small size—but our small size is indicative of the very problems that would make such an influx of new blood unlikely.

Yes, Fr. Jody, you are right. Also, when conservatives bolt, they win nothing. They surrender the church to the radicals, making it an easy fight. The continuum is a sad example. If TEC is small, then continuuers are microscopic. A church needs a strong deaconate. When you get too small, all your money goes into rent—no church building, no schools, no mutual aid, little money for missions, etc..

I remember hearing about an African bishop commenting that our beloved TEC’s problems are “nothing a million new converts couldn’t fix.”  I was recently at a gathering of Evangelicals who intend to stay in TEC.  The strategy shared at that gathering was one of being faithful.  No plan B.  Preach the Gospel and keep the hand to the plow.  Of course, that course of action would boggle the minds of people like Stand Firm’s Sarah Hey and Trueman, whose blog post is the subject of this thread.  While I am very sympathetic to (and actually more inclined to embrace) the philosophy of “no plan B,” there is a realism that Evangelicals and other traditionalist/conservative/orthodox need people who are politically minded that know how to work the details to ensure “stay faithful” advocates do not get trampled on and driven out.  I think Jesus’ parable of being salt and light would be the applicable biblical mandate for such action.