Archbishop Louis Falk, Unity, Accountability and the Blogs
July 27, 2012 49 Comments
I refer you to a previous post, that is drawing a fair amount of attention and comment. I’ll tell you why this is so in a minute. But first note this comment by a one Glenda Lough:
‘Archbishop Falk Not Joining the Ordinariate’ -wonderful headline, redolent of the equally risible and bathetic ‘Queen Not Dead’ headline which appeared in the (UK) Sunday Times some years ago.
John Bruce responds:
This blog entry http://www.theanglocatholic.com/tag/archbishop-louis-falk/ from 2010 makes it plain that Falk had been aligned with Bps Campese and Moyer within the ACA as favoring Anglicanorum coetibus. I believe the headline appropriately expresses a change in views by Falk, whereas the Queen does not change state until she passes away.
See here’s the thing about the blogs: They hold people accountable. It’s very easy to vilify the blogs, when they don’t suit your purposes, when you don’t agree with what is being said on them, and when they expose otherwise unpopular truths.
Archbishop Louis Falk was the once Primate of the TAC, a public figure, who (like many others) stridently lead us the way of the Ordinariate. He then dropped off the radar. Just like that. Rumours and speculation naturally abounded. Now, you don’t get to do that. You don’t get to do an about-face, and that under the assumption that people have simply forgotten. He was pro-Ordinariate. Now he is not going. And he doesn’t even have the mettle to stand up and say so. Simple accountability. And accountable he is (!), to all those he (once) lead down a path of Christian unity, a path that is now fast becoming nothing more than a most inconvenient blight, a matter the sooner forgotten, the better, or at least, so it would seem…
Cave, cave, deus videt.
Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
- Hebrews 4:13
About Fr Stephen Smuts
Hold people accountable if you must, but judge not. The Ordinariate is not the only possible expression of ‘unity’, and not to accept it is not to reject ‘unity’. As to Abp Falk, whether he joins or not is HIS BUSINESS. Rome made clear from the start that the decision to join the Ordinariate is individual. It is individual, and it is intensely personal. The nearer the day of entry comes, the more things appear to weigh on whether the decision should be made one way or another. Some people change their minds because they have received new information, others decide that the once long-awaited day is just too soon.
Amen! Roman Catholicism is certainly not the only game in town, I know this is simply beyond some RC’s, and some Ordinariate minded. Even Vatican II admits this in principle.
Another thing I am given to understand is that Abp Falk had been delaying the announcement of his decision until after his parish voted, so as not to seem to be influencing the people. If that is the case, I believe it to be highly commendable.
This is subjectivist nonsense. You might as well say that Christianity is not the only game in town, and an atheist is fine without God, as religion is not the only game in town.
What you do is to misinterpret Vatican II; it is like an atheist preaching to a Christian on how to be more Christian, using the Bible and teachings of the Church Fathers- what business do you really have in bringing up Vatican II if not for your cynical motivation of justifying your sins, in the same way so many heretics use Vatican II as basis for their own abuses?
Shame on you.
@Ioannes: Sadly sir, you have proven yourself a religious bigot, and a biblically & theologically ignorant one at that! And “shame on you”!
And what you have proven is your ignorance of the nature of Councils; that they are built upon older Councils and do not end conveniently where you want them to, so long as it is convenient and comfortable to your own end. You hide behind Scripture because any text can be interpreted on an individual basis into what the individual intends, lacking any higher, God-appointed authority to determine practically what is errant and what is not.
It is people like you that contribute to the end of Christendom and the rise of secularism; for if you destroy the old religious authority, someone HAS to replace that authority, and what convenient replacement than individual, fallible conscience? Will you yourself admit openly to be a perfect, sinless, omniscient person who knows all there is to know about Scripture, including their proper interpretation? Not I, so I defer to the Pope and his brother bishops and priests as my final authority on Earth, short of Our Lord coming down from Heaven to correct all wrongs. They, as persons cannot be perfect, but in their roles, in their Spirit, they are infallible, so long as they conform to the Apostolic Tradition, which includes submission to authority, as the Apostles’ successors submitted to the Apostles, and as how the Apostles submitted to Jesus Christ Himself who, as the Word of God made Flesh, submitted to the Will of the Father.
“A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind.” (Prov. 18: 2)
My one comment is to question the adverb “stridently.” Perhaps it might be applicable to some others, but (judging by my occasional conversations with him over the years (he has been anything but “strident” in these matters.
@William: That’s an opinion of yours! Note that word.. “judging”!
And you have better and more accurate information?
@W’m: I am an Irish Brit, right now in the US, but I try not to speak too subjectively and personally on matters outside my preview. Sure we all have our opinions, but we should seek some place of Christian brotherhood & humility. I am not Anglo-Catholic anymore myself, but I do value our Christian freedom and liberty as ‘In Christ’, all!
“I am an Irish Brit”
So not only a souper but a shoneen too.
Ní Tá sé ina fear na hÉireann. Tá mé níos Gaelaí ná sé.
And he doesn’t even have the mettle to stand up and say so. ????
I don’t think the good Archbishop is a coward. Perhaps he has clearly expressed his reasons but not on the Internet. Perhaps he is not ready to go public because he is unsure of which Church he belongs to. Are there going to be two ACAs – one in communion with India and the other comprising himself, Bishop Campese and Bishop Moyer?
I find this article excessive in its tone and unhelpful. Be careful who you trash, Father, because you might end up sawing off the very branch you’re sitting on. I don’t want to be nasty or ad hominem – I am just ill at ease with your tone when you write in this way. You are thousands of miles from the nearest Ordinariate, and there will never be one in South Africa. I just ask you to be a little kinder, and then we might begin to understand things as they might be.
I’m not American either, and I don’t go in there like a bull in a china shop, because I only have second-hand and partial information. Be careful if you want to keep your integrity as a TAC priest.
More transparency, honesty, and taking ownership is needed, generally. Blame the blogs if you will, when the call is for transparency. You tell me Fr, where does ++Falk fit in? We should know. People ask questions and the laity are far from ignorant.
Yes, I’m frequently reminded that things in the US concern me not. Fair enough. I am a TAC Priest, following my Bishop, working hard running a vibrant and growing parish. Pastoral work and the cause of the Gospel keep me very busy here in Africa. And then I’m confronted by honest inquirers and have not answers simply because people will not stand up and live in unity and truth? I could shut this blog down today, and bury my head in the sand like an ostrich, and pretend like all is well, when leaders (in the US) are running their own agendas. I do not want to be party to such things.
Again, let me ask you Fr, what is the canonical standing of ++Falk, + Moyer and countless other priest and parishes in the US? And don’t say it matters not! Just yesterday someone asked me about Old/New TAC. What does one say?
Mercifully, I’m able to separate this blog from the reality of daily life and ministry. But that doesn’t mean that I’m oblivious to what is going on out there.
Thank you, Father, for this candid reply and your pastoral concern for all of us who are left confused and disorientated by the fact that nothing seems to fit into place. There are honest inquirers, and some often write to me. I am forced to tell them that I just don’t know what’s going on – rather than speculate, diabolise and go all guns blazing for a solution that may not be all its appears to be.
In your third paragraph, you ask a very good question. They used to be part of the Patrimony of the Primate, and they now seem to be presented with a dilemma: submit to Bishops Marsh and Strawn, as they now rule the ACA roost in the USA – or enter the Ordinariate even if only as dismantled parts for recycling. They also have the option of forming a new continuing Anglican Church or joining another. Neither you or I have the right to lay down the law or dehumanise them in a trashing process. All we can tell people is that they apparently have no canonical status – and that is all there is to it.
What does one say? In every case – be as well-informed as humanly possible, don’t let the imagination run riot – and act according to conscience. I think the problem is speculation and emotionally loading your interpretation of what little information is available. You can’t be simplistic for other people and claim there are good reasons for your not closing down your parish and becoming a Roman Catholic in a parish in Cape Town.The problem of bishops and priests in America is really a problem for Americans, and not for we priests who have no first-hand information because we live elsewhere.
Your job is to be a good parish priest – as you have acknowledged it is. By all means, report what you read or learn, but try to be measured with your interpretation.
I attended last Sunday’s Vestry meeting at St. Aidan’s, where the votes were counted and the results announced. I can assure you that Archbishop Falk shared his thoughts with his congregation at that meeting. And that the parish discussed its future. Archbishop Falk spoke at some length about it, especially jurisdiction issues, and much discussion ensued. My sense was that they were going to be reasonable and prudent, and not rush into anything. Appeared they were going to take their time, learn, and pray. (I believe the Archbishop indicated he was going to talk with ACA Primate Marsh this past Wednesday about what was going on at St. Aidan’s, as well as Msgr. Steenson of the RC Ordinariate.)
Running a blog with an edifying content probably is not easy.
Responsible dissemination of verified information would pose a challenge to any Blogmeister.
The gift of discernment is vital in this process.
Blogdom vs. Christendom?
Nah! The price is too high.
Yes, it’s amazing the things one picks up delving in the blogosphere, and the things that come to you. I for one, try to take ‘captive every thought [and word] and make it obedient to Christ’ (2 Cor 10:5). Do I always get it right? No way. But I try… Sometimes things have a way of sucking one in, the whole ‘play with fire and’, well, you know the rest…
The blogs, as I said yesterday, have a nasty tendency of exposing truths. And turning faces red. That is hardly the fault of the blog or its host. I often say, ‘I don’t make the news, I only report what is already out there.’ This indeed requires a measure of discernment. God forgive me if I fail His Spirit in these matters. The one comfort I take is standing against the tide of evil in the cyber-sphere. I certainly don’t want to contribute to it. Perhaps one learns more than what is good for you, spiritually.
I’ve also come to meet some really fine people. A person in the US is as close as one’s neighbour, and I have met some really lovely people that I otherwise would never have. And ministered much, globally, too. Such as these make all the blogging (the ‘price’) worth it.
Should the blog go then? That’s the question. To those who find the blog an inconvenience, they would gladly see my back, for I have pointed out many an inconsistency, and yes, even within my own Church. Why? Because these things are wrong. And others know and see. Hence my post on accountability. To that, maybe I should have added: responsibility. I hate being deceived. But the many people who have thanked me for the blog far outweigh those who find me a hindrance. I have just under 2000 ‘hits’ on average a day, not that the stats bother me much. Not all mean well who visit, but there are those have noble intentions. And I have always seen the blog as an extension of my ministry.
I was a priest before I started blogging. I’m now what one might call a ‘blogging priest’. But first, and foremost: a priest. God in His mercy has seen it fit to give me a vocation which I must live out. That humbles me every day. The blogging simply pales in comparison.
Bishop Falk’s decision not to enter the Ordinariate did not come as a surprise for the people who have had regular contact with him over the last few years.
Being the man of integrity and the mature Christian he is, he did not attempt to influence people against entering the Ordinariate at any given time.
If this is the decision he made, it simply needs to be accepted by all that he made the decision because for him it is not the right thing or the right time to join an Ordinariate. Nothing is written in blood, and with Anglicanorum Coetibus being an open ended offer to all Anglicans, there is also no impediment for him to ask for reception at any date in the future should he choose to do so.
Above all, he is, as is each and every one of us, not accountable to anyone but God for informed decisions made about the route chosen to get Salvation under the Cross.
It is not a decision he would have made lightly, or without a very good reason.
He is still the same Christian man we all know and respect.
This: Above all, he is, as is each and every one of us, not accountable to anyone but God for informed decisions made about the route chosen to get Salvation under the Cross.
I think that part of the problem is that all to often many of us (and I most certainly strike my own breast here) mistake “Salvation under the Cross” for “salvation by being cross”.
The accountability I refer to is peripheral – matters of conduct and responsibility which are not salvic. Who are we to judge indeed?
Each one of us will stand before the judgment seat of God covered only in the blood of Christ Jesus our Lord.
Even a casual reading of St Paul’s epistles will show how we are accountable to one another, and even more so, the leadership of the Church for decisions that are made in the interest of the following sheep. Those are not private matters!
Of course the sensationalist-mongers will well twist my words (as has been done), force interpretation, and further put words in my mouth. Blogdom.
I’ve been worshipping with the St. Aidan’s congregation at every Sunday liturgy this year since April 15th, I believe Archbishop Falk has been celebrating the liturgy each Sunday since Palm Sunday this year. Each Sunday he was readily accessible to anyone and everyone there to chat. I never once heard him say anything, either in the pulpit or downstairs, to influence anyone’s decision in any manner regarding the Ordinariate. He was the model of decorum. It appeared to be a truly free vote for each eligible voter (per their by-laws, “adult communicants of the parish in good standing”). And it was a secret ballot, one where voters had 3 weeks to make up their minds, including after listening to Msgr. Steenson, who came to St. Aidan’s on July 7th.
Bp Falk is a puzzling case, and while I have certainly heard the characterization of him as “godly”, my own experience within the ACA and during the St Mary of the Angels controversy has been ambivalent. Based on public statements by Msgr Steenson’s representative, Msgr Stetson, Abp Falk was the individual who passed on a list of charges regarding Fr Kelley to RC authorities in late 2011, resulting in the indefinite hold on St Mary’s entry into the Ordinariate. A court found in June 2012 that these charges were without baisis. David Moyer, in his last days as ACA Bishop of the Patrimony of the Primate, had reviewed those charges and determined they were too vague to act on, yet Falk did act on them, presumably overruling Moyer. Yet when Kelley told David Virtue that St Mary’s was under Falk, Falk contacted Virtue (per an update on his blog), contradicted Kelley, and told Virtue that St Mary’s was not under him. (Apparently he was just doing humanitarian work in passing the baseless charges on!) Yet in June 2012, Falk made a declaration in the court case supporting St Mary’s case that it was no longer with the ACA once the Patrimony had been dissolved effective January 1!
In other words, it seems to me that since 2010, Abp Falk has been all over the landscape regarding the ACA and the Ordinariate. Some of his public statements, and his actions on the record, have been at best inconsistent. It’s difficult to see a reason for them, other than perhaps age, or perhaps a continuing need to be the center of attention mixed with age. It’s a sad situation, if you ask me.
No Sir, with all due respect, it is a matter where anyone with more than two braincells can determine that you choose to manipulate semantics to further your own agenda.
Bishop Falk clarified that he was : a) Retired, and as such not the Ordinary for the Diocese of the West, and never had been, and b) merely supplied a confirmatory Affidavit pertaining to certain facts within his knowledge for purposes of the Application to Court.
The fact that it did not suit a few of the supporters of Fr. Kelley to have a sworn statement from a man of integrity does not give you the right or the reason to attempt to discredit Bishop Falk.
Bishop Falk expended the greater part of his working life upholding and protecting the Catholic faith and praxis, for us to cherish long into the future. He is worh 10 of any of us mere mortals and we are forever indebted to him and his peers.
Excuse me, “he is worth 10 of any of us mere mortals” — ? Which Catholic faith and praxis are you upholding here? At mnimum, your assertion is idolatrous.
If you sat down and talked with Archbishop Falk, you’d quickly realize he is both readily accessible and extremely intelligent and articulate. Age has not taken its toll on his mental acuity. He has discussed his thoughts about the complex situation tied to the Patrimony of the Primate, ACA/TAC, the Ordinariate, and local Anglican churches. I’ve come to greatly appreciate his modesty and thoughtfulness. He doesn’t appear to like to be the center of attention even at his own parish. (Guess the only thing possibly immodest about him I’ve experienced is…his choice in cars? He drives a sleek black Infiniti G35 coupe. When I mentioned it to him and its radar detector on the dash, he admitted he sometimes has a somewhat leaden foot.)
Well, my father (RIP) died at 88 (he would be near the late 90s now), was both a car guy and owned and flew for fun and racing a P-51 Mustang. So yeah us 60′s and 70′s guys (I am 62, (3, late Oct.) were born in that car generation! Btw, back in the day, I had an Austin-Healey roadster, a ’59 3000 Mark I. And I still have an old Brough Superior! (That’s a British motorcycle). So rock on in that Infiniti Archbishop Falk!
So wait a moment, Irishanglican — we’re not supposed to be dealing with personal stuff here, but it sounds like you want to give the guy the benefit of the doubt due to the car he drives? On the other hand, irrespective of his choice in car, he appears to have used his prestige with the pro-Ordinariate crowd in December 2011 to lend credibility to vague and baseless charges against clergy — yet seven months later, he’s dropping any pretense of favoring the Ordinariate? Heck, there’s a bad angel on one side of my head saying if you see that Infiniti, you need to key it. . .
No John, I was just seeking to lighten things up here! And btw, I just bet I am years older than you, also?
Just to make that point! A few of us have been after all this for well over a few decades! And generally I have agreed with you, but one must know when to back off sometimes, and just smell the roses! 
Wrong on two counts, I’m 64, and if someone is displaying lack of integrity in areas that affect someone’s reputation, as well as implicitly retracting an endorsement of Anglicanorum coetibus, it ain’t time to back off and smell the roses. If you gave up on Popery some time ago, fine, but this blog is in part about ecumenism with regard to said Popery, and thus this is an entirely appropriate subject for conversation.
@John: Well its fun anyway “fleshing” out age!
An older guy who just likes to grind it! That’s fun too, as long as we do it in the “spirit” of Christ! Again, peace! 
Btw, ya don’t like cars? 
@John: As one raised Irish Roman Catholic, I do hope that though I am now “Reformed Anglican”, I do care about Ecumenical reality! I mean the whole Reformation came out of Roman Catholicism! And this is surely not the 16th century!
Indeed the blog is not the place really to discuss many personal matters, and people’s persona, especially people who are not accessible on the blogs. Sadly perhaps we all give our opinions too much here? But, I agree with our blog host Fr. Stephen, that often this is the essence of Blogdom! I try myself to speak and deal in historical and theological matters. And we know the sparks will fly here, also! But, it is good for Anglicans to speak, let us seek to do it more often seeking the Spirit of Christ, and besides ourselves Christendom and certainly this culture of postmodernity, needs the witness of “spirit and truth”. And may we all be after it!
On reflection, I think it’s worthwhile to make it a little more clear that we are absolutely not discussing personal matters here. Nobody’s said anything about Abp Falk’s grooming, etiquette, family relations, or anything else. We’re speaking entirely of official or semi-official actions — his defenders want to find individual actions justifiable under one or another theory, but the fact is that the overall pattern of actions is inconsistent and contradictory. If Moyer, for instance, as diocesan, found no reason to take action against Kelley, on what basis did Falk, presumably less familiar with the situation, choose to lend his prestige to charges Moyer had found not worthy of action? This is not the same thing as claiming Abp Falk has bad breath.
Mr. Bruce says: “If Moyer, for instance, as diocesan, found no reason to take action against Kelley, on what basis did Falk, presumably less familiar with the situation, choose to lend his prestige to charges Moyer had found not worthy of action? ”
Have you ever thought of questioning Bishop Moyer’s motives and/or judgement, same as you dare to question those of Bishop Falk? Emotion clouds and distorts perspective.
Please Mr. Bruce, get off the Hollywood Soap Box. You have invaded each and every blog with your comments about St Mary of the Angels, Hollywood.
Just as a mother is the cement in a family, the priest sets the tone in a parish. Both factons of that parish have precious little to be proud of right now.
Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much………………………
What’s this business about “daring” to question Falk’s motives? Is the man infallible?
I disagree John, most of what has been said about Falk here has been actions we as a whole cannot really know, from the inside, etc. And many of us really cannot measure this, at least on the blogs. Sadly, however, this is somewhat the nature of looking at the hierarchal and ecclesiastical churches! Perhaps this is one of the reasons I myself, have given up on this structure, at least from this end? I mean, I am much more interested in theology, and of the biblical kind, like the examples of a Geerhardus Vos, and closer to my neck of the woods, an Austin Farrer. Note Farrer’s work and genre on the Book of Revelation! I hear and see so little theology from the High Church, at least on the Bible it appears? When I look at the NET Bible, verses the new Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, RSV NT. I still see that the Protestants and Evangelical’s still seem to rule in this area! Though I have and read books like Scott Hahn’s work, like his: Covenant and Communion, The Biblical Theology of Pope Benedict XVI. (A good read btw!) My point is both historical and theological, people are still reading the so-called top-tier Reformers, and after over 500 years: Luther and Calvin, etc.! And then there is of course Karl Barth, and his lasting student: T.F. Torrance. Any theolog that has not read his classic book: The Trinitarian Faith, The Evangelical Theology of the Ancient Catholic Church, is simply missing something! Note too, the new book today: Evangelical Calvinism (my friend Bobby Grow has co-authored). So the “Church” world is much bigger than the High Church Anglican and even Roman Catholic slice!
Naturally we can’t know the basis of actions from the inside. Perhaps Winston Churchill decided to declare war on Nazi Germany because a shape-shifting lizardlike space alien told him to, and we’re completely incorrect in assuming it was because he felt it was finally necessary to stand up to Hitler, whatever the consequences. I don’t presume to judge Falk’s choice in automobile, but I’m entitled to evaluate his public actions as a retired primate of a small denomination. It may be that the same shape-shifting lizardlike space alien who guided Churchill also told Falk to buy an Infiniti, and not only that, to give up on the Ordinariate, although Occam’s Razor would argue against it. And it’s not only Catholic tradition, but certainly Protestant (which you seem to endorse) that the actions of bishops are subject to evaluation by the laity — indeed, the laity in certain Protestant denominations prefers no bishops, a view toward which I feel increasing sympathy.
I think it’s an entirely reasonable conclusion that Falk was kissy-kissy with Fr Phillips and other Anglicanorum coetibus fans in 2010, and indeed, through late 2011 he was happy with the prestige he’d earned by doing so (and of course, through his association with John Hepworth’s policies). I am entitled to believe that he traded on that prestige and association in helping to damage the reputation of a godly clergyman. Something — perhaps John Hepworth’s rapid fall from his own prestige in early 2012 — made Falk re-evaluate his position. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to attribute motives similar to those of other ACA bishops who’d earlier renounced Anglicanorum coetibus — he didn’t want to stop being a bishop, and oh by the way, wanted to continue his salary to meet his car payments.
Perhaps an apologia pro might be in order from the Archbishop? And by the way, your interpretation of Christianity seems to verge on the Quaker: even if there are no bishops, there are synods, presbyteries, and the like that serve similar functions in nearly every denomination. As Christians, we have a responsibility to be informed.
@John: Your grinding against the wall mate, but go for it with Ockam’s razor! lol (I wrote on old Ocklam’s reduction and nominalistic ideas as an undergrad years ago!) Quaker? Well, as I have written I have and like the Scot Robert Barclay (who John Wesley liked very much also!). And I am close to some of the ideas of John Jewel on bishops, etc. But, I am still an Anglican, and always eclectic!
Btw, since I am an old RMC officer, I read and like military history also! And of course my father and uncles, fought the Nazi’s! (One great uncle fought the Japanese in Burma). Btw, mate, age does have some advantage, hopefully when ya get there, you might find out! 
Peace! 
Abp Falk is unquestionably a public figure, who has taken mutually contradictory public positions. I think it’s entirely appropriate to hold him accountable for these positions, and indeed, for other actions he’s taken in his official (or semi-official/retired) capacity. Keep in mind that he, John Hepworth, and others have been the most visible faces of the continuing Anglican movement, and as such, they do little more than add credibility to the likes of Rowan Williams and Katharine Jefferts Schori.
Although flattered to be featured in this blog I fear my entirely innocent and light hearted little comment has provoked some indignation and ire. This was not my intention and I apologise. Readers will be glad to hear that my husband, Archbishop Lough, during the homily at Mass this morning in Our Lady’s Garage, has announced his intention of setting up a Continuing Ordinariate for disaffected Former Anglicans who regret becoming Catholics.
I was pretty sure that your post will be soon reported somewhere as “hot news” and I did not have to wait long.
http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2012/07/more-ordinariate-disappointment/#comment-69217
Look at commentbox on 7/29, 5.00pm
Is it humour? I’m not good at all at guessing what is humour and what is serious…
+ PAX et BONUM
Don’t worry, it’s hard to detect sarcasm over the internet. As for irony? Let us leave that in the realm of hipsters.
Let us commend to all involved the example of St Mary McKillop, who greatly suffered in the Church, but yet never uttered a word of complaint or of mistrust toward her Bishop.
In the actual situation of a cabal beeing set up by influent bloggers against Mgr. Steenson (because everything didn’t went the way they wanted it to go, and those people are immensely proud), prayers are needed even more than before the actual erection of the ordinariate.
I’ll pray for the ordinariates at the feet of Ste Anne in her sanctuary in Auray, France.
+ PAX et BONUM
Could it be, that this is the first wave to challenge the sea-worthiness of this vessel called the Ordinariate?
I will always admire Archbishop Louis W. Falk. He is humble and exemplifies your faith of Christianity. He is a gifted teacher and has the right to make his own personal decisions. Be careful not to judge him – God alone judges all of us.
Sabra, I concur. Don’t worry, in the past year I’ve interacted with him at his local church, he and his lovely wife both appear to be in great spirits and health. Their local church had its spring cleaning the 3rd Sunday after Pascha, prior to the annual diocesan bishop’s visit, and he joined in with yardwork and cleaning.
His sermon this past Sunday, 4th Sunday after Pascha, on the gospel reading, John 16: 5-14, had an interesting brief mention on the trials and tribulations of the American Anglican Continuum over the past 30 years.
And as for his gifted teaching, a most emphatic YES! He taught their adult Lenten series (on miracles) which was most edifying. He and I had a discussion Sunday about the 1928 BCP’s version of 1 John 5: 4-12 Epistle reading on the recent Low Sunday. I had mentioned back then, and had forgotten our discussion, how their version, unlike my Antiochian Orthodox Western Rite had dropped the phrase “”the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost “, which is in the KJV, even though modern critical scholars all but uniformly consider it a late addition; right when he saw me he discussed what he’d found. He is a font of erudition!