Home

  • Losing the Church Property, or Why the Romanians Don’t Tithe

    The fallout (and for the true Anglicans, the agony) of the California Supreme Court’s decision to uphold trusts based on the Dennis Canon–and thus facilitate the retention of parish property by the Diocese of Los Angeles and TEC–has generated a lot of comment, some of which has linked back to this site (thanks!)

    One of the reasons why I follow the Anglican/Episcopal world is that I see it as a microcosm of the larger social conflict we have going in our country and our world.  This setback for Anglicanism, however, has gotten me to thinking about another problem that isn’t entirely related but is important to our understanding of what’s important for Christians and why.

    My wife and I recently had dinner with a well known minister who oversees, among other things, a network of Romanian Pentecostal churches in the U.S..  One observation he made was that, because of so many years under communism, the Romanians don’t tithe and give to their church the way their Anglo counterparts do.

    Regulars to this site know that communism is a subject I frequently deal with.  I’ve also had extensive contact with Ukrainian and Russian Pentecostals.  This is a hardy bunch.  They’ve survived the likes of Stalin and Khrushchev (Brezhnev wasn’t too bad, and the Romanians outlasted Ceauşescu.)  Many of them or their ancestors survived the brutalities of the Siberian gulag, or “orphanage” schools (their parents weren’t dead, just in prison for their faith.)  They can be rigidly legalistic, which doesn’t always go over well in this country.  But their disassociation with communism transcends the atheism; they had no problem participating in the “underground economy” or “black market” that flourished in those years.  They are, in other words, good, industrious capitalists, and many are very successful in the U.S.  But getting them in the swing of regular and substantial tithing and giving to a local church is a struggle.

    The problem isn’t greed or lack of commitment to Christ.  What the problem is that, for many years, their churches back home–mostly house churches–were unable to hold or accumulate any funds that were given them.  Any bank account they might start would only alert the authorities, who would duly seize the proceeds.  The same problem existed on a larger scale if they decided to build a church.  Wads of cash in the hands of whatever church clerk or bursar they might appoint was also subject to seizure, and remember how the first person appointed to this job ended up?  So they operated their churches in a largely cashless manner, taking care of each other directly.  Now they live in a country where it’s possible for churches to accumulate wealth available for ministry, but old lessons–especially learned the hard way–are difficult to forget.

    And they may have to be relearned.  It’s true that centrally owned and governed churches who abuse their powers regarding the property will find themselves with a laity more reticent to support the church.  Today, it’s the homosexuals, but tomorrow who knows what will get a parish in trouble?  Beyond that, however, the whole concept of private property in the U.S.–essential to our economic prosperity–is being eroded by a wide variety of factors, including environmental laws, zoning, and stuff like Kelo vs. New London.  Any major expansion of government–almost a given with the current administration–will erode these further.

    People advertise giving as “God’s plan for financial success.”  But this plan is dependent in part upon living in a society where God’s church can accumulate (and dispense at will) wealth.  I don’t believe that God’s plan can be frustrated by socialism; the Romanians and Ukrainians proved that communism couldn’t either.  But if we find ourselves in a place where the accumulation and control of income is frustrated by governmental or ecclesiastical fiat, we, like the persecuted church has done and is doing, will have to shift the emphasis of our Christian life elsewhere.

    And that, my friends, isn’t the worst thing that could ever happen.

  • Isaiah 40:31

    This week’s podcast has a decidedly “homemade” sound to the production, but the song is both beautiful and different from the usual version.  It’s Isaiah 40:31, written by Dr. James Stocks and rehearsed by the band of The Answer is Jesus Christ Coffeehouse in 1975.  Take a listen of this very popular verse of Scripture set to music in a way you’ve probably never heard before.

    Update: this album is now you YouTube, the song is found here:

  • Confidence in–and Fanaticism About–Public Education

    Phil Hoover took exception to my characterisation that the Obamas’ decision to put their girls in Sidwell Friends School was a vote of “no confidence” in public education:

    It is not a “no confidence” vote for the public school. What it is: a realistic and safe choice for these two beautiful little girls who need the safety and security of a private school. No child should have to go through what Amy Carter went through when her parents decided to send her to a public school in Washington DC.

    First: I’m glad that Phil stopped by.  It’s good to see that my church people are reading this blog.  And I agree with him that putting the girls in Sidwell Friends was a wise decision (and putting Amy Carter in DC public schools was a stupid one.)

    Second, I can demonstrate that it is a vote of “no confidence.”  But before that, perhaps he’s underestimating the fanaticism of public education boosters.  Allow me to give an example, from a fairly high level as well.

    Three years ago I was on a special Superintendent Search Advisory Committee of the Hamilton County (TN) Department of Education.  We interviewed a number of candidates for Superintendent.  Each of us were asked to submit a number of questions that we’d like to ask every candidate.  One of mine was this:

    Suppose you are talking with parents of a prospective student, and you had reason to believe that the parents were well enough financially situated so that paying tuition was not a consideration one way or another. What would you tell them to convince them to send their child to a public school as opposed to a private one, or home schooling?

    I outlined the responses as follows:

    There is some progress on this front too. Most of the candidates responded that they would show parents what they are doing in the public schools, in other words their performance. This is an advance to a long-standing attitude in public education that public schools have students by right rather than having to earn them their confidence. Only one candidate flatly stated that public schools were superior to private ones; he even added that the only reason to send a child to private school was for religious reasons. But he didn’t make the cut either.

    The “one candidate” which “flatly stated that public schools were superior to private ones” was already a superintendent in another Tennessee county.  Needless to say, it took a lot of brass for this candidate to make that statement in a setting where a) one out of every five students went to private or home school, and b) there were more than one “preppy” on the Committee.  (The candidate selected, Dr. Jim Scales, responded along the same lines that most of the candidates did.)

    That attitude can only be described as fanaticism.  Although today one thinks of people blowing themselves up and taking others with them as fanatics, here this kind of thing usually comes out when public schools want a funding increase.  They (boosters, the teachers’ trade union, etc.) display this kind of attitude in order to convince their school board or other body for more money, especially when someone proposes to divert that money elsewhere through vouchers.  But if one compares American public schools with those elsewhere, one thing comes out: for whatever results they’re getting, they’re spending far more than their counterparts elsewhere to get them.  In other words, public education in the U.S. isn’t cost effective.

    Turning to the issue of “no confidence,” let me restate a quote from the Church Father Tertullian that I used a long time ago in another context:

    You cannot continue to give preference to one without slighting another, for selection implies rejection. You despise, therefore, those whom you thus reject; for in your rejection of them, it is plain you have no dread of giving them offence. (Tertullian, Apology, 13)

    Every time a parent chooses to send their child to a private school or home schools them, it’s a rejection of public schools.  That rejection may be local, i.e., the public schools stink here, so we’ll make another provision for our child (children.)  Most parents think along those lines, and that’s probably the thought process that the Obamas went through.  But it’s impossible for anyone who makes a decision like this to be characterised as “believing in” public education, as many insist we do (like it’s a religion.)  (There are those who won’t send their child to a public school under any circumstances, so their decision is more “global.”)  So I think it sensible to characterise such a rejection as a vote of “no confidence,” even what that decision is local.

    The sad part is that, in most places in this country, that decision is driven by the economic ability of the parents to bear the cost of rejection.  But, in a nation where “elitist snobs” are the driver’s seat and most seem happy with this state of affairs, the possibility of “change that we can believe in” regarding this situation isn’t very high.

  • The Two-Edged Sword of Central Property Ownership of Churches

    Tomorrow the California Supreme Court will render its decision on a series of cases regarding the secession of several parishes from TEC.  Needless to say, it’s a nail-biter for everyone.

    Anglican Cumudgeon has been covering this saga in detail (he doesn’t do it any other way) but what interested me was a comment from the Anglican blogger Baby Blue, who has had front row seats to the so-far successful secession of parishes in Virginia:

    The other problem that the remaining parishes in TEC have if this ruling goes in favor of the Diocese is that no lay person in their right mind is going to invest in a parish that the laity have no control over. If the bishop “owns” the church, what’s the sense in investing in the property? Tell the bishop to take care of it, and when children get hit by cars in the parking lot on Sunday morning, let the bishop get sued instead.

    There’s a lot of responsibility that goes with owning property and these bishops – thinking it’s a political action – have no idea what a hornets nest they are stirring up.

    So, if the People lose this ruling, the TEC bishops have far more of a problem on their hands than parishes departing over heretical doctrine. Send all the bills to the bishop – the properties are now his problem.

    “Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.”

    She’s hit on something that we in the Church of God need to remember: central ownership of property is a two-edged sword for the central church.

    To start with, in a broad sense (and this is not a formal legal opinion in any sense of the word) any central church is a final destination for the liabilities of its parishes/local churches when the property is held centrally.  Those liabilities include tort/personal injury liabilities such as Baby Blue mentions, but they also include any indebtedness that the church holds.  In most cases those liabilities are dispensed with at the local level, but sometimes they move “up the line.”

    Beyond that, she’s also right in saying that those who give and are conscious of a lack of control at the local level will reduce their giving accordingly. The best way to avoid that problem is to have healthy “give and take” between the denomination and its local churches.  But that’s what’s broken down in TEC, spectacularly so.

    The wise central church has to take a “know when to hold ’em and know when to fold ’em” mentality.  For example, it may be expedient for a large local church with a high debt load and insufficient cash flow to be “cut loose” from the central church.  Unfortunately since KJS has become the “Great Helmsperson” of TEC (Chairman Mao enthusiasts will pick up on the allusion) she and her chancellor David Booth Beers have adopted a scorched earth policy regarding property, dumping settlement arrangements such as Virginia Bishop Lee worked out and expending church resources on keeping every piece of property they think is legally theirs.

    Irrespective of how this decision comes out, TEC’s demographics fortell of a world with empty parishes and reduced income.  Under those circumstances, they’ll wish they had the money they wasted on litigation.  In their case, the dispute was driven by doctrinal and moral differences, which are more substantial than many of the things we see ignite conflagrations in churches.

    Growing up in the Episcopal Church, we used to pray the following every Morning Prayer:

    More especially we pray for thy holy Church universal; that it may be so guided and governed by thy good Spirit, that all who profess and call themselves Christians may be led into the way of truth, and hold the faith in unity of spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteousness of life.

    Pentecostals and other Evangelicals wince over “vain repetition,” but in this case it’s worthwhile.  Our central system has put us together; we need to stick together in mutual love and respect accordingly.

  • Malia and Sasha Obama: Back to the Friends School, and a Vote of “No Confidence” for Public Education

    It seems that the Obamas, having brought the horde of Clintonistas on board their administration, are following the Clintons in another way: they’re enrolling their daughters Malia and Sasha at the Sidwell Friends School in Washington.

    The Clintons were criticised for their decision to send Chelsea there, as people felt it was a vote of no confidence in public education.  It is that. The DC schools are struggling to improve themselves, but obviously the Obamas don’t think that process is far enough along, and its success is uncertain.

    Personally, I think it’s a sensible choice.  Sidwell Friends (a Quaker school) is an excellent institution.  My father went there back in the day when his dad was a mover and a shaker in Washington’s aviation scene and (towards the end) when “that man” (Franklin Roosevelt) was in the White House.  Now the “New Franklin Roosevelt” prepares to take power, but he’s not taking any chances with his kids.

    I don’t use this term very often, but frankly there’s a lot of hypocrisy about public education.  There are many who believe it’s parents’ civic obligation to send their children to public schools, and will move heaven and earth to block the availability of choices (such as vouchers, charter schools, and the like.)  They’re very pompous in their belief and self-righteous in their expression.  But there’s almost always a choice for those who can afford it, and the Obamas (like the Clintons before them) obviously can.

    It’s time for the fanatic boosters of public education to spend as much time trying to fix it (or at least getting out of the way of those who are) as they do shaming people into sending their children there.  Barack Obama would do his country well by expanding the availability of choices, which in itself would move the system forward.  But looking at his party’s constituencies, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

    Then again, given the way he threw the LGBT community under the bus with Rick Warren, anything’s possible…

  • Reply to Kevin Walker on Salvation, the Nature of the Church and N.T. Wright

    Kevin Walker had an excellent post on The Language of Salvation, which dealt with a passage from N.T. Wright.  His response to my comments was as follows:

    Thanks for commenting Don. I just started reading N.T. Wright, and I’m enjoying his work. My only beef is, like you said in your comment, that he almost seems to push away the issue of individual salvation. My thing is this: Who makes up the church? The body of Christ? Individuals. Who does God work through in Scripture? Individuals.

    So, you can’t take the individualism completely away. You just have to keep it in it’s proper perspective. I’m trying to open up my perspective and thinking a little in my reading… Any books that you could recommend would be much appreciated.

    I’m not sure I’ve got a good answer to the last point, for reasons I’ll get into.  But you’ve hit on some interesting stuff with this, stuff that’s not too familiar to Pentecostals but is very much at the heart of Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism.  So I’ll try to shed some light on this.

    First, as I said before, the key defect in the Reformation concept of salvation is the apparent lack of required change in the individual, only the individual’s “legal” status with God.  “Therefore, if any one is in union with Christ, he is a new being! His old life has passed away; a new life has begun!” 2 Corinthians 5:17, TCNT.  That’s a revolutionary transformation; to make it real, God must be present in the believer just as much as the believer in God.  What takes place in heaven and in the believer are simply two sides to one relationship.  We cannot make it without his indwelling in our lives any more than we can make it without his heavenly approval.  The Wesleyan concept of sanctification (and the Pentecostal one of the baptism in the Holy Spirit) go a long way to dealing with the issue of internalisation, but too often the real meaning of these events is lost in either legalism, emotionalism, sensationalism or a combination of all of these and more.

    Turning to the church/communitarian issue, the basic Roman Catholic concept of the church (and by extension salvation) consists of two things: a) a grace-dispensing institution which acts as an active mediator between man and God, and b) a body of people who are brought into a good relationship with God and each other through the sacrament of baptism.  (I was reminded of that in no uncertain terms at the funeral of my old prayer group leader, even though I well knew his relationship with God was highly volitional.)  Leaving aside the theological problems this creates, from a pastoral standpoint it lulls the church and its people into a false sense of security that putting people through “the system” is all that’s needed.  I discussed this several months ago in regard to infant baptism.

    With an Anglican like N.T. Wright, it’s worth remembering that Anglicanism, after considerable conflict, set itself forth as the “via media” between Reformed Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.  This is most succinctly expressed in the Epistle Dedicatory to the King James Bible:

    So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God’s holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness; or if, on the other side, we shall be maligned by self-conceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil; we may rest secure, supported within by the truth and innocency of a good conscience, having walked the ways of simplicity and integrity, as before the Lord; and sustained without by the powerful protection of Your Majesty’s grace and favour, which will ever give countenance to honest and Christian endeavours against bitter censures and uncharitable imputations.

    Unfortunately that “via media” (especially since the Oxford Movement) has been more of a theological (and ecclesiastical) “tug of war” between the Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical wings of Anglicanism.  It appears to me (and I hope that people more familiar with Wright’s writings than I am will chime in) that Wright is nudging Anglicanism (and by extension his non-Anglican readers) in an Anglo-Catholic direction on this.  From an Anglican standpoint, however, the big danger of this is what happens when, as Fr. Greg so pithily puts it, “the “weeds” get control of the structure, as with TEC.”  An illustration of that is the infamous Baptismal Covenant, what I call the “Contract on the Episcopalians.”  It’s noteworthy that many revisionists in that tribe, who are big on this, frequently refer to themselves as “Affirming Catholics.“

    Getting back to a more Pentecostal situation, our glorious movement has the theological elements to make this work, if we would look at things a little more objectively.  We need to keep the following in mind:

    1. Our theology speaks of a volitional salvation for every believer, followed by spiritual progress.  If we would couple the theology of spiritual progress with some serious discipleship, we’d be really dangerous to the devil.  (When the two are put together, we really are!)
    2. The discipleship is a large part of the role of the church.  Since we do not believe in the church as an active mediator between man and God, much of the church’s role needs to be in the edification and equipping of the believers.  Unfortunately our overemphasis on revivalistic techniques and the concomitant focus on spectacular spiritual manifestations (which certainly have their place, especially from a purely evangelistic standpoint) has sidetracked that part of our mission.

    As far as the books are concerned, personally I find much modern theology (especially Protestant theology) profoundly dissatisfying.  I’ve always preferred the Fathers of the Church (as I demonstrate here,) St. Thomas Aquinas and some of the French Catholic “classics” (Bossuet, Pascal, Arnauld, etc.)  It’s not always easy to get through but to read people who actually think theology out is a life-transforming kind of thing.  And, of course, there’s John McKenzie’s The Power and the Wisdom, which has influenced me since my parish priest got me to read it in the mid-1970’s.

    , , ,

  • The Nature of the Change We’re About to Get

    Reminds me of the change that took place towards the end of second century Rome:

    We are apt to wonder to-day at the great political and national developments that have altered the whole aspect of Europe since the French Revolution, and to reflect rather idly on their rapidity. Yet the past has its own stories of rapid change, and not the least striking of them Is the disappearance of that world of thought which we call Classical. By 180 A.D. nearly every distinctive mark of classical antiquity is gone–the old political ideas, the old philosophies, the old literatures, and much else with them. Old forms and names remain–there are still consuls and archons, poets and philosophers, but the atmosphere is another,and the names have a new meaning, if they have any at all. But the mere survival of the names hid for many the fact that they were living in a new era. (T.R. Glover, The Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire.  Boston: Beacon Press, 1909., p. 196)

    The rigid continuity of American history–one constitution, no violent overthrows or even a meanginful suspension of same constitution, and an educational system whose civics teachers lull their students into naïvité and a false sense of security–make it easy to ignore the real changes that are taking place.  We may still have a President, Senate, House and Supreme Court.  But whether we still have the equality of opportunity–to say nothing of those Creator endowed inalienable rights–that are quintissentially American is another story altogether.

    One other change that bodes ill is our obsession with laws unaccompanied by an equal obsession with personal integrity.  I discussed this relative to Bernard Madoff, but the ancient historian Polybius observed the following:

    “…This is the reason why, apart from anything else, Greek statesmen, if entrusted with a single talent, though protected by ten checking-clerks, as many seals and twice as many witnesses, yet cannot be induced to keep faith ; whereas among the Romans, in their magistracies and embassies, men have the handling of a great amount of money, and yet from pure respect to their oath keep their faith intact.” (quoted in ibid, p. 4)

    It’s important to note that our Founding Fathers, well versed in classical history and literature, understood the importance of a society built on personal integrity and not just a plethora of laws.  Evangelicals are quick to attribute this solely to their Biblical base, but in reality there’s more to it than that, much to the dissappointment of both sides of the debate.  It seems that we’re going the “Greek” way these days (in more ways than one) and, this time, we may just not beat the Persians (and other competitors) the way they did.

  • Anglican Calendar Script Updated

    It’s been a while, but the Anglican Calendar Script–a popular feature of the site–has been updated.  Two changes have been made:

    1. A bug which prevented the correct reporting of the First Sunday in Christmas has been fixed.  The whole series of celebrations around the turn of the year (Christmas, Circumcision, Epiphany) is the trickiest part of the liturgical year to automate (php figures Easter for you, so that’s good.)
    2. I added calling out the current date.  Because it uses php, the script relies on the local server time rather than the time at your computer (unlike client scripts like JavaScript.)  To reduce confusion for those on other time zones, I added the current date at the server.

    I considered setting the script’s time to UTC in honour of the fact that Greewich and Canterbury are close by each other.  To tell the truth, though, I’m not sure just how much longer Canterbury’s going to be the centre of the Anglican Communion!

    The script can be downloaded from here.

  • My Life, and a Challenge for Missional Ministers

    I’m kicking off the New Year with the song Ma Vie (My Life), from the album De l’abondance du coeur, la bouche parle (For what fills the heart will rise to the lips) by the French group Les Reflets.  It is in French, but the version podcasted has video that goes with my piece When You Need a Native Guide.

    The albums I post get picked up by all kinds of sites.  In this case it was the subject of a posting at the French message board Rock6070, which (unsurprisingly) covers rock music from the 1960’s and 1970’s.  (It’s interesting to note that this site uses the same board software and graphic layout as the Church of God ministers’ favourite, Actscelerate.)  The album was brought up by one of the site admins, one “Witchy Cow,” a French woman living in Montréal.

    The French are notoriously difficult secuarlists, and that’s accentuated by the subject matter of the site.  Witchy Cow’s own kickoff was as follows:

    Oh, devil… Generally, I have a certain aversion for works in religious matter. But when the music is splendid, the voices angelic, I forget the religious trinkets…

    I discovered Les Reflets this evening, and I am completely under the charm! You understand?

    The rest of her remarks were along the same lines.  One of the respondents said “Religious prosetelysation chokes me!  It’s like one of those psychedelic U.S. records which I find unbearable on account of too-religious lyrics.”  But alas the album is French, so the conundrum continues.

    Make no mistake about it: this album is one of the finest Christian albums from the “Jesus Music” era out there, in any language, especially if you’re a fan of folk music.  It is very sophisticated stuff.  (The lyrics are more spiritual than a lot of those on this side of the Atlantic.)  And, as anyone who’s been under the influence of rock and folk lyrics knows, it’s easier to say you ignore them than to actually do so.

    In getting the Good News out, we always have two factor to consider: the message and the method.  This album does well with both, and it has staying power too.  My challenge to those in my church and elsewhere in 2009 is to excel in both, and do so in such a way that will take the message of Jesus in places and to people you weren’t expecting.

    Below: the YouTube version of this song and video.

  • Tribute for a Fallen Friend

    It seems that this time of year, far from being the joyful time of Christmas coming into the anticipation of a New Year, has become (for me at least) one of tragedy.  That’s spilled over into this blog, from reflections of my mother’s own Christmastime death (Delayed for My Appointment) to the tragic suicide of a fellow church member (The Funeral Message I Did Not Deliver).  Now tragedy has struck again with the death of one of my old Catholic Charismatic prayer group’s leader in a house fire.

    When I came back to Chattanooga, TN in 1978 to my family business, I came armed with the Charismatic prayer group list put out in South Bend.  They listed the “Cornerstone Prayer Group” at the Roueché home.  For the next five years (with one break) I was a part of that group.  The Rouechés–Joe, his wife JoAnn and his eight children–became like a second family to me.

    Obituaries these days tend to get a little out of hand, but his is spot on:

    He was a faithful husband, a devoted father and grandfather, and a true friend to many. He was a loving, unpretentious man, totally content with the gifts God gave him…Joe was a happy and joyful man. He was known to many as “the hugger.” He was full of life and love and these gifts he shared with everyone he met. Though we are grieving for ourselves, we rejoice in knowing that he is gloriously united with his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as well as the family and friends that preceded him.

    It’s hard to think about a more consistently and unconditionally loving human being than Joe Roueché.  And that wasn’t always easy in the years I was active in the prayer group.  The Cornerstone Prayer Group was an ecumenical, Charismatic prayer group with a Catholic base, complete with a membership that ranged from a Lookout Mountain attorney to sisters from Memorial Hospital.  In a community that tended to be class conscious and conventional, that wasn’t an easy road.  The accession of Pope John Paul II, with his less open view of ecumenical efforts in general and Charismatic ones in particular, complicated things.

    And then we had our local problems.  First an errant Pentecostal proclaimed the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Holy Spirit (like the Muslims think we do) and insisted on Marian devotions.  Leaving these out was an unwritten rule in an ecumenical group and the result was predictably divisive.  So the group split, giving the Rouechés (and the rest of us) heartburn.

    After these things the prayer group started a youth group.  I made three trips to Steubenville to the Youth Conference (and one to the Prayer Group Leaders’ Conference).  But, with our aforementioned problems, and doubtless conscious of its community image, the Church locally vacillated from unenthusiastic to hostile.  Much of that unfavourable message came through the local Catholic high school.

    Alas, the Rouechés themselves were able to avoid that, as I noted last year:

    Back in the early 1980’s, I was involved in a Catholic Charismatic prayer group.  We were under a great deal of pressure, some of which was of our own making and some of which came from a Church which didn’t really care much for what we were doing.  It was also the days of “if you want peace, work for justice,” the nuclear freeze, and other left-wing emphases which tended to deflect hierarchy and faithful alike from their relationship with God.

    A major turning point for me took place on day when, while discussing things with one of our prayer group leaders, she mentioned that, because of the high tuition, she could not afford to send her eight children to Catholic school.  So they went to public school.

    That revelation was the beginning of the end of me as a Roman Catholic.  I concluded that any church that was too bourgeois and self-satisfied not to subsidise its own needful children to attend the schools it wanted them to attend was too bourgeois to be an advocate for social justice.  So I took my leave on a course that’s best encapsulated in The Preferential Option of the Poor.

    But the prayer group suffered again.  It was crunch time.  I left.  Joe and JoAnn stayed.

    Through all of this Joe never lost his joy, never stopped hugging and loving people as he always had, and never lost his smile.  That joy went right up to the end and into eternity.  It’s an example for all of us–even when “I don’t know if my church loves me any more or not.” Joe knew that God’s love never fails, and our mustn’t either.

    So today and always may the peace of love of God–both of which Joe exemplified–be with the Roueché family and friends, as they continue to celebrate a life lived to the fullest in Jesus Christ.

    Note: after publishing this piece, this tribute appeared in the Chattanoogan.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started