"As if a child could eat prayers"

I understand that disappointed and frustrated conservatives in the Episcopal Church USA might withdraw their financial support from the institution in the aftermath of the consecration of the openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson. But this is going too far:

Orphans in Honduras may have become political pawns in a dispute within the Episcopal Church over the recent appointment of a gay bishop in New Hampshire.

Bishop Leo Frade said this week that a girls mission founded by his wife has “taken a big financial hit” after some conservative parishioners withdrew their financial support for the program to retaliate against him for voting to confirm Gene Robinson, who became the first openly gay Episcopal bishop last August.

Since September 2003, the mission has lost $30,000 in donations, which is about 12 percent of its revenues, Diana Frade said. Several people called or sent e-mails specifically saying that they were withdrawing their support because of Bishop Frade’s vote to confirm Robinson, she said.

“Some of them said they could no longer support a ministry whose chairman was ‘going against the word of God,’” Diana Frade said.

“One person wrote a letter saying he would continue to pray for the child but would not send any more money. As if the child could eat the prayers. It was shocking that someone who was supposedly praying and supporting a child would then withdraw their support out of retaliation and anger, without really thinking of the consequences.”

Look, I don't like the Salvation Army's stance on gays and lesbians. But I also know that the Salvation Army is uniquely positioned to reach the marginalized, and so I give them money regularly. Sheesh.

The name of the Frade's fine charity is
Our Little Roses
P.O. Box 464, Somerset, VA 22972.

Yes, you can give online.

Comments

[lorie]

This makes me so angry and sad. One of the things that I try to convey regularly to our prospects, particularly the angry ones, is that when they withdraw their donations, they're only hurting students who depend on their support to get a college education. Unfortunately, our administration will make its decisions regardless of whether those decisions will cause alumni to increase or decrease their giving. If alumni choose not to give, I'm just asked to work harder to raise the same amount.

[Elizabeth]

oh. my. God. This is quite disturbing. I can't believe these people think that not giving to this mission is what God wants them to do.

[d-rod]

Well you can't just condemn their action without being a little hypocritical, Hugo. Christ accepted the Old Testament laws as binding on unbeliever and believer alike, right? And does not this law prescribe the death penalty for homosexuals? This is one subject in the Bible in which there is not a lot of ambiguity. The folks not giving to this particular charity are justified if they sincerely believe the Bible is the word of God, but I agree with you that the Bible is wrong about this matter.

[Hugo]

I can condemn their action because it harms the innocent; Gene Robinson is not hurt by the withholding of money; Bishop Frade isn't hurt; little girls in Honduras are hurt. It's unbiblical and unChristian.

Christ does come to fulfill the Law, but rarely do we see the Law as He does -- his fulfillment was hardly what the Pharisees expected. And I think we all, every last one of us, has a healthy dose of Pharisaism within us.

[d-rod]

What is unbiblical or unChristian about them deciding to donate their money to another charity rather than this one? I was merely suggesting that these folks may be using their conscience (and wallets) to benefit a cause more consistent with their religious tradition. If they stop donating altogether then that is another matter entirely. It doesn't seem to be an all-or-nothing equation to me.

Similiar topics are pretty common in the political realm regarding humanitarian agencies. The U.S. is often berated (unfairly I believe) for not contributing properly to the U.N. Most of the time the money is just moved around to the benefit of another organization that proved more efficient in helping the needy.

[John]

It is sad that orphans are having to pay for the Episcopal Church's heresy, but you must understand that conservatives have been marginalised for so long that they feel the only way they can be heard is to with-hold funds. What is wrong with refusing to support an heretical institution which has embraced and celebrated error? What is wrong with giving instead to refugees in Uganda (vide: Ekklesia, 815's threat of with-holding money), or Theological education or AIDS hospitals in Nigeria? Are those less worthy? The orphans are indeed innocent victims of this. But the perpetrators of assault aren't the conservatives agonising and following their consciences, (in some cases out of parishes their own families built), but those liberals in Honduras who have kicked themselves out of the Anglican Communion, out of fellowship with their conservative brethren, and unfortunately, out of range of the cash. If I had a choice between a Unitarian orphanage in Honduras and the Salvation Army addictions unit (or indeed putting a new roof on our leaking Sunday School building)I'd pick the second. That's the way many conservatives see the choice. That's their call, and I support them in it.

[Hugo]

But I think, John, there is a colossal difference between withholding diocesan funds (a legitimate form of protest), and ending your relationship with Honduran orphans. I don't give to right-wing Christian charities like Samaritan's Purse; I give to progressive Christian charities like Mennonite Central Committee. BUT if MCC were to suddenly take a stance I didn't like, that would not be reason enough for me to end my giving.