"My wife Donna and I came fresh from Sewanee seminary and we were both full of hope, enthusiasm and optimism for a future of shared ministries and the building-up of a Christian community."

"For almost eight years I labored to learn and be the pastor and priest of the two churches in my cure and to exercise the gifts for ministry that God had given me. We experienced the usual ups and downs of parish life, but at Calvary we accomplished a Capital Campaign, two major construction projects and the acquisition of properties adjacent to the church assuring the ability to expand the church in the future. While we have not grown in numbers, we have been able to maintain our membership despite the fact that the county we live in is experiencing negative population growth."

But in July of 2003 all that changed.

On July 21st the vestry of Calvary Church met for its regularly scheduled meeting. On the agenda was the matter of the Diocesan asking, the annual financial pledge to support
the Diocese of North Carolina. A discussion ensued and it was agreed to pay last year’s asking of $11,888 as opposed to the 2004 of $12, 860 asking. "We did this for budgetary reasons. This action was taken three weeks before General Convention to prevent any linkage between the actions that many were anticipating at the Convention and any action by the vestry," said Fr. Brown.

"On August 6, 2003 I mailed a letter to every household in the parish, in which I stated clearly and compassionately my position on the actions of General Convention. In this letter I tried to state clearly my position on church issues in a fair and open manner. I said
Bishop-elect Robinson is a gay man, living in an active, sexual relationship with another man. This relationship is not marriage; rather it is an intimate relationship outside the bounds of marriage. The unwholesomeness of this would be true whether he were cohabiting with a man or with a woman. For the church in any way to condone this is a clear repudiation of the teaching of Holy Scripture and the church for over two thousand years."

Has the Holy Spirit while visiting in Minneapolis given us a new purity standard for Christians to live by, wrote Brown?

The orthodox rector made no secret of where he stood. "I had, along with other concerned clergy signed a letter to Bishop Michael Curry urging him to vote against the confirmation of [then] Canon Robinson and against approving the blessing of same sex unions. I offered to meet with individuals or groups to discuss the issues either privately or in an open forum. But a group of members chose another route."

In the weeks following the letter and the presentation of the petition the following acts occurred:

"I was accused of being “unchristian” because I opposed the confirmation of Gene Robinson.

"I was asked by a member to resign because I disagreed with Bishop Curry’s position on Robinson and same-sex blessing.

"I was accused of trying to “tear us apart” and being “hateful” because I included in the recent Newsletter the minutes of the August vestry minutes in which a vestry member put forth a motion critical of the position taken by Bishop Curry and called for some punitive action. The motion was withdrawn by the vestry member at my urging.

"I was told by another member that a rumor circulated that 'if a homosexual came to the church I would throw them out'.”

"Insults and rumors were not directed solely at me, but at my wife as well:

"She was accused of being “rude and insulting” to Bishop Curry in a letter she wrote to him, when in fact, during a personal conversation with Bishop Curry on October 8, 2003 he stated that he found her letter “thoughtful and honest”.

"She was accused of removing Bishop Curry’s picture from the hallway. The removal was in fact done by the Senior Warden for maintenance reasons.

"My repeated attempts to engage in any form of meaningful dialogue were ignored or rebuffed."

A petition was secretly gathered and presented to the vestry and the rector at the September 22 vestry meeting. The petition stated that forty-nine listed persons “support the Diocese of NC and our Bishops”.

"No other reason for this petition was given. When questioned, the presenter of this document said, “We have always paid our full asking”.

Brown said the issue of money took place in July well before convention.

"On October 8, 2003 I met with Bishop Curry during the annual clergy conference at The Summit. At that time I informed him of the above-cited actions and expressed to him my concerns about the effect they were having on me and my wife. I informed him that because of this and the seeming impossibility of opening conversation on these matters the best thing I could do, principally because of the attacks on my wife, would be to actively seek another parish."

Brown said Bishop Curry asked him to send his CDO Profile and resume to the Rev. Canon Marie Fleischer, Canon to the Ordinary and Deployment Officer so he could better be put in contact with vacant ministries.

On November 9 Bishop Curry visited the parish. During his time here he saw and experienced first hand the strain we had been under, said Brown. "He personally stated to Donna and I that it would be wise for us to find another parish."

"Later that same month at the annual parish meeting we elected three new vestry members. I was pleased because two of the three had served with me before and had been supportive. What I did not know is that these three new members came onto the vestry with the express purpose of undermining me and to seek my removal as rector."

As the New Year rolled in people expressed their interest and concern over the upcoming Diocesan Convention January 28-30, 2004 when many of the “hot-button” issues would be debated.

"Because of the rising tension I scheduled a forum a week following the convention inviting all interested parties to come. Our Delegates and Alternates were present and gave their reports and impressions of the convention business. The text of every resolution passed was handed out. Ample time was given for questions and answers and the floor was open to discuss any problems."

A few days after the February meeting the Senior Warden of Calvary Church came to the church and began a casual conversation with Fr. Brown. "During the course of this conversation he informed me there were people in the church who didn’t like me. I told him I was aware of that and unfortunately this is a fact of life in any parish."

Then it happened. "I received a call from Bishop Curry informing me that a group of eight persons had gone to see Bishop J. Gary Gloster about me, with a list of grievances."

"I was stunned," said Fr Brown to Virtuosity. "At no time before this call was I aware of any list grievances nor had it been presented to me or such a list even discussed or presented to the vestry. I called Bishop Gloster for more details and he listed the names of four of the eight people. I was shocked, hurt and deeply saddened to note that the list included the Senior Warden of Calvary, the Bishop’s Warden of All Souls’ and two members of the Calvary Church vestry."

Fr. Brown learned that this group went to Bishop Gloster on their own without informing the vestry or himself. "We later found out through members of the parish that a family with a gay relative was instrumental in compiling the “grievance list” as well as the earlier petition. They allied themselves with a group whose political ideology is supportive of the gay agenda."

Bishop Curry said he intended to send in a church consultant to counsel with the wardens and myself, said Fr. Brown. The purpose, he was told, was to map out a process to mediate and reconcile the differences that had arisen. "He asked me to make the appropriate arrangements and schedule the meeting. We met with the consultant in early March and agreed that he [the consultant] would make a formal presentation and proposal at the next Vestry meeting, set for March 22."

On that date the full vestry as well as 10-15 parishioners appeared. "The consultant outlined his proposal for a series of two workshops focusing on interpersonal relationships, communication and reconciliation. A vestry member introduced a list of grievances into the record. I noted in my remarks that the accusations were general in nature and unsubstantiated and almost totally represented merely differences of approach and style to ministry. In sum, the “grievances” were, as one parishioner noted, “personal and political”.

The vestry voted to take the consultant’s proposal under consideration and they formed a committee to investigate the grievances and to ascertain the feelings and opinions of all the parish members.

On March 30 the special Vestry met and in its first order of business they voted not to engage the services of the consultant. The committee concluded that they were “beyond reconciliation”.

"They asked me to leave while they went into executive session. Twenty minutes later two members of the vestry came out and asked to speak to me privately. One then asked me “What would it take to get you to leave?” I responded that I was not prepared to answer that question and told them I needed to talk with Bishop Curry."

On April 5 Fr. Brown with his wife met with Bishop Curry in his office in Raleigh. "We had a lengthy session during which he told me repeatedly and emphatically that I had done nothing wrong. He also told me that it was his desire that I leave my parish through a mediated settlement under Canon 41 and avoid the formal “Canon 42” proceeding which he noted is designed not at fact finding but simply for pronouncing conditions for dissolution of the pastoral relationship. Bishop Curry also told me that he would submit my name to be interviewed for a chaplain position at Penick Village, an Episcopal affiliated retirement village."

At the regular Vestry meeting on April 17 the vestry voted to accept a mediation facilitated by the same church consultant. The purpose of this meeting was to come to a mutual agreement on dissolving the pastoral relationship under the provisions of Canon 41.

Fr. Brown wrote a proposal to let him continue in the ministry while seeking to find another ministry. "We stated our desire to minimize conflict, heal some of the open wounds and to part company with this parish in a way least damaging to both parties. Our proposal was rejected out-of-hand because it “did not include a specific date when we would leave”. The “people “want a change” we were told, meaning those who had engineered this entire scenario merely wanted me out without stating any reason."

It was useless. "My wife was tired of the conflict and her health was suffering and her high blood pressure and asthma were acting up."

Fr. Brown agreed to one year at pay and benefits and six months occupation of the rectory.

The orthodox rector said the bishop also did not come through despite repeated calls to his office. "I have not heard from him again. He has offered to telephone other bishops on my behalf but I have not been informed that he has done so nor received any response to date from such efforts."

As far as the diocesan office and staff is concerned, and outside of one letter requesting information for a deployment officers meeting he has not had contact with Canon Marie Fleischer, the diocesan deployment officer. Fr. Brown was not selected for the chaplaincy position at Penick Village.

Fr. Brown feels deeply betrayed by what happened. "When a priest resigns from a parish, even for the best of reasons and innocent of any wrongdoing, it is very difficult to explain those circumstances to another church. The typical reaction is to assume that “where there’s smoke there’s fire” and eliminate you from consideration."

The rector feels he has been abandoned by both bishops and Canon Fleischer.

"It is becoming harder to avoid the conclusion than I am expendable; neither wanted nor welcome in this diocese anymore because I hold theological views opposed to the bishop(s)".

"My own integrity and ethics prevents me from doing further damage to this parish by adopting the underhanded and malevolent tactics of this group."

Fr. Brown believes he is suffering persecution because of his orthodox beliefs and his stand on Biblical standards which differ from those in his parish and perhaps, more tragically and sadly, being neglected and allowed to “die on the vine” by his own bishop.

"What I have suffered (and am suffering today) is a far more insidious form of persecution than direct confrontation. It is neglect from those who have authority in a diocese towards clergy who oppose revisionist theology. It is far more effective than some splashy conflict. The intent is to get us out of the diocese and out of ministry if you can and ruin their chances for another position and reputation to boot."

Fr. Brown said that his experience should alert other orthodox clergy in revisionist dioceses. I am mindful of the saying coined by the Jewish writer Elie Wiesel, “The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference”.

NOTE: If you are not receiving this from VIRTUOSITY, the Anglican Communion's largest biblically orthodox Episcopal/Anglican Online News Service, then you may subscribe FREE by going to: www.virtuosityonline.org. Virtuosity's website has been accessed by more than one million readers in 45 countries on six continents. This story is copyrighted but may be forwarded electronically with reference to VIRTUOSITY and the author. No changes are permitted in the text.

END