WESTERN NEW YORK: BISHOP GARRISON JUST DOESN’T GET IT

Commentary by David W. Virtue

The Bishop of Western New York, J. Michael Garrison, simply doesn’t understand the crisis he has helped create.

He assumes that, as diocesan bishop, he holds ultimate authority—and can therefore cajole, coerce, plead, bully, or threaten parishes that refuse to fund his agenda.

The diocese faces a $200,000 deficit in a $1.1 million budget—not primarily due to economic hardship, but because numerous parishes are withholding financial support in protest of his theological stance.

Bishop Garrison affirms homoerotic relationships as morally good and godly—and voted to elect, confirm, and consecrate V. Gene Robinson.

Many in his diocese disagree—so strongly that they believe supporting his agenda risks their own spiritual integrity. That cost is too high.

In response, he has launched a campaign of grievance—blaming parish layoffs and administrative strain on “protesters.”

But the issue runs deeper than budgets: this is not political disagreement; it is a clash between truth and error, gospel fidelity and revisionism.

Garrison expects orthodox parishes—often larger, more vibrant, and more generous—to subsidize a theological vision they deem unbiblical. He presumes dissenters should quietly comply.

Yet Scripture warns: “Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse” (Galatians 1:8, NIV).

Why should faithful clergy financially sustain a system that promotes what they believe is anathema—jeopardizing not only their own calling, but the eternal welfare of their flocks?

Parish leaders like James Glownia, senior warden of St. Bartholomew’s, articulate the resolve clearly: “We didn’t believe that the national church was headed in the right direction. It was the only thing we could really do—to protest.”

Indeed, money is leverage. History shows that even bishops who deny core doctrines (e.g., universalism, Christ’s sinlessness) may remain in office—until their financial stewardship falters.

Consider Richard Shimpfky of El Camino Real: his diocese shrank from 30,000 to 12,000 communicants over years of doctrinal drift—yet he retained his seat until the endowment vanished.

Money talks. Theology walks.

The strategy is clear: in dioceses without substantial endowments, orthodox congregations can initiate structural change by legally withdrawing (or threatening to withdraw) and redirecting resources—forcing Standing Committees to confront unsustainable leadership.

As the Jerusalem Council declared: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” (Acts 15:28). Perhaps it is time for a new consensus—one grounded not in institutional preservation, but in gospel faithfulness.

End